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

[chris37]

I understand that, however, the only congress that can be relied upon is the democrat congress to take freedom and give itself power.

The republican congress can be relied upon to do one thing and one thing only, and that thing is nothing.

[sam_paine]

Don't torment Samuel Paine's soul by taking his name on this forum and then promoting the most massive government expansion against Liberty this country has ever witnessed.

How do you type with your foot in your mouth? Perhaps, uh, you meant to go on some unrelated rant about "TOM Paine?"

LOL.

By the way. While you're on your hobby horse, read a little more Thomas Paine while you're at it beyond what you heard in grade school about Common Sense.

"Age of Reason" on the rejection of the Bible and organized religion.

Did you know he was the first to propose a 100% death tax to be distributed to young people as a way to eliminate poverty?

Yeah, I don't think you know the difference between a Sam and a Tom, and it doesn't appear you know Tom from a hole in the ground.

Sincerely, SAM

(Not Adams, not the girl on Bewitched, etc.)

[sam_paine]

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

That is correct, that vote was 4-1-4. But Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy could have joined that opinion without conceding the tax argument.

So why didn't they take the opportunity and join and make it 5-4 commerce clause precedent?

[Hoodat]

It is my understanding that only two Justices (Ginsburg & Sotomayor) upheld the commerce clause to empower government to impose the mandate. Whether Scalia et al joined Roberts in signing off to his opinion is irrelevant. Those four Justices made it clear in there dissent where they stood on the commerce clause.

So by my count, the vote is 7-2 against the commerce clause, which incidentally was the same vote count in favor of equal protection in Bush v. Gore.

[chris37]

Becuase they wanted nothing to do with Chief Judas Roberts’ traitorous ruling.

[sport]

Right! And under that logic, the Japs and Germans won World II.

[P-Marlowe]

Perhaps, uh, you meant to go on some unrelated rant about "TOM Paine?"

[little jeremiah]

I hope that some time a simple summary for the uneducated will be posted. Maybe then I’ll understand all the ins and outs.

[Gene Eric]

If I’m not mistaken, Samuel Paine was in business with George Jefferson and Calvin Lincoln. They traded and repaired carriage parts and saddles when not busy drafting articles and penning essays.

[alstewartfan]

Maybe the didn’t want to give Captain Kangaroo cover. What good would narrowing the commerce clause do if you can simply make up ANOTHER phony rationale for stealing Americans’ freedoms? Bob

[Robert DeLong]

Better yet, why didn’t he join them and vote correctly that it was unconstitutional?

[TChad]

So why didn't they take the opportunity and join and make it 5-4 commerce clause precedent?

I don't know. I don't even know where to turn for authoritative commentary on this subject.

[One Name]

They were digusted at that point, maybe.

The commerce clause was way out of line, already. No Constitutionalist could in any way buy into an argument that the federal government can make you purchase something...

The whole thing is off the scale.

[sam_paine]

They were digusted at that point, maybe. The commerce clause was way out of line, already. No Constitutionalist could in any way buy into an argument that the federal government can make you purchase something... The whole thing is off the scale.

Agreed. I think too many conservatives frogs have been blind to the temperature of the republic's water.

This event was the first bubble at 212°F. It's not like it wasn't 211°F a week before the ruling.

When the republic puts Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama in charge of all three branches....and the citizens only decide to fire ONE of them in 2010, and 1 out of 5 still emphatically approve of the utter destruction....what's the Supreme Court really capable of fixing?

Tell the people to man up, vote out the anti-Americans and insist the lege do their jobs. Or if the people insist, fat, drunk and stupid is how "the people" will wander to their death.

[2ndDivisionVet]

What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts