Actually, Justice Roberts Demolished Obama In His Supreme Court Ruling

Business Insider ^ | Jun. 28, 2012, | Grace Wyler

[little jeremiah]

....But while Roberts may have saved Obama's signature domestic legislation — and perhaps his reelection campaign — by siding with the court's liberal wing, he actually did it in spite of Obama, not because of him.

Roberts' opened his opinion today by declaring, unequivocally, that the individual mandate — which requires people to buy insurance or pay a penalty — is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's a direct shot at the Obama administration's defense of the law's constitutionality, which largely relied on those two clauses, which give Congress the power to regulate commerce and to enact provisions that are necessary to carry out its laws, respectively.

snip

[Resettozero]

Kinduv like the microbes that feed on the bacteria of the slime under the scum beneath the filth of the refuse in the trench going into the sewer?

(That Wolfgang Pauli was such a hoot, chock full of knee-slappers. Not even wrong...hee hee hee)

[EternalVigilance]

EXACTLY!

[EternalVigilance]

Roberts can’t be voted out. Supreme Court Justices are appointed for life (or until they retire).

That's not at all what the Constitution says.

"The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior..."

-- Article Three, Section 1

[rwfromkansas]

Ginsburg did dissent, in part.

[mo]

“THEN WHY THE HELL DID HE VOTE WITH THE LIBS?”

Maybe because he’s got a summer vacation in Malta?

“U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is joking that he’ll be spending some time in “an impregnable fortress” after casting the decisive vote upholding President Barack Obama’s health care law. Responding to a question about his summer plans, Roberts quipped that he thought his planned trip to Malta to teach a class was a “good idea.”

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2018559716_apushealthcarechiefjustice.html

[Fledermaus]

That would be even worse. Bottom line: Roberts is a coward and NEVER should have been appointed to the SC.

[TChad]

Roberts put a wall up at Wickard. The Commerce Clause expansion of the last century has stopped.

Not according to Mark Levin. The Roberts remarks about the Commerce Clause were from Roberts alone and were not part of the majority opinion.

Mark Levin, from http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304459/mark-levin-not-so-fast-commerce-clause-kathryn-jean-lopez:

Notably, this does not explicitly state that the dissenters joined with the Chief’s opinion respecting the commerce clause. If five justices had intended for their view of the commerce clause to be controlling as the majority view of the court, they would have said so by joining or concurring in each others’ parts. They didn’t. There was no formal majority on the commerce clause issue. Should this matter come before a court again, it is not settled as a matter of precedent and no doubt the litigants will still be fighting over it.

[eyedigress]

After a little shaking out, the assessment may be correct. Roberts kept the Constitution out of play. A tax levied by Congress has been settled long ago. Now Obama is in a spot that will be very hard to get away from. This is a very interesting ruling to say the least. It would seem that Roberts could have just as easily denied taking the case based on the same grounds.

[Salvation]

BTTT!

[Salvation]

Are you an attorney and know things better than what the Justices of the Supreme court do?

[little jeremiah]

I’m too uneducated and without the correct kind of brain to understand legalese/governmentese.

If somehow this can be used to destroy Hellthcare, good. I just don’t see why Roberts didn’t find the whole dang thing unconstitutional. Even I can see that it’s unconstitutional. Problem is there is too much “precedence” that is unconstitutional, the actual Constitution got lost along the way.

[eyedigress]

It destroys Obama’s attack on the 10th amendment. It certifies that the house passed a tax based on the 17th amendment. Obama must now clear up a promise that he alone violated repeatedly.

[XenaLee]

Remember when Roberts flubbed the swearing in of Obama? I thought something was weird way back then. It has now been officially confirmed.

“I just read the transcript of what Rush said. Something is very, very weird.”

[XenaLee]

The big difference is.....the majority of people in Romney’s state wanted RomneyCare. Romney just gave them what they wanted. Whereas.....the majority of Americans did not or do not want ObamaCare. Big/huge difference!

“Romney: Mr. Obama wants to tax the middle class.

Obama: You taxed the middle class as governor.

Romney: Uh. Oh yeah. Sorry.”

[little jeremiah]

I think when we find out what’s been going on behind the scenes the last few years we will all be amazed, even us. And sickened, and enraged.

[cableguymn]

Lawyer? Nope..

Know better than Roberts? Apparently so.

[Flint]

I left out the "No Child Left Behind" mandate by President Bush. It was forced on the states with no funding and under the threat that the Dept. of Education would withhold Federal funds from the states if they didn't implement it.

That kind of force has been removed from the Federal ammo bunker. I find it astounding that the main talking heads haven't brought it up yet.

[nwrep]

What if congress passes a bill that said if is a man you do not marry another man then you must pay a tax? What if congress passes a bill that says if as a woman you do not marry another woman then you must pay a tax? What if congress passes a bill that states that if you do not abort your second child you must pay a tax? What if congress passes a bill that says if a white person does not abort their first child then they must pay a tax?

If we get a Congress that does any of these things, don't expect SCOTUS to bail us out. That is the whole point of the decision. Besides, I don't think a Congress that passes anything as egregious as your examples will survive another election. I think most people here are missing that point. Weilding taxing power opens up Congress to defend something people understand and instinctively revolt againt. Hiding behind the Commerce Clause or the N&P CLause is opaque, most people don't know what it means, and Congress can slip a backdoor legislation through those clauses. Much harder to pass a new tax.

[chris37]

While I realize my examples are extreme, they are meant to show that the us federal government can now force us to do whatever they want.

The congress that passed Obamatax was booted in two years flat, yet their legacy will destroy this country.

It’s really as if electing congressmen every two years isn’t enough. It needs to now be 6 months or less.

I also do not believe that the GOP or anyone else who goes to congress is going to vote to remove unlimited power from themselves.

We have to remember what kind of people seek this job.

No senate is going to vote to remove such power, and no president will sign any such bill.

We are now a society who voted away its freedom from some trinkets, and now we are scrambling to figure out how to get it back,

And there really is only one way, and even that would fail.

[nwrep]

I understand your points, but here is the key takeaway - Congress can only use the obvious and straightforward means of taxation for imposing something draconian, no longer being able to hide behind something exotic. The procedural restrictions on passing tax legislation make such maneuvers more transparent. There is nothing we can do to limit taxing power, however, short of passing a Constitutional Amendment.

Bottom line - only future Congresses should be counted upon to reverse legislation, especially something as important as this law.