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?"
Aha, he used the Chewbacca Defense.
Thank you. The "arguments" of so many beltway geniuses (Will, Krauthammer, the American Thinker) claiming that throwaway dicta constitute some kind of "win" are as tortured, amateurish and ultimately incomprehensible as Roberts' opinion itself.
No, that is the problem with Roberts' opinion for the majority.
I think Robert’s message boils down to this: Elect the right people
The SC has done/said/ruled nothing that the Congress cannot do their job and fix. No one is harmed by this decision while many are harmed by the Congress failing to do its Constitutional duty for more than 40 years by always passing the hard decisions to the Supreme Court.
It is the idiots in Congress in both parties that have brought us to where we are today..
“Does this mean you intend to vote for Obama?”
If you Ever ask me that question again I’ll report you to Admin.
The rules here expressly prohibit outright profanity :)
The SR has done/said/ruled nothing that the Congress cannot do their job and fix. No one is harmed by this decision while many are harmed by the Congress failing to do its Constitutional duty for more than 40 years by always passing the hard decisions to the Supreme Court.
It is the idiots in Congress in both parties that have brought us to where we are today..
It should also be gratuitous, patronizing, and entirely superfluous (but apparently it isn't) for anyone to have to remind the Chief Justice of the United States that there are areas of the law which elections may not touch.
We don't live in a country with Parliamentary Supremacy. The Supreme Court is supposed to guard the Constitution, a duty in which the majority failed today.
So congress can’t strike down a tax ?
IF it’s a tax it’s a budgetary matter and you only need 51 votes.
Excellent post #191 !!!
As I stated before, many can’t see past this election. This precedent will be a tool for the Executive, Legislative and Judicial for generations (unless there is a substantiative revolt).
So Romney is elected, they repeal Obamacare, all your dreams come true...don’t worry the Center for American Progress, the Apollo Alliance, and etc. have more bills waiting in the wings for the proverbial day that the communists are back in power.
May John Roberts live a half-life, a cursed life.
The founders set up three branches of government, not two. Regardless of whether Congress passes the buck to the SC or not with the crazy laws they might pass, I expect the Supreme Court to do their job. You’re essentially saying because the Congress did not do their job, the SC doesn’t have to do theirs. Sorry, I don’t agree.
The Supreme Court took an oath to uphold the Constitution. They did not today.
The CJ is acting like every other CJ in the history of the Court in that they defer to the legislative branch whenever possible. As the CJ said if the voters don't like the law they can elect new representatives and change it, that is the traditional role of the court.
I think Roberts is putting the idiots in Congress on notice that for the next 30-40 years they cant depend on the Supreme Court to do the job they were elected to do...
Too much whining here since the decision. I hope it blows over soon.
What Congress passed included provisions for a “penalty.”
The SCOTUS changed that to “tax.” So it seems to me that it’s a tax that Congress didn’t act on, and don’t new taxes HAVE to be approved by Congress?
My head is spinning!!!!!!
It might not be too late yet. Roberts just made it constitutional. Article 1 sec. 1, All funding must originate
in House of Represenatives. It was a Senate bill.
Hope this can reverse this mess
Yes, it's that bad. But it actually gets worse...
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.
As Bugs Bunny once said to Yosemite Sam: "Of course you know, this means War."
And it does.
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.