CBS: Justice Roberts Switched Views To Uphold Health Care Law
- Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:07pm by
Erica Ritz
- Print »
- Email »
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (Photo: AP)
CBS News’ Jan Crawford is reporting that Chief Justice John Roberts originally sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of Obama’s health care reform law, often referred to as “Obamacare,” but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
CBS continues (all subsequent emphasis added):
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy – believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law – led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
“He was relentless,” one source said of Kennedy’s efforts. “He was very engaged in this.”
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, “You’re on your own.”
The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.
Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts’ decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
And while the Supreme Court is notoriously secretive– no law clerks or secretaries are allowed in the room when the justices discuss cases and cast their initial votes– Roberts’ drastic shift was noted in this closely-watched case.
This artist rendering shows Chief Justice John Roberts, center, speaking at the Supreme Court in Washington, Thursday, June 28, 2012 (Photo: AP)
CBS explains a possible reason for the change of heart:
[Unlike some other justices] Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court – and to Roberts’ reputation – if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.
Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.
It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, “wobbly,” the sources said.
It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.
Others maintain that Roberts just came to realize the historical impact of striking down such a law, and political pressure had nothing to do with it.
(Photo: AP)
But CBS continues:
Roberts then engaged in his own lobbying effort – trying to persuade at least Justice Kennedy to join his decision so the Court would appear more united in the case. There was a fair amount of give-and-take with Kennedy and other justices, the sources said. One justice, a source said, described it as “arm-twisting.”
Even in Roberts’ opinion, which was circulated among the justices in early June, there are phrases that appear tailored to get Kennedy’s vote. Roberts even used some of the same language that Kennedy used during oral arguments.
[...]In fact, Kennedy was the most forceful and engaged of all the conservatives in trying to persuade Roberts to stand firm to strike down the mandate. Two sources confirm that he didn’t give up until the very end.
The story also says that the conservative dissent was not originally written as a majority opinion, as some have thought, but reads differently than expected because the conservatives simply refused to acknowledge Roberts’ opinion.
The article concludes with Kennedy’s strong statement from the dissent: “The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty in peril…Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead our judgment today has disregarded it.”
National Review Online’s Avik Roy said of the revelation: “The bottom line, if Jan Crawford is right, is that conservative justices can be blackmailed by left-wing editorialists. It’s not a pretty picture.”
This post has been updated.
Popular Stories
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 669 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 525 Comments
Paper Details Obama Admin’s Alleged Secret Note Sent to Iran: If Israel Attacks, We Won’t Get Involved 384 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 365 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 327 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 254 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 263 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
President Obama Issues Major ‘Green Energy’ Executive Order 113 Comments- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 254 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (584)
gdbhusker
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:49pmJustice Roberts is not only wise, but very crafty! he realized that to simply strike down the constitutionality of Obamacare would be in vein as it would continue to render it’s ugly head time and time again……what he wrote in his decision is that it is a STATE question!!! he did this by getting (7-2) in favor of striking the commerce clause used by the super majority to put this into law in the first place!! this enables us to make each instance of obamacare a state issue and strike it down as we see fit… he also got this law called what it really is…A TAX!!!! and by right all taxes must conform to the body of the congress (2/3 vote) by which it must approve on increase….having said all of that… Justice Roberts gave us a way of getting rid of the whole ugly mess of of forced medical by letting us remove it’s pieces….I am Libertarian, and have been a republican the past 25 years…I am conservative to the bone, and I think this decision will be in the history books as the greatest yet!!! without causing an all out war between dems/republicans just wait a few weeks while this starts to unravel and there will be NOTHING that can be done at the federal level..all will be STATE…good job in getting those uber liberals to strike the Commerce clause and letting states strike this law down……..good job in deed!!!!
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:59pm@GDBHUSKER
Report Post »Let us all hope your prediction comes true.
Baddoggy
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:07pmYea…Oh I feel much better. Maybe you will really feel great when they force you to buy a windmill for your backyard or solar panels for your rooftop….Maybe when you are forced to buy a Government mandatory clown car that gets 85 miles to the gallon?
You are one step closer to the mental institution if you like this ruling. Good grief. Call yourself a LIBERAL and quit trying to say you are a Conservative. You are not!
Report Post »Inlightofthings
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:10pmGDBHUSKER:
Sorry, but you are missing something!!!! The ruling as applied literally forms a NEW type of tax. The 3 and ONLY 3 that previously existed were: Excise, Income, Aportional. No more no less. The ACA Ruling does not fit the definition of any of those 3 so CJ Roberts literally WROTE legislation from the bench forming a new TYPE of tax. You can assume Healthcare is good to go or not to go under the ruling. I’ll keep it simple for you….take a look at the food pyramid and how FLOTUS ties that into healthcare.
Currently food is NOT taxed at the consumer level so if you buy food – tax is not applied (state level sales tax). In the Roberts Ruling if you don’t buy healthcare, you are taxed. This NEW form of TAX will could say if you don’t subscribe to the food pyramid (prescribed by the federal gov’t) you will be taxed. The COMMERCE portion of this ruling is now meaningless and I can’t believe that folks even recognize it as a win. This is far too serious to find a win anywhere in the ruling. The only exception is people waking up…I pray.
Report Post »GrumpyCat
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:11pmThe problem is that the SCOTUS is not supposed to render a wrong decision in order to get desired results. That becomes Judicial Activism.
Roberts was wrong to rule a fine is a permitted tax because Congress has taxing authority. He is wrong because he didn’t interpret the law, he re-wrote it claiming Congress could have written it that way in the first place. Judicial Activism.
Report Post »Inlightofthings
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:23pmHUSKER:
More of a rant…have you paid attention to the food police at schools and how they send kids sack lunches home because they aren’t “qualified” and feed the kids nuggets and some slop?
More simply, look at Bloomberg in NY and the drinks. Try this one on for size as a reality check. Rather than restrict the size of the drink you buy as in the case of Bloomberg where you may pay sales tax…the Federal gov’t says if you buy a sugared soda over 16 ounces you are taxed at the federal level. Try to imagine the complexity with regulations, reporting, recording, auditors associated with this alone. The infrastructure for this is not in the future…every bit of it is in place now.
Further, I mentioned the food group because every moron in the continental US should be able to relate to that. Forget the commerce clause…forget it!
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:34pmSo….. the SCOTUS is very secretive.
Who is this “source” that CBS is referring to and how dig they get this info?
Report Post »Couyon64
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:36pmMe too. I hope you’re right.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:43pm@ gdbhusker
Wishful thinking. Ask yourself this question: “why would John Roberts make things so convoluted when all it would take to achieve the same end result is to strike ObamaCare down outright?”
Roberts is not a genius. He’s simply a traitor.
Report Post »lukerw
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:55pmWE NEED, FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD… a Polygraph & Physchological Profile… of Each Appointee or Candidate for Public Office, before approval!
Report Post »My Two Cents
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:07pmI think you are living in denial. We just moved one giant step closer to the UK in terms of the nanny state.
Report Post »Inlightofthings
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:13pmLUKER:
Report Post »One would assume that the oath they take places them under the penalty of perjury. I don‘t care if they say they own a cat and don’t; it’s a lie and they should be removed from office. I think the politicians typical MO is what led to the overturning of the Valor act. Sad indeed…
The_Jerk
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:13pmIf it is a tax, is it deductible?
Report Post »SPOT_OF_TEA
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:16pmI think his reasoning is probably more simple…..He probably consulted some leftist preist who told him that government taking money from some to give to others is the moral thing to do…That way both Roberts and the preist can keep their money in their bank accounts and they can still feel good about themselves for being caring and loving people.
Report Post »PATTY HENRY
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:23pmI agree that ROBERTS played CHESS instead of CHECKERS. I love it that the States can‘t be told they’ll lose X if they don’t do Y.
Report Post »The issue we need to address…all of us…is how we are going to allow the best health care system in the world (in which 85% of us are covered) get pooped up in an uneducated, desperate effort to CONTROL all of us. We all want everyone to have access to health care. Not by ruining the best system on earth.
WE need to
ELIMINATE FRAUD
BUILD CLINICS
OPEN THE MARKET
SUBSIDIZE MEDICAL STUDENTS
DEAL WITH TORT REFORM
We needed to do ALL of that before we threw out the BABY with the BATH WATER. Again another Half-’ssed, poorly thought out blunder by this inept “CORPSE MAN” in the WH.
soybomb315
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:24pmThe supreme court is not the defender of the constitution. Time to excercise some state’s rights – NULLIFY
Report Post »The_Jerk
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:26pmRoberts is a fraud, a fake, a man without integrity and honesty. He’s the worst kind of man. The truth always reveals itself. Just like David Souter, a Bush I appointee.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:28pm@GDBHUSKER
Spare us the rambling, dude. You sound as convoluted and unconvincing as Roberts. His arm was twisted, all right, but not by the state media. That is absolutely ludicrous. The Obamamedia is putting out this narrative to shield the true culprit: Obama. He got his O’CARE tax and his new all-encompassing O’COMMIE tax — two for one. Not bad, huh? Oh, wait. He saved his presidency as well. That being said, I don’t blame Roberts. Barack did not make him an offer he could not refuse. Barack issued a threat Roberts could not ignore.
BTW, you stupid, lying media. Everyone expected Roberts to declare CommieCare unconstitutional, so the justice who would have borne the brunt of your liberal ire would have been Kennedy, NOT Roberts, and as you can see, Kennedy didn‘t give a rat’s @ss what you think. None of them do.
Report Post »KNIGHT1777
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:37pmAdd your comments
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:49pm@PATTY HENRY
Report Post »Patty, patriot woman who makes men proud: head out of sand!!
West Coast Patriot
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:00pmKnight, I think I will let Peter Schiff add his comments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NNCyEC9r_mk&feature=youtu.be
Report Post »johnvuini
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:28pmI really don’t see what you were writing about. I feel this will still be a thorn in our side (especially the death panels). But lets hope God listens to your way of thinking.
Report Post »Gonzo
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:37pmDream on. He ruled to prevent the left from trying to delegitimize the court. He was more worried about upholding the ‘reputation’ of the court than the Constitution.
Report Post »Roberto G. Vasquez
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:49pmThe US Constitution is dead! We are now a 3rd world dumping ground for illegals and political criminals.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:51pmFolks, bottom line is, if Kennedy who was the swing vote didn’t buy it, if the three other conservatives on the Court didn’t buy it, then we shouldn’t buy it.
Snap out of it, patriots. When the SHTF is looming on the horizon.
Report Post »Paul
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:54pm“Justice Roberts Switched Views ”
Nope, how can they even consider saying that, he “Evolved.”…
Report Post »Anti_Spock
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:55pmThe best analogy I have heard and read so far. Let’s hope Roberts is twice as smart as the conservatives that are bashing him, and three times as smart as the liberals that think this is a victory.
Report Post »De minimus
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 7:07pmNO. He’s a traitor and you are an idiot. Sorry for the lack of PC but nobody seems to care about my feelings or the constitution, so I don’t either.
Report Post »Patrick Henry II
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 7:09pmI wish you are right but think not.
{The White House insisted Sunday the consequence for Americans not having health insurance is a penalty fee, despite the Supreme Court ruling that it is a tax, and said the debate on the Affordable Care Act should finally end.
White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew said on “Fox News Sunday” that “when the Supreme Court rules” the country “has a final decision” and that the presidential campaigns should focus on the economy and jobs}
Report Post »There are however some seious problems here an more cases lined up. see the Dem lines already? They are contradicting he ruling already and they won?
shagstar
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 7:24pmi agree,,,if this fiasco was such a great victory then how come obummer is still attempting too rape the sheeple for more donations??
Report Post »MIBUGNU2
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 7:29pmThen the Government has been wasting Precious Time and
Report Post »Money for the past 3 1/2 Years, with POTUS knowing this was
a TAX all along.. and would not have even gotten off the ground.
Continues to show the People how deceitful, arrogant, corrupt
and incompetent this Administration really is…..NOV. 6, 2012
soybomb315
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 7:30pmI wish republicans would get off this ‘tax increase’ mantra. Obamacare is not a tax, it is a PENALTY. Call it for what it is. Don‘t give in to the liberals and supreme court’s progressive definition of a tax.
Report Post »MIBUGNU2
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 7:36pm@The-Monk
So….. the SCOTUS is very secretive.
Who is this “source” that CBS is referring to and how did they get this info?
The infamous White House Leaker strikes again….Only BO Knows !!!!!!!!!!!
Report Post »Keep Your Skepticals On
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 8:00pmRoberts did not provide anything constructive by “switching sides”, The ACA should not have been held constitutional under the Commerce Clause nor Taxation. Neither of them. To argue he took one just to give us the other is silly – they are not mutually exclusive.
There is no solace in “limiting” the commerce clause. Any addintional power they could have ever wanted out of it was just handed to the through Taxation. It is also complete irrelevant how easy or diffucult it is for congress to pass this kind of thing when the Supreme Court just tied thier own hands to be a check & balance to congress. If anything it trends the Supreme Court to be more activist having the power to interpret legislation so loosly.
States won’t have any sovereignty again the 17th amendment is repealed.
Report Post »Keep Your Skepticals On
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 8:14pmIn personal financial terms, these penalties are taxes. In constitutional terms, they are not. This is the differentiation the courts should have recognized.
Report Post »taxpro4u03
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 8:29pmSounds like he played verbal gymnastics to get ‘his’ conservative base ginned up, knowing full well ‘penalty’ and ‘tax’ are not – synonymous in matters at law. Courts can and DO follow the language of the ‘law,’ and in this case – intentionally ‘changed it’ to ‘fit’ for upholding ACA in its entirety. — Kick it back to the States to exercise ‘nullification’ arguments, further supporting the Legal Industrial Complex while at the same time over-burdening the ‘collection’ arm (IRS) – with ‘voluntary compliance’ issues — Won’t stand… — we’ll see how it plays out in November :-) Dems and Repubs, Independents — ALL ‘like taxes..‘ Those ’engaged‘ will ’decide for THEMSELVES – ‘Precedent’ has revealed its ugly head on obedience and respect for the Rule of Law, as the TOP dawgs thumbed their noses at it THREE TIMES inside of a week… you think the public isn‘t ’watching‘ and learning ’how its done?’ — Selective Enforcement can only lead to Selective Compliance — which eventually will place an additional unnecessary burden on already strained fedreral/state and local ‘public funds’ to ‘enforce.‘ Perhaps the ’intent’ is to bankrupt them all?? :-)
Report Post »wakeus_com
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 8:43pmI agree. I was furious, then began to realize the wisdom in his decision. Yes, Obamatax will destroy this nation, but not if We The People wake up and destroy it first … and there is only one way to do that. Obama is scared to death since he “won.”
Report Post »warriorgal
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:07pmYou are probably right. NOW, We The People MUST unite E Pluribus Unum to STOP this abomination. New Yorkers MUST UNITE and UNDERSTAND, LIBERTY IS AT STAKE HERE. Will we advance under LIBERTY or surrender to the likes of SERFDOM? ENOUGH with the WELFARE mentality of gimme, gimme, my name is Jimmy. As Americans we OWE it to our children and grandchildren to get OFF our BLESSED ASSurances and STAND AS ONE. It has fallen on our watch and NOTHING else matters but defending LIBERTY FOR ALL. May the Almighty grant us great grace for the battle ahead. Happy Independence Day America! Celebrate your FREEDOM! THEN GET READY TO WORK, WORK AND WORK SOME MORE!!!!
Report Post »socialism.rocks
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:13pmthe obama team argued it wrong…
they should of went after the history of healthcare mandates and regulation…..
taxation is not as important nor is the commerces clause
anything regulated on a federal level becomes a right…. and since reagan did regulated it on a federal level it should be a right
but i see real no intellectualism out of the supreme court in the last 40 years
Report Post »MIBUGNU2
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:17pm@soybomb315
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 7:30pm
I wish republicans would get off this ‘tax increase’ mantra. Obamacare is not a tax, it is a PENALTY. Call it for what it is. Don‘t give in to the liberals and supreme court’s progressive definition of a tax
OK, It’s a PENALTY…..IRS is going to take MORE MONEY out of My Pocket…
Report Post »Pelosi and her Democrat Crapweasels FUC**ED us again, Made BO HAPPY !!
kryptonite
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:17pm@SOYBOMB
Report Post »I wish republicans would get off this ‘tax increase’ mantra. Obamacare is not a tax, it is a PENALTY. Call it for what it is. Don‘t give in to the liberals and supreme court’s progressive definition of a tax.
——
LOL, libs and their media are NOT calling Commiecare a tax. They insist it’s a PENALTY (which it is). The whole universe knows it’s stupid to call a table a chair. However, since Roberts ruled that a table is indeed a chair, libs will use it in writing, i.e., we will be PENALIZED for not complying with every effin mandate Barack throws at us, since Congress can henceforth pass any penalty as a “tax,” and then say it is “really a penalty” (which it will be). And you can bet Barack’s think tank is already plotting 1001 ways to taxpenalize the American people, since he is out of money. Think of it this way: They get to have their cake and eat it too.
MIBUGNU2
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:34pmIf the people knew what the definition of is is, we would
Report Post »know this is a TAX.. the PEOPLE can’t TRUST these
LYING BASTAR**S.. …..ROMNEY NOV. 6, 2012
jzs
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:42pmEverybody is required by states to have car insurance. Your state requires you to buy care insurance. No one has a problem with that because it’s just common sense. If somebody slams into you then you have some assurance that they have insurance and are able to compensate you. Anybody had a car accident before? That’s the government forcing you to buy something and everyone sees the sense in that: it protects the responsible against the irresponsible.
The ACA is no different. Thanks to Reagan, when somebody is sick a hospital has to treat them even if they can’t pay. They can’t pay but somebody does: you. You pay for people who don’t have insurance when they get sick.
That’s no longer the case. As Romney said when he pushed through the individual mandate when he was governor, there’s no free ride. You have to get health insurance just like you have to get car insurance so you and I don’t have to pay for your medical bills.
Report Post »FEWL
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:47pmI am afraid we have been pigeon holed into a corner This law will likely never go away now. Romney created his own version and he really isn’t any kind of real option. Not only that but Republicans will need at the very least a majority in the Senate, if not a supermajority if Obama does remain in the Presidency.
The Chief Justice (I hope) voted what he believed was right even if I think he is wrong. I truly hope he did not give into pressure as the article suggests.
