Roberts Rules

"Roberts rules. “betray the constitution to keep your homo past in the closet”."

Roberts is a QUEER???
That would explain the "about face".

Yes, but King Solomon offered to split the baby in order to find out which claimant to be his mother valued the baby's life. In contrast, Roberts pulled out his abortionist's scalpel and split the baby himself.

Exactly right. *Chief* "Justice" Roberts is the high priest of the Obamanation of desolation who performed the profaning sacrifice in the inner sanctuary (the USSC, where the Supreme Law is supposed to be kept and guarded).

June 28, 2012 was the day the Constitution became the victim of a post-birth abortion. Obamacare = covenant with death = America's DNR directive, with Pelosi and Wasserman-Shultz competing for the role of Nurse Ratched.

If only this pro-death idolatry decision-worship were merely a modern equivalent of The Emperor's New Clothes...

I keep hearing how ‘brilliant Robert’s is” in making his decision because suppsoedly, he slammed the door shut on the left in terms of using obamacare on the baqsis of the ‘commerce clause’ and that Roberts ‘forced’ the ocoma administration to ‘admit obummercare is a tax’ but the REALITY is that Roberts opened a gaping hole for the left to drive straight through unimpeeded in the future- Sure, The right can ‘repeal obummercare’ however, when the left regains the office and senate, they will simply just reinstate obummercare because Roberts gave them free reign to simply reinstate an UNCONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATION TO OUR FREEDOMS!!!

There was NOTHING ‘Brilliant’ About this assault on our constitutional rights- NOTHING! Roberts was nominated to make judgements and uphold the rule of law, and he refused to do so and isntead LEGISLATED from the BENCH- compeltely ignorign the FACT that forcing someoen to pay a penalty for NOT buying something is a compelte VIOLATION to our constitutional rights!!!

Never before in our history has our government forced it’s citizens to purchase a product or service simpyl becasue we are alive- NEVER!- Justice (and I use that term in this case VERY loosly)Roberts legislated fro mthe bench allowing our government to FORCE citizens to purchase somethign OR pay a penalty-

Takign this to the extreme to prove the poin t- There is supposed to be NOTHING that we absolutely have to do- We don’t even have to pay taxes IF we choose not to- We could kill ourselves in order to deny the government their ‘collection powers’, or we could comkpletely go off the grid- leave our homes, live off the land, and never simply keep on the move and never pay taxes again- We DO have thsi CHOICE if we so choose-

Now, admitedly, this is the extreme- but the point is that IF we so CHOOSE to pay taxes, then WE have made that choice- NOT the government- Now however, We no longer have the choice- EVEN IF we choose to go off grid and live in the wild- We will be concidered ‘fugitives from justice’ because we refuse to purchase obummercare because ‘by law’ the government will now be obligated to pursue said ‘offgrid’ individual for ‘non-payment’ of obummercare

And we now have ‘justice’ roberts to ‘thank’ for giving our goverment the very powers that socialist governments have, and the very powers that england had- the very government that we ESCAPED FROM way back when when they became too pwoerful and invasive and intrusive into our private lives- Now, we’re right back where we started- Heck- we’re even seeing states determining whether or not a business can conduct their business i nthe state according to their religious beleifs- IF the business doesn’t subscribbe to the state’s ‘religion’ of homosexuality- then by golly, that business can notr practice i n the state now apparently-

Obummercare ALSO violates the seperation of church and state inthat it will now FORCE emplyers, and organizatiosn to provide abortions and birth control etc via government sanctioned healthcare- Before roberts opened that door- employers were free to choose their own healthcare- and could choose healthcare that refused to cover such abominations- now however, they will no longer have that choice, and will infact have to pay into government mandadted HC which supports such assaults o nthe innocent-

No- Roberts decision was NOT Brilliant- it was judicial malpractice because roberts REFUSED to fully and objectively uphold our constitution, and he gave our governmetn unfettered ability to trample on our constitutional rights

Vet- I havew read thbose similar arguments, and it is clear that these folks are glossing over the FACT that while the ‘interstate commerce clause’ argument hasw beren shut down by roberts (tyhankfully) roberts opened an even bigger gaping hole for the left to drive their constitution destroying tanks through

Will said “If the mandate had been upheld under the Commerce Clause, the court would have decisively construed this clause so permissively as to give Congress an essentially unlimited police power”

