Who was it that said that elections have consequences? Who? That's right President Elect Obama on 11/5/2008. Chief Justice John Roberts said “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Justice Roberts may have just done for the Romney campaign what it couldn’t do for itself. Energize the base and to remind the independent moderate voter that just because you don’t vote for a Liberal Progressive for President that, that in its self doesn’t make you a racist.
Nothing wakes you up faster than cool bucket of water in the face. I’m willing to bet that when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America votes on 6th November 2012 that it won’t be for President Obama.
When a Conservative assumes that John Roberts had a secret agenda to uphold ObamaCare in order to pave the way for Romney to be elected is as asinine for a Liberal to say that Scott Walker won the recall so that a Democrat can next win the Governorship.
MidnightCowboy
2012/06/29 12:39:37
|
|
|||||
|
8 votes
|
|
30% | |||
|
10 votes
|
|
37% | |||
|
9 votes
|
|
33% | |||
Top Opinion
-
ordman 2012/06/29 13:24:55
If you really believe that Roberts acted intentionally, as some great conservative strategist, then isn't that really just confessing that conservatives lied about wanting constitutional small government and rule of law... Isn't this really just an admission that conservatives are now fine with big pushy unlimited government compelling individuals any which way it wants and really have been all along?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ne...
Notice now the dems using their new pet word "pliticized" all the time? They try to blame the Rep. for "politicizing" this & that, on & on, when it's useful to cover up for their nasty agenda-like Obama lying straight to our faces that it was NOT going to be a TAX!
Yet now we hear it's a tax upon the middle class of about $800 billion TAX INCREASE!!
Supposedly to make affordable healthcare! Another lie.
$800 billion in CUTS to MEDICARE!
So everything about what Obama has done is political, everything the dems do is political, but now they're using this crap strategy to keep saying the Rep. are "politicizing".
Another crock.
I'm happy for the 10th Amendment that the States can opt out of this insanity, that is set to cost Americans $2.6 trillion.
I'm also VERY glad for Romney, that he can get rid of this economic disaster maker in the White House.
Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.
First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.
Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.
Third, while Robert...
Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.
First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.
Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.
Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.
Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.
Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.
Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.
60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.
It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.
*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now.
Read my full thoughts here.
Nothing wakes you up faster than cool bucket of water in the face. I’m willing to bet that when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America votes on 6th November 2012 that it won’t be for President Obama.
(returning the favor!)
ObamaCare is dangerous because the law contains SO many other clauses (many of them new taxes) that do not belong there.
The PEOPLE of Wisconsin chose Scott Walker twice in two years.
Whatever Robert's intricate reasons were for siding with the Librul Justices, he did so in a way to expose that 0bozo has been lying all along, shot down the argument that 0bozotax was Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and preserved states rights.
He adheres to the letter of the law, Constitution, and if you study what he wrote in his opinion you will understand the gift he handed the GOP.
I believe that your statement of individual sovereignty or subjects will be better addressed on 6 Nov of this year.
Prime example, most states mandate you must have car insurance if you drive. If you don't want to purchase car insurance, you can avoid that by not driving. His ruling is saying that because government wants you to drive, they can tax you for not driving.
In conference, the Justices all agreed that the mandate was not Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, which was the question brought before the court.
However, he acknowledged that it could be allowed as a tax, although it was not referred to as such anywhere in the bill.
Once the other Justices brought that point up, he was forced to consider it.
So, did he uphold the Constitution as amended in 1913 allowing the Federal govt. to impose taxation?
There is no constitutional authority to tax inactivity. In order to tax one must be engaging in some activity, this ruling gave the government the power to tell you to comply with their whim, or they will be able to take your personal property from you.
However, what people are missing is that Congress had already been given that power in 1913.
The 16th Amendment reads as follows:
"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.'
Even people who are on complete govt. assistance have an 'income'. Retired people have an income through Social Security. Minors are legally the responsibility of their parents which have an income.
Unless one is 'living off the land' as a squatter, doesn't actually 'own' the property, and has no contact with the outside world could they be exempted from the 16th amendment.
Show me ONE person that will be affected by this bill that doesn't have some form of income.
Notice the wording in the 16th amendment "from whatever source derived".
I'm not going to waste any more time attempting to explain this because you obviously don't understand the contents of the 16th amendment.
You are interpreting the amendment as assets are income, which they are not. To your interpretation breathing is income.
A person who owns a parcel of land has income though appreciation of that land. It may decrease in value in a specific year but overall, will appreciate through inflation which has been on a steady upward trend for 200+ years.
Whether they file the proper amounts on their tax returns is another story.
In addition, anyone who is completely destitute and being kept alive by any kind of govt. assistance is being compensated, which is clearly defined as 'income' in the tax codes.
It's a fine line but the time to bitch about it was in the early 1900's when the 16th amendment was first scribed with that particular qualifier.
Like it or not, Roberts followed the Constitution as amended and the only way to uphold the argument would be to ratify another amendment that negated the clause "from whatever source derived".
I'm done here.