Report Post »TulsaYeeHaw
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:52pmNO JZS, they aren’t paying for their insurance. I AM. People who have the ability to pay aren’t screwing the hospitals, people who can’t pay are. Don‘t you think they’d have insurance if they could. Passing a law punishing me for not getting it so I can pay a “compliance tax” to subsidize them is not the same as having car insurance. Stop looking at this as a marxist.
Report Post »RJL
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:52pmWhatever reason Roberts used in not getting rid of Obamacare, Romney will do the same thing. He will cut and chop away bits and pieces but we will never get rid of it entirely.
I don’t care what Romney says in his speeches things will be a lot different in the big house.
Even if the Senate turns Republican, the liberal Republicans will keep most of the bill in place along with Romney.
Report Post »ericthebarbaric
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:01pmIf it doesn’t, then the civil war is on! I will begin by not paying my taxes this year. Who is with me?
Report Post »inchbyinch
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:36pmYou are so far from right it’s not even funny. Dicta is not precedent, so nothing Roberts said about commerce will have any legal bearing in the future. He was A COWARD. He pandered to the press, media. He knew this was a bad law, hell, he re-wrote it. He could have done this with the immigration ruling but he did not? Why?
Report Post »Paul_Vincent_Zecchino
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:41pmOh please. Spare me yet another Pollyanna effort at spinning a big, fat, platter of steam doggie-dump into Grandma’s Spicy Meatloaf.
This is dog doot, an execrable betrayal and this regime will now go full throttle to destroy liberty.
Indeed, you insist upon driving a V-8 car, rather than some electro-jalopy Klown Kar? Taxes for you, Boy-o.
You insist upon living in your own home on your own land, rather than a nice, concrete stack-and-pack cage in some northern gulag like detroitus or chicongo, run by thugs? Taxes and prison for you.
That‘s what’s coming. Glad to know Roberts cared so very much for the ‘legacy’ of the court and how it’s perceived by Americans. He needn’t worry, everyone has formed an opinion on this, just not the one for which he was angling.
By the bye, what they heck is with this bullshale about ‘legacy’, anyhow? Did you ever hear President Reagan ever mention his ‘legacy’? Me neither. It started with bubba bullshale during the last daze of his kakistocracy, always gassing off about his ‘legacy’.
Yeah. We got his legacy alright. None of it good. Stinks. As does this ruling: stinks.
Report Post »servant100
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:54pmSorry…but this simply doesn’t wash. The 4 conservative judges wrote a dissenting opinion that does hold water. The “Affordable care act” was an unconstutional use of the commerce clause to generate a mandate/tax for what you didn’t choose to do…and forces you to pay a penalty/tax for non action. Totally new…totally against the constitution. The chief justice’s job is to determine whether law is or is not CONSTITUTIONAL..period. His job is NOT to perform legal lateral arabesques to frame later issues in a game of political chess one upmanship. That is simple political BS that is supposed to be outside the perview of the SUPREME COURT.
No Chief Justice Roberts chose to dig in the dirt and create new legislation from the bench in a manner that has never been seen before. He created…not judged. That is the difference in role between integrity and craven caving in.. And it doesn’t take a rocket scientist or legal expert to see that chief justice Roberts…should actually be wearing motley and sitting on the steps leading up to the President’s new throne…making diverting “lateral arabesques” to entertain the new monarch he has created by a penstroke.
He is a fool who has acted cravenly…and is now retroactively rationalizing his craven role in this abortion of a decision.
Report Post »ambrosia
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:04pmA “penalty” is when some stinking, athletic goon on the opposing team grabs your face mask.
A “tax” is when some stinking, political goon on the Democratic team grabs your wallet.
Obama’s liberal loons & goons are two-steppin’ all around their biggest TAX in history.
TAX is the last tag, they want attached to their horrid healthcare bill or their names.
Their “Tax & Spend” mentality & history birthed the all-American Tea Party.
Tea Party, Tea Party, Tea Party-
hound them & haunt them with those words.
Don’t EVER let them forget it, America,
don’t ever let them live it down.
Keep on the & call them what they are, every chance you get-
“Tax & Spend Liberals”.
Obamacare is nothing but a horrendous TAX on Middle Class America
and Middle Class America has had ENOUGH !
They talk about the Middle Class but they could give a flying crap about the Middle Class.
Report Post »Reciprocate their crap & channel our beloved, Breveheart Breitbart-
Do your patriotic duty & vote ALL of them O-U-T !
EM2T93
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:16pm@GDBHUSKER…
So, by this logic, Roberts’ brilliant chess game led him to “fall on the sword” for We The People and the states by violating the Constitution in order to save the Constitution?
Report Post »Uranium Wedge
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:26pmOr maybe his family was threatened. Who knows.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:29pmTulsaYeeHaw says, “NO JZS, they aren’t’t paying for their insurance. I AM. People who have the ability to pay aren’t’t screwing the hospitals, people who can’t pay are.”
Tulsa, you’re right in at least one respect. Yes, people who don’t have money to pay for insurance are screwing the hospitals (Reagan passed a bill that said hospitals have to treat people who come in even if they can’t pay), hospitals that have to make profit. So who pays for that? You do in increased hospital and insurance costs. You pay for those people now, just as you’d have to pay if someone without care insurance slams into you.
Sorry to say you’re wrong, but there is no “compliance tax.” Where did you get that false and ridiculous idea? Seriously, where did you get that idea? That’s false, that’s wrong.
Your buying into the nonsense. The Affordable Care Act is already in effect, parts of it anyway. Have you seen a line item on your tax return for a “compliance tax?” Of course not. You simply buy the lies, but in your case, I think it‘s because you don’t know better and because of your selection of news sources.
Report Post »Uranium Wedge
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:32pmAnd I see that JZS is the new DIPSH!T. Since when do you have does the gubment require to drive or buy a car? Dumb ass
Report Post »Uranium Wedge
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:35pmMe smart me can comment.. I’m I right “JZS”?
Report Post »Misha
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:51pmNo.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:19amUranium Wedge says, “And I see that JZS is the new DIPSH!T.” Actually I think you are the new DIPSH!T. I’ve been here for a couple of years.
Uranium Wedge says, “Me smart me can comment.. I’m I right JZS?”
Uh, yes?
Report Post »ITSJESTTIM
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:35amHalleluiah, me and my cousin J Z S have finally arrived back on Planet Earth from our vacations on Gog and Magog. We had the time of our lives. My Cousin gave the most wonder speeches on how to convert all the tiny Earthlings from a Republic to a Socialized Democracy. He was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize after only 3 weeks of “being there”. My cousin will consume you for breakfast and poop you out before dinner. Three cheers for my mighty cousin (who married his 1st cousin) for his fortitude and general Deliverance (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0068473/) from his way of life.
Report Post »teddie888
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:35amThe state situation is that a state doesn‘t have to take the additional medicaid people if they don’t wish to and feds can’t hold back other federal monies , if they choose to do it. All the additional medicaid people (Bobo is lowering the requirements to get on) are the ones we’ve been paying for in the emergency rooms & now we would be paying for them through Medicare…either way we pay theirs. So the only 1′s left to pay emergency rooms r the illegals that we have also always been paying for
Report Post »TheePolitinator
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:41amToo bad you didn’t read in the massive 2700 page commie takeover how if a state refuses the will step in and do it for them.
Report Post »Common Sense Jedi
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:55am@JZS
You‘ve been on this site for 2 years and you’re *still* this clueless? You do realize that car insurance is a state and not federal law, right? And even so, you do realize you have to have it to cover damage to *other* people and not yourself, right? Pesky little things those facts are, aren’t they? Idiot.
Roberts’ single-handedly (and unconstitutionally) ruling that Congress has the ability to tax inactivity is unconstituional because it doesn’t fit in any of the 3 constitutionally allowed types of taxes by our government (i.e., excise, income, and direct/capitation), and the Constitution doesn’t allow *anyone* to come up with new tax types on a whim just to fit an argument, including the Supreme Court. Roberts declared things a “penalty” to get past the Anti-Injunction Act, yet then immediately after declares things a “tax” to uphold ACA. Roberts is a coward, traitor, and despicable human being for throwing out the Constitution like he did, and God help our country going forward.
JZS, I know you‘re most likely a troll and you’re just spewing idiotic drivel just to piss people off on this site. Please do the world a favor and DIAF and stop wasting everyone’s time. I see your comments on so many Blaze posts, and it makes me really feel sad for you that you have no life nor intellect at all. Please do some soul-searching and try to come to terms with the fact that the world doesn’t wanna hear how much of an idiot you are day in and day out.
Report Post »Common Sense Jedi
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:14amAnother thing I think most people are missing is the fact that Roberts’ ruling means taxes no longer have to originate in the House like our Constitution says they must. After his ruling, taxes can *now* be labelled as a “penalty” in order to bypass that requirement. Does anyone honestly believe the Democrats will *ever* call a tax “tax” again after this? By ruling the ACA a tax when the bill that passed was passed from the Senate (not the House), it‘s the first time in our country’s history that a tax didn’t originate in the House. If anyone thinks Roberts cares about the Constitution still, you must seriously be higher than our “high” court. This has to go down as one of the top 2 or 3 most radical Supreme Court decisions in our nation’s history.
