Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Actually, Justice Roberts Demolished Obama In His Supreme Court Ruling
Business Insider ^ | Jun. 28, 2012, | Grace Wyler

Posted on 06/28/2012 9:09:26 PM PDT by little jeremiah

....But while Roberts may have saved Obama's signature domestic legislation — and perhaps his reelection campaign — by siding with the court's liberal wing, he actually did it in spite of Obama, not because of him.

Roberts' opened his opinion today by declaring, unequivocally, that the individual mandate — which requires people to buy insurance or pay a penalty — is not constitutional under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. It's a direct shot at the Obama administration's defense of the law's constitutionality, which largely relied on those two clauses, which give Congress the power to regulate commerce and to enact provisions that are necessary to carry out its laws, respectively.

snip

(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; authorondrugs; businessinsider; chiefjusticeroberts; deathpanels; idiocy; obamacare; obamacaredecision; roberts; scotus; stupidafterthink; zerocare; zerohedge
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-315 last
To: nwrep

I understand that, however, the only congress that can be relied upon is the democrat congress to take freedom and give itself power.

The republican congress can be relied upon to do one thing and one thing only, and that thing is nothing.


301 posted on 06/30/2012 1:49:28 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 300 | View Replies]

To: P-Marlowe; xzins
Don't torment Samuel Paine's soul by taking his name on this forum and then promoting the most massive government expansion against Liberty this country has ever witnessed.

How do you type with your foot in your mouth? Perhaps, uh, you meant to go on some unrelated rant about "TOM Paine?"

LOL.

By the way. While you're on your hobby horse, read a little more Thomas Paine while you're at it beyond what you heard in grade school about Common Sense.

"Age of Reason" on the rejection of the Bible and organized religion.

Did you know he was the first to propose a 100% death tax to be distributed to young people as a way to eliminate poverty?

Yeah, I don't think you know the difference between a Sam and a Tom, and it doesn't appear you know Tom from a hole in the ground.

Sincerely, SAM

(Not Adams, not the girl on Bewitched, etc.)

302 posted on 07/03/2012 7:36:58 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 269 | View Replies]

To: TChad; little jeremiah; cableguymn; tflabo; null and void; FlingWingFlyer; Tzar; P-Marlowe; ...
TCHAD: Not according to Mark Levin. The Roberts remarks about the Commerce Clause were from Roberts alone and were not part of the majority opinion.

That is correct, that vote was 4-1-4. But Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy could have joined that opinion without conceding the tax argument.

So why didn't they take the opportunity and join and make it 5-4 commerce clause precedent?

303 posted on 07/03/2012 7:46:02 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 287 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine; TChad
It is my understanding that only two Justices (Ginsburg & Sotomayor) upheld the commerce clause to empower government to impose the mandate. Whether Scalia et al joined Roberts in signing off to his opinion is irrelevant. Those four Justices made it clear in there dissent where they stood on the commerce clause.

So by my count, the vote is 7-2 against the commerce clause, which incidentally was the same vote count in favor of equal protection in Bush v. Gore.

304 posted on 07/03/2012 7:55:53 AM PDT by Hoodat (“An unlimited power to tax involves, necessarily, a power to destroy.” - John Marshall)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Becuase they wanted nothing to do with Chief Judas Roberts’ traitorous ruling.


305 posted on 07/03/2012 7:58:00 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: little jeremiah

Right! And under that logic, the Japs and Germans won World II.


306 posted on 07/03/2012 8:47:55 AM PDT by sport
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
Perhaps, uh, you meant to go on some unrelated rant about "TOM Paine?"


307 posted on 07/03/2012 9:59:46 AM PDT by P-Marlowe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

I hope that some time a simple summary for the uneducated will be posted. Maybe then I’ll understand all the ins and outs.


308 posted on 07/03/2012 11:16:26 AM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

If I’m not mistaken, Samuel Paine was in business with George Jefferson and Calvin Lincoln. They traded and repaired carriage parts and saddles when not busy drafting articles and penning essays.


309 posted on 07/03/2012 11:18:17 AM PDT by Gene Eric (Your Hope has been redistributed. Here's your damn Change!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 302 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Maybe the didn’t want to give Captain Kangaroo cover. What good would narrowing the commerce clause do if you can simply make up ANOTHER phony rationale for stealing Americans’ freedoms? Bob


310 posted on 07/03/2012 1:03:23 PM PDT by alstewartfan (Two broken Tigers on fire in the night Flicker their souls to the wind. Al Stewart "Roads to Moscow")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

Better yet, why didn’t he join them and vote correctly that it was unconstitutional?


311 posted on 07/03/2012 7:09:47 PM PDT by Robert DeLong (u)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine
So why didn't they take the opportunity and join and make it 5-4 commerce clause precedent?

I don't know. I don't even know where to turn for authoritative commentary on this subject.

312 posted on 07/04/2012 9:17:35 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: sam_paine

They were digusted at that point, maybe.

The commerce clause was way out of line, already. No Constitutionalist could in any way buy into an argument that the federal government can make you purchase something...

The whole thing is off the scale.


313 posted on 07/05/2012 8:21:02 PM PDT by One Name (Go to the enemy's home court and smoke his ass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 303 | View Replies]

To: One Name
They were digusted at that point, maybe. The commerce clause was way out of line, already. No Constitutionalist could in any way buy into an argument that the federal government can make you purchase something... The whole thing is off the scale.

Agreed. I think too many conservatives frogs have been blind to the temperature of the republic's water.

This event was the first bubble at 212°F. It's not like it wasn't 211°F a week before the ruling.

When the republic puts Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama in charge of all three branches....and the citizens only decide to fire ONE of them in 2010, and 1 out of 5 still emphatically approve of the utter destruction....what's the Supreme Court really capable of fixing?

Tell the people to man up, vote out the anti-Americans and insist the lege do their jobs. Or if the people insist, fat, drunk and stupid is how "the people" will wander to their death.

314 posted on 07/06/2012 6:33:22 AM PDT by sam_paine (X .................................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 313 | View Replies]

To: George189

What Good Can a Handgun Do Against An Army?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/2312894/posts


315 posted on 09/10/2012 11:31:29 AM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 273 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 241-260261-280281-300301-315 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson