Posted on 06/28/2012 6:54:37 PM PDT by Alberta's Child
Upon further review and discussion here, I've concluded that the majority opinion of Chief Justice Roberts in the ObamaCare case was exactly what this country needed. He effectively took the heap of crap that had been dumped in the halls of the U.S. Supreme Court and tossed it right back out where it belongs: in the homes and businesses of every U.S. citizen who has allowed this bunch of fools in Washington to govern us this way.
Think of it, folks ... Any obligation of the U.S. Supreme Court to deal with this idiocy went out the window the moment that dingbat Nancy Pelosi stood up on television and said: "We have to pass the bill to see what's in it."
If I were a Supreme Court justice, I wouldn't spend 30 seconds of my life reading a single legal brief in a case involving a Federal statute that was passed even though the Speaker of the House of Representatives didn't even read the damn thing before voting on it.
On top of all that, just consider this: There were 28 states that filed legal challenges to ObamaCare, either individually or jointly. How can 28 states file legal challenges to a Federal law that was passed in the U.S. Senate by a 60-39 margin? If I'm sitting on the Supreme Court and the Attorney General of, say, Pennsylvania (which is one of these 28 states) comes in for oral arguments in the case, my first and only "question" would be: "If you have such a problem with this Federal statute, why don't you take it up with Bob Casey, Arlen Specter and those nine House members in your state who passed the damn thing ... along with the idiots in your state who cast their electoral votes for that jug-eared Kenyan nitwit in 2008?"
As I understand it, the vote was 7-2 against commerce clause application - Sotomayor and Ginsberg the dissenters.
Is this crazy
The GOP was warning that it was in reality a TAX and Obama and the DEMs arguing that it wasn’t
So Roberts says the GOP was right and Obama was wrong so it is constitutional
My brain hurts
we need to get Senators elected. Here is contact information for the Republican Senatorial Committee
Pass it on.
http://www.nrsc.org/contact-us/
What is this? Michael Jackson’s tiger died!We are talking about this?
lol.
“We’ll just have to disagree, I guess”
I guess...kind of like a 5-4 SC decision..
“Don’t plan on having an election this yer.”
Oh, there’s going to be an election this year!
4 years of repeatedly getting kicked in the teeth by politicians. Witnessing, with mouth agape, while they deindustrialize my country, impoverish my fellow man, risk our national security at every level, destroy our energy prowess, claim more of our income as their own and impose themselves on our lives at the most personal of all levels — healthcare.
Seething rage is boiling up inside of many an American gut today.
November 6th! There will be an election; we’re going to have a reckoning.
The majority opinion of Roberts . . . was just what this country needed.”
Are you drunk? The Democrats told Roberts “Write anything you want, as long as we win.” Everything but the holding is arguable orbiter dictum.
If you think I’m packing your a!! with birdlime, remember this date when you receive your IRS letter.
For those of us who actually pay taxes to pay for such things as Air Jordan’s and prime cuts of Wagyu beef, our slice of pie just got a lot thinner.
This is good news all right : for musicians, ‘free -spirited ‘ bums and navelgazers. Democrats in other words. I ‘d suggest you go make a pot of coffee, but then you would be a wideawake drunk. Or a Democrat.
Bingo. I think you're exactly right.
What a despicable situation Roberts left the American people in today. Millions of us - not to mention millions of businesses - will suffer because of this one man's outrageous decision. I wonder if he even thought of the consequences of his decision...
The decision is predicated upon a notion that the authority to tax may be based on nothing more than Congress' Constitutional authority to tax under the first article of the Constitution. However, the authority itself derives from a requirement that Congress may only raise taxes to achieve what is "necessary and proper" in the pursuit of its specifically enumerated powers. This is made clear in Article I, which adds a further requirement: that the enumerated powers are further restricted to only those things which promote the "general welfare."
Example: Congress is granted the specific authority to create post offices. Therefore, it may raise taxes to obtain that effect (necessary and proper) but it may not create a post office just for the benefit of Fred Zarguna (because it would be solely for my benefit and a few of my friends, and would not promote the general welfare of the United States.)
Therefore, it was incumbent upon proponents of this law to place their finger upon some part of the Constitution wherein an authority to regulate health insurance companies was granted. Grasping at a legal straw, the liberals reverted to an old favorite: the Commerce Clause. But the Court ridiculed that notion, and Roberts himself made it clear that the authority for the mandate could not come from that source.