Report Post »FenrisAmarok
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:15amIf he truly wanted it to be a state question then he wouldn’t have made it constitutional for the NATIONAL government. What is unconstitutional for the Federal govt is not always unconstitutional for the states. If he wanted to give us a way of getting rid of it he would have struck it down. Then there would be NO having to DEAL with it. Instead, as the dissent pointed out, he REWROTE the law. A “penalty” by the government is not legal as stated in the Constitution; taxes are. The mandate was specifically written as a penalty therefore it is a penalty and not a tax. The two are NOT equivalent. I’m all for optimism, but searching for gold where there’s only rock is foolhardy and a waste of time.
Report Post »chalkdust
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 3:23amI won’t rehash my entire position as many in the top posts covered it well. If you don’t buy x you most pay a penalty/tax. Many pointed out this opens the door to vast new powers for the Federal Government. However, what is different about my view is that I can see this new/liberalized taxing power potentially going all the way down to your local Government level. We’ll see.
Report Post »808Americans
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 3:52amAloha,
Report Post »I disagree whole heartedly.
He stands his ground.
He votes no.
Case closed forever.
The Federal Government will not try and pull that crap again because the precedent of “NO” is set.
But now…
No my friend.
The man has sentenced us to Federal slavery.
We are true Surfs now.
Me. You. Your family and mine.
All because of this warped and cowardly decision.
My anger and hatred for this human being is beyond my ability to express.
And I am not a hateful person.
Anamah
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 4:21amI hope you ‘ll be right… I’m not so sure… Roberts allowed this monstrosity to cripple America and he will be charged because of that if the future fails to change our disastrous president. But at least we should change the name of the spawn and calling Obama Tax Care….
Report Post »OBAMA TAX CARE!!! and if it remains it will tax everybody! specially the low income, the poor.
Ruler4You
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 4:57amWho says the SCOTUS isn’t “politicial?”
Report Post »Zarapachi
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 5:43amFor the love of all things free and just, I hope you are correct.
Report Post »SUPERTODD
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 6:58amThat is pure poppycock in regard to Robert’s “wisdom”. What is the point of limiting Congress’ ability to abuse the Commerce Clause if the Court is going to destroy the notion of separation of powers by handing them unlimited power to tax anything? Further, a good argument can be made that Roberts gave back the power asserted in Marbury v Madison by the court. Roberts essntially stated it was not the courts job to rule something unconstitutional if the people (I guess he meant a slim majority of a partisan Congress) wanted it. Under that opinion what would be the point of even having a Supreme Court? He took the path of the coward like the man who nominated him to the bench.
Report Post »poorrichard09
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 8:21amTwo things that are absolutely NOT supposed to influence SCOTUS: politics and public opinion. The court has shown it CAN be influenced and compromised.
Report Post »Either this was an act of pure cowardice, or as some of you believe, a stroke of genius. Time will tell which it is-I hope the latter.
SocialistSlayer
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 8:25amDid the CommieCrats give Roberts a visit in the middle of the night forcing him to change his vote by threatening his and his family‘s life’s?? Just a thought!
Report Post »masimo
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 8:29amYou can drink the spin, but when you put lipstick on a pig it is still a pig. The courts should never be swayed by the media, I think the Chicago white house has something on Roberts or Roberts cares more about his reputation than our freedom. This is the biggest kiss to big government. He should have done the right thing and struck down the entire bill.
Report Post »kadster01
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 8:39amWhat amazes me is how partisanship can inspire some of the most impressive and impossible somersaults to make it look like “I meant to do that.” As someone else here said, it is wrong to legislate the wrong way in order to claim some convoluted plan to do things the right way in the end. As I have stated before, the only way to fix this thing is a shift in the balance of power. If that doesn’t happen, Obamacare will continue as planned. Either way, Roberts is a traitor and a coward .
Report Post »HKS
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 8:46amA good reporter can get him or herself quite well off here, there is one hell of a story going on here. Unless we have lost all our capitalist enthusiasm someone will step up.
Report Post »sWampy
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 8:53amEvery time conservatives have given up their morals to try to fool the evil liberals, they have ended up getting their kids raped in the end, this will turn out no different. Stand united on the high ground, never stoop to their level, they will take advantage of your bent over position every time.
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 9:17amGood Lord man…You must love the UK style health care system, because that is what we now have in the USA, and all of this. thanks to one man, John Roberts. (Obama cracked the whip and John Roberts came to heel.) John Roberts has now confirmed to everyone that the POTUS is one more political group and a complete fraud. When was the last time any Act of Congress was overturned? I suspect that when hell freezes over, Obamacare will be over turned. If you are old, get ready to die when the death panel of political appointed Washington bureaucrats decides that you are too old and sick. If you are young, you may live to see your children being put to death in the hospitals as they now do in the UK. Many in the UK die in the streets for lack of care. Don’t you realize that when the deadbeats who never intend to work find out that they now have conned us into paying for their cadillac health care that they will ALL vote against us any time we try to take it away? There is just not enough money and doctors to go around. We are all deadbeats now as far as health care is concerned.
Greece is now the model and locked in goal for the USA all thanks to one very weak man, John Roberts. There is now no way out. The MSM has won the battle and the war against common sense, conservativatism, and libertarianism. Only a fool can look at this disaster in a positive light.
I would call for John Roberts to resign because his mind is too weak but it is too late for that.
Report Post »Roberto G. Vasquez
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 9:23am@GDBHUSKER
Spin it any way you want, but the truth is the Constitution died last week and Roberts helped bury it. Or, to put it another way, when the Constitution can be twisted and contorted to mean whatever nonsensical thing 5 political appointees say it means, it no longer protects Americans from tryannical government.
Report Post »southernORcobra
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 9:32amHe is not crafty. He is an idot worried about his own image and not the well being of a country.
Report Post »layosh
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 9:32amwishful thinking….
This country is lost, becase the majority wants free meels. It is matter of time to sink as socialism cannot be resisted untill the wole economy rots away. After that comes the lawless turmoil, with good oldfashioned bloodshed and the crossroad will have a sign, pointing in two direction:
Event than the <- will seem to be attractive to many: the usurpers and the lazy which may well be the majority…
Report Post »HuskerDave
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 9:36amI totally agree – and sent an email to Limbaugh stating the same. This was a genius move by Roberts. He got the Liberal judges to agree that the mandate was an unconstitutional overreach of the Commerce Clause, and reduced the act to a mere tax – meaning it can be overturned.
However, this opinion essentially curtailed decades of Commerce Clause abuse. I think Roberts may have saved us from civil war with this decision!
Report Post »stone2016
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 9:40amRoberts did nothing to save the Commerce Clause, he simply said commerce clause doesn’t apply when there is no commerce. The Feds can still regulate everything that “involves” commerce calling it “potential” interstate commerce, like regulating the types of feed you can give to livestock or environmental issues. So, Roberts did nothing except say the government can’t force commerce to use the commerce clause.
Next, Roberts enacted new tax law and rewrote the “healthcare” law to fit into the new tax legistaltion he created. All this while arguing that the court shouldn’t be involved in policy decisions.
Next, Roberts stated that as long as the penalty is monetary, it’s a tax, and constitutional. That literally means for the congress, the only part of the constitution that has to be followed is the tax clause. Freedom of speech? As long as we don‘t manadate you can’t say certain things, just tax you if you do, constitutional. Freedom of religion? As long as we only tax you for attending church, constitutional. Right to assemble? Right to Bear Arms? Etc., etc., etc. All congress has to do is tax and anything goes.
I don’t know if getting Mitt Romney elected is worth destroying our liberty. Some “conservatives” and “libertarians” seem to think it is.
Report Post »Banter
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 9:51am@Roberto G. Vasquez
“it no longer protects Americans from tryannical government.”
That’s why gun sales are off the charts.
Report Post »Turin
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 9:55amHis job is not to be wise or crafty. It’s to follow the Constitution. The guy’s a hack. What did you expect though? Democrat bill, Republican nominee. It doesn’t matter which party you pick, the Leviathon keeps growing and marching on.
Report Post »AdmiralQ
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 10:00amNo he’s an idiot and should be removed and the ruling void, He has increase Congress ablility to TAX any and every thing. the dissent was completely correct
Report Post »oneshiner
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 10:14amWhen are we going to rely on our inner voices? Mine said he had those beady little eyes that gave a feeling of dishonesty. Or: Can I mail Justice Roberts a couple of tennis balls?
Report Post »TomSawyer
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 10:21amBeing wrong is not wise.
Report Post »bluegrandma52
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 10:25amYes, someone else gets it! Roberts did what was best for the American people and the States, not what was best for Obama. This abomination had very strong teeth: Congress wanted to be able to force citizens to engage in commerce in order to solve what they saw as a potential commerce problem, and they also wanted to be able to force states to accept massive changes in gov’t programs or lose all their funding for those programs. Both of those teeth have been pulled, leaving Obamacare without any offensive weapons at all. People don’t have to buy insurance; if one pays the tax, the requirement is fulfilled. The tax is way less than regular ins premiums, and even employers will be able to opt out of providing ins for their workers. States don’t have to accept any of the changes put forth by Obamacare, and the feds can’t punish them for it. Private ins companies will fold in a couple of years if this stays. It won’t take too long for people to see that this is designed to give us a one-payer system, and will raise just about every tax we are currently paying, while imposing 20+ new taxes or tax hikes.