True- but now they have an EVEN BIGGER loophole to operate their intrusive powers under- roberts gave them the ability to simply reenact obummercare whenever the left regains power in the government- Had roberts upheld ALL the constitution- He would have shut down the commerce clause argument once and for all AND ALSO made sure that the rule was deemed UNCONSTUTIONAL (not yelling- just stressign key poitns)

Roberts just gave ouyr government the ‘right’ to dictate to us what is ‘healthy and prudent for us’ and he gave them the ‘right’ to fine us IF we choose NOT to participate in the government’s mandates- Thuis IS a VERY slippery slope- and it has opened up the door for our government to declare a mandate for all of us to eat brocolli because science shows thaT brocolli prevents certain cancers, AND the government can now further ‘justify’ their arguments for the intrusive mandates by claimign that IF we choose NOT to eat brocolli, then we are putting undue financial burderns o nthe public because we ‘MIGHT’ end up i nthe hospital for long term cancer care, and so we ‘Must be fiend’ for refusing to eat said brocoli

I know this sounds rediculous- and soem might say “Oh, the government would never be so bold as to enact such mandates” Well it already has enacted such a mandate with the obummercare, and htis is just the beginning, because now roberts has opened up a HUGE avenue for the government to ‘collect fines’ through penalties on those who ‘choose not to participate’ in government mandated edicts and services

Soime say “Well roberts ‘forced the left to admit obummercare is a tax’” Yeah? Since when did the left ever run away from taxing citizens? the left isn’t afraid of this beign called a tax- hell- they love taxes- roberts just gave them a HUGE gift and opened up doors for taxation that were prebviously closed to them thanks to our constitution (which is now beign eroded aqway bit by bit)

There is now a 3.8% tax on ‘the rich’ when they sell a house and ‘gain over $500,000 off the sale- this isn’;t getting much coiverage- but our government is apaprently now ‘taxing’/fining people for just being rich- and now they are goign to be going after everyoen with further taxes simply for breathing and existing-

Our Supreme court MUST uphold our constitution- it MUST stop this unprecedented expansion and intrusion of and by our government into our lives-

George will never addressed the FACT that now- thanks to roberts- the left has the power to tax us for ANYTHING they want and to do so under the guise that it is ‘in everyone’
s best itnerest’ that these new taxes be enacted/mandated

As I said before our ONLY hope is to have thsi brought BACK BEFORE the Supreme court, and have the word ‘taxes’ precisely defined and also to define just how far our government can go in taxing the citizens when these taxes turn out to be FINES for simply being alive

Before roberts slit hte throat of america, the ONLY thing we as citizens HAD TO DO was die- that’s it- that was he ONLY mandatory thing we HAD TO DO- Now however- WE MUST buy our government’s health care OR pay a FINE for choosing NOT to purchase goernment run healthcare or else we will be deemed criminals for nionpayment (either of the obummercare, or of the fine) IF someone doesn’t pay the IRS- they are deemed criminals- Now- IF someone doesn’t pay the thugs in government- they are deemed crinminals

One more point (sorry htis is so long-) The Mafia used to walk up and down the streets- stopping in every store and business and tell them “Buy our insurance OR ELSE!!!” Guess what? It was ILLEGAL for them to do that- why? Because you could NOT FORCE ANYONE to buy
ANYTHING they didn’t want to buy before- But now our government has taken over the position that that hte mafia once held, but hte only difference is that they got roberts to tell them it was now legal for them, our government, to FORCE peopel to buy the insurance OR ELSE!!!”

Geoge will never even addressed any of this in his article- Look up Mark Levine’s article or podcast or whatever o nthe ruling- He makes soem very valid poionts abotu htese subjects I’ve been discussing (I haven’t actually heard or read his commentary on it yet- but have heard snippets)

Here’s a link to the Mwegan Kelly interview with levine (Who incidently is a constitutional attourney- George will is not)- http://www.therightscoop.com/mark-levin-talks-to-megyn-kelly-about-roberts-decision/

He rightly points out that the puropose of taxes is NOT sim ply to raise revenue- the government’s point of taxes is to coerce citizens and to punish people for success (just as obummer is now attackign people simply for beign rich- and roberts just handed the left a HUGE gift to to just that (as expalined in my previosu post)

