Posted on 07/05/2012 7:14:59 PM PDT by Salvation
No, we are not. He screwed up.
Compare:
SOL waves RED FLAG WARNING on 23 Aug 2001
Obama writes RED WARNING on [RED] FLAG Day, @ 1WTC, 14 June 2012
Obama's "We" is not "We the People", it's "We the destroyers, usurpers, illegals, deadbeats, MUSLIMS, degenerates, IRS, Pelosi and her ilk in Congress and the rest of government, including 5/9 of the USSC"
IOW, Amalek.
No.
Roberts will deserve the infamy that is now his.
Who is Ken?
Weren’t there other justices involved in this mess? The problem is bigger than Roberts; target your criticism appropriately.
“Who knows, he might have gotten a call from some people from Chicago.”
..informing him they have photos of him with a goat..
Being hard on Roberts?
He could be tossed in a jail cell with a homo gimp wearing leather and studs named Fist’m & Bang’m who has been juiced on redbull and Viagra and it still wouldn’t be hard enough on Roberts.
Just saying....
What Roberts did was to allow the Democrats to pass a huge
tax hike without having to sell it to the American people as such.
That is the LEAST that he did wrong and it is unforgivable.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
I agree with the essence of this article. John Roberts is not the demon here; Obama is.
No, it’s not Constitutional, but neither is the Department of Education. Our masters don’t seem to care.
wow. what i tried to post there.
the fact that he is a lawyer makes his opinion unsurprising. however:
1. this ruling does nothing to restore or protect the commerce clause. wickard v. filburn still rules the day and *none* of the leftist political justices signed on to robert’s opinon. the vote not withstanding, he was writing entirely for himself against the other 8.
2. this ruling lets stand the principle that the federal government can force any living individual citizen to buy a private sector product it deems necessary for the “general welfare” (a phrase in an introductory clause with no limiting function that leftists commonly use to justify their false belief in a “living, breathing” constitution. in fact i believe that roberts actually cited that introductory phrase in his opinion. stunning). show me the enumerated power in the constitution that allows this. show me the founder or framer expressing this federal interpretation of power in the constitution (which express purpose was to limit federal power to the absolute minimum to protect the lives, and private property of states and individual citizens from external threats, other states and criminal individuals). this ruling *creates* a whole new federal power out of whole cloth. how does that square with the fact that the constitution was to hold federal power constant at the level established in 1789 with the only additions being further amendments?
3. finally, the sheer lawlessness of a judge rewriting a statute (substituting an new and itself unconstitutional catagory of tax for a penalty) is something that should demand immediate impeachment. no definition of justice under the constitution allows a judge to make up law on the spot in a constitutional republic. that act is logically excluded from a constitution that holds federal power constant. also, to continue with my refutation of the article above. rewriting a law is not taking the difference between constitutional or unconstitutional interpretation. that implies that an existing law is ambiguous. no, this is tyranny. and roberts is unmasked as a leftist. pure and simple.
It’s a dishonest ruling. When te Supreme Court has to employ subterfuge instead of plain English, you know we are in trouble.
Some bad Supreme Court precedent has come from decisions where one side failed to make the best arguments, with the consequence that the Court issued a decision which effectively foreclosed the argument that was not made (because the side failing to make it lost), or else issued a decision based on a totally fallacious argument (because the court realized that the side that made the argument should probably have won for other reasons). What the Court should do in such cases, IMHO, would be to offer up their evaluation of the arguments made thus far, and inform both sides of what better arguments would be. Some people might interpret such behavior as being a sign of "bias", but having the Supreme Court tell the side that should probably win to make the right argument so it can win, would be far better than letting that side win with a bad argument.
Here they were on the Vineyard back in the eighties:
John Roberts, Don Scherer, Richard Lazarus Martha's Vineyard, 1980's |
Wonder how the climate is on Malta this time of year?
http://www.cile.edu/malta2012final2sm.pdf
Chief Justice Roberts and Professor Richard Lazarus will teach United States Supreme Court in Historical Perspective for one credit.
Anyone know who all might have accompanied the Chief Justice on his Malta vacation gig? Any pics of the nuclear family extant?
I read that he went to Malta without wifey and kiddies.
Maybe on this thread, or someone there knows:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2902707/posts
No. Where’s the tar and feathers????
Before even getting to the arguments, by any reasonable interpretation of the rules shouldn't only eight Justices have been hearing this to begin with?
Who didn't know that while King Barry was sure to make horrible court appointments, McCain only may have made bad appointments?
Roberts took the most narrow view he could in keeping with precedent but did make sure it is clearly a tax which means the entire law is illegal on other grounds.
When you elect a sack of crap to be President, that sack of crap, appoints Justices, and Supreme Court decisions therefore always hinge on a single vote, the problem isn't primarily the single vote that decides matters in any given case. It's the millions of finger pointing folks, a good many of whom sat out the last election because they were too pure to vote for McCain, who won't get in the trenches and take over the Vichy Republican Party the way the fascists took over the Democrat Party.
People who refuse to lower themselves to even bothering to vote in order to try and avoid the worst case situation of having someone like King Barry appoint Justices aren't going to do what it takes to repeal the law even if it had been ruled unconstitutional. We have entire bureaucracies that are unconstitutional and those are going strong, so why should a single Justice be held responsible for agreeing with the very same people now raising hell by stating that the Court shouldn't usurp the authority of Congress unless absolutely necessary?
Was it absolutely necessary in this case? That's an entirely different debate and needs to start with why anyone expects a different situation than the mess we're in after 17th Amendment totally destroyed the system of checks and balances that the Founders put in place.
Lynch Roberts, burn him at the stake, whatever you like, and whatever makes you feel better. Just don't don't pretend that would make any difference unless the machinery that passed BarryCare in the first place is cleaned out In fact, it's just lending aid and comfort to your enemies who will get to decide who replaces Roberts.
JMHO
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.