Will Roberts Get Rolled on Census Case?

spector.org ^ | 6/17/2019 | david catron

[bitt]

The ACLU asks SCOTUS to delay ruling in Department of Commerce v. New York.

Sometime during the next two weeks, the Supreme Court is expected to hand down its ruling on whether the Census Bureau may include a question in the 2020 census asking if the person filling out the form is a U.S. citizen. If you think that’s a sensible question to ask in a nation whose population swells every year with immigrants from all over the planet, that means you’re in step with 60 percent of registered voters. It does, however, put you at odds with the Democrats, various leftwing activist groups, and an Obama-appointed judge in New York. Enter SCOTUS.

The Supreme Court took up the case early this year and heard oral arguments on April 23. It’s always difficult to predict a SCOTUS ruling by analyzing the questions asked by the justices during these hearings, but most Court watchers came away with the impression that the “conservative majority” would rule in favor of the Trump Commerce department. At which point, the Democrats did what they always do when they fear they are about to lose a Supreme Court Case — they sought some way to intimidate Chief Justice John Roberts. The ACLU came to their rescue:

The ACLU asked the Supreme Court to wait until the fall to decide if it will reject or allow the Trump administration to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. We requested the Supreme Court send the case to a lower court to consider new evidence showing the question was added for political purposes.

The “new evidence” consists of some information found on the hard drive of a Republican consultant named Thomas Hofeller. This fortuitous discovery ..

[EQAndyBuzz]

“I don’t suppose anyone ever accused you of being an optimist? : - )”

Me? lol. I am an optimist. It’s the way I was brought up.

[joe fonebone]

There are people on this site that understand the bars of gold this ruling gave us.... no more unfunded mandates....no more commerce clause abuse.... there are several other things this ruling gave us.... but to mention them on this site will get you flamed

[tom h]

I’m just telling you the facts. Not justifying it. And trying to open some eyes. I wanted Obamacare overturned too. Roberts is not stupid, nor is he being bribed. In his own way, he is principled. Understanding him is much better than labeling.

Clearly, I’ve found another budding genius (you) who thinks he can prove his 90 IQ in 50 characters or less. I bet you didnt’ even read what I wrote.

Head over to Twitter, clown, and do your bomb dropping there. I’m a thoughtful intelligent Freeper and I’d win any debate with you before the moderator got past the introductions.

[tom h]

I wanted it overturned, too, so I cannot disagree with you.

In fact, I was hoping the SCOTUS would overturn it because Obamacare was tax legislation that originated in the Senate, which is directly in violation of the Constitution. But no such luck back in 2012.

But the real reason we got Obamacare was not because Roberts refused to vote to overturn it. It’s because 50 million American whites voted for an unqualified, socialist-leaning black man to be President just to expiate their white guilt. That’s the real travesty.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Did your Constitutional scholarship include “UnConstitutional in part, UnConstitutional in whole?”

Good God, get over yourself you smarmy little bitch.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

You should learn from Creepy Uncle Joe about “self aggrandizement”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1j0FS0Z6ho

[tom h]

Of course everyone on the left lied. And guess what, lying is not a crime when you’re a politician.

Look, all I was trying to do is show that Roberts was neither rolled nor bribed on his Obamacare vote. He followed a very clever strategem that actually, mostly worked. I didn’t endorse it, although I respect it because it was good. I wanted Obamacare overturned like everyone else.

If you want to blame anyone for a single vote that would have stopped Obamacare, blame John McCain. His motives were not pure by any stretch back in 2017.

And from a top level perspective, here we are, 9 years after Obamacare, 7 years after the SCOTUS decision, and 2 years after the GOP’s failure to overturn it when they had the Congress, and what is making the news? Medicare for all. The fact that this monstrosity doesn’t have a stake in it is due to silly and stupid citizens, the lockhold that the left has on public education, and a media that is most comfortable, in the presence of Democrats, lying on its back with its legs spread.

Does anyone think that had Obamacare been overturned, lock stock and barrel, back in 2012 that Medicare for all would be a dead issue? Hardly. So the beast was wounded, not killed. But the same deceptive forces that made Obamacare happen are still around, still alive, still getting attention.

That’s why this ridiculous blame game focused on Roberts is dumb, dumnber, and dumbest. Medicare for all is worse than Obamacare, yet it has legs. Focus on the real problems.

I would not want anyone still angry about Obamacare on my team. I want the ones who only look to the future battles, not the past ones.

[tom h]

Sorry, you’re right, I overestimated your IQ. 90 was too generous.

