Posted on 06/28/2012 4:56:21 AM PDT by John W
Today is the day. SCOTUSblog live at 8:45 AM.
(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.wpengine.com ...
I wonder if Clarence Thomas has been talking to Rush. He would know that Roberts is the one who’s kept the eligibility cases from being heard - and thus apparently compromised. Thomas could tell Rush that without telling Rush what the Obamacare decision was going to be.
The the average American citizen who is not an attorney, this bill is clearly unconstitutional. They can legalese their way out of it and call the ACA a tax and punt it back to the legislative branch. . but it still is, as most of us understand it, unconstitutional and an assault on our individual liberties. "Legalese" and "Tricks" don't go over well with most Americans. . . November 6th folks. . Rally the troops!
” Roberts didn’t want to over-rule Congress. What he missed was that even Congress has no power to do something unconstitutional.”
Over-rule Congress? Why, the whole thing was a ruse...a “shakedown” a payoff to
Governors
AARP
Unions(exempt)
It was racketeering at its finest.
It was a criminal enterprise, locking the Republicans entirely out of the picture. Roberts is now complicit in this gangsterism!
I’m not going to deny that it looks that way.
It would be nice to know more. We can speculate to our heart’s content, but that’s not conclusive.
What the heck kind of ruling is that?
It's from Sharia Law, and it's called the jizyah - all non-Muslims must pay it for the privilege of living in Muslim lands.
In the case of ObamaCare, basically if you're not a Leftist or a protected minority, you either buy the mandated insurance or pay the tax.
” Further...
It’s not a tax. It’s a FINE. It is punitive.”
Explain that to 160 IQ Roberts. Something really smells here.
Chief Justice Roberts: “It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices.”
Chief Justice Roberts: “It Is Not Our Job to Protect the People From the Consequences of Their Political Choices.”
What about those “tinfoilers” who have been crying out that there’s a major push for One World Governance, or that the true purpose of the Government is power: the power to control everyone’s lives?
Umm.. news flash. A lot of that intent is out in the open. You don’t have to be a tinfoiler to believe that.
Those of us who decry the tinfoilers are people who generally believe Occam’s razor and don’t need elaborate explanations involving secret conspiracies, when the simple explanation, that politicians want power and many people actually believe that socialism/statism is good and should be imposed, acceptably explains the observed facts.
That is basically correct. The ACA law does not force Americans to buy health insurance. It just taxes us if we don’t buy it. You won’t go to jail IF you pay the tax, and that is just like federal income taxes. It sounds to me like this ruling is legally correct. It’s tough medicine for America in the short run, but probably better for this country in the long run because the ruling demonstrates that we can’t rely on the courts to overturn really bad legislation passed by nasty socialists like Obama, Reid, and Pelosi. This ruling shows that Americans have to vote for better people to serve in the legislature if we want really good legislation to be enacted.
Contrary to what many people (including some amateur DNC operatives) have written on this thread, Romney will sincerely make every effort to repeal the ACA law if elected. He will campaign on repeal of ACA and if elected he’ll have to support repeal to maintain his support among Republicans in congress. Even if Romney wins, if may not be possible to repeal the entire law because of democrat opposition in the senate. But with Romney in the White House I have no doubt that enough senate democrats will vote to repeal most of ACA piece by piece, by voting for new legislation that replaced major parts of the ACA law.
The MA health care law that Romney signed is not a significant political problem—Romney can just say that he has learned that some of the MA law isn’t working well, and he supports repeal of ACA because it’s terrible legislation that forces a very costly and poorly designed system on all the states and takes away the freedom of choice by individuals to buy the kind of health insurance that each individual needs. There are real problems with the current health care system that need to be fixed, in the right way. Denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions is just too tough on people who have a medical condition and then lose their job and coverage. That can amount to sentencing people to bankruptcy. But we still need strong incentives for people to buy health insurance and not wait until they have an illness. Romney has to find the smart middle ground on health care policy. Go Mitt Go!
Excerpt:
Americans saw wealth plummet 40 percent from 2007 to 2010, Federal Reserve says * * *Actually, the situation is really far worse. Since 1972 our fiat currency has been diminished by about 70% in value by insane corrupt Federal Reserve policies. JMHO folks. Do your own research. But apples used to cost about 19 cents a pound and today people are paying about $ 1.90 a pound on sale at Safeway.The recent recession wiped out nearly two decades of Americans’ wealth, according to government data released Monday, with middle-class families bearing the brunt of the decline.
The Federal Reserve said the median net worth of families plunged by 39 percent in just three years, from $126,400 in 2007 to $77,300 in 2010. That puts Americans roughly on par with where they were in 1992. * * * Source:
LOL !
An interesting, and very true statement, but I still fail to see how that grants Congress the power to tax “living and breathing.”
” Roberts is acting under duress.”
By a face with no name....at least the MSM will never divulge it.
” Further...
Congress does have the power to tax our income.
Congress does not have the power to tax our very existence.”
They do now!
I believe something different may have happened here.
Roberts knew this ruling would gift wrap a huge issue for Mitt Romney, the Republicans and the Tea Party movement.
They are setting things up for a GOP sweep in November - Obama has been a fall guy from day one.
You give Roberts WAAYYYY too much credit.
Funny way to wrap a skunk poop.
Saying no like Kennedy did would have left Democrats in a high dudgeon but also warned America it had better look especially carefully to who is in the Senate and White House if it didn’t want the freshly buried monster to spring back up.
Maybe nobody brought up the argument “hey if this is a tax then it’s a capricious and punitive one.” If not fed the argument, the court can’t regurgitate it.
It’s sort of beyond the initial scope of their investigation, but I gave a list of some corroborating evidence of this to Mike Zullo of the Cold Case Posse. It took some doing though, because somebody - apparently Homeland Security - wouldn’t let me send to Mike’s e-mail, just for that time when I was trying to send him this info. Other e-mails to him were intercepted later as well, but at that particular time they were letting my e-mails get through to him until I brought up the Soros run on the bank and the threats I believe Soros/Obama made to various people to get them to ignore the eligibility issue.
At this point there has been so much crime committed that even if we had every investigator in the world on it, we wouldn’t be able to root out all the crimes committed. And currently we have “law enforcement” SUPPRESSING any investigation of the truth. It’s an uphill battle.
So for the time being speculation is all we can do. But when a guy has red eyes and is obviously unhappy reading his own decision, it’s obvious that he was forced to write and read it and that he doesn’t agree with it.
Like a kid who spits out the words, “OK, OK, I’m sorry” and then angrily skulks out of the room. What you know from that is that they are NOT sorry.
This was NOT Roberts’ decision. And the obvious question for anybody with a brain is why he gave a decision he hated.
Doesn’t take a whole lot of speculation to answer that one, because there aren’t a whole lot of options.
“OK, then, you tell me why Roberts gave a decision that he obviously HATED giving.”
Oh, gee, I don’t know. Maybe he hates the law, but actually thinks Congress has a right to pass it under their taxation powers.
“And while you’re at it, why don’t you tell me why he gave an ex part invitation to Obama on the very day that SCOTUS was considering Donofrio’s eligibility lawsuit.”
Perhaps Obama asked for the invitation and he was being polite and respectful to the office of the Presidency.
I’m not going to dignify the rest of your stuff with simpler explanations for the facts, though I remain fully capable of doing so, because I’m being paid by the Gnomes of Zurich to be part of the Marxist/Islamist conspiracy. Or possibly because I don’t feel like wasting my time debating people like you. Take your pick as to which explanation is more reasonable.
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.