Posted on 06/28/2012 9:09:26 PM PDT by 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
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
The writer is trying to put lipstick on a pig. I just posted it hoping people would clarify, and they are. I’ve been on the verge of vomiting all day.
The only good thing I see is that people are getting riled up. Unless the bit about the Commerce Clause being disembowelled is correct.
If true, the Ginsberg threat is still not enough for Roberts to vote for this gigantic offense.
I’m mind boggled, basically.
There’s a bunch of things that don’t quite add up. I’m not ready to hop on the conspiracy bandwagon here, but there’s several things that are very odd about the whole Charlie-Foxtrot:
1. Ginsburg’s opinion really took hammer and tongs to Roberts on the commerce clause issue... in somewhat strident language for a SCOTUS justice.
I would have expected her to pull these punches since she was getting what she ultimately wanted - the ACA to stand and the mandate to stand.
2. The dissent by Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy refers to Ginsburg’s opinion as the “dissent” - meaning their position was the majority opinion at one time.
3. The dissent by Thomas, Scalia, et al has what appears to be a tacked-on response to the taxing issue - at the end.
4. There’s much duplication by Scalia and Roberts on the issue of the Commerce Clause and Medicare, but Scalia’s discussion of these issues never mentions Roberts’. It never appears to say that it “agree with” or mention Roberts’ opinion.
The whole mess, taken together, gives an impression that Roberts wrote his opinion without either the liberal wing or conservative wing of the SCOTUS really knowing what he was writing. It didn’t need to be written at the last minute from what I see, but it did need to be written without collaboration with either set of justices.
I don’t know if Roberts is an idiot, a liberal, a coward, on meds, blackmailed/threatened, or what.
I do know that 0bastardcare is a rotten, stinking pile of crap. And that Roberts was WRONG to vote that it is constitutional in any way, shape or form.
NO ONE is going to point to Roberts’ mild criticism of commerce clause usage in the rendering of any GOOD decisions. Common sense tells you that. His ruling sounded like the ramblings of a drunk. Bob
Thanks.
I really think it needs its own thread. Far and away the most comprehensive analysis of the ruling that I have seen.
I can’t read any legal stuff and understand it, so I take your word about it.
I hated his vote on AZ too.
Additionally, have the courts hashed tax law pretty thoroughly? The Obamacare “tax” isn't really an income (it's not based on income) or an excise tax. As you wrote, it really doesn't seem to fall into any of the existing, constitutional tax schemes.
The Obamacare mandate...er...tax appears unconstitutional, and the SCOTUS can't rule on that until someone has standing, i.e. the tax is actually collected.
Could Roberts be playing the long game, setting up the necessary pieces to go for a checkmate later?
Thank you for your statement, I have read several statements that Roberts argument is strange to say the least. He twisted himself into a pretzel to rationalize his reasoning. There is no legal reasoning. He is trying to ptotect his family. Illegal adoption! I am a adoptive mother, I know when something smells funky. Trust me.
How could he in one paragraph say, "They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce,not to compel it.", but STILL essentially allow Congress to compel citizens by penalizing them with a tax? It just makes NO sense.
I just read the transcript of what Rush said. Something is very, very weird.
And the South won!
That cowardly scumbag Roberts demolished the Constitution. Period.
The spin is making me sick.
Good point.
I’m really an ignorant person when it comes to legalese/governmentese. I was sort of hoping the article made a bit of sense, because Roberts’ ruling makes NO sense to me. I guess the only good thing is more people are raging angry.
The conventional wisdom on this is that Roberts sided with the liberals primarily because he was afraid of the criticism that would come down on the court if he didn’t. If true, that makes him one of the most spineless pussbags ever to wear a robe.
Exactly. Roberts should have voted with Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy and trashed the entire ObamaCare law! I'm sick of hearing all of this "Roberts is a genius" stuff. Roberts' ruling is a disgrace.
“Can we all play this game?
Actually, the Cubs won the ‘69 World Series.
Actually, investors with Madoff did quite well.
Actually, Joe Biden is a decisive thinker.
Actually, the Titanic was an engineerg masterpiece..... “
______________________________________________
I can’t get html on this French keyboard-sorry for the quotes and no italics. But I’d like to play. How’s this:
“Actually, Bernie Ebbers protected my husband’s MCI/Worldcom 401K way back when....”
What a depressing day. I really didn’t think this was coming. I hope we can make lemonade with lemons, but like so many, I’m pretty discouraged.
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.