I don’t know2 if this following link is more detailed, IO would htink it would be- but here’s his podcast on the issue http://marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=2484259&spid=32364

Like levine states- peopel like george will and others who are declaring roberts decision a ‘victory for the right’ are desperately tryign to as he puts it “Prop up this silver lining argument but hte fact is that there is no silver lining’ because the constitution has just had a huge hole blasted through it thanks to roberts- ansd hten goes on to explain how- (I para[phrased- so the quote isn’t exact)

The simple fact is that roberts caved in to media and presidential pressure- he went so far as tro flip his vote in order that the court not be ‘perceived as biased’- it was NOT roberts right to rule based on what hte country might ‘percieve’- it was his DUTY to rule objectively- which he had doen PREVIOUS to his flipping- but his flipping proved he legislated fro mthe bench- deciding for himself, that it was morei mportant to be seen as ‘unbiased’ the4n to decide the case based o nthe constitution- he made a BIASED descision about what the ‘public might think ie: What libberals will claim) should he decide the3 case based o nthe constitution-

Unless I’m grosley mistaken about something in htis case that I am unaware of, it is my beleif that roberts engaged in judicial malpractice becasue he REFUSED to concider the case without bias- IF he can’t see how declaring the governmetn has the right to FORCE peopel to buy somethign agaiosnt hteir will violates our constitutional rights, then in my opinion, he has NO RIGHT to sit o nthe bench- nor do 3/4 of the judges there- they take AN OATH to uphold the consitution, but these judges have doen nothign but legislate fro mthe bench and cut our consitution to shreds over hte years-

I know this sounds rediculous- and soem might say “Oh, the government would never be so bold as to enact such mandates” Well it already has enacted such a mandate with the obummercare, and htis is just the beginning, because now roberts has opened up a HUGE avenue for the government to ‘collect fines’ through penalties on those who ‘choose not to participate’ in government mandated edicts and services

Cott, you're right about this issue being horrendous; but I think that Roberts is telling Americans that ... "Congress, not the court, has the power to make law. You get what you vote for. And ... Brother, you asked for it."

In other words, Roberts is essentially telling us that an election is how bad law gets fixed.

[[In other words, Roberts is essentially telling us that an election is how bad law gets fixed.]]

My point is that the bad law isn’t goign to get fixed- the gop might repeal the law, but roberts has made it possible for the left to simply reinstate the unconsitutional law- and make no mistake, it IS an unconstitutional law, when they regain power- that’s not a fix, but a temporary bandaid- our supreme court had a duty to do, a duty to define how far into our lives the government was allowed to tintrude, and it failed to uphold OUR consitutional rights and granted the governmet unfettered and unprecedented power to control what we purchase- and that is exactly what the mafia did to business owners- if it was illegal for the mafia to do that, then why is it now legal fopr our government to do the exacty same thing? This isn’t a voter issue- this is a cosntituional issue that needed to be decided by our supreme court- and it needed to be decided objectively- NOT based o nwhether the court would be perceived by the left to be biased if it ruled agaisnt the admin istration

I beleive Roberts is flat out wrong abotu htis being an issue that needs to be decided by the voting public- our supreme court has aq duty to decide objectively what our constituion allows or dissallows, we the people do not have that duty

Lety’sa suppose a GOP thinks it’s illegal to steal a purse, but a liberal thinks it’s alright (based o nthe ‘needs of the criminal who ‘may be hungry at hte time of theft)- and it makes it’s way to the supreme copurt- Our SC has a duty to rule based on the constitution and how the constitution is set up to protect individual rights- Just because the left feels sorry for the criminal who ‘might be’ hungry at hte tiem of theft, our constitution is suppsoed to protect us, the majority, agaisnt being robbed- however- roberts has now given the goernemtn the right to rob us based on the premise of what ‘might happen’ if we don’t have insurancve-

I’m too tired right now to make fuirther arguments- but My beleif is that roberts is way off o nthis being aN issue that voters should decide- roberts had a responsibilty to determien how far our government can go toward invading our lives, and forcing us to buy their produict- and he failed- and now he’s tryign to paqwn it off o nthe voters? Wow! Just wow!

What Roberts is telling us is that he is a typical Harvard Statist, who does not believe in God given rights of man, inalienable rights of man.

