Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: dontreadthis
Then Roberts did this amazing, totally judicial thing that no one else can possibly do except someone with his vast power at their fingertips - he actually looked up the law that Obamacare quoted. And when he did, he found that subchapter B of chapter 68, specifically at § 6671 (a), says: The penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter shall be ... assessed and collected in the same manner as taxes. ...any reference in this title to "tax" imposed by this title shall be deemed also to refer to the penalties and liabilities provided by this subchapter.

Then, after reading these actual laws cited by Obamacare itself, Roberts made this blockbuster observation: "The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which-as we previously explained-must assess and collect it "in the same manner as taxes."

I read as much as I could tolerate of this nitwit. My opinion of Roberts isn't changed by this article which selectively ignores certain aspects of Roberts' actions.

In essence, what Roberts did was legislate from the bench, something that Judge Bork noted was a growing problem during his approval hearing. He also played semantics with the words "penalties" and "taxes". After twisting and turning his opinion every which way, CJ Roberts arrived at his now infamous convoluted ruling that stuck us all with this pig legislation.

The nitwit who wrote this article ignores the thousands of pages of legal analysis following Roberts' ruling that highlighted how far he had to go around the bend to make a very poor, very weak argument to allow ZeroCare to become law. Dozens of legal analysts far more educated and experienced than nitwit all agreed that Roberts had more twists and turns in his opinion than pretzel dough, but nitwit thinks he knows better.

10 posted on 10/23/2013 5:14:10 PM PDT by DustyMoment (Congress - another name for the American politburo!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: DustyMoment

Indeed, the analysis is tortured as well. Ultimately, all Roberts had to do to shoot this down is join the majority opinion— that the people cannot be compelled by their govt. to buy a product, insurance (or anything else). It is as simple as that. And the mandate is a tax (which is what obamaumao’s people argued) as such it should have originated in the House and since it did not— is not Constitutional, either or enforceable.

Civil disobedience in regard to the penalty,fine, tax whatever— does not have criminal consequences, but enforcement has yet to be seen. The country is being turned inside out by the power freaks in the dem party. And they will suffer— in many ways.


31 posted on 10/23/2013 6:01:34 PM PDT by John S Mosby (Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

To: DustyMoment
I read as much as I could tolerate of this nitwit. My opinion of Roberts isn't changed by this article which selectively ignores certain aspects of Roberts' actions.

In essence, what Roberts did was legislate from the bench, something that Judge Bork noted was a growing problem during his approval hearing. He also played semantics with the words "penalties" and "taxes". After twisting and turning his opinion every which way, CJ Roberts arrived at his now infamous convoluted ruling that stuck us all with this pig legislation.

The nitwit who wrote this article ignores the thousands of pages of legal analysis following Roberts' ruling that highlighted how far he had to go around the bend to make a very poor, very weak argument to allow ZeroCare to become law. Dozens of legal analysts far more educated and experienced than nitwit all agreed that Roberts had more twists and turns in his opinion than pretzel dough, but nitwit thinks he knows better.

Gee, four "nitwits" to refer to one person. Four and one, what an interesting ratio. How clever.

And "nitwit" means "fool," and fool kinda reminds me of a... a tarot deck, yeah, that's it. My, my, you have been practicing your tracings, haven't you?

BTW, I'm the person who wrote the article. And I don't want to upset you or anything, but judgin by the level of comprehension and communication skills you've shown in your posts on this thread, I seriously do not reccommend you look for legal analysis work.

May I suggest, instead, something that allows you to hit things with a large hammer? As long as it doesn't require you to chew gum at the same time?

38 posted on 10/23/2013 6:54:36 PM PDT by Talisker (One who commands, must obey.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson