1 I disagree.  I have been reading opinions from several people this morning,  and I suggest others do so as well.

Roberts is not the enemy.  Calling him names and ascribing bad motives are counter-productive.

You have a large platform here,  ace,  and you can either choose to rally the troops and move forward,  or you can encourage a circular firing squad.

In my mind,  the enemy is Obama,  not Roberts.

2 The word you're looking for Ace is tyranny.

3

Any SCJ who willingly voted to condone this gross and obvious illegality is not only a failure in terms of doing what the job demands, but an outright traitor.  May each one die in a fire.

 

The only excuse I'd have any sympathy for in this case is that they were threatened - which may be a real possibility these days.  Who knows what has been hinted at behind closed doors? 

4 Even if the case went our way yesterday, I always worried that we'd have forfeited the opportunity to do this right, as a full repeal in the congress. Now THAT is something that history books cannot ignore. C'mon guys! Let's get ready to rock thier world this November.

5 The cult of law school compels worship of the worlds biggest passive aggressive pussy -- John Marshall. Marshall didn't give a shit about one thing but --- POWER.

We are taught that Marbury v. Madison is heaven on earth while Lochner is so disgusting it deserve laughing contempt.

Two solutions.

(1)  no more lawyers on the Supreme Court.

(2) remove cases involving constitutional limitations of power from the federal courts' jurisdiction. It seems we spend a lot of money and waste a lot of time just to reach the inevitable conclusion that there are no bounds on Congress' power.  Rubber stamps would work just as well as those cocksuckers in robes. And a fuck lot cheaper too.

6 If there were ever position that is designed to be immune to partisan pressures, CJ of the SCOTUS would have to be it.   So yeah, I think that, at least, Mr. Roberts was too clever by half, but mostly wrong.

Moreover, we can both point out that the CJ failed, and go after Obama, at the same time.

7 >>>You have a large platform here, ace, and you can either choose to rally the troops and move forward, or you can encourage a circular firing squad I agree about rallying, but I disagree with all this nonsense that we actually "won." As for namecalling, he's a weak man. He heard "the call of history," as liberals term it, code for "do what we say or we will snub you." Yes as I said yesterday Plan A remains Plan A, and it's even more important now that Plan B was scuttled by a weak, vain man.

8 I find it hard to believe that someone in such a high position, Chief Justice no doubt, part of a part that gives the Federal Government her power....equal branches of gov't yada yada....would really have been beaten back from his own true interpretations on the limits of Congress by a scowling, glass jawed asshole like Obama.  So, all it takes if for Cap'n Jackwad to go on TV and warn SCOTUS to do what he wants?  Maybe so, and that would make Roberts one sorry excuse for a chief justice.

9 In my mind, the enemy is Obama, not Roberts. Posted by: Miss Marple at June 29, 2012 08:16 AM (GoIUi) If Roberts isnt one of the "enemy" the who the fuck is? He's a fucking douchebag. Im sick of people peeing on me and telling me it raining...,not you but other people that keep saying "oh this is really good because of ______". It's not good, it sucks.

10 >>And weak men like John Roberts[i/]


That about sums him up.

Unfortunately there are far too many weak men in positions of power in our ever expanding government, and in his case Supreme power.

11 I agree with Miss M. And we little people do have power, at the ballot box.

“ It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” CJ Roberts

Bingo. Folks voted in the 'transformational' Barry. Hopefully, we can vote him out and repeal the law.

If there are new legal ramifications re: the mandate really being a tax, and the law not being properly crafted in the proper house AS a tax, you can bet a new court challenge will be forthcoming.

12 >>>Even if the case went our way yesterday, I always worried that we'd have forfeited the opportunity to do this right, as a full repeal in the congress. I had that thought as well. The proper and ultimate repudiation is the *political* repudiation; a Supreme Court strikedown feels like short-circuiting that. Now, I would have preferred that, just because a win in hand is better than a hypothetical future win. But yes, the right way to do this is to win political power and repeal it. And then appoint three to five conservative justices to outvote Roberts and whatever liberals remain.

13 sorry about that....

14 Plan A pays out at a higher rate than Plan B.

15 What galls me is that a majority of the public wanted this overturned -- but we don't count. What counts is the opinion of the elites Roberts socializes with.

^^^^^T H I S^^^^^

16

On the bright side, Mrs. Chief Justice can now go out and buy new cocktail dresses for all those liberal cocktail parties they'll be invited to.  Hope they choke on the hors d'orves.

 

17 Kagan sat on Robert's face. The man had no choice.

18 As I have said before, we move leftward only.

It does not matter what the wishes or desires of the people are, the tides move in the preferred direction of our betters and masters.

