Posted on 07/04/2012 6:54:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This is getting ridiculous. John Roberts appears to be a one man constitutional wrecking crew.
According to Salon:
"This weekend CBS News' Jan Crawford reported that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote in regard to upholding the bulk of the Affordable Care Act. Crawford reports that Roberts voted with the rest of the court's conservatives to strike down the individual mandate, but in the course of drafting his opinion changed his mind, and ended up siding with the court's four liberals to uphold almost all of the law.
In response, according to Crawford's story, the four conservatives then independently crafted a highly unusual joint dissent. If so, this would represent a powerful symbolic gesture: Joint Supreme Court opinions are rare. Normally a justice authors an individual opinion, which other justices may choose to join. Jointly authored opinions are reserved for momentous statements of principle, such as in Cooper v. Aaron, when all nine justices jointly authored an opinion declaring that the court's anti-segregation decisions were binding on state governments that disagreed with the court's constitutional interpretations.
It's notable that Crawford's sources insist on the claim that the joint dissent was authored specifically in response to Roberts' majority opinion, without any participation from him at any point in the drafting process that created it. It would, after all, be fairly preposterous for the four dissenters to jointly "author" an opinion that was in large part written originally by the author of the majority opinion to which the joint dissenters were now so flamboyantly objecting.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The next moment a hideous, grinding speech, as of some monstrous machine running without oil, burst from the big telescreen at the end of the room. It was a noise that set ones teeth on edge and bristled the hair at the back of ones neck. The Hate had started. As usual, the face of Emmanuel Goldstein, the Enemy of the People, had flashed on to the screen. There were hisses here and there among the audience. The little sandy-haired woman gave a squeak of mingled fear and disgust. Goldstein was the renegade and backslider who once, long ago (how long ago, nobody quite remembered), had been one of the leading figures of the Party, almost on a level with Big Brother himself, and then had engaged in counter-revolutionary activities, had been condemned to death, and had mysteriously escaped and disappeared. The programmes of the Two Minutes Hate varied from day to day, but there was none in which Goldstein was not the principal figure. He was the primal traitor, the earliest defiler of the Partys purity. Snip...
The horrible thing about the Two Minutes Hate was not that one was obliged to act a part, but, on the contrary, that it was impossible to avoid joining in. Within thirty seconds any pretence was always unnecessary. A hideous ecstasy of fear and vindictiveness, a desire to kill, to torture, to smash faces in with a sledge-hammer, seemed to flow through the whole group of people like an electric current, turning one even against ones will into a grimacing, screaming lunatic. And yet the rage that one felt was an abstract, undirected emotion which could be switched from one object to another like the flame of a blowlamp.
Where are we? Well into the start of the second minute?
Who is producing and showing the film?
Will there be lucid moments amongst the viewers of our current, ongoing Two Weeks Hate?
OMG!! i PRAY he’s not gay, but the more I read, the more I think it’s possible. He is definitely being blackmailed or threatened, either for GAYNESS or ILLEGAL ADOPTION of those two kids.
*ouch* About 45 seconds in, I reckon.
Mooooooo...
Sarah Palin, the first woman to be nominated by the Republican Party for Vice President of the United States and the first female governor of Alaska, has been a FFL member since 2006.[53][54][55"
Thanks. So FFL sounds like a decent organization, then. The word “feminist” always causes my bile to rise. I didn’t know anything about that particular org, should have searched.
I had no idea, but it seemed like a good lead.
I already am. I don't own a home, so I can't take the mortgage tax deduction. Believe me, I would rather the government not be able to single me out as a non-homeowner and penalize me with this extra tax that homeowners don't have to pay. But if there is a difference between that and paying a higher tax because you don't have health insurance, it's such a minute sliver of a difference that I can easily understand a conservative, non-activist justice not thinking he should make a judgment against it.
Single payer health care is constitutional. Even Mark Levin has said that. So it's not like our socialized health care woes would be over if this law was overturned. If Republicans went on to lose the election, the libs would just try to pass single payer, and use the argument that because it's constitutional, it's better for America. We need a better strategy for keeping the libs out of our health care than counting on the courts. I don't blame John Roberts for the failure of conservatives to win a debate or to win elections.
It's arguably the very fact that we have let tax policy and the IRS get so out of control in this country that led directly to Obamneycare. It's far too accepted that the government can use taxes and deductions as penalties and rewards to socially engineer the population. Obamneycare was simply the next step on a road we've been going down for a long time. We need to attack the tax issue directly. We probably need a constitutional amendment to roll back the IRS and change tax policy in a big way to outlaw using the tax code for social engineering.
Well, I guess our mistake was not digging up the gay stuff first and using it to blackmail him to vote our way. :/
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.