Roberts believes that rights come from the state, not God, therefore, whatever the state deems appropriate is what happens. We have a big problem with Roberts. He’s as liberal as Ginsburg.

it needed to be decided objectively

The way I see it is that Robert's avoided making a subjective decision; to wit: that the Supreme court could revoke, repeal, or cancel a legally (Constitutionally) passed law, a law that included a "tax."

Might I suggest you look up the word "mandate." You'll find there that the Supreme court's decision is a mandate order (aka: "You fix it") to the American people.

I fully asgree with that Eva- Roberts has ignored the fact that obummercare is constitutionally illegal, and has infact given the left a huge green light to regulate and coerce the citizens to comply with anythign they can dream up in order to create new ‘taxes- only now, it has becoem mandatory- the peopel will no longer be able to abstain if they so choose to

[[Roberts believes that rights come from the state, not God,]]

Precisely- however- God warned thsoe who take positions as judges that they had better judge objectively and impartially, or else- but nowadays, not many judges take this very serious edict and responsibility from God seriously at all- they infact break their sworn oaths before God and coutnry- and it’;s no wonder that God is removign His blessings fro mthis country-

[[You’ll find there that the Supreme court’s decision is a mandate order (aka: “You fix it”) to the American people.]]

It’s NOT up to the amerrican people to fix soemthign that should have decided by our supreme courts- it’s the supreme courts job to protect american citizens from an aggressive government- we are suppsoed to have three branches that are suppsoed to regulate each other/equalize or balance out- but when that fails, then it goes to hte highest court i nthe land as the final say- but isntead robertsw is throwing it back at hte people? The peopel have NO power to make obummercare illegal due to it beign a violation of the constitution- only the supreme court had that power- and roberts decided not to do what he’s paid to do- and worse yet, now he’s blaming US for this?

When someone goes o ntrial for a crime (and yes, violating hte constitution is suppsed to be a crime) it is never right for a judge to simply throw the case out and tell the people to fix the problem- it’s the judge’s sworn duty to judge the case accordign to hte law

[[The way I see it is that Robert’s avoided making a subjective decision]]

How so? Never before has our government been able ot tax siomeoen simply for existing- never before has our govenrment been able to force peopel to buy somethign agaisnt hteir will or facve a penalty if they don’t- but it was roberts subjective opinion that our government has the right to determine what’s best for the citizens and to fine/tax them if said citizens don’t comply- As i mentioned, the mafia walked up and down a street- banging on doors and forcing peopel to buy insurance fro mthem- this was illegal- and for good reason- it’s NEVER right to force anyoen to do anything agaisnt their will- but now our governemnt has been given the green light to do just that by roberts, who throws the bomb and then runs away to avoid the consequences by throwing the issue back on the people who are powerless to make a ruling making it illegal for our government to coerce citzens agaisnt hteir will-

Mandate: “An authoritative command or instruction” The supreme court hasn’t given us hte peopel a ‘mandate to undo’ obummercare- we do not have the power to legally undo it unless we can read the minds and hearts of politicians that we elect- but hte problem is that since the SC refused to make the ruling that coerced ‘taxes’/fines are unconstitutional, the left will simply reinstate the unconstitutional obummercare if and when they regain office and power- meanign that we may be free from an unconstitutional healthcare mandate IF we get lucky and elect just the right people who won’t later turn- but if we’re not lucky, we’re stuck with an unconstitutional healthcare- so what it boils down to is luck? Especially when it was the courts DUTY to determien IF it was legal for our government to coerce citizens via a FINE if we don’t buy governemnt insurance?

Our government- both national government and state governments have the right to require things like insurance IF we so choose to drive, or operate machinery etc etc etc- governments do NOT however have the right to mandate that we participate weven if we so choose not to- IF I choose NOT to drive a car- my government can NOT force me to buy car insurance- or at least it never could before roberts gave them the power to force me to shoudl htey choose to- the governtment now has the ‘right’— given to it by the supreme court— to force me to buy somethign against my will

[[You’ll find there that the Supreme court’s decision is a mandate order (aka: “You fix it”) to the American people.]]

so in otherwords, the supreme court, knowing that we can’t determien somethign illegal and unconstitutional, has shirked their duty and thrown this bacvk in our faces? Swell- they apparently are now being paid big bucks to shirk their duties and dump the problems on the backs of the people who are powerless to legally rule somethign unconstitutional as it should have been-

Yes government has the right to tax us- BUT, governem,nt does NOT have the right to coerce us through penalty for not buying something if we so choose not to- and fuirthermore- we once had a supreme court that we coudl go to when we saw government usurping hteir power and wielding hteir power agaisnt the citizens- now we don’t- we no logner have that last bastion of refuge agaisnt a tyranical government thanks to roberts who refused to uphold the constitution !

