Posted on 08/22/2012 6:29:53 AM PDT by Evil Slayer
Any year now, Democrats may start to ask themselves if it might have been better had John Roberts not changed his mind. If they would be better off with Obamacare out of its and our misery, a bone of contention now safely buried, and not as a bone in their throats.
For one thing, they still have the issue upon them -- the historic triumph they don't dare mention but which Republicans happily do.
Second, were Obamacare no longer the law, we might be seeing an uptick in hiring right now. Instead, that will be deferred until after November (and then possibly only if Romney's elected), and unemployment is rising in 44 states. Unemployment rising in 44 states is not what you want when just ten or so states will decide the election and unemployment has been 8 percent or higher for 41 months.
Third, had Roberts done otherwise, they might still have the issue of Medicare, which at this point they do not. When Paul Ryan was chosen to run with Mitt Romney, liberals planned to rip him to pieces over plans to trim Medicare. Somehow, they forgot that their own health care plan did much the same thing, covering 30 million new clients by draining millions from providers of Medicare. Although these cuts will not directly lead Medicare clients to pay more or lose coverage, they will end with many doctors and hospitals refusing to treat them at all.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Nice general statement..
Please expand on your thought a little further..
like how he did not adhere to the constitution..
But, please keep this in mind, Roberts did state, for the record, that it is not the Supreme Courts job to save the people from themselves..
He also critisized the voting public, and said that you get the government you elect..
In other words, if the people elect a socialist government, it is not the supreme courts job to correct that..
Their job is to rule on points of law..
Now, with that being said, please explain to me how this ruling translates to non adherance to the constitution..
be specific
we will never get rid of ObamaCare until the collapse of civilization
In no fewer than 17 places in this monstrosity of a bill ( I am not defending the bill, just the ruling ) this “penalty” is called a tax.
During sworn testimony, the fubo lawyer called it a tax.
It is a tax.
Period.
Is it a legal tax?
We will have to wait until someone actually has to pay it in order to appeal it.
One thing is for sure, with thousands of exemptions written into it, it is not fair or equitable, as required under the constitution. It will not stand as written.
Either it will go away, or the exempted parties will have their exemptions revoked.
But, we will not know until someone is actually damaged by it (has to pay it).
Like I said, stop listening to the talking heads on A.M. radio, and think for a moment.
Independent thought is highly refreshing. I recommend it.
In all fairness, the Roberts decision has done more than destroyed Obamacare. It also seriously undermines federal power across the board. Several ways of looking at this.
1) An essential element of Obamacare was the destruction of Medicare and Medicaid, which on their own, amount to 23% of the US federal budget (actually more, because due to Obama’s profligate spending, the *percent* of the budget for these has been reduced from close to 40% in just a few years.)
And Medicare and Medicaid, in their current forms, are unsustainable, but politically cannot be reformed, so *have* to be killed off. And Obamacare has done a lot to kill them.
So this means that when the Republicans gut Obamacare, it will still leave a much reduced Medicare and Medicaid, that instead of attempting to rebuild, *might possibly* be reformed. The best way of doing this would be to “de-federalize” them, just giving block grants to the states based on per capita need, with minimal federal oversight.
Importantly, if Republicans do *this*, then they are given a gift with the Roberts decision:
2) If the go the block grant way, it establishes a low baseline for what states have to do, and *anything* else the feds want to add in the future *must* come out of the federal purse alone — because they cannot demand that the states pay for expansions.
Importantly, this applies to other programs the Republicans decide to block grant to the states. This could save the states billions of dollars annually, and make those programs much harder to enlarge.
3) Roberts really had no choice but to vote the way he did. It is likely that Justice Kennedy would have jumped ship to join the majority, approving ALL Obamacare, unless
Roberts did. But, one of the few unique duties of the chief justice is that he has the right to *assign* who will write the majority decision, even if he is not on it.
But if Roberts did vote with the majority, he could assign the majority decision to himself, and he did.