Report Post »Roberts should receive a Nobel prize in economics for this ruling, except it wouldn’t mean much at the moment.
NukeHaze
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 10:37amHusker what your “libertarian” view fails to acknowledge the catastrophe beyond socialized healthcare in Roberts’ decision and subsequent statement is that even if this law gets completely overturned scotus has established a precedent that ANYTHING can be taxed and to an unlimited amount as long as approved by Congress. This is not crafty nor is it shrewd. It is wreckless when dealing with the very existence of this Republic which the scotus is supposed to preserve regardless of what public opinion and media is doing. All these people who have sworn to uphold protect and defend the Constitution (except most military personnel) seem to regard the actual duty as a joke and that it is just a formality. The right thing to do was still the right thing to do then and side against it just as it will be the right thing to do to repeal it when this is done. He is playing a dangerous game gambling with his “rallying cry” to elect other people.
As a libertine you should be against the higher taxes that would come because of this. Was it at least 21 tax increases in the health destruction law alone?
When Cap and Tax is fully implemented because of the precedent, and absurd things like taxing you more for your flatulence stink level, maybe you will then see that about this justice, you are wrong. He had a duty and upheld it poorly. Several of the justices should be impeached over this alone especially if public opinion is found to have affected their decisions. A “change you
Report Post »encinom
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 10:52amsoybomb315
Report Post »Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:24pm
The supreme court is not the defender of the constitution. Time to excercise some state’s rights – NULLIFY
__________________
Sorry to pour cold water on you Beckerheads and Paulbots, there is no think as a States rights to nullify Federal Law, Federal law is supreme to State. You neo-confederates need to learn about the Constitution and basic civics, you look like fools.
Inlightofthings
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:07amENCINOM:
Report Post »Can you stay on topic? Interpret the expansion of Medicare relative to this tax. I think we understand the basics of federal law? I am interested in nullification and have asked for interpretation from my rep, who is very good at responding to my inquiries.
NukeHaze
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:07am@JZS
Your logic is flawed. Car insurance is not mandated in every state. The reason it is mandated in MOST states is to insure the bank holding the title against complete loss against the loan in the case of a totalled vehicle. The banks initiated this in cahoots with car insurers then the state governments started in with the “must protect against bodily injury” mandates. Now what we have is a standard where car insurance is mandated. It’s for your own protection, see? For your own good. The nanny state does not stop with just the federal level. It is a good idea to be insured but is it Constitutional? That is up to each state’s Constitution.
@socialism_rocks
Report Post »Reagan requiring hospitals receiving federal funding to treat emergencies regardless of patient ability to pay is not the same argument as forcing someone to buy healthcare (or pay to have death panels, if you fancy). When was the last time that you saw a patient who was unable to pay for the service at the time it was rendered NOT receive a BILL for the care they received. If you think the IRS does not go after and eventually get the money from that person then you have no clue about the matter. What you are mainly missing is then where does the money go if it is after all, eventually collected? Are you saying the hospitals do not get paid it after the IRS eventually seizes the entirety of the BILL? They get their money but if it never makes if back to the hospital and gets written off by the facility, fed
Balthazor
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:17am@JZS – comparing the Obamacare individual mandate to mandatory auto insurance is comparing apples to oranges. The “right” to drive is not a right at all, but a privilege granted by the states. As such the state can put any restriction on that privilege that they choose. If someone doesn’t want to buy auto insurance, they don’t have to, but they just won’t be allowed to drive on the public roads.
The individual mandate is effectively saying that you must buy health insurance in order to be a free citizen of the United States. Even if I NEVER go to the doctor in my entire life, I will be required to buy health insurance. And if I choose not to, well then I get this penalty/tax. Should I refuse to pay that penalty, ultimately I’ll end up in prison. The auto insurance mandates say if you don’t buy this insurance, we won’t let you drive on the public roads. The Obamacare mandate says if you don’t buy this insurance, you’ll end up in prison.
Report Post »SavvyCowboy
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:19am@BADDOGGY – GREAT comments!! Chief Roberts sided with the frickin’ state-controlled media (and obummer’s chicago thug politics) and wipe his @ss with The Constitution of the United States – something I swore to defend for over 22 years. WTH America – open rebellion against the Washington Establishment is a comin’!!!
Report Post »SquidVetOhio
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:46pm@JZS
“Have you seen a line item on your tax return for a “compliance tax?” ”
Does not take effect until 2014. Then you will see it. Wise up pal. Also, your comparison to auto insurance is a canard and you know it.
1.) It’s a state law which the 10th amendment covers. (Although, I still disagree with it. It holds you guilty until proven innocent)
2.) You only have to buy it if you have a vehicle registered in the state. You’re not force to buy something simply for being alive.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:13pmCommon Sense Jedi says, “You do realize that car insurance is a state and not federal law, right? And even so, you do realize you have to have it to cover damage to *other* people and not yourself, right? Pesky little things those facts are, aren’t they? Idiot.”
Yes, I know car insurance is by state law. That’s why I said it in the post you responded to. Yes, facts are “pesky things” and you are a little confused about yours. Car insurance is required for you to protect the guy you hit, it’s not required to protect you. Same with medical insurance. It’s required because when the other guy, the guy without insurance gets sick and recieves free medical treatment, you pay for it. We all pay for it in rising costs for insurance and treatment.
I’m a troll? So anyone who has an opinion different from yours is a troll and an idiot? I think you need a dictionary.
Report Post »jzs
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:26pmASK UNCLE JZS
A concerned reader writes, “Uncle JZS, as one whose knowledge and wisdom exceed that of mere mortals such as me, is it true that Justice Roberts single handedly and unconstitutionally passed Obamacare?”
Uncle JZS: Dear Reader, no, that is not true. The Affordable Care Act was passed by the House and Senate and then signed into law by the President.
I don’t want you to embarrass yourself in front of your friends, so you should understand that there a nine Supreme Court justices, not just one. Five of the nine agreed that the law is constitutional. When that happens a law IS constitutional, by definition.
Report Post »Polwatcher
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:40pmIt is important to understand history in order to realize what works and what does not work. Ignoring history is an invitation to disaster. John Roberts not only ignored his oath as a judge but he invited disaster.
Government run city and county hospitals were tried in the 30′s, 40′s, and 50′s and they worked fine until they became so incompetant that everyone became affraid to go to these hospitals. Then private hospitals took over and we have had excellent health care for workers ever since. Non-workers could use the good hospitals in emerency situations only. Obamacare is set up to convert all private hospitals to government run institutions over time when it is fully implemented. It will likely take around 20 years for Obama hospitals to deteriorate and a new set of private hospitals to emerge. This new set of hospitals will then take over for those that can afford it and we will have to pay double for decent health care. The best doctors and hospitals will serve only the wealthy patients while the medicare, welfare, and working class patients will get lumped together and be served by the least competant doctors and hospitals. Obamacare duplicates the UK system. In the UK today, you risk death if you go to a government run hospital. Those with money go to private hospitals.
John Roberts is a wimp. He is not blinded by some stupid liberal ideology as are the four liberal judges, John Roberts eyes are wide open and he is just plain stupid.
Report Post »huufarted
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:42pmThat was NOT his motivation at all. More likely they had pix of him tupping sheep or something else unsavory. Judges are like cops, they have made their decision from the moment they enter a situation and only change their minds when confronted with COMPELLING reasons to do so. No Supreme Court Justice ever waited a month to reconsider anything…
Justice Roberts has shamed the office(s) he holds and should resign after the next Republican enters office. The other Conservative Justices should recuse themselves from EVERY case before the court until he does and leave him to the Liberals !!!
Simply Put this “decision” was a crock of SH1T and a total disgrace to the President who appointed him. Justice Roberts has done VIOLENCE to our constitution and needs to live in INFAMY for doing so.
There is NEVER an excusable reason for trying to do right by doing wrong…
Report Post »AmericanFightingMan1
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 3:02pmRoberts: proving indeed that “Pride Comes before the Fall”.
Report Post »spenegdt
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 4:41pmARE YOU SERIOUS? He was bought or blackmailed..Simple as that!
Report Post »georgette
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 4:43pmThe President insulted them during his big speech.
Obamacare came before the court.
Justice Roberts ruled in favor…as a result…..
Report Post »the entire country was galvanized…..
… wouldn’t want to play poker with him…..
deppcg
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 4:44pmSacrificing future liberty for the purpose of manufacturing a favorable political environment is unintelligent, cowardice, pandering and stupid. But brilliant it is not.
Report Post »libbylindy
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 5:15pmYour head is in the clouds or the sand – take your pick. Don’t try to cover up what a liberal does. They do not have America’s best interest in mind when they impose these kinds of wide spreading taxes. They may want to give some autonomy to the states, but they will still tax, tax, tax.
Report Post »shiftingcargo
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 6:01pmSorry GDhusker. Roberts is now the boy-toy of Obama. Obama owns him.
Report Post »True2The_Word
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 7:10pmHe will be forever known as Benedict Roberts!
Report Post »2gether
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 8:27pmI think you are wrong. Roberts never used the commerce clause as part of the decision. That is called “dicta” and what that means is that the commerce clause was simply mentioned in passing but not ruled upon, rather he rewrote the statute as a tax. This means that the commerce clause is still up for grabs and can be invoked again. Even the experts missed that one. Or perhaps they just chose not to mention that little fact.