As levien is correctly pointing out- sure, we can ‘fix obummercare’ by voting out htose who voted it in (provided there are neouygh peopel who still value our constitution in this country to vote to do so- but how are we goign to fix the constitution that was broken by roberts when he allowed our governemnt to conduct a direct assajult o nthe american peopel for simply existing- the same way our pres is goign after the rich to penalize them simpy,l for beign rich?

Roberts told the country that while congress or a president can’t regulate incativity- they could tax it- but what levine didn’t mention is that the governmet is not simply taxing inactivity, they are fininf and penalizing peopel for inactivity- Last I looked, it was illegal to blackmail someone- yet that is exactly what our govenrment is now allowed to do “You will either buy insurance from us, or we will penalize you until you do”- and last I checked, it was illegal to threaten someone- and that is exactly what our government is doing- they are threatening us with arrest aNd or fien if we choose not to buy insurance and refusign to pay hte fine for not buying it

The governmet tried desperately to get obummercare through by calling it a penalty isntead of a tax- roberts knew that the government could not impose a penalty on someoen for inactivity- so he ‘fixed’ it so that obummercare could now be called ‘legal’ by calling it a tax and declarign that governemnt has the right to tax- which we all knew it does have the right to do (for activity- but NOT for inactivity)- but the plain truth of the matter is that this is STILL a penalty and NOT a tax- it’s a coercive penalty- meant to bully people into purchasing somethign agaisnt hteir will

Our governemnt has the right to impose activity taxes and penalties if those those taxes are not paid- however, our government does NOT have the right constitutionally, to impose inactivty taxes or rather penalties on us- in other words, If I so choose NOT to purchase sunblock for htose tiems when I’m out doors, that up until the roberts decision, was my right to do- howerver, now that roberts has butchered the constitution, our governet does have the right to penalize us and try to coerce us to purchase somethign we don’t want- under the guise of it beign finacially ‘good for everyoen i nthe logn run because soemthign ‘might happen’ unless everyone is forced to purchase’ said products

with a last minute- subjective wave of the magic wand, roberts singlehandedly changed the ‘penalty provision’ to a ‘tax provision’ label so that obummercare could ‘be legal’- i nthe many days of arguments o nthe case, the tax issue was never brought up- roberts, at the last minute, decided on his own, that obummercare could stand because he subjectively thought he could could change the wording to now include tax isntead of penalty- That is akin to me or csomeone else declaring that sky diving is no logner to be called sky diving, but rather it is now to be called underwater scuba diving- simply because we say so- or that prostitution is to no longer be called prostitution (because prostitution is illegal in most states), but is to now be called counselling in order that the prostitutes may avoid goign to jail for practicing hteir illegal profession- but, just because we change the word, doesn’t mean that the true meaning and results of an action is also changed- however, that is preciselty what roberts did- he changed the word- willy nilly- at whim- just so that the pres and the left can avoid being held accoutnable for mandating somethign that is both illegal and unconstitutional

Roberts dfeclared that obummercare is not a tax in order to prevent a challenge to obummercare under the anti injunction act, but then turns aroudn and declares that it is a tax in order that obummercare can be deemed legal- He actually said that the individual mandate is not a tax for purposes of the anti injunction act because congress didn’t call it a tax, but that it really is a tax for the purposes of the individual mandate

And this is our supreme court judge? Wow- Just wow!

This is important, roberts said “Every reasonable construction must be resorted to in order to save a statute from unconsitutionality” (Even if a statute is unconsitutional apprently) and he even goes on to decalre that his reading is ‘not the most natural interpretation’ or ‘even the msopt straight forward interpretation of the statute’, yet he bases his decision entirely on this jumbled thought process and explanation that even he admits is a little ‘off’?

