Posted on 02/24/2015 7:53:56 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Three years ago, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts cast the tie-breaking vote in a ruling that saved President Barack Obama’s signature healthcare reform. As the high court prepares to weigh another challenge that could shatter Obamacare, a review of Roberts’ recent votes and opinions suggest he could again sway the case the government's way.
(Excerpt) Read more at philly.com ...
Translation: They still have those gay bathhouse pics of Roberts and know there’s something hinky about his kids’ adoption papers.
Roberts will have to go further than a tropical island after he pulls this disaster off...The moon perhaps?
Well, we could fast & pray, but that is a suggestion not many do any more. But, with Lent season already in progress, maybe we could add a day of fasting each week for this.
That would be the destruction of the Supreme Court.
The supreme court has made wrong decisions before and rest assured, they will do it again.
This is the reason Bush put him on the court. Many of the worst liberal justices have been nominated by Republicans.
Now, you tell me, why would Justice Roberts suddenly change his mind on OBAMA CARE? If he sees that there is a “FLAW” on how OBAMA CARE was written, he will help re-write the law, to make it more acceptable to the justices. Is there any one out there that doesn’t think that Justice Roberts is the “5th Column” in our Supreme Court?
Roberts did more than cast the deciding vote. He wrote an opinion that did backward flips to strain logic.
This case is going to come down to legislative history and the congressional record of what the legislature intended. The court will have lots of wiggle room if they want to perform acrobatics.
No one should get their hopes up. This case is far easier (really, a fastball right down the middle of the plate) for Roberts to “reason” his way around hurting this abomination of a law.
I am more optimistic on this decision. There is no hint for SCOTUS to be blamed of deciding a POTUS election again.
This would exceed any prior bad ruling. It would be an out and out lie.
The law written is explicit and unambiguous.
How so?
Swing.
What a wonderful word.
As in John Roberts swinging at the end of rope.
Tied to a lamp post outside of the SC building.
He likes to go to Malta on his vacations. He purports to be a devout Catholic, but I would not be surprised if he is a member of some secret society. I think he might have some relationship with the Knights of St. John (Hospitalers)
0bamacare is designed to destroy the middle class and Roberts is called to be a major actor. The penalties begin as one enters middle class income, so there are substantial incentives to keep your salary low, get the government benefits, EITC, Medicaid and do side jobs for extra cash.
This would exceed any prior bad ruling. It would be an out and out lie.
The law written is explicit and unambiguous.
Indeed, one of the most loathsome justices in recent memory, John Paul Stevens, was nominated by Gerald Ford.
In order to save Obamacare, Roberts rewrote it as one big tax bill, even though Obama and the Democrats had repeatedly claimed that it was not a tax.
I don’t think Roberts will have any trouble rewriting it again so that an “Exchange established by the State” means an exchange established by the feds or a state.
They did not anticipate states not taking inducements, i.e. subsidies for their citizens.
Be aware of the campaign of manipulation being waged.
Watch for references to Obama’s “signature health law”. This is to personalize it, to make it about Obama. This is preparation to leveling charges of “hating Obama” and of course “racism”. Whether or not it is any person’s “signature” law is utterly irrelevant. Irrelevant except for those who wish to set the stage for attacking the motives of the plaintiffs.
Another tactic is claiming that a ruling for the plaintiffs would “could cost states billions and billions of dollars”. The subsidies are not a cost to the state or to the recipients of the subsidy. The cost is to federal taxpayers who are funding the illegal subsidy. A ruling for the plaintiffs would save taxpayers billions and billions of dollars.
These are both to generate a political climate, to intimidate the court.
The USSC only provides us with a few small victories as a sop. On the big issues, they are controlled and do as they are told.
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.