He knew that the liberal justices would *never* vote against Obamacare, no matter what he wrote, as long as Obamacare was upheld. So he included a handful of “poison pills” to the decision, and gave the next congress, likely a Republican one, lots of opportunities to sink Obamacare, as well as neuter a whole bunch of other federal programs.
It’s pretty simple:
The ACA was NOT written as a TAX, and in fact was clearly presented as NOT a tax. If it WAS written as a TAX, the bill wouldn NOT have passed.
So, the dishonorable Justice Roberts took it upon himself to RE-WRITE the ACA and call it a TAX.
As you may remember from elementary school, it is the Legislative Branch of government that is charged with writing law, not the Judicial Branch.
Therefore, what he did was clearly unconstitutional.
And it is the law. Perfectly compatible with the Democrat approach - the law is what we say it is when we say it.
See post #43..
It was written as a tax..
Just because fubo said it is not a tax does not make that so...
Roberts did not change a thing..
fubo lied (what a surprise)
Is Obamacare Constitutional, or not? Not the bending, twisting and shaping of the situation by Roberts which resulted in the ruling - nor the ruling itself - but the actual truth.
Under the Constitution as written, under any scheme of rationalization, is it Constitutional for the Federal Government to do what it did in Obamacare?
I say no.
Four conservative justices agree with me.
What say you?
All Roberts had to do was agree with them, and the whole thing fails.
Story is he did agree, then backtracked and found a way to uphold it.
I don’t really care that much about what his motive was. It matters some, but what matters to me is whether this monstrosity is in truth allowed under our Constitution.
If I and the four dissenters are right, Roberts made the WRONG call.
That is, if you admit that Roberts was appointed to rule on the literal Constitutional standing of this law, and not to do the various other machinations that he did.
Indeed. USSC rulings are law.
Which is what makes his actions did so disgraceful.
“I, John Roberts, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
He spit in the face of our Constitution, our People, and our God.
And sadly, you are correct; it is now the Law.
You didn’t read a critical bit in what I wrote.
Your “four other justices” were actually only three.
Justice Kennedy has a nasty habit of breaking split decisions between the conservative and liberal sides of the court by voting liberal. But he *only* does this when he will be the deciding vote.
It is just a bastardly thing to do. But it is almost certain that if Roberts had not voted with the majority, Kennedy would have. And it would have been a 5-4 decision in FAVOR of ALL of Obamacare.
So by Roberts voting that Obamacare was unconstitutional, we would have been completely wiped out. EVERY part of Obamacare would have been sustained.
Would *that* have been better? No it would not have been.
Instead, by voting in favor of Obamacare, Roberts created the ability of the Republicans in congress to destroy it. And not just it, but a bunch of other giant federal programs as well.
He couldn’t do it himself, but he made it possible for congress to do it.
To destroy Obamacare, they now won’t need a 2/3rds majority of both houses, which would almost certainly be blocked by the Democrats. Instead, just a simple majority of both houses, and the signature of the president.
And Obamacare is dead.
Read Tonight Bump!
In a Hoveround? Now you are being silly. I used the Crystal Ball that Obama used recently. (Someone please queue up the picture of Obama with his hands around the orb)
I see you are using your emotions to drive your opinion.
Let me try to untangle this for you..
You ask is obamacare constitutional or not?
Are social security, medicare, medicaid, and welfare programs constitutional?
Under past rulings, using both majority and minority opinions as a guide, yes they are (even though we both know they really are not)
Using this as a criteria, and using the same rulings that passed the aforementioned programs, yes it is constitutional.
But, thanks to Roberts ruling, from this point forward, they are not.
To put it gently as possible, sometimes the cure makes you a helluva lot sicker before you get better.
And, as I said, on the issues that I put forth, the 4 justices you speak of AGREED and CONCURED with Roberts..
I have heard how he “manipulated” or “ made up” parts of this bill for his ruling, but the fact is he did not do any of that.
The real heart of this issue and many others, is that alot of people actually think the socialists are stupid..