We might think we are electing people to move us in the right direction or at the very least slow down the inexorable move towards socialism, you would be wrong.

19 Roberts deemed a tax on rape to be constitutional.

I'm not buying that.

Aside from his obtuse and convoluted decision without constitutional merit defining this merely another tax, there are the natural rights loss not considered in Roberts' decision.

ObamaCare isn't simply fiscally bankrupting to America. And it isn't simply going to force American citizens to accept eugenics as determined by a federal bureaucrat. By declaring ObamaCare to be "constitutional", Roberts' SCOTUS has left the Individual American Citizen without recourse when the IRS absconds with that citizen's private property because that citizen refuses whatever "medical treatment" the federal bureaucrat demands, regardless of "choice". There is no such thing as free will according to this federal authoritarianism. We  no longer own our own selves, body and mind. Don't say it's tinfoil hat lunacy when in the end, that's what comes of it all. When the IRS takes your property and throws you in prison for noncompliance, just how will you exercise your Liberty that no longer is given "standing" in Marxism?
 

20 You'll take this fig leaf and like it.

21 Thanks, Olympia. You filthy, disgusting cow.

22 My theory on Roberts is that he was loathe to scuttle the whole bill, really hated the idea, but couldn't convince a majority to do a salvage operation. So the tax nonsense became his Plan B.

23 Liberal "logic" A SC vote turning down Obama care on a 5-4 margin is a hyper partisan sham A SC vote upholding Obama care on a 5-4 margin is a triumph of our system of government. Huzzah!

24 I've run the gambit of emotions...but at the end of the day it's up to US to get it done at the ballot box come November.
My only question is will Romney follow through...I give that 50/50

25 I don't know. At first I was pissed that things didn't turn out how I wanted. But the outcome ruling wasn't an outcome I had expected or even considered. Reading it, I am increasingly persuaded that it is the correct ruling. It is not up to the Supremes to backstop the American people from stupidity. The damn thing IS a tax, albiet one levied in an inconsistent manner, and tied to personal behavior in a way that has never before been done. I'm not willing to start making the "the majority don't want it" argument. We have a representative republic for a reason. Sometimes it works for our point of view, and sometimes against it. If a strong enough majority doesn't want it (and obviously that's the case), then the coming elections can take care of it. I think that by November, this ruling nets Romney +1.5/+2 at the polls. There are political remedies available. Let's use them.

26 18 As I have said before, we move leftward only. It does not matter what the wishes or desires of the people are, the tides move in the preferred direction of our betters and masters. We might think we are electing people to move us in the right direction or at the very least slow down the inexorable move towards socialism, you would be wrong. Posted by: General Woundwort at June 29, 2012 08:26 AM (06lNq) So you are a defeatist?

27 Sour grapes Ace... You sound a lot like those on the left, unfortunately... Even your pals Ezra Klein and David Gregory admit this was not a total victory for Obama and will have serious ramifications in November.. Not too mention, Roberts agreed with the conservative side of argument on the Commerce Clause, Medicaid, etc...

28

 

Denver is have a little Tea Party at the capital today at noon.  I'm going.

29 Did Chief Justice Roberts save the Supreme Court?

ABC 'Nightline' anchor Terry Moran joined Top Line for a special edition dissecting the Supreme Court's decision on health care, a blockbuster ruling which upheld President Obama's signature piece of legislation. And the president and supporters of the law were not the only victors.

Chief Justice John "Roberts rode to the rescue of the Obama health care plan, and maybe rode to the rescue of the Supreme Court, as well," says Moran, who has been covering the Supreme Court for many years.

The justices have seen the esteem for the court diminish over these hyper partisan years. Since Bush v. Gore, polls show Americans feel less confident in the court. The court has no way to enforce its decisions except in the confidence of the people.

The Supreme Court has been damaged since 2000 but now by bending over for Barry everything is peachy again. Liberal stupidity at its finest.

30 The article by Trende on RCP is a solid read. However, I still do not understand why Roberts didn't take the same approach, cuff the Commerce clause, call Obamacare a tax, and then tell Congress to rewrite it as a tax and it would be constitutional, but that he wouldn't rewrite it for them. He told us it's not his job to protect us from bad decisions (election votes), which is true, but it's not the Court's job to rewrite bad legislation to make it Constitutional. Kennedy clearly made this argument in the dissent.

He certainly had the votes for that approach and the fact that everyone and their brother on the demo side said it wasn't a tax would have shielded the Court from criticism.

It may have been 11 dimensional chess, but I sure can't understand why he didn't make the same moves from the right side of the court.

But, I no longer care. I got an email from a bank executive in Singapore last night and we'll be splitting $38m that a rich man with no apparent heirs left in the bank. All I have to do is send my personal and banking information to this executive and he's going to wire the money into my account.

