Are We Being Too Hard On John Roberts?

CE.com ^ | July 5th, 2012 | Ken Connor

[Ken H]

TR: It seems that there is a coordinated effort underway by certain people who are trying to either defend or rehabilitate Roberts.

DSH: Yes, it is really quite obvious. The shills and the water-carriers are so inept, they can't even mask the fact that they have embarked on an obvious campaign.

_____________________________________________________________

I agree. I've seen several posters make note of it on other threads as well.

[I see my hands]

You may be confused.. it's not the boxes that are stupid, I am, get it?

[Conscience of a Conservative]

Among. My mistake, typing quickly, had started typing “between the majority and dissent..:”

[madison10]

No.

[philman_36]

HERE! @ [Page: S13830] (about 3/4 of the way down) Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the bill before us is clearly an appropriate exercise of the commerce clause. We further believe Congress has power to enact this legislation pursuant to the taxing and spending powers. This bill does not violate the 10th amendment because it is an appropriate exercise of powers delegated to the United States, and because our bill fundamentally gives States the choice to participate in the exchanges themselves or, if they do not choose to do so, to allow the Federal Government to set up the exchanges fully within the provisions as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the 10th amendment.

I urge my colleagues to vote against the point of order.

[AZLiberty]

In an alternative reality, Roberts knew that a Supreme Court ruling would not deter Obama from implementing ObamaCare. When has Obama shown any respect to the Constitution? ObamaCare would simply morph into a giant executive order.

Roberts made it clear that it’s up to us to elect a different administration. And he laid the groundwork for a clear declaration of Constitutional contravention the moment the government actually tries to collect the tax, since the bill did not originate in the House. But only if we have an administration that respects the Constitution.

[Ken H]

Blame the voters who elected Obama, not Roberts for stepping aside and letting Obama do what a majority of our fellow Americans elected him to do, as ugly an uncomfortable as it is.

Question. In your opinion, was the Court's decision in keeping with the Constitution? Yes or No.

[Paladin2]

I'll have to reread the opinions closer.

A tax on inactivity seems just so wrong. Who is the master? The gov't or the people?

[Ken H]

Do you personally think that this decision is in keeping with the Constitution? Yes or no.

[philman_36]

Both his children are adopted.
Could his personal, private life been threaten???

I don't know and, frankly, I don't give a flying "you know what"!
I'm dealing with what is, not what might be.
A decision has been rendered. Period.
We have to deal with that decision.
We have to understand that decision and how it is to our advantage.

All this speculation as to why he "flipped" or "what do they have on him" is diverting people away from doing that very thing.

People are being emotionally led around by the nose with this @"2 Minute Hate" fest going on
instead of looking at the decision for themselves and coming to understand it.
Good Lord, even people who should know how the "2 minute hate" works are involved in doing it and somehow they don't even seem to realize that they're participating in it.

Love the decision or hate the decision people better get over it PDQ and figure out the best method of turning this against liberals and this administration.

[rbmillerjr]

Roberts sold out for his legacy.

Even the 4 who dissented told Roberts he was on his own.

This article is a rationalization and denial of the buyers’ remorse that the writer doesn’t want to accept.

For all of Roberts’ weighty judicial skills, he proved that when the chips are down, he’s a judicial lightweight and fairy.

Well, I guess for those who accepted McCain’s lack of tenacity on the campaign trail, we can surely accept conservative Justices voting conservative, except in the most critical cases.

I reject the argument that this is judicial restraint. It is the exact opposite. Roberts appears to have been flipped...not due to the constitutionality of the mandate and Bill, but due to “how the Court would appear” and ultimately Roberts’ own personal legacy.

Well, Chief Justice Roberts, you sure have solidified your legacy to this conservative and many others.

[norton]

This is about the 4th such piece I've read today that argues the same thing. It seems that there is a coordinated effort underway by certain people who are trying to either defend or rehabilitate Roberts.

I have a strong feeling that we are seeing a concerted effort to get the massses used to the idea that Obamacare is here to stay.

(And, we'll be the ones paying for it.)

[reagandemocrat]

Not as bad as Blackmun, but close.

[philman_36]

10:12:10 PM to 10:39:41 PM

It took me a whole 17 minutes to go back and refind that page after I read about it in the article the first time.
I didn't think I would have to go back and find it so I didn't really make a strong mental note of exactly where it was.

@The intent of the law was for it to not be a tax. That was argued in the House, in the Senate, and by the President.

I'm not trying to come down hard on you specifically, but statements just like yours tell me that people are speaking out on this without understanding at all what they're talking about.

Since I've shown your statement to be an outright falsehood would you care to amend your statement?

[Secret Agent Man]

Nope,hardly too hard, given what he’s just dome. Impeach and remove,/and then impeach and remove the four libs too.

[Bookwoman]

NO!!!!!!!!!

[pgkdan]

Not no but HELL NO!!!

[Nowhere Man]

You know, hope no one thinks I'm out of line but I have to get this off my chest. Seeing the photos of Mohammad Atta and Justice Roberts together, a though came to me. IMHO, Justice Roberts, with his ruling, is a lot more dangerous to the United States than even Atta ever was. Sure Atta, if you add in his accomplices, took 3000 American lives and even more if you add in the resulting wars, IIRC, close to 10,000 give or take. Still, that pales into comparison of the potential lives we could lose to ObumblesCare with the death panels and so on. Think about this way, when you think of Roe vs. Wade, there were 54.5 million abortions since 1973. That's close to the population of the UK or France when you think about it.

I don't deny the huge loss to people who lost love ones on 9/11 and/or the resulting wars, just pointing out the dangers we face where there a a good chance of even more loss of life could and would occur. I'm just saying that Justice Roberts will have blood on his hands.

[philman_36]

A better link...

@ S13830 Congressional Record

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, our committee and the HELP Committee have given a lot of thought to the provisions in this legislation. We also gave a lot of thought to the constitutionality of the provisions—how they work and the interrelationship between the power of Congress and the States and what States will be doing, particularly under the commerce clause and the tax-and-spending powers of the Constitution. It is very strongly our considered judgment, and that of many constitutional scholars who have looked at these provisions—and many articles have been put in the Record—that clearly these provisions are constitutional. The commerce clause is constitutional, the tax-and-spending clause, and the provisions clearly are constitutional.
I yield back my time.
Third column.

13832...

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the bill before us is clearly an appropriate exercise of the commerce clause. We further believe Congress has power to enact this legislation pursuant to the taxing and spending powers. This bill does not violate the 10th amendment because it is an appropriate exercise of powers delegated to the United States, and because our bill fundamentally gives States the choice to participate in the exchanges themselves or, if they do not choose to do so, to allow the Federal Government to set up the exchanges fully within the provisions as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the 10th amendment.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the point of order.

[I see my hands]

You understand my post exactly.