Posted on 06/28/2012 9:50:50 AM PDT by Resettozero
Was today's Supreme Court Obamacare decision a win for conservatives or a loss? It depends on what you were rooting for.
If you were above all interested in the bill being struck down, it was mostly a loss. On the other hand, if you were more concerned about the qualitative expansion in the power of the government that the bill represented, it was definitely a win.
First, the Roberts Court put real limits on what the government can and cannot do. For starters, it restricted the limits of the Commerce Clause, which does not give the government the power to create activity for the purpose of regulating it. This is a huge victory for those of us who believe that the Constitution is a document which offers a limited grant of power.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Good post.
You’re half right - the OP didn’t intend to say that, but that’s what the actual outcome of his position happens to be.
The House needs to draft articles of impeachment for all SCOTUS ‘justices’ who voted to invalidate the Constitution.
To hell with the Senate, they’ll all be gone with Obama in the upcoming elections. After the Senate is in conservative hands.......Convict these domestic enemies of the Constitution stinking up the SCOTUS BENCH.
Then reverse this farce of a ruling.
The SC has stabbed us in the back!
FUSC!
Taney's ruling invalidated the basic premiss of the Republican Party--to stop the spread of slavery in the territories (while not interfering with the states which chose to have slavery). The theory was that if slavery could not expand it would eventually die. The Republicans won in 1860 and even though Lincoln promised not to interfere with slavery where it already existed, the planter elite of the Deep South states seceded before he even took office, believing that a Republican victory was fatal to their long-term interests.
The Dred Scott decision was just one of many items that led to the Civil War: the Mexican War (with the resulting debate over whether slavery would be allowed in the newly-acquired territories), the Compromise of 1850, the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law, the Kansas-Nebraska Act, John Brown's raid, etc. I wouldn't give Taney that much significance in the overall scheme of things.
Perhaps you’re half-correct. But let’s give it a day or two to see what happens.
I would agree with you, but at the moment the constitution means nothing..
I want to see if this really did clobber the commerce clause on the nose it has in the tent, before singing about the wonderful lemonade here.
Would it reduce the permissible government recourse in a Wickard-like situation to a tax?
Then maybe Roberts has managed to pull a jiu-jitsu move, using the fighting momentum of the liberal side of the court against it.
So as things stand, we have a Dictator for President and the other two branches of government are either enablers or hiding under their desks. The time is not far off when the people are going to have to consider getting out a rope! This is not a failure of our form of government, but rather a failure of our so-called “leaders.”
No it did not just Die. This Government was elected by the people for the people. The People just elected a bunch of fools, that’s all. The Republicans nominated a bigger fool that didn’t get elected, but it was fair and square. No taxation without representation is not the issue here. Get out and vote and get more like kinded voters to get off their duff and vote. This forum ripped up McCain last time around and didn’t get the vote out, same with Bob Dole, we get what we vote for. End of Story.
Utterly stupid article. SC has rendered the commerce clause moot. The SC has ruled that the commerce clause is invalid, and that henceforth, the government can compel its citizens to do anything, or buy anything, so long as they call is a tax. If fact, even if they don’t call it a tax, the SC can overrule them and call it a tax.
So the gov’t can say “if you don’t buy en electric car, we’ll penalize (TAX) you $10,000. Or solar panels. OR whatever.
Roberts swore to uphold the Constitution. He’s a smart man. He KNOWS that his decision was unconstitutional. Clearly he has an ulterior motive.
Methinks Chief Justice John Roberts is GAY.
Google “John Roberst Gay”, read the articles. Then look again at his pictures.
“So, Roberts has done his job in protecting the Constitution and now it is up to us to do our job. “
Horse crap!
what an idiot this writer is. Restricting government and limiting the commerce clause would have been better done with an entire override. Roberts yanked the weinie once too often. This is nothing but a joke. You can ask for immigration status but you can’t arrest or ban from jobs. You can pay taxes that are really penalties but there isn’t really a mandate. What utter nonsense. I believe the Mad Hatter is calling for tea
I agree with you.
We conservatives inherently want minimal government interference in our live but we are also very vocal about preserving the Constitution as is and NOT legislating from the bench.
While I love Scalia, Roberts did the technically correct thing. It is not SCOTUS job to correct crappy legislation. But legislation should be truthful. Hence, obumocare funding is a tax - which is permit-able. Fact that o’care was sold to the public etc. by subterfuge and bribes is not SCOTUS’s problem. That o’care cannot be mandated under the commerce clause clarifies where government power ends.
But Ya Can’t Fix Stupid...
and if wethepeople continue to elect communists, we deserve what we get.
I am saddened this day but I realize we all have to play by the rules regardless of how distasteful the result will be.
exactly
So....SCOTUS just gave the right to Congress to tax us for Healthcare.....does the Congress HAVE to tax us?
If a Democratic Republic has bad leaders, that means the people didn't do a good job of voting the right people in.
It is the place of the supreme court to defend the constitution. Roberts did not do that. He called this thing a tax which the legislature did not do. HE acted beyonsd his scope. HE committed treason.
So how would you like your turd sandwhich? with or without ketchup?
No matter how much of a GOP takeover results from this, how confident can one really be that the GOP would have the political will to actually repeal anything? I would have traded a 2nd Obama Term for Obamacare to be struck down in its entirety.
I stand up.
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.