But you ought to do something about that blood pressure of yours. Being angry about something that happened 7 years ago it not good for the heart, the head, and the body.

[mlo]

"Look, all I was trying to do is show that Roberts was neither rolled nor bribed on his Obamacare vote."

And my explaining that he's actually right about the tax question only reinforces that. Not sure how you're getting that I want to blame him for a single vote, or why you would write the rest of that response to me.

[little jeremiah]

I’ve read similar explanations over the years and yours is the best and clearest. Thanks.

[tom h]

I must have missed that point, sorry. If you agree with Roberts’ position that the mandate was in truth a tax, then you are in a minority here on FR for certain.

[tom h]

Thanks. Did I leave anything out?

[old-ager]

> no more commerce clause abuse

How about general welfare next?

[little jeremiah]

I’m not educated enough to know.

[Conservative Gato]

I wanted it overturned, too, so I cannot disagree with you.

In fact, I was hoping the SCOTUS would overturn it because Obamacare was tax legislation that originated in the Senate, which is directly in violation of the Constitution. But no such luck back in 2012.

But the real reason we got Obamacare was not because Roberts refused to vote to overturn it. It’s because 50 million American whites voted for an unqualified, socialist-leaning black man to be President just to expiate their white guilt. That’s the real travesty.

WOW, you even post and admit to huge Constitutional problems with this legislation and yet you still give SCJ Roberts a pass for finding a way to get the job done, unbelievable. Then you have the gall to deride and chide others who disagree with you, unbelievable.

CGato

[DBeers]

Why? Because he thinks that citizens should live with the decisions made by their legislators.

EVEN when the decisions clearly violate the Constitution and Individual's God-given rights? Legislators are NOT above the U.S. Constitution.

Rather than divining intent or refashioning the hot mess the Left imposed upon Americans, Roberts should have kicked it to the curb.

[tom h]

Jeez, stop screaming at the sky like that gal did back when Trump was inaugurated.

I didn’t give Roberts “a pass,” I was actually just trying to show to the 2nd graders here in FR land (including you, apparently, since you don’t read carefully) that he isn’t a tool of the left, wasn’t being bribed, and isn’t rolling over for the Dems. He has judicial principles (judicial restraint) and had a plan.

As for final point I made, remember that all five conservative justices didn’t decide the fate of the law based on the chamber that the legislation originated it, so ... again ... stop using Roberts as your boogeyman.

It was a complicated mess to be sure. And it is in the past, so discussing it is purely academic, except to the crazies who are still frothing at the mouth about Roberts. Don’t have an aneurysm. Swallow a valium, take some testosterone blockers, get a lobotomy or something. The lobotomy is guaranteed to work, ask the Kennedys.

[tom h]

Friend, read my original post carefully. Only a small portion, in Roberts’ view, was unconstitutional, not the entire law. He was faced with bad choices either way. Why he chose B and not A, he’ll probably tell us in his memoirs someday.

Yes, the left would have done it to us. They would have overturned a huge piece of conservative legislation just because 2% was unconstitutional. But, apparently, that’s not Roberts’ philosophy. Obamacare was a monstrosity and a nightmare, but most of those 2,000 pages were not unconstitutional. And Roberts wasn’t going to be a judicial activist like everyone else. I suppose he was trying to make a point, set an example. Who knows?

[Conservative Gato]

Oh so now that I point out your hypocrisy, you have to deride me too???

LOL, You call yourself a Constitutionalist, then YOU and OTHERS point out huge Constitutional problems with this legislation, and then defend, yes you are giving SCJ Roberts a pass, for figuring out a way to rule on this.

FWIW, Your take was available at the time of this ruling and I gave it some consideration. Like YOU and OTHERS have pointed out on this thread, there was just too many things wrong with this legislation for me to go there with that take. Nor have I ruled out SCJ Roberts is compromised is some way in which led to this ruling.

I’ll keep my options open on this but go ahead and continue to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you, LOL

CGato

[tom h]

Try out these samples of the vitriol that I received for merely providing an educated perspective:

“Such condescending nonsense.”
“Sooooo, how much is Obama paying you for this fairytale?”
“I am offended by your silly 3 paragraph boondoggle”
“You ... are the enemy of the people”
“you smarmy little bitch”

Calling me an “enemy” of free peoples, and a “bitch,” well, well ... these are firsts for this middle aged, lifelong conservative constitutionalist. I’ve never stumbled into such idiocy and lunacy at FR except when the Catholics and evangelicals are duking it out. Honestly, when Freepers react only emotionally, and not rationally, they start to resemble the looney left.