Posted on 06/28/2012 9:33:57 AM PDT by Ronaldus Magnus
When’s the last time Congress has actually repealed a tax permanently?
Your choice. As a Christian, I’m called to a higher standard. As a thinker, I’m wondering if Roberts’ legal analysis may serve us better in the long run.
I know that I will work even harder now to get Obama defeated.
remember when we were reading between the lines during his confirmation, thinking he was obfuscating so the liberals wouldn’t get incensed.
Apparently, the obfuscation was directed at conservatives, and we didn’t know it.
It bears repeating, though, that the conservative base forced George Bush to nominate Roberts. Bush’s first choice was Harriet Miers, a follower. The base rose up and attacked him for it. Roberts was the result.
Now, if we had a follower ensconced with Scalia, Thomas, Alito....where would she have come down? Since she was a strong pro-lifer, I don’t see how the abortion funding provisions of this obamacare wouldn’t have antagonized her off the bat.
We have the base to thank for John Roberts.
And, BTW, I don’t think it’s accidental that the GOP-E has scheduled today to vote against Holder. They KNEW they’d need to take the wind out of Obama’s sails to give their boy, Romney, a reasonable showing on a day when his own healthcare plan was shoved down America’s throats.
Oh, that’s brilliant. An impeachment for sure would allow The Occupier in the White House to choose a Supreme Court member.
Stop looking at the small picture.
I was thinking about starting a thread on this very subject. We need to start this TODAY. I live in a Blue State, but if you Red State patriots can get this ball rolling, it would be seriously appreciated.
•An amendment forbidding federal taxes or penalties for failure to engage in commerce
Going by this logic, why the hell do we need a Supreme Court? What the hell, if elected leaders violate our Constitutional rights our only redress is through the ballot box. Of course once they take the ballot box away or invalidate our votes (through illegal immigration for instance), we effectively have no redress!
“Robert threw it back to Congress. Now Obama and the Democrats have to defend this as a TAX, which they’ve been trying to deny for years. It’s up to US now, to make sure it’s repealed, but NOT replaced with another big government solution.”
BS. It has passed. Roberts has not demanded, has he?, that Congress pass it again. As you say it’s up to us now to elect people who will repeal it. Had Roberts really thrown it back to Congress we would not be talking about repeal.
David (weasel) Souter may have retired but his ‘stealthy LIEberalism’ jumped the shark and Roberts has picked up his mantle. If he starts kissing up to Buzzie Ruthie like Souter did then we know the reincarnation is complete. Its like a bad vampire movie with never ending sequels.
Of course he was coerced. He’s been coerced since the multiple swearing ins 3.5 years ago. “They” had him the minute it went behind closed doors. Whatever happened, he should have come clean about it back then. Same with Congress coming clean about the usurper’s ineligibility but nooooo they took their kickbacks and let themselves be blackmailed.
May he never have another good night’s sleep.
Obama KNOWS what’s in those Adoption records, and he is BLACKMAILING Roberts over it. It’s the ONLY thing that makes sense!!!
If Bush had gotten his two picks it would be 6-3 uphold as Miers would have followed Roberts.
“In order to reduce your carbon footprint and help save the earth you are mandated to buy an electric vehicle. If you cannot or do not want to then you pay a “tax”.
Don't for the the 2A
If you own a firearm you are mandated to purchase a government approved >$10K safe and have it inspected yearly or pay a “tax”.
Furthermore as firearms are by their very nature dangerous and inherently harmful to ones health you are required to post a $1,000,000 liability bond. Failure to do so will result in a “tax”
All purchases of ammunition will be preceded by government approved proof of liability insurance. All this is hypothetical but the door is open now. How's the water fellow frogs? Getting a little warmer?
First of all after Arizona and then this, what is the difference between Ginsberg and Roberts? Well Ginsberg is an honest anti-constitutional liberal. Roberts, OTOH, is a treasonous bastard who deliberately violated his oath of office.
Secondly, the Impeachment will be tied to a repeal of Obamacare. That ain't gonna happen until the NEXT CONGRESS.
Let me repeat myself:
IMPEACH JOHN ROBERTS!!!!
Yes, you are right. Roberts replaced Rehnquist when he died. His death and O’Connor’s retirement were same year, 2005. I’d forgotten Rehnquist’s death. Sorry
I didn’t hear Savage. What is he saying today and did he guess that Roberts would do this?
Calm down, all of you. Roberts could have joined the four dissenters and ruled the whole thing out.
But had he done so, yes, it would have been ruled unconstitutional in its entirety.
The “activist” Supreme Court would then be the villain. The political issue would be obscured.
We wanted the easy,cheap way out—SCOTUS overturns it and that’s that.
Except it would not have been that’s that. It would have continued to fester the way the “SCOTUS illegitimately made Bush president.”
Roberts has handed us the stake to drive through the heart of Obamacare. It was bad legislation. It has to be elminated by the Legislature. The people have to rise up and vote it out. They can do that by electing a Tea Party Senate to go with the Tea Party House as well as a Republican president.
If the mainstream Pubblies stab us in the back on this, well,then, hate them for it. But we have a chance to do this the right way, legislatively, not depend on the Court to do it.
We don’t want nine unelected judges ruling the country.
We have to take back our country the oldfashioned way. if that effort fails, then it fails. But it is the only way, long term, to reverse course. Enough people have to rise up and say no to Big Government.
We cannot depend on the courts to do this for us unless and until we get a 6-3 conservative majority on the court. That will be hard to do because of Democrats blocking our best justices. But that’s all the more reason to elect both houses and the president this fall. The mandate has to be clear enough to give authorization to change the overall course.
Had 5 SCOTUS justices struck it down it would not have been “struck down” in the minds of the whining libs. But we’d never have the momentum to repeal it. Obama would have gone ahead, unlawfully, and implemented it, embedding it in the bureaucracy.
We’d STILL HAVE TO DO WHAT WE NOW HAVE TO DO: Drive a stake through it LEGISLATIVELY. We’d have to do that even had Roberts joined Thomas, Scalia, Kennedy and Alito.
Already drunk?
If the first President Bush had picked a conservative instead of Souter, that person might still be on the court—instead of Sotomayor. If there had been one more conservative on the court, Roberts might have voted as part of a 6-3 conservative majority. He was afraid to be the deciding vote in a 5-4 conservative majority. Obama’s intimidation of the court worked.
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.