Posted on 06/29/2012 10:23:10 AM PDT by Sopater
While its true that I’m a lawyer, I read his opinion yesterday and thought just about any literate person would see the obvious contradictions and logical failures in this opinion.
I have read many Roberts opinions and hundreds more court opinions.
There is no conclusion for me other than that he changed his mind likely less than a week before the decision.
The language of the dissent (which reads like majority) combined with his extraordinarily unsound reasoning confirm to me that something or someone significantly intervened to save this law.
We will likely never know what it was, but I’ll never be convinced that he voted at conference to uphold the law.
Hopefully Scalia or Thomas will one day blow the whistle, but I doubt even they know what happened.
Furthermore I suspect that Roberts actually wrote the dissent since there is a joint dissent with no author mentioned. Perhaps the 4 conservatives just left the former majority opinion in place so that it would haunt Roberts forever.
It has to be the most ridiculous line of legal reasoning ever concocted. He is a smart man, he probably laughed his head off writing it, but he wrote it anyway.
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/nancy-pelosi-health-care-law-supreme-court-obamacare.php
El Dictator Obozo to John the traitor, "Hey Justice John, Nancy is really great in bed isn't she, and her pictures of you in bed with her are ready to go on You Tube if you don't vote for us!"
A question for all of us: "When and how did Pelosi know that her side would win?"
So according to this logic if the Fed government put a $100K “tax” on abortions would it be fine because it’s not a “penalty” but a “tax”?
The only trouble I have with Roberts is that he’s naive.
He made a ruling based on a real obligation to uphold the constitution. He was technically correct in ruling the law constitutional. He probably changed his mind at the last minute because of a crisis of conscience.
But what he doesn’t appreciate is that the other side will not do the same for conservatives. Democrats will say “thanks”, then go back to ignoring the constitution and screwing us.
This is exactly how the mob works. They come to you and say, if you don’t pay us, your business will burn down. It’s not a penalty for not paying us, it’s just life. The IRS has always worked on Mob Rule, but this has gone to far. This is extortion.
Scalia's dissent makes exactly the same argument, only in reverse: 'Whether the “penalty” [that was the subject of United States v. Sotelo] was a “tax” within the meaning of the Bankruptcy Code had absolutely no bearing on whether it escaped the constitutional limitations on penalties.'
And WHY haven't the Republicans challenged this in court? Couldn't Romney just declare 'waiver for all' if 0bama's precedence for such waivers is legal?
roberts is not and never was qualified... he lied his way into the position.
LLS
Roberts isn’t worthy to shine Scalia’s shoes.
It’s a tax that is paid to insurance companies?
The SCOTUS just set a precedent that we pay our taxes not to the IRS but to health insurance companies.
So, the next time we file our 1040s we’re supposed to pay our tax to a health insurance company instead of to the IRS according to Roberts.
roberts is worthy of a trial for treason.
LLS
That is a great point!
I should have already thought of that. We see tax credit shenanigans all the time, but those originate in the Congress.
Now POTUS is allowed to unilaterally grant tax waivers?
Roberts is going to regret this opinion sooner rather than later IMHO.
He will wince at the very thought of it.
I think the logic (or lack) would say the government could put a "tax" on NOT having an abortion, just as it put a "tax" on NOT having health insurance.
Everyone who ever voted Democrat from time immemorial is to blame.
Americans may not have what they always wanted, but they got what they deserve!
Roberts is a gutless POS and an idiot who voted to uphold so that people wouldn’t think poorly of the court. He can FOAD.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I think we’ve now entered the realm of quantum law. The fee is both a penalty and a tax like light is both a wave and a particle. I assume we can pay it with printer paper which is both printer paper and currency.
I said pretty much the same thing today. We now have a legal system where things can be both true and false until they are observed... but the act of observing it doesn't fix the state, like it would with ordinary quantum theory, but would instead revert to the quantum state when not observed. Thus it can be "not a tax" for passing the Congress, and "yep, it's a tax" for purposes of the USSC. And in fact we can extend this to general law: tax evaision is not illegal when Rangle does it, but is when you or I do it; illegal immigrants aren't breaking the law, but you or I expressing displeasure with out government overlords rulers divinely appointed overseers is; expressing disapproval toward homosexual conduct is illegal, but violently beating those disproving of it is not.
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.