This monster bill was written by hard core socialists with an average of 20 years in government.
You can call them socialists...
You can call them communists...
But if you think they are stupid, then they will beat you everytime...
In closing, he did not manipulate or take apart anything from this bill, he did not have to.
Like it or not, this bill was allowable under previous rulings over the past 80 years.
From the day that ruling was issued on forward, it is not.
Thank you Justice Roberts!!!
You have saved our country from socialism ( if we can get the population to be vigilant against and not elect socialists or give them power ever again )
As always..........
I want you two to defend the Constitutionality of Obamacare.
Have at it.
Or, conversely, admit it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to do what it did in Obamacare.
I’ve done all I need to do, and all I’m going to spend my time doing, in framing the issue that way.
I will agree with the writings of Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy that it is unconstitutional.
They did the work that I now don’t need to do. I refer all Robert’s boosters to THEIR decision.
All Roberts had to do was sign on with them and the whole thing collapses.
And by “thing”, I’m refering to the Affordable Care Act, otherwise dubbed Obamacare.
Bottom line for you two, is it Constitutional?
Roberts aside, is it?
Go for it.
See post #53
I doubt very much John Roberts was seriously thinking of anything except for his love of boundless federal power, and the stature of his office.
I had long suspected such a ruling from him from the Federal court. Indeed I was plesently surprised to see that there are some Federal employees willing to bite the hand that feeds them at least this one time in this very limited respect.
But John Roberts is not a patriot by any stretch of the imagination. Despite having been touted as a “conservative” he is very much a lover of his appointees(federal) power.
A “creature of Washington” as they say as is most of the Federal employees in black robes by force of both intentional selection and self-serving interest.
Sadly however there is no recovery from the traitorous act of the 5 Federal employees, our Federal Constitutional Republic has been effectively destroyed the despotic order of boundless democracy has replaced it.
The only real hope for our freedom rest in our ability to pull off a Revolution. There is no way to undo what the Federal employees in black robes have granted to their employee with respect to the shifting sands of democratic as an increasingly despotic oligarchy of 5 federal employees trys to impose their will for political proposes.
Your right that Republican and democrats will find the courts rulings increasingly political, but what your not recognizing right now is our resistance to their totalitarian edicts will grow as well. Ultimately we will overwhelm the Federal cort with our on the ground power and utter contempt for their lawless behavioral, as indeed we must.
But the Federal Constitutional Republic will still be dead, and from there things will determinate overtime into either a 2nd civil war or a revolution.
The end result being most likely a compete dictatorship if history is any guide.
John Roberts has not only killed the Federal court, he has killed the Federal Constitutional republic as well. He must have figured conservatives will roll over and submit to his edicts. But we have had enough of our freedom striped away from us, and unlike the left We have the guns. It is only a matter of time before the left anger enough with their lawless government to uses them.
And so I say either a Revolution(secession) or compete civil war is inevitable.
I think you’re trying too hard to get a knee-jerk response to a complex problem.
Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Had Roberts voted that it was unconstitutional, he would have lost, because of the treachery of Justice Kennedy, and the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 majority, would have ruled it to be constitutional in its entirety. Even though it is unconstitutional.
Had it been ruled constitutional by a 5-4 majority, the only way we would have EVER been rid of it would be with the equivalent of a constitutional amendment. That is, a 2/3rds vote of both houses of congress, which would be next to impossible.
However, because Roberts voted in favor of it, it can now be destroyed by a simple majority of both houses of congress and a presidential signature.
So let me cut to the chase, with a direct question to you:
Do you think it is more important to try and win a battle that you will lose, than to win an entire war?
Because this is what you are demanding. To fight a fight that would have been lost, and lose the war, and be stuck with Obamacare for decades.
An expression for this is, “To cut off your nose to spite your face.”
I'm not hiring until Obama is out of office and ObamaCare is completely repealed. I currently have zero employees, down from well over 50, and I'm going to stay at zero until that huge federally mandated cost is removed from the list of considerations.
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.