Report Post »oinia
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 8:49pmGDBHUSKER,
You‘re wrong on every point you’ve made. Roberts did not “get” anyone (let alone a single liberal justice, as you claim), to “strike” the Commerce Clause argument. We had a 5-4 majority AGAINST the individual mandate, which Roberts had NOTHING to do with – N O T H I N G. Case closed, Obamacare was defeated, brother. Roberts resurrected it using a bogus tax argument.
Even if it was a tax – which the law and Congress specifically stated it was NOT – but let’s pretend the law had been written as a tax. Guess what? The law STILL would have been struck down as unconstitutional, since such a tax violates Congress’s enumerated taxing power in the Constitution. So the Roberts argument is an unconstitutional band-aid to “save” an unconstitutional mandate. There is no silver lining to this egregious Roberts stunt. What’s bad is bad.
Report Post »Ask Uncle JZS
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 10:49pmGolly Gee Wilbur,
It passed the House and the Senate with the mandate ruled as a penalty and not a tax. Then Obama signed it with the mandate ruled as a penalty and not a tax. Then 8 of 9 Justices called it a penalty and not a tax. In the end, one Chief Justice called it a tax and not a penalty. And all your buddies are still calling it a penalty and not a tax.
Report Post »Seems like only one person with authority ruled it as a tax. Get a grip Wilbur, you’re losing it.
bobefann
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:48pmI hear everyone talking about Roberts, but what about the four other justices as well? They are ALL supposed to uphold the Constitution. They all took that oath before they took office. SO we have a bigger problem. Five of the nine justices did not uphold the constitution on June 28. This is a big problem if the majority of the Supreme Court do not abide by the Constituion, which they took an oath to uphold. The conversation should not be about one man, but of the five that did not uphold it. They were supposed to vote on the Constitutionality of the mandate as it applies to the Constitution, not on what their oppinion is or how they feel about it. They were not elected to vote on how they feel about something, they were elected to vote on things pertaining on if they are Constituitionally right of wrong. They failed to do so. Well I know I will abide by the Constitution whenever things start to fall apart because of the tyranny of goverment and that is that I will take up arms to defend America and it’s Constitution and I think many will follow and see it to be on the brink of happening, which is why we see gun sales going through the roof.
Report Post »BreeZee
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:10pmHey FANN, no one is saying anything because they did exactly what we all expected them to do. A progressive demorat will not vote for the Constitution nor can they be trusted because they live a constant lie, look at their leader the liar in chief.
Report Post »bobefann
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:33pmWhat I’m saying is, is how are these people still in office voting on things that relate to the Constitution because they obviously are doing the opposite? If their sole job is to uphold the Constitution, then our Supreme Court is failing in it’s only duty. This is the bigger issue. The ones that voted for Obamacare need to be thrown out of their seat because they are not abiding by the oath they took. It’s not their job to rearange wording and coming up with elaborate reasons on why something should be upheld. NO. Its there job to vote in favor of the Constitution. If this is the case, then why do we have a Supreme Court then? Because the Constitution doesn’t matter anymore, why do any of these justices still have a job since the Constitution doesn’t matter. In that case they are just individuals who vote on how they feel and what benefits them politically.
Report Post »bobefann
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:35pmIf you are not doing the job you took an oath to do, then in my oppinion, you do not have a job anymore.
Report Post »Natural Born Citizen
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:02pmAnd Kagan did not recuse herself when she helped construct the 2700 page monstrosity! Where is the condemnation for a clear conflict of interest? Oh yeah that’s right liberal justices do not care about appearances or following the constitution. Why in the world should any American citizen have any confidence in our legal system when the POTUS is an illegal usurper, the AG is a racist partisan hack and the SCOTUS has a Chief Justice who needs to grow a pair.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:13pm@BOBEFANN
Absolutely. ALL liberals believe the Constitution is a “negative charter of liberties…”
There are four rogues sitting on the SCOTUS, so to say that ruling Obamacare unconstitutional would have brought “damage to the court” is a joke. The stakes were so high, I firmly believe Obum would have bypassed SCOTUS, if his threat to Roberts had failed. It‘s not like he hasn’t ignored judicial ruling before, and his whole presidency was hanging by a thin thread.
Report Post »rickc34
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 7:36pmKagan should have excused herself but that would have showed some moral judgment on her part. Roberts sold out the country…increased unemployment…sky rocket insurance cost..decrease health care..so let’s make lemonaid. The courts cannot be trusted any longer we the peple must take our coutry back…they are to political now.
Report Post »MIBUGNU2
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 7:50pm@bobefann
If you are Liberal, You are FREE to ignore the Constitution..
Report Post »The Oath they take means nothing, a fine example are the
Democrats in Congress under the leadership of Pelosi, Reid..
May as well be in F’N La,La Land…No Leadership !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
They have no idea how much they Disgust the People..
Prosecute_Constitutional_Treason_In_Washington
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 8:04pmBy nature we all want to follow the law and live in a society of law. Well, the highest law is not the Supremes but the Constitution. Everyone here reading I think realizes we have a failed state at this point. When does the revolution begin? Let me know so I can assist.
Report Post »bobefann
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 8:08pmI say if the law of the land does not apply to them, then why are we following the law of the land? Seems very contradicting to me. They are supposed to be the representatives of the people who are supposed to know and understand the foundation of American better than the masses, but we can see that isn’t the case. If they do not represent us or the Constitution properly, then they should not retain their position. If they do not abide by the laws, then what’s stopping others from breaking laws? Same thing goes for Holder. Any other civilian would be imprisoned. Nobody is above the law, not even these hacks.
Report Post »NancyBee
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:54pmBobefann…..I totally agree…….
Report Post »NukeHaze
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:50pmKagan should have been forcibly recused for having solicited the bill and being fixated on loaves of bread thinking about food during arguments rather than how the law was Constitutional.
Sotomayor does not stand by her own religious views so she would side with the great obaminable church of socialism.rocks rather than Catholicism. That’s the reason for the protestors over her confirmation and personal views pro-murdering-little-babies. That doesn’t go over well at all in Latino predominantly Catholic culture. She is an hypocrite of the worst kind doublespeaking like Obigbrother.
Ginsburg recently told African country to NOT use the U.S. Constitution as a model when crafting theirs. Just, wow. A SCJ actually SAYING that outloud. Should have recused her for that alone and begun impeachment proceedings. Outdated and antiquated I believe are the terms she used.
Breyer is a liberal go along to get along progressive. Nuff said.
Every one of them is an Obamist (which means Marxist, Socialist, Communist, Progressive, Liberal, and even fascist), a term which should be used when trying to get the all encompassing idea of left leaning (so far left they actually are lying on their left sides).
Let me be clear. We have free speech and it only does go so far so I am simply stating some observations of why these appear to not be impartial. Obaminions foresaw the need to stack the court in its favor ahead of time for the overwhelming opposition to socialism. Disbar if not
Report Post »Anonymous T. Irrelevant
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:47pmSounds like he cares more for himself than the Constitution he swore to uphold. We are a nation of laws, not a popularity contest. This Benedict Arnold was worried about how the public would perceive him, over upholding principles. Maybe Oblameus’ narcissism rubbed off on him.
Report Post »TomSawyer
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:32pmI agree.
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:27pmSo John Roberts did what Mitt Romney has been doing his whole political career. Stick his finger in the wind and see which way things are going. No principes, not constitutional, and a danger to this country
Report Post »Chromo200
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:31pmI agree too.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:28pmThree reasons? Wants to be one of the “in” kids .. someone threatened him or his family … pay off (bribe) .. I only know that this STINKS!
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:10pm@CATB
Three reasons? Wants to be one of the “in” kids .. someone threatened him or his family … pay off (bribe) .. I only know that this STINKS!
———
CATB, Here’s my educated guess: Kennedy sided with the conservative justices, so Barack had to intervene. Do you think he didn’t know what was going on inside the Court with his operatives, Kagan and Sotomayor in there? You bet he knew, and he did something about it. Also, Roberts is one of the most brilliant justices ever to sit on the SC. Yet his decision was so sketchy and flawed, that every jurist in the land and his personal friends are nonplussed.
I find it amazing that at this stage of the game people still have such a hard time accepting that Barack is an evil man. He will stop at nothing, all the more so when his butt was about to get fried before the entire nation.
Report Post »CatB
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 2:53amI‘m not saying Obama isn’t EVIL .. my thought is exactly that .. either Roberts wants to be invited to all the “parties” as in he is INSANE … or someone got to him .. I am betting they got to him .. the way the decision is written … sounds like he was gotten to and had to change his ruling ..
the vote comes down this way .. FOUR for keeping Obamacare … FOUR Against Obamacare .. ONE (Roberts) rewriting Obamacare to SAVE IT.
Roberts has done REAL DAMAGE to the SCOTUS ..
Report Post »Shasta
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 9:30pm@CATB, when Obama took the unprecedented action of threatening the SCOTUS, and the rest of the democrats followed in kind, I was sure that Kennedy would be the one to cave. But in late May, Fox News did a segment with an old Roberts apprentice who said that Roberts would be the justice that would feel the left’s political pressure and bail out of his responsibility. Well, the apprentice was right and now we are all screwed. It will take more than winning the POTUS and both houses of congress to get this bill untangled from the states by next January. Either way, this is just as Obummer planned it. He did this for power, so if he wins then he will be very pleased. If he looses, then this bill will make for a sweet OBummeRevange.
