Posted on 04/23/2014 11:21:08 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Though Coach is Right published this piece in early January, the subject matter may be even more pertinent today as countless doctors refuse to treat ObamaCare patients, hospitals deny them admittance and the negative impact of the law has moved from talking point to reality.
When Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Supreme Courts Marxist bloc in ruling the Affordable Care Acts individual mandate constitutional, stunned conservatives immediately accused him of committing an act of judicial cowardice. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices, wrote the supremely hypocritical Roberts as he shattered one of the first rules of judicial restraint by rewriting sections of ObamaCare from the bench. Although he refused to protect the people, it seems he was more than willing to protect DC lawmakers from the consequences of passing unconstitutional legislation.
But did Roberts manufacture his creative penalty-is-really-a-tax revision of ObamaCare for the purpose of bailing out the lawmakers who wrote the Act? Or was it actually his intention to...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
Violating the Constitution is never a blessing.
Because the individual mandate was so unpopular throwing it out could have done Dems a favor so they could claim Obamacare is voluntary.
No-one can know how that would have played out.
Alternatively it would have embarrassed Obama in an election year.
“Was John Roberts ObamaCare ruling a curse or a blessing for Republicans?”
Interesting phrase of question.
To answer directly, it was a blessing for “Republicans.”
To answer another more general question, it was a curse for Americans - we the people. Most people on this thread are correct in this conclusion.
This brings up another point, are we conservatives or Republicans? (Or a similar question, are we conservative Christians or Republicans?)
Who we think we are has an impact on how we act.
It was a curse on freedom and the U.S. Constitution.
They will indeed tax your ass, among other things!
From a 2007 LA Times report.
U.S. agents avoid a racketeering suit
The high court rejects a rancher's legal strategy against the BLM.
The BLM jerked a Wyoming rancher around over an easement through his property.
[snip] All the justices [Supremes] gave a thumbs-down to Robbins' claim under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, known as RICO.
On that issue, Robbins claimed that the BLM employees violated the Hobbs Act, the federal extortion law, which defines extortion as "the obtaining of property from another, with his consent ... under color of official right."
Robbins' claim failed, Souter wrote, because the act "does not apply when the national government is the intended beneficiary of the allegedly extortionate acts."
Got that? When the government is the beneficiary, extortion, alleged or not, is OK.
Makes me suspicious.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.