Posted on 06/17/2019 8:43:44 AM PDT by bitt
“Such condescending nonsense.” “Sooooo, how much is Obama paying you for this fairytale?” “I am offended by your silly 3 paragraph boondoggle” “You ... are the enemy of the people” “you smarmy little bitch”
Calling me an “enemy” of free peoples, and a “bitch,” well, well ... these are firsts for this middle aged, lifelong conservative constitutionalist. I’ve never stumbled into such idiocy and lunacy at FR except when the Catholics and evangelicals are duking it out. Honestly, when Freepers react only emotionally, and not rationally, they start to resemble the looney left.
Isn't that what you are doing here by getting all emotional and whining about those who disagree with you??? They may have ridiculed you but you are also guilty of doing the same thing. They used to call this some form of projection, LOL.
#GrowAPair
CGato
You're an INFORMED individual.
Since the Obamacare "turncoat vote" I've been aware of his adoption issue.
Few, if any, are even aware of how Roberts became compromised.
Mark me down as skeptical. If you believe leftist judges are going to honor that agreement. that is your right. But O-care itself rode in on a wave of dishonest promises.
This just makes me cringe. You must be one of those big government Constitutionalists, LOL. I hope you realize, when you get down to the basics, big government and our Constitution are not compatible if we're to maintain our republic.
Handing government almost 20% (or more) of our economy (GDP) via healthcare, is in no way Constitutional if you really want to get down to the basics. The last 100 years have been devastating to our Constitution to be honest and with attitudes like yours, giving SCJ Roberts a pass, doesn't help in our quest to preserve our Constitutional Republic.
Peace,
CGato
Will Roberts Get Rolled on Census Case?
Yes.
My own confusion with Roberts is that Roberts took liberties with Obamacare by *declaring* it a “tax”, while the Obama administration itself was mightily trying to avoid that word, but nevertheless the act of calling it so, ended up allowing it to stand. Does that make sense?
Your argument is not foreign. There were some moderate and conservative media-musings and editorials that concluded the very same thing, I recall. Those arguments got very little, or possibly no play at all around here, but I know the argument you’re repeating was entertained in some quarters.
Possibly, that argument was deep sixed since it was not helpful to the wild discourse the Republicans were engaging in at the time, against the Marxist side of the aisle. Roberts was one more pin cushion. The laxity on publishing much on the alternative view favoring Roberts move, left at least a rather enduring and sizable question mark against trusting Roberts and also more than plenty of outright disdain.
Hang right in there. A lot of us publik schule kids are actually trying to learn more about political and judicial chess being played for the win in the end.
And I'll join the chorus of conservatives who know that Obamacare was the product of deception, distortion, and outright lies.
As for future SCOTUS decisions, well ... you're right, a courtful of Sotomayors or Ginsburgs could not be trusted to adhere to stare decisis when it comes to anything, especially the 2nd Amendment. But then again, who ever said that the fight for freedom isn't a daily battle, never won?
See my other post in this thread. The Obamacare battle is now mostly irrelevant. We now have to fight, equally hard, the battle against Medicare for All. I have no doubt that we would be fighting this new battle regardless of whether Obamacare had passed in the first place, or been overturned.
You are correct, what Roberts did was damnably confusing, claiming that the mandate was a tax. And what the Obama Administration did, arguing in front of the court, made it even worse. To wit:
- To sell it to the public, it was argued that the individual mandate was a fee, not a tax, so OC could be claimed to “not raise taxes.” Nobody bought it, of course, except the media and Dem partisans.
- Then, to justify it to the SCOTUS, the Obama Administration claimed it actually was a tax after all. But this then put the entire legislation at risk because OC originated in the Senate, and a pesky clause in the Constitution clearly states that all tax legislation must originate in the House.
- Nevertheless, none of the nine justices made the claim that the entire OC was unconstitutional for this reason.
I have to believe that Roberts knew exactly what he was doing, but cannot ever say it until his memoirs are written. Why? Because he wanted the new precedents to stand exactly as they are written, and not be interpreted ad nauseum.
It also seems that his primary philosophy is judicial restraint, e.g., not writing law nor exceeding the originalist intent for SCOTUS. I bet that his memoirs will say just that, that he knew 50% of the nation would be furious regardless of what he decided, so he made the call not based on his fundamental conservatism but on his judicial philosophy, which in this case conflicted with his conservatism.
