Robert’s vote will be a huge plus in November elections. Now, we all small government types are more energized to vote. It is not his job to decide if a law is good or bad. That is upto voters-—>congress-—>president.
That is what elections are for.
The problem is that Arnold actually help save us a few times before he sold out.
This guy? A rancid POS.
Why wouldn't they? It turns out Justice Kennedy better understands the Constitution.
Another point of comparison between Reagan and a Bush, BTW.
Those liberal pols and pundits who, fearing that the law would be overturned, said that Roberts’ (and the Court’s) reputation would suffer for it were indeed correct.
Four others voted for it as well. he’s not the only one
Just remember:
John Roberts AGREES with Elena Kagan on this!!!!
He had no business re-baptizing the ObamaCare argument based on the commerce clause, changing it into a new tax law. The Supreme Court is not authorized to make new legislation. No wonder Scalia was livid at this betrayal by another Big Government lackey, Roberts.
AND THE COMMITTEE TO SUPPORT THE
"INDIVIDUAL MANDATE THAT ISN'T AN INDIVIDUAL MANDATE"
PLUS: THE EXECUTIVE, THE LEGISLATIVE, AND THE JUDICIAL BRANCHES
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Hear this citizens
Be ye still knaves, know your place, or else!
CREDIT THE DEMOCRAT PARTY/MARXISTS UNITED AND
THE COMMITTEE TO RE-ELECT THE PRESIDENT
Robets was put in just for a time such as this..
If you think Roberts is a traitor what does this make G. Bush?..
The next traitor may be Alito..
Bush also made Obama possible.. followed by Juan Maclaim and Myth Romney..
America is writhing in political epilepsy..
OR worse the "Animal Farm" is complete..
Because America is being farmed culled and milked like farm animals..
I believe that Roberts is being BLACKMAILED because of his two ADOPTED kids are from Ireland VIA LATIN AMERICA......ILLEGAL????? hmmmmmmm
“Conservatives turn on Roberts”
Roberts turns on Conservatives. Fixed.
I can’t help but think that Obama wanted this to be overturned by the SCOTUS. Then he’d have something to campaign against. Now he less than nothing. The regime has a rabbit in thier hat that they plan on using this November. They are NOT going to just let the WH get away from them.
He is Roger Taney. Who Ruled Dred Scott was a Non-Person and precipitated the Civil War.
John Roberts ruled you are a Tax Serf to the Federal Government. Paying for the privilege to pay taxes to the Federal Government.
Shocking that Kennedy's dissent was spot on, but has Satan taken control of America.. After all, he IS good at deception and boy were WE deceived.. And on amnesty.. And on 'Fast & Furious'.. My God, where are you? Have you turned on us? I fear so!
If the Supremes had ruled against Obama, he'd be able to gloss over his disastrous economic policies and run against the 'out of touch' court. As is stands now, he has to defend the largest tax increase in American history, and what the results of that will be for business in this country.
This is a clear cut election issue, and if we spend our time bitching and moaning about the Supremes, and arguing with each other about the ruling, we'll waste valuable time which could otherwise be used to defeat Obama soundly, AND replace members of Congress who voted for Obamacare with people who will commit to REPEAL Obamacare, in its entirety, and de-fund all the bureaucracies that have grown up around Obamacare. AND these new members must commit NOT to replace Obamacare with their own version of government run health care.
Roberts turned on us first.
FUGWB
FUJR
FUBO
3 peas in the same pod
However, let us also not forget that when demands came up for Kagan to recuse herself that ROBERTS, THE FREEDOM ROBBER, came to her rescue and said she didn't have to recuse herself from the case. Makes you wonder if Roberts needed her vote to push this decision through and so he looked the other way. After all, Kagan and Roberts both ended up voting on the same side of this case.
This decision is tyrannical at best. Roberts has just said that there are no limits on federal power, and that the individual mandate--which is clearly a penalty and not a tax--is a tax. Roberts also said that the government could tax things which don't even relate to federal enumerated powers. The Congress no longer needs the Commerce Clause but can now "regulate" (and in this case that means penalize) activity over which it has no authority to directly regulate. Roberts argued this is allowed under the Taxation clause in Art I Sec 8. Congress and the President can penalize any behavior and have the Court construe it as a tax.
Incidentally, Roberts also cited the Wickard v. Filburn (1942), one of the most vile of all SCOTUS decisions in history to support his argument of governmental expansion to justify Obamacare's power grab. He writes: First, Congress has the power to regulate economic activities “that substan tially affect interstate commerce.” Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U. S. 1, 17 (2005). This capacious power extends even to local activities that, viewed in the aggregate, have a substantial impact on interstate commerce. See ibid. See also Wickard, 317 U. S., at 125 (“[E]ven if appellee’s activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce.” (emphasis added)); Jones & Laugh- lin Steel Corp., 301 U. S., at 37.
Wow. What a fascist. Roberts had the chance to overturn one of the worst decisions in SCOTUS History, and instead he used the opportunity to ROB Americans of their freedom. Roberts the Freedom Robber managed to reaffirm the overreach of the Commerce Clause, while at the same time expanding the power of the taxation clause, all while claiming not to make a ruling based on the Commerce Clause. Yeah, he's smart, but apparently he's not on the good side.