Posted on 07/09/2012 6:32:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
The bill was clearly presented as NOT being a tax. If it was a tax bill, it would have had ZERO chance of passing.
I understand his opinion that it IS a tax. However, Roberts job was then to say: “As written (not a tax), this bill is unconstitutional. However, Congress, you may amend the bill and call it a tax. And if you do, it is our opinion that it will be Constitutional.”
Then it would have gone back to Congress and probably failed. This is how our system of checks and balances is supposed to work.
However, he changed the act, and called it something that it clearly wasn’t intended to be. The fact is that he used his postiion as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to re-write legislation affecting a sixth of our economy.
His reasons don’t matter; Roberts blatantly decided to NOT do what he swore on the bible to do.
And for that, he should be impeached.
"The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce.
Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do.
Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do.
The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”
Just a continutation of endless republican stupidity...
Tell me which one of your third party, whichever it is and your third party candidate whoever that is has won elections and is part of Congress?
Once they do then come back to me
Just a continutation of endless republican stupidity...
Tell me which one of your third party, whichever it is and your third party candidate whoever that is has won elections and is part of Congress?
Once they do then come back to me
yipee.
I DON’T HAVE A THIRD PARTY, KASLIN!
You keep asking me that OVER AND OVER, but apparently you don’t ever read my answer.
I’m a republican! Do you understand that? And it is from inside this worthless party that I tell you REPUBLICANS PLAY TO LOSE! NOTHING COULD BE MORE OBVIOUS.
WE LOST OUR FREEDOM, in part, DUE TO A STINKING REPUBLICAN!
I would yell at you to wake up, but it doesn’t matter a hill of beans if you do or not, BECAUSE WE ALREADY LOST.
Tell that to someone who will buy that. I sure don't
I’m a republican! Do you understand that? And it is from inside this worthless party that I tell you REPUBLICANS PLAY TO LOSE! NOTHING COULD BE MORE OBVIOUS.
I find it interesting that you claim to be a republican, but in the same breath you say you REPUBLICANS. What is that supposed to mean?
And finally
WE LOST OUR FREEDOM, in part, DUE TO A STINKING REPUBLICAN!
My suggestion to you is: Go see a shrink that can help get over your Bush derangement syndrome. You sure can use his help
I can tell you don’t buy it as you continue to ask me what my third party is despite my telling you repeatedly that I don’t have one.
Thanks for thinking I’m I liar just the same though...
When I refer to myself as a republican, that is a singular term, and I use the singluar referring to myself as a singular person. When I say republicans, I am speaking of republicans in general, including the GOP establisment, considering that there is obviously more than one person in that group of people I’m referring to, I use the plural form of the “republican”.
Shouldn’t be too hard to figure out, I mean, for someone that isn’t a republican in utter denial of reality that is...
A typical Roberts Republican position.
You don't. So stop projecting.
Roberts decision has done a couple of things.
1. All the fence sitters and indecisive voters are damn mad. I'M ONE OF THEM. Now it's not who the POTUS candidate is, it's who do we vote in to get rid of this crap.
2. His calling a tax a tax has given the right a hammer for November at EVERY level from state offices to national.
Ask your congresscritter if he would have voted for all the tax increases on the middle class had he known about them. If he says, yes, he's done. If he says no, you hold his damn feet to the fire to repeal it.
What I do is read what the decision was, not shoot from the lip.
Evidently, you do one, and not the other.
Will it help get rid of 0bama? Maybe a little, but there is no good way to measure its impact in that direction.
Accepting the ruling without continued protest is a RINO way of dealing with it. RINOs have put a number of questionable Justices on the Court, Roberts being the latest example. Supporting Roberts for his last two rulings pretty much makes one a RINO supporter. Hence Roberts Republican = RINO.
No projection here.
First friend, I did not ever say or state that I supported the Roberts decision. I don’t. But.......the Roberts vote freezes all until after the election, including the hiring of folks for new jobs. The Obama depression goes on unabated until Obama goes down to defeat in November, which he will.
Plus, I just wanted to let know that I am quite capable of voting correctly. At 72 years young, I probably have voted more times then you ever have, since I have not missed a vote in either primaries or elections since I started voting in 1958!!!
Can't help you there. Maybe remedial reading would work.
Don't like what I say? Move on.
You said in post #7 that you were happy that Roberts voted the way he did, but you say you do not support the decision? Right.
You then went on to say:
It is amazing to me that the four liberal “dirt bags” on the court fell hook, line and sinker for the Roberts ploy!!!
So did Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Kennedy. Good grief, man. He gave the Left what they desperately wanted. He's scum.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Winston Churchill famously pointed out this inescapable truth: "If you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."
The only peaceful way to peace is through knowledge. None less than the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court has risked his entire career to show Americans the way to a peaceful resolution of this terrible problem.
The least we can do is study his ACTUAL teaching:
The 2010 election was a response to 0bamaDoesn'tCare and if part of that stinkin' "law" was unconstitutional, it all was (no severability provision - by design).
Roberts could have easily sent the whole works back to the peeps reps (Congress) for rework (Death by a thousand cuts) and held his head high as it was still up to Congress to legislate (the "new" will of the people). But NO, he had to help Zer0, Reid and Pelosi save their "legacy" which the peeps didn't even want at the time.
Roberts is a failure in following the Constitution, a failure at making a political decisions based on the will of the people or the will of Congress, and a failure at trying to become a cross between Solomon and John Marshall.
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.