This the absurd reasoning by roberts- ‘even if congress did not mean or know that the individual mandate was a tax, the court must treat it as a tax if that is the opnly way that the law can be foudn to be consitutional’?

Really? Really Roberts?

Even after the court just got doen saying the mandate was NOT a tax, for the purposes of the anti injunction act, You now declare that it really is a tax just so that the court can save obummercare and impose the penalty for inaction?

Oh, it gets even more bizarre- roberts then goes on to say ‘it is of course true that the act describes the payment as a PENALTY, and NOT A TAX, but while the label is fatal to the application in the case of the anti injunction act, it does not determien whether the payment may be viewed as an excersize of congress’ taxing power’

as levien said, roberts took it upon himself to rewrite =the statute to make it somethign it was NOT in order to save it from defeat becasue that was the ONLY way he could determien that the statute coudl be viewed as constitutional in order to save it becasue roberts felt it is the supreme courts duty to save any statute put forth by any means necessary? Even apparently, igf that means changing words to mean somethign it doesn’t actually mean-

And it gets even better- our governemnt is now goign to use coersion to get the states to ‘accept’ governemt run health care by threatenign to withhold federal funding if the states do not require individuals to purchase the healthcare or if the states don’t dramatically icnrease medicare payments

And as levien points out- all those peopel crowing aqbotu how this was a ‘huge victory for the riught becasue roberts ‘denied the healthcare law from beign enacted udner the commerce clause’ are simply ignoring hte FACT that it would have been doen ANYWAYS had roberts decided along with the other s that the whole law was unconstitutional and left it at that- but nope- he had to step in and save obummercare above and beyond the commerce clause by singlehandedly changing hte word to now mean tax when INFACT it is STILL a penalty!

The real problem here is- for all those saying that all we have to do is vote out democrats in order to repeal the law- is that now the damage is done and it’;s irreversible be3cause it sets a precedence

I knowe UI’ve written a lot- but this is an important legal issue-

Our only hope is that because there is no enforecement mechanism (in otherwords, because the government is suppsoed to be powerless to actually collect the fines if we choose NOT to pay either the insurance or the fines- although you watch them collect the fiens just the same irregardless of what they law actually stipulates)) then if enough people actually refuse to pay the fines or buy the insurance, that the whole thing collapses because it can’t be financially sustained

however, not many people are goign to realize that the government has no legal authority to collect the fines, andm ost peopel will just simply pay the fines- thus sustainign hte unconstitutional healthcare statute

The supreme court did somethign very sneaky, they declared that it wasn’t a tax in order to prevent peopel from challenging the ‘tax’ in the supreme court, then they turned aroudn and declared it is a consituional tax ‘because the penalty for not buying insurance is so ‘low’ (I don’t concider $4800 per individual per year low) that it can be called a tax and congress can mandate the tax but the peopel can’tr challenge the mandate ‘tax’ because it really isn’t a tax but a penalty- which hte supreme court has deemed ‘so low that it makes it constitutional’ (even though it’s still unconsitutional because it forces people to either buy something or pay a penalty for not buying it simply for existing- or for paying a fien for inaction

The supreme court is preventign chjallenges to it’s decision by declaring it constitutional based on it beign a ‘tax aND the fact that the resultign penalty is too low (i ntheir biased opinion), to make it unconstitutional’, and htey are also preventing challenges to thweir decision by declarign that it really is a penalty and not a tax so that peopel can’t challenge it under the anti injunction act- so in effect, they’ve pretty much just thrown an illegal and unconstitutional bombshell at america, tand then goen and hid behind all the safeguards they put in place to protect THEMSELVES fro m any future legal challenges by setting up an arbitrary and subjective ‘a penalty so low as to be deemed consitutional’ firewall

They are suppsoed to uphold the constitution- NOT make up a new constitution as we go along, and NOT to simply thwart our constitution and hten hide behind pretective measures they put in place to protect their own hides from legal challenges!

Yes, but King Solomon offered to split the baby in order to find out which claimant to be his mother valued the baby's life.

Well said, sir. Roberts just split the baby before giving America the chance to say, "Let the devil have it!"

Roberts is stained with Harvard Red, red statist communism. Communism is the religion of Harvard, any belief in a higher power than the state is anathema to a Harvard Red.