Report Post »epappa
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:45pmHe is a digrace to this country. A traitor for sure but whats our recourse. Nobody in Goverment gives 2 _hits about we the people. All they care about is themselves, nice joke this country has become. To even have the court split liberal – conservetive, They are not to be political, aren’t they soppose to be there for the constitution, the people? Hold on is all I can say we are in for the ride of our lives! God Bless us all.
Report Post »BryanB
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:13pm@epappa
“It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.”
Everyone on here is missing what is really on here.
President Obama Blackmailed Justice Roberts.
This is a very common practice that lawyers do, when they want a favorable decision from a Judge. The Lawyer finds something to hold over the Judge’s head. And this is done every day in court rooms across the country………
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:42pmAny way you look at it; and we’ve heard them all–Roberts was Constitutionally wrong. There is no doubt about that. The past is the past; we must focus on the Senate, the House, the White House. Elbow grease and sweat equity will be helpful.
Report Post »Inlightofthings
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:26pmTRON:
Report Post »Can I get your show via internet / streaming?
TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:31pmWe haven’t put it up, officially; as we have a new ownership. Workin’ on it. However, I’ve heard from some that can tune in thru some other website. For reference, it’s 1040 KCBR.
Report Post »Inlightofthings
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:14pmI’ll look for it…thanks…
Report Post »circleDwagons
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:23pm@Tron. I agree we have to focus on the Senate. I don’t think romney will get ellected and if he did I do not expect much from him.
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:25pmNo Tron. We must focus on the constitution and only the candidates (and justices) worthy of such a powerful position
Report Post »TulsaYeeHaw
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:42pmWith all due respect, STOP FOCUSING ON FEDERALS FOR ANSWERS. Time to restore state powers. INTERPOSE AND NULLIFY. If more than 20 states do it, we might get a few more and put in on an amendment ballot for the states. We don’t need 2/3′s or 60 senate votes. We need 51% or 38 states. IT CAN BE DONE.
—-TIME TO RESTORE STATES’ RIGHTS AND POWERS.
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:04pmIf you are truly wanting to get back to state power, you should be looking at the candidate that calls for that very thing in all he does, Ron Paul. Romney, if he gets elected, and I do not think he can, will not do it. He is another big fed goverment puppet.
Report Post »RepubliCorp
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:24pmWEST COAST PATRIOT Ron Paul ? Who is he?
Report Post »West Coast Patriot
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:57pmRepublicorp, Don’t get insulted, but is your job devoted to spreading ignorance? I mean, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think you are a fool. But then what’s MY opinion against thousands of others?
Report Post »TulsaYeeHaw
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:56pm@WestCoastPatriot
I appreciate your frustration, but no one in the federal gov’t is going to give the states their power back. They have to TAKE it. First thing is first, all 26 states in the lawsuit must immediately REFUSE to implement this, INTERPOSE AND NULLIFY, protect their citizens from federal prosecution and refuse to allow them to be taxed. THEN REPEAL THE 17TH AMENDMENT.
Report Post »S2S
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:42pmChanged his position? Well I can think of one simple visit, in the dark of night, that might persuade one to change their position on something…
“If you want to see your wife and kids again, do what we say!”
.
Report Post »therapist
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:10pmYep, it’s the only thing that makes sense without really stretching the reasons.
Report Post »JohnDoeSr
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:14pmI believe he lost his ability to be objective with this regime when he swore a known usurper into the office of presdient…twice.
Report Post »therapist
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 12:32amThis is about power, not healthcare. This is the knock out punch to capitalism and that is why I believe he was threatened. It is Soros and the NWO elite.
Report Post »Mil-Dot
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 11:51amNo doubt about it, he was threatened. If it walks like a duck…..blah blah blah…..
Report Post »ShyMan
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:41pmEveryone was warned that Roberts was a child killing pro-**** liberal and you all stood around and watched as he was nominated and confirmed.
Don’t act so surprised and let down.
And if Romney wins…well, don’t act surprised when he unloads his “healthcare” upon you.
You’ve been warned. But it’s never mattered anyway.
Report Post »oneshiner
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:02pmAnd POP goes the Weasel. His eyes always looked shifty. When am I going to believe what I see?
Report Post »RSHLUVER
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:39pmJudge Roberts changed the mandate from a penalty to a tax. He made up a new law out of whole cloth .That’ judicial activism.
Ann Coulter was right.
http://www.wnd.com/2005/07/31505/
So were others.
Report Post »Roberts did not change
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/roberts_did_not_change.html
servant100
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:38pmI just listened to Fox News Sunday and one of the commentators took a similar line bragging on how Roberts is a chessmaster when others are playing checkers…and how Roberts did this carefully constructed line of legal softshoe to position him for making more conservative decisions down the line.
Total bogus rationalization is what I call this line of reasoning. The minority conservative opinion called it clear…the law was fundamentally unconstitutional in every way and should have been summarily rejected.
Simply put Chief Justice Roberts is the modern Forrest Gump…And As St Forrest stated “Stupid is as Stupid does..” His 4-1-4 ruling is an inane piece of arcane legal skullduggery that was submitted in place of the clear rejection that was required by his position as Chief Justice. No amount of instutional softshoe positioning can justify the inherent injustice of Robert’s finding…
I miss the simplicity of Shakespeare’s times… In the time of Elizabeth and James…the fools dressed in motley with their bells and sat at the foot of their “king” to make diverting but inane commentary and one liners… Now they dress in Judicial robes…
Same fool…different clothing
Report Post »Kilmerfan
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:38pmRoberts looks like he **** his pants and is trying to hide it.
Or Savage is right and it is the drugs.
Report Post »BenFrank1791
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:36pmWow. What an awesome way to judge.. lick finger .. raise hand with finger.. find wich way wind blows. And they say the court system doesn’t get any respect.
Report Post »BurntHills
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:35pmroberts and the other 4 anti-American communists can be impeached for sure, wasn’t it back in the 1800s the entire SCOTUS was impeached and replaced when they went AGAINST the American People.
Report Post »Marine25
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:02pmNo, it wasn’t.
Report Post »In 1804 Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate in 1805.
That’s the whole list.
Some of us here know our nation‘s history and are glad to help those who don’t.
Turn off FOX news and read a book.
By the way, a justice can only be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, same as the President.
What crime did Justice Roberts commit?
Baddoggy
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:09pmMarine…How about TREASON?
Report Post »Inlightofthings
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:33pmMARINE:
Report Post »Good history. I have said “if” there is a movement to impeach Roberts I would join. Primarily because I’m not sure if the grounds exist to do so. On the other hand, it’s pretty clear he interpreted the federal governments ability to tax where it does not exist. For my benefit, please inform me under which form of tax the ACA ruling was founded…Excise, Income or Aportional and also HOW by definition it fit under one of those.
soybomb315
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 5:34pmJefferson and Madison saw this in their day and proposed a solution to a government that refused to obey the constitution…..States have the power to NULLIFY. Ignore Obamacare. What are they going to do – send the tanks in?
Report Post »Inlightofthings
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:15pmSOY:
Report Post »I haven’t had time to research it in fairness. Isn’t the door open to do just that with the ability to reject the expansion of Medicare? As I understand it currently, this could leave MORE without medical coverage than before. This is nothing short of a friggin’ mess…
soybomb315
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:31pm@Inlightofthings
The door has ALWAYS been open, with or without the medicare expansion you are talking about. All it takes is courage and leaders who can articulate what the constitution means and how we got here. I know I’m beating a dead horse, but do you think Romney McConnell and Boehner are those people?
Conservative republicans made the mistake of putting their faith in the supreme court. The purpose of the supreme court is not to make decisions that will affect the rest of the country for all eternity. Thnk about it – 9 government lawyers, with lifetime tenure, deciding the limits of the power of government (their employer) and the impact on 300+ million people. Something is amiss in our republican form of government
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 7:28pm@inlightofthings
If you want to know more about nullification, i suggest you read this….http://www.libertyclassroom.com/nullification/
He has been talking about nullification for years and years. The States have always been the only thing standing in the way of a socialist government – which is why they have done everything possible to neuter the states. Warning, Tom Woods is one of those constitutionalists who may turn you away from the moderate republican platform
Report Post »TulsaYeeHaw
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:49pmSoybomb “what are they going to do, send tanks in?”
Are you the only other one here who is understanding the concept of interpose and nullify? This is so disheartening, everyone keeps looking to someone in the federal gov’t to fix it. The federal gov’t is not going to give power back to the states. The states have to TAKE it back. That means Colorado, you must put out your fire yourself. Oklahoma, Alabama, and Missouri, pick up after the mess when hit by tornadoes yourselves. Limited govt means there will also be sacrifice. People still want the benefit of limited gov’t without the price.
Report Post »On another note, I wonder if they did send in the military (or when they do), how long it would take to have armed rebellion, and how long it would take for massive numbers of troops to begin defecting to the rebels……
soybomb315
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 10:31pm@TulsaYeeHaw
Yea, i get you completely. Dont expect any relief around here. When the supreme court was hearing oral arguments, i was kept posting that the supreme court will only seek to expand government and that the only real solution is nullification. You wouldnt believe the pushback i got at the time. Now it seems they are silent, so maybe some people are thinking about it. Most people still think the republicans will save them…
Sadly, i think the only way the states can take their power back is if the federal government goes bust – but it will not be pretty.