But now, we have a larger problem than we had before, because Roberts -- writing on behalf of his liberal majority -- has claimed that the authority to tax for any purpose whatsoever is contained in the Constitution, a laughable position that even the most rabid liberal has never (until now) advanced as a legal theory. The argument is either circular (you have the authority to tax because taxation itself is necessary and proper) or advances a claim concerning implied powers under general welfare which has never before been proposed.
In effect, all restrictions on the legislative power have been swept away by this decision. Any law is now Constitutional provided only that a fine, penalty or tax is imposed.
Yes, it's that bad. But it actually gets worse...
Because hitherto, the Court would not even have granted Cert in a tax case until someone with standing came forward to challenge the law. In fact, the Court could not do so even if it wanted to, because of the Anti-Injunction Act, and no one will actually be "taxed" by the mandate until 2014. In the instant case, the Court has used thoroughly tortured logic to claim that: 1) Even though the mandate is a tax 2) the AIA doesn't apply, because Congress did not believe it was a tax when it was passed.
Howzzat again?
That's right, the majority has not only destroyed the concept of limited government with this ruling, but the Court itself actually broke the law in even allowing the case to be heard.
But wait, it gets even worse...
Because Roberts' opinion also holds that even though the "tax" is not the kind of tax permitted in the first article of the Constitution, and even though the "tax" is also not a tax on incomes covered by Amendment XVI, it is a valid tax (of what kind he does not say) and the existing case law already permits it.
This is an entirely new doctrine: preemptive Constitutionality. No Court has ever ruled in the past that the provisions of a law which as yet affects no one is Constitutional/Unconstitutional. Roberts' opinion signals exactly that. (See my previous posts for a quote from the majority.)
Bottom line: this is the Dred Scott/Roe v. Wade of the 21st Century. June 28th, 2012: A date which shall live in Infamy.
It's really that bad.
The problem with FR is that it is a bit of a magnet for right wing nuts who aren’t trying to analyze anything from a rational or even logical perspective. Everything/one is a devil or a saint, either “with us” or “against us”.
Seems to me that right wing nuts are as loco as the left wing nuts.
“My brain hurts”
Next comes your wallet, your pride, your dignity, your privacy, your lifestyle, and last but not least, your individual sovereignty!
But hey, look at the bright side, we live in the greatest country on Earth.
I’m voting for Romney!
I don’t like him at all, but I don’t hate his guts either. Just think he was a fool as governor and I don’t want to see Mitt-the-fool redux at this point in life.
I admit I did have to lie to myself to get myself to agree to do it.
What if he wants to clear his good name for history, and save the country from the healthcare-hell that he foisted on the people of his state, that we all share now.
Is that plausible?
““Roberts Tax”.
I like that!
Clarence Thomas performed one of his weddings. I suspect that is the source.
No. Our disagreement harms noone. Theirs does.
It's not a good point, and you shouldn't agree. It is the job of the Supreme Court to protect people from bad political decisions when those decisions do violence to the Constitution. That statement is as idiotic, childish, and amateurish as the rest of the liberal majority's opinion.
Roberts should resign. He has written the Dred Scott decision of the 21st Century.
Many can’t see past a single election cycle, a presidential term, or the 111th/112th/113th Congress.
There is no short-term or long-term silver lining. Only a political necrophiliac could see something attractive in this corpse of a ruling.
This is no longer about Obamacare or even the repeal. It’s the legal precedence and expansion of the gov’t to regulate behavior and tax/fine any unapproved/approved action and inaction. This ruling is now case law and that’s how the majority of the Judicial system works (only a minority will actually look to the Constitution or develop their own, personal ruling). Regarding the Constitution, we have seen it die in the Executive and Legislative branch and have been watching it wither in the Judicial. Now it is “no more”
The only good in the long-term is if you think this is a call to arms or rebellion of states...not to the voting booth.
May John Roberts live a half-life, a cursed life.
[...“penalty” associated with the mandate a “tax”. Tada - he rewrote the law to make obama care work in his mind.”
Since congress sets the courts jurisdiction, perhaps they should remove jurisdiction from the courts of any law where a tax is not stated as a “tax” within said law.
Was Roberts hypnotized? Seduced? Did Kagan and Sotomayor disrobe and give him some hooha to see things their way? Ginsburg?
The ruling is disconnected entirely from the spoken arguments.
Nothing in this ruling makes sense.... It’s the most mindless thing I’ve read in a long time.
The law passed in defiance of the rules of the Senate as a budget reconciliation measure, and it could have been repealed under that same umbrella.
We never needed 60 votes.
This decision is a turd and polishing it doesn't make it anything but sh!t.
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.