Now, I have to add this disclaimer for the peanut gallery. I am NOT trying to justify what Roberts did; I wanted Obamacare overturned too. I’m just trying to understand him. And, also, be comfortable with the fact that he was not rolled, was not bribed, is not a tool for Democrats.
If these concepts still can’t sink into your head, well perhaps you should use an augur and drill a few more holes. Because, clearly, your eyes and ears and nose are not enough to let the light inside.
They didn’t just disagree. A couple were being flaming a-holes.
You joined in January, just after Drudge spilled Spikey's beans. Were you lurking on FR the night it dropped?
Interesting that the people who have been posting on FR for all of 12 minutes got their undies in a bunch over it...
Tom is a Clown employee.
I used to check Drudge hourly during those years of the Clinton Administration. In fact, at the time, all my online news came from FR and Drudge.
And, I discovered FR two years earlier but for some reason my account says 1998, not 1996. I was on FR from the beginning.
I never became an especially active Freeper, never got to know Jim Robinson, just because I like to lay low. I don’t do little comments here and there, I like detailed comments and analyses that teach me something. I also don’t mind sparring once in awhile.
The clowns in this thread make me laugh. I’m usually not so rude but somehow they got my Irish up. I was trying to be witty as well, see how I closed out comments 57 and 68.
True story — FR saved the eyesight of a friend’s daughter. She had a juvenile version of macular degeneration, and I saw right here on FR a post about an experimental procedure that stopped the progression of the disease. I excitedly showed it to my friend, and he and his wife, and their daughter, were on an airplane within 48 hours to Connecticut. It worked.
I’ve always loved FR but I’ve been less likely to look at Drudge lately. Drudge sometimes doesn’t update his news for over 24 hours, sometimes 48. And the links he does put up are sometimes leaning a little too far left for me.
I’ve been looking at thelibertydaily.com more often now. Yeah, it’s a little right wing bat shit crazy — lots of links to Alex Jones — but Jones, if you can get by his obvious commercial interest in selling apocalyptic stuff, does some very good and daring journalism that other sites won’t touch. It also links a lot to Breitbart and Judicial Watch, and I have always had huge respect for those organizations. The administrators are also constantly updating the site and the banner, sometimes every hour so they’re on top of the news as it breaks.
Well, there are batshit crazy people in all political camps.
I got creative in my replies to them; see my ending paragraphs to comments 57 and 68. I didn’t know I could be that clever.
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.” — Mark Twain
You also fail at mind-reading, logic, and psychology. Concluding that I am a big government conservative, just because I explained Roberts’ decision in 2012 (note that I explained it, I didn’t defend it) is both laughable and a joke. And then, in your own moronic way, you try to teach me about small government!
Listen, clown. I own my own consulting company, I teach management and leadership at the university level, I have college degrees from universities whose names you can’t spell, and have been at executive levels in technology since you were still picking your nose or writing grafitti on barrio walls.
Take heed of Mark Twain’s advice. Really. Please. I’ve had enough laughs at your expense already.
Oh nice, I called out your hypocrisy and you go with the “I’m so much better than you card”. It’s funny because I did consider your position at one time and have reservations about others but because I don’t agree with you, you pull the ridicule and arrogance card. I think you are projecting on who the clown really is.
CGato
I remember that too....and have often wondered if the left uses it as ammo.
Well, if you can’t shut up, then take the advice I gave out in posts 57 and 68. I reproduce them here. Just choose either A or B. Really. You’ll feel better afterward. You’ve already proven yourself to be a fool, you can’t sink any lower.
(A) If these concepts still can’t sink into your head, perhaps you should use an augur and drill a few more holes. Because, clearly, your eyes and ears and nose are not enough to let the light inside.
(B) Swallow a valium, take some testosterone blockers, get a lobotomy or something. The lobotomy is guaranteed to work, ask the Kennedys.
I’m glad you told us you were part of academia because you sure are arrogant enough to be one. Sorry, I’m not one of your students you can use your position to conform. It just doesn’t work like that around these parts, LOL
CGato
Thanks for the thoughtful comment.
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.