The fury of the right that will now come against the Court will be far worse than anything the left could have brought.
translation = f**k the constitution
There’s nothing to explain, Justice Roberts.
You’re an *sshole and you’ve weakened the constitution at a time when it’s in critical condition and weakened the nation at a time when it, too, is in critical condition.
Let’s leave it at that.
No apology is necessary and no apology will suffice.
The name by wich we refer to this decision which will forever live in infamy must be “Roberts vs. The Constitution.”
Roberts wanted a legacy. Let’s give him one.
Nothing John Roberts did or could do; will save the Supreme Court from the determined machinations of the Left. Worse; an 'Imperial Presidency'; has walked; and scored and with that; John Roberts has aided and abetted Marxist Mind/Rule; in our Government.
There is no 'saving the Court'; when America's Freedom is at stake - and ultimately loses - by an essentially; 'illigitimate' vote.
Yes, yes; Roberts included an inflatable life raft. America deserved more, however; but was denied.
Would it be impolite to suggest that Justice Roberts needs to be waterboarded to find out why he really made the decision he did...
C-Span has run an informative program from the CATO institute, several times since the decision. I’m sure it’s in their archives now and probably won’t run again.
One of the presenters said something that I’ve said, in asking questions about the meaning of the ruling. He’s the only one I’ve heard put it into the exact words I was pondering, and suggesting, in my question.
He said the ruling did not uphold Obamacare. He said the Court ruled it unconstitutional for purposes of the suit brought by the 26 states, but not struck down because it could survive under a different scheme than the suit argued, namely the tax.
However, I remember Rush saying that RBG and the other libs were angry that Roberts even mentioned the tax justification, because she and they wanted it upheld under the original suit basis, the Commerce Clause. He mentioned that she dissented from Robert’s construct about the tax power.
I have asked repeatedly, what did a majority of the Court agree to. What did five justices actually put on paper that was essentially the same so that it could be seen as a majority ruling, that will live on to establish precedent on the taxing power.
???
Even THIS informative program didn’t answer that question that haunts me.
I still don’t know. I know for certain the law was not struck down, only because Roberts abandoned the four who voted to strike it down, and joined the libs in saving it, but according to Rush in the aftermath, Roberts was using the tax excuse, not the other justices.
IF, and I say IF because I still don’t know, five agreed to save it but five did not agree it was under taxing authority, then I do not see how one man, or at least less than five, can say it was a tax and not only thereby save it but also establish a precedent that the feds can tax anything you don’t do that they don’t like.
Again, ???
The CATO institute program had experts that have labored long over studying these issues and are super analysts. They went on to give great hope that this law has holes through it like a sieve, and will have great difficulty standing because it simply does not work.
They said the ruling that allows the states to refuse Medicaid expansion without being punished as the feds want to punish them, is a big probem for the law and will help it fall.
They also said the way the law is written, and what it leaves out, allows the states to not set up state exchanges and does not provide the feds, who it says can step in and set up exchanges, the actual wherewithal to do it.
And you can’t get a subsidy from a federal exchange, according to the law itself. So if you qualify for a subsidy under the mandate, you still can’t get one if your state refuses to set up an exchange.
They went on to say that the insurance industry would be literally wiped out, ruined forever, as well as employer provided coverage, if the law as written is attempted to be implemented, whether states refuse or not.
To which I say, that was the most likely reason for this law. To destroy the private insurance industry and employer provided coverage, so there would be nothing left but the federal government to handle health insurance.
So much for Obama’s lie that if you like the health insurance you have now, you can keep it.
Grounds for impeachment, in my book, that. If there were any justice in this world.
The CATO people have read every word of the 2700 pages. They are amazing.
Check out the C-Span archive if you want the weeds on the ACA itself, and the ruling.
As for Roberts, he is judged by history and the American people by the standard set with the four....Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy....who willingly voted to kill this law while Roberts BLINKED.
If they could stand up to the pressure, and Roberts couldn’t, there you have it.
He doesn’t belong there.
But unfortunately he IS there.
A simply shallow man.
Next prez will have the pleasure of appointing maybe 2 or three supremmes. Let’s hope they can stomp down the whining rats and get the job done! “Roberts” has consequences too!
Go along to get along. That’s the stuff great men (wimps) are made of and Mr. Roberts keeps his neighborhood happy by doing so.
We all now live in “happy land” and will eventually whistle happy tunes as we load up in the box-cars that take us to the federal “reservations” for conservatives and protector of the Constitution we once had.
What we now have is socialized medicine. The working will essentially pau for the non-working. Redistrabution, plain and simple. Thank you Justice Roberts!
In the early 90s, the people voted this down staunchly. In 1994, the democrats lost big because they tried to pass this. In 2010, they lost again because 2/3rds of the electorate did not want it. Because this is a republic, it was shoved down our throats. Then, when he had the chance to stop it cold, Justice Roberts voted for it and his legacy. November will tell how he, Obama, Reid and Pelosi are remembered. I hope they take a terrible trouncing!
It should incite you to learn the history of how we arrived where we are today.
Start here:
http://www.tapesite.com
Video 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAVIh7MipX8&feature=related
Video 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJZ5_SqZhG8&feature=related
Video 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlxqDUdf5Io&feature=related
Video 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jNEByNOubI&feature=related
Video 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTTan1GAx_Q&feature=related
Video 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Rtfhto81rU&feature=related
Video 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wKqFy9atnXM&feature=related
I disagree with the author’s contention that a convention of the states would be an “unworkable” way to consider Amendments.
Article V gives us TWO ways to Amend the Constitution. And if Congress won’t do what we demand, then the states have to step up and do the job. With half the states filing suit against the Obummercare mess, aren’t we already half the distance to a state convention?
Now, before everybody starts howling about the incredible damage that could be done to the Constitution by a states’ convention, please remember that any proposed Amendments MUST be ratified by three-fourths of the several States, same as if Congress approved the Amendment.
No, the calling of a convention would NOT erase the existing Constitution. (The Confederation was not erased when the Constitution was proposed, hence the Federalist Papers to sell the new system.) And no, I do NOT think 3/4ths of the states want the Second Amendment deleted, though it might be close. Each state would choose its delegates to the convention, so I do not believe it would become a Liberal circus full of howling Progressives. We would certainly have a say in the choice of delegates.
We could declare, right from the outset, that the purpose of the convention is to debate and decide “X” Amendment and nothing else. We could declare the convention immediately adjourned if any other business is taken up or Amendments proposed, should we so desire.
Term limits, a state override provision for Supreme Court decisions, replace the word “regulate” with “promote” in the Commerce Clause, clarify the 14th to eliminate anchor babies, re-empower the states by repealing the 17th ... the list of possible Amendments is long.
With all the damage done to Constitution in our lifetimes, and the egegious damage done recently, how could the states do worse?
Personally, I believe that John Roberts is the Benedict Arnold of todays liberal right wing rino judges and really has hurt a lot of Americans with his unjust decision; explaining it away does nothing to repeal it and the man is pond scum at best.