Posted on 10/04/2013 9:11:53 PM PDT by MrChips
Is there any evidence that Roberts was blackmailed when he made his Obamacare ruling . . . which required such contorted logic . . . and left us all hanging? I need to know for an argument I am having.
Ask him....
why does a RINO need to be blackmailed to vote like a RINO? I never believed in that crap. The problem is not blackmail - the problem is Roberts.
Google John Roberts, Ireland, adoption to discover the theories
Other than the sheer insanity of the ruling itself I haven’t seen any. Doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, I just haven’t seen it. Hard pressed to explain the ruling otherwise though.
Occam’s Razor
Then there are the summers spent in the Mediterranean with a long term friend who also looks happy, both now and then.
Roberts was against it before he was for it.
Blackmailed-probably not.
Threatened-yes.
No. The terrible thing is that, thanks to the income tax amendment, a penalty can be assessed as an income tax.
Taxation used to be a much more difficult thing for the federal government. The income tax amendment gave them all sorts of nearly arbitrary taxing power.
In theory a tax could be imposed on people for simply saying things the government doesn’t like. Scarey but true.
There are several possibilities but it seems that by declaring the fee to be a tax he might have opened an avenue because the tax part of it made it a revenue bill which must originate as a revenue bill in the house. If it did not originate there as a taxing bill in its current format then it might not be constitutional.
I have heard from someone who has known Roberts for decades that throughout his career, he has refused even to converse casually among friends about his opinions about anything.
Their impression is that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court, and he wasn’t about to leave a conversational trail, let alone a paper trail.
And Roberts’s own comments around the time of his nomination were bizarre: He was determined to increase the “prestige” of the Court. Nice to know, when you are a plaintiff in a case, that the judge cares more about his own “prestige” than he does about the facts or the law.
A retired judge whom I know well believes that Roberts was gotten to somehow because he switched sides and would not discuss it with his former allies. Roberts simply could face and not explain himself to those colleagues who know him best. This is unusual conduct by a judge because it is a transgression against the principles of collegiality that are intended to govern appellate courts.
If that was his idea, then he should have declared it a tax, then declared it unConstitutional because of the Origination Clause.
No. He just wanted to be popular. He’s a sleaze and a weirdo.
Constitutional. What the heck does that mean today?
Is there any evidence he wasn’t?
Yes, it is. Thanks.
No...other than how twisted and flawed the logic of his decision was. Either someone got to him, or he went rogue. I say he went rogue trying to establish his legacy. It’s a crappy legacy, but he’s got one now.
No
Roberts is the Chief Justice and did what he was hired to do.
He said at his confirmation that that his job was not to pick sides but be an umpire, to many in this country today confuse the term conservative in the context of the supreme Court with the political term.
A Conservative Justice will find a law passed by the Congress constitutional if at all possible. A conservative justice gives the will of the people expressed through their representatives precedence.
IMO Roberts looked at the dysfunctional Congress and simply said you guys passed this this.. deal with it...
Ah, but he re-wrote it.
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.