Posted on 06/28/2012 3:38:24 PM PDT by Kaslin
Ah so you are the ultimate arbiter of what is relevant in this discourse, thanks for the heads up.
Yeah you’ve got it, Roberts is a flaming liberal. Soviet mole perhaps.
The reason this doesn’t work is that he had to stretch the law to call it a tax. This required overstepping.
His use of the phrase “may reasonably be characterized as a tax” arises from the premise that it is not actually a tax.
It’s not actually a tax, but it may reasonably be characterized as a tax.
Sort of like a straight line. It’s not a curved line, but it may reasonably be bent into a curved line.
He also didn’t explain what kind of a tax ObamaCare “may reasonably be characterized as.” My guess is, he got lost in his own convolutions and doesn’t have a clue.
Is it believed that Roberts actually wrote this opinion? Does it read as if it was penned by him? How does it compare with his other writing?
Yes that seems to be the case. I’m not a lawyer though, so for me the more pressing question is the WHY rather than the how.
It’s all just a way to vent the frustration of the day I suppose.
lol.....I’m a MidWesterner, and I’d say you are totally off-base. We can be nice, but still hold to our principles. It’s something else.
Yesterday there was a column where Lawrence Tribe claimed Justice Roberts as a law student, and he said that Roberts would vote today for Obamacare.
This sort of ties into the “rumors” Rush mentioned and to his own experience with someone who some time ago said, of all of them, “watch Roberts”.
Granted Free Me, but, since it has now been declared a tax, and ALL revenue bills must originate in the House, can this bill now be rolled back because it is a Senate Tax Bill?
Wow! Best analysis I’ve heard from Rush or anyone on this. Bookmarked.
If I were a U.S. Supreme Court justice, I would have recused myself from the case simply on the basis of that bizarre statement by that dingbat Nancy Pelosi that "we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."
My take as a Supreme Court justice would have been:
"Why the hell should I spend five seconds of my life reading a legal brief about a case involving a Federal law that the f#%&ing Speaker of the House didn't even read before sending it to the floor for a vote??"
Your idea makes sense, in my blind rage I didn’t read it carefully the first time. Frustration is right.
You should respect your elders and your betters. That would be me on this thread since you can’t seem to recognize that folks who had Roberts pegged are valuable in the future. But go ahead keep supporting those “ conservative” Harvard law geniuses.
It would have to be bigger than that.
bookmark
And watch every congress critter race to repeal this "Tax" burden that has been placed on every American guaranteeing an Obama loss in November.
Maybe, and I mean maybe Roberts didn't forget the grilling his wife got at his confirmation let alone the scorn at the SOTU...just a thought time will tell.
To make the point that idiocy was the name of the game.
But that’s not what the reasoning Roberts has given. The mandate “may reasonably be characterized as a tax,” although in actuality it wasn’t a tax before Roberts “characterized” it.
And you, should meet my 3 1/2 year old (my 5 year old might be a bit mature for you).
What happened to Roberts was he was appointed by George The Johnson Democrat Bush. Did any serious conservative really think Bush would intentionally allow a conservative on the USSC especially as Chief Justice? I bet he’s wringing his hands though over Alito who got by his liberal GOP insider vetting process. The USSC Court burned us twice in a week.
Look what happened with the Stolen Valor Act. The court decision striking it down was one of the most pointless decisions ever handed down -- because it was such a silly law that the U.S. Justice Department had stopped even attempting to enforce it anyway.
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.