Report Post »chalkdust
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 7:11amNullification is pie in the sky. This ride has been nothing but politics gone awry. This will not change overnight. The only real solution is political change. Nullification is just not realistic. That would easily be crushed politically. Essentially, it must be done at the ballot box whether it’s this election or 5 elections. Every 2 years we can inflict silent damage to the establishment. We have to work within the establishment to replace the old guard. It will take patience and foresight. They’re entrenched and highly fortified against the onslaught of any libertarian movement. We will just impale ourselves trying to bust in from the outside. It must be done from the inside and constantly beating the dead horse that is Ron Paul only helps them. And constantly beating others over the head with YOUR knowledge of the constitution is asinine. This is actually not about the constitution, it’s about politics. The average person will tune out when you start talking constitution. Sad but true. It’s about persuading people. And pure libertarianism is most likely never going to be popular. Maybe in time. But not any time soon. This you must realize! I don’t need to name screen names, you know who you are.
Report Post »Inlightofthings
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 7:15amSOY:
Thanks for the link and I will definitely research further. RE: Boehner and McConnell…I’ve said here many times the GOP needs new leadership at that level.
I don’t view myself as a moderate TEA Party member. I think we have different approaches to getting the states rights back in particular defending the 10th Amendment with the ACA debacle. Forget the spin, it does present Romney et al a tremendous opportunity to pivot this thing and your observation on the repeal and replace platform is spot on. I can’t comment on the nullification yet, but for the moment the House needs to clarify that Dems and POTUS just generated the single highest tax increase in history; It’s about all that most people can understand at the 2nd grade level before the election.
Report Post »soybomb315
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 7:57am@chalkdust
If you are correct that americans tune out regarding the constitution….Then we might as well throw in the towel and start preparing because nobody will be safe from government unless the constitution is understood by the masses. Really, if the people dont like the constittuion – then how are we going to get constititional candidates? I did not say anything about Ron Paul – now you are showing your true colors
I pray that you are dead wrong on this one. You may be looking forward to a democrat/republican brawl without that annoying constitution in the background but i promise you that at the end of the day – you are being fooled by the two party system. There is only one distinction among politicians – whether they follow the constitution or not.
Report Post »mildot rider
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:35pmWe switched our view of the court! It has become a Marxist left wing arm of the the Regime in power. Our only hope is that the states nullify the “unconstitutional” mandate or begin to succeed.
Report Post »1592
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:41pmHe did this to make His NAME in the Court. What a bad thing to do to the USA.
Report Post »Did he get paid off?
Was He told of things that could happen to Him and His family?
This makes Me sick. Out of all 9 He was the one I had faith in. He makes Me sick now.
TopAssistant
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:34pmJames Madison: Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government. Social security, Medicare and Medicaid are all unconstitutional.
Report Post »I am still trying to figure out if Obama is a communist, socialist, progressive or a Marxists.
SilentReader
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:32pmChief Justice John Roberts dark legacy will go down in infamy. It will be known as the day America died. We intend to rise up from the ashes like the Phoenix.
Henceforth John Roberts will be known as John the Coward.
Report Post »scrudge
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:40pmdo you believe me yet ???….. America will destroy itself from with in… get off your backside and vote in November
Report Post »allensmithee789
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:31pmLife, faculties, liberty, property — this is man. And in spite of the cunning of artful political leaders, these three gifts from God precede all human legislation, and are superior to it. Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place. — Frederic Bastiat THE LAW. READ for FREE at http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html and educate yourself on the RESPONSIBILITY of FREEDOM
Report Post »mildot rider
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:39pmThis is an excellent book.
Report Post »allensmithee789
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:13pmFrederic Bastiat’s “Essays on Political Economy” – A FREE e-KINDLE BOOK. Explains the economic ramifications of union/tariff/welfare politics and difference between capital and money.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:30pmSo he got paid off?
Report Post »The-Monk
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 4:25pmIMHO…. He might have had a Skeleton in his closet and they found it.
Remember how he just voted on immigration? That might have been a test run to see if he would comply.
If he voted against immigration he might have faced his Skeleton being released before the Obama-scare vote.
Report Post »justangry
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 9:45pmLawyer buddy of mine (strange because I really dislike lawyers) believes he’s up to something in our favor. I’m not so sure I agree, but I certainly don’t know everything.
Report Post »Inlightofthings
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 7:20amANGRY:
Report Post »I’d take the Constitution being upheld over a “favor” any day…
justangry
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 9:05am@Inlight, I would too. Only the messenger here. His believes the commerce clause not being used to justify it, was substancial. I don’t know. I‘m not a lawyer and don’t really like them. (My buddy is ok)
Report Post »Inlightofthings
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 10:16amANGRY:
“Politicians, lawyers and Hollywood have one common trait……..they have to do the right thing or even be right, they just have to be convincing to be successful in their craft”.
Same here with 1 lawyer friend..true lib but ok otherwise. We never talk politics!
Report Post »That’s an original quote by me…
Inlightofthings
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 10:29amOoops! …”they DON’T have to do…etc”. Darn typing on an iPhone.
Report Post »wordweaver
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:27pmPicky I know, but maybe if you are going to include a photo of the justices with your article, you want to pick one of the current court. Yours was taken before Justice Kagan replaced Justice Stevens.
Report Post »SilentReader
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:39pmDo you mean the same “Justice” Kagan who brought Shariah finance to Harvard, and the same “Justice” Kagan who defended the Occupier-in-Chief’s onslaught of litigations regarding his eligibility to be POTUS?
Ah, yes. Pity she’s missing from the photo. I’m terribly distraught over it. So much so that I’ve gone into deep depression.
Report Post »audiemurphy
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:26pmhe can be impeached.
Report Post »Babci
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:25pmWow! Robert’s lost his nerve to do the right thing. And Obama‘s going to get to appoint at least two new liberal justices when he’s re-elected. November 7th promises to be a pretty awful day.
Report Post »needawhitepresident
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:41pm‘When’ he’s reelected? So you know something the rest of us don’t?
Report Post »BigPawz
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:41pmyou mean IF he gets re-elected. Remember, his approval ratings are in the tank and so is his constituency. I dont think we have to worry about 2 new communist justices. We just need to rid the country of that commie John Roberts.
Report Post »Deanna in Missouri
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 6:02pmIt seems so many have given up because of this ACA decision. Romney will be elected. Its one election at a time. Make sure you vote every election. Local, State, Federal. Get people to vote conservative. Get these people (libs) off of school boards, out of city councils, everything. We are the majority, lets act like it. It won’t happen over night. I think this country is worth fighting for. Get the letters burning and the phones going. Do not stop. This is why the commies have been winning, they are relentless. Again, we are the majority. Its going to be a long fight but we will win if we don’t give up.
Report Post »Paul
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 1:21am@Deanna in Missouri
You are pretty and smart, must be a republican/Conservative…
Sorry Nancy Doglosi…
Report Post »cassandra
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:22pmpolitical pressure had everybting to do with it!!!!!!! he was concerned by what the public would perceived of the Supreme Court really ???????? he was right the American public think it was a sell out to US ( We The People ) the Supreme Court was suppose to abide by The Constitution for The People and By the People he is a disgrace
Report Post »RamboTheDog
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:21pmSomeone needs to investigate Roberts, this stinks of corruption in the Highest Cout in the Land.
Roberts decision was not founded on any legal precedence and there’s no tax type this falls under that is spelled out in the constitution.
Justice Roberts – I spit on you. pffft.
Report Post »HKS
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:28pmMaybe Obames mob kidnapped his kids and had his mother hanging by the thumbs. Something had catastrophic control here, smells really bad.
Report Post »J_R_H
Posted on July 2, 2012 at 3:31pmIt. Is. Bush’s. Fault!
Report Post »HKS
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:20pmObame whipped him right into shape with an offer he couldn’t refuse.
Report Post »FreeCarolJoy
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:16pmNo comments yet? If this is true, Roberts will not be remembered kindly by history especially if this is not taken apart after this election and our country falls with the burden of this and the debt imposed by this socialist president we have.
Report Post »TSUNAMI-22
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:28pmRoberts cares less what history will remembered him as. The people in charge are all self-absorbed in some fashion.
If the American populace really had a problem with it, we’d stop enabling it.
Report Post »LeadNotFollow
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:14pm…
Report Post »In my opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts is an American traitor. He should step down.
copatriots
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:25pmI share your opinion!
Report Post »team1blazer
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 3:38pmNegative, Lead; the punishment for treason and sedition is hanging….I’ll bring the rope. These supremes just flushed the constitution down the toilet.
Report Post »Maxim Crux
Posted on July 1, 2012 at 11:07pmIt is true team1blazer, that is the penalty for treason. Your going to need a whole lot of rope. Roberts caved because he fears Soros and friends more than he fears the people. You would think that he of all people would know a little bit of history. There will be justice in the end for sure. This kind of corruption can not go on without a correction taking place naturally. Lets hope that the natural part still stands with congress and the election process. I seriously have my doubts, but I will still hope and pray for peaceful solutions as long as they are available.
Report Post »