It's legitimate, bitches.




There will be blood.

31 >>>Politics is culture, and culture is politics.

We're willing to put Justice Roberts right up there with Levi Johnson.

32 I think Roberts did us a favor... To run against a 1.7T tax hike will crush the Dems in November, win back the Senate and WH and gut the bill as the dessert...

33 Roberts just pulled the pin on the ObamaCare grenade and lobbed it directly into Obama's lap. He won't want to, but now Obama will be FORCED to spend major time over the next 4 months leading up to the election defending this huge new tax increase. ObamaCare, like a zombie that won't go away, just resurrected itself and is stalking Obama. We're about to go from seeing him crow about this Supreme Court decision to actively trying to run away from his signature achievement as more Americans realize it's now a huge new tax. Watch. It will happen.

34 I disagree. Roberts is playing a longer game. The Obamacare decision was a  short term defeat on policy but a long term victory for Federalism.

35 the rush to defend Roberts by some is one great example why our side loses more battles then it should

36 A SC vote upholding Obama care on a 5-4 margin is a triumph of our system of government. Huzzah!

Posted by: Mr Pink at June 29, 2012 08:28 AM (GZhKn)

They didn't just uphold it , they REWROTE it to uphold it! How much more activist can they get?

37 You know what's better than a moral victory? Victory-victory, which needs to come politically now. Now, we just have to hope that people elected to do such a thing do it.

38 Posted by: mr.frakypants at June 29, 2012 08:29 AM (2B4de) ---- I think the only argument that it is a type of Tax is the weird loophole where if you ignore the penalty, don't pay, the gov is forbidden from taking further steps to collect or eventually jail offenders. AFAIK, the only means of collection is via the tax return. People who OWE taxes can get away Scott free. I think.

39 Listening to two Obama loving cretins on Chicago radio this morning. The idiot news reader was all excited reading about the Court decision said, now in 2014 if you don't have insurance you'll have to get it or pay a fine. The half wit DJ said, but what if I don't want it. You'll have to get it or else. Then silence as the two dipshits for the first time began to realize what ObamaTax is all about. You could almost hear it sinking into their thick skulls

40

Insult to injury, I tried buying shares at Intrade to at least make some cash on it. Lo and behold, theres a "problem" adding money from my location. Contact my bank. Further investigation finds that the US DOJ has told banks to block cards  from working with Intrade.

Thanks goes out to both parties for that bullshit. Someone owes me $30, which is what I would have made on $30

41

“ It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” CJ Roberts

Posted by: Lizabth at June 29, 2012 08:24 AM (JZBti)

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is wrong.  That is exactly their job.  Otherwise their supposed duty to insure the constitutionality of legislative action is really non-existent.  They are supposed to be the barried against this kind of thing.

 

 

Further, to suggest that this abortion of a bill was passed under circumstances remotely resembling what a normal American citizen would consider to be a democratic process is absurd.  Has everyone forgotten that this bill was passed via chicanery?  Even among your average lame-brained Dem voter, how many really thought they were voting for a law-breaking turd when they elected their representatives?  If the courts thing the fraud victim is always to blame, then why do we have laws about fraud at all?

42 But, but...we won the Commerce Clause argument!

Yippeee!!

43 "He certainly had the votes for that approach and the fact that everyone and their brother on the demo side said it wasn't a tax would have shielded the Court from criticism."

-- Considering they were being called partisan hacks before votes happened, no. Nothing ever will shield the court from criticism when they offend certain political groups.

44 “ It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” CJ Roberts

Bingo. Folks voted in the 'transformational' Barry. Hopefully, we can vote him out and repeal the law.

-------------

Here's where I strongly disagree w/ Roberts, fwiw.  If a Hugo Chavez manages to tell enough lies and fool enough people to get elected as POTUS, then gets in and wreaks holy hell havoc on the supreme law of our land, it's the job of the SCOTUS to say, oh no you can't....regardless of the fact Hugo Chavez was elected.  See this here?  This document called the Constitution?  It's our job to uphold what it says and prevent gov't from eating everything in its path, stealing individual freedom every step of the way.  Roberts didn't do that.  In fact, he easily could have, but reworded this POS to fit in with his belief that Congress does have the ability to tax.  He took something, molded and massaged it a bit to fit.  It was dreadfully wrong.

45 @26

No. Just a realist.

I don't really know what else to say on this.

We have a law passed using illegal maneuvers, affirmed by a court using illegitimate and spurious reasoning and about to be implemented by an executive who recognizes not limits on his power to fundamentally transform our country.

It's a sad day for this country.

46 My only concern if the SCOTUS challenge had succeeded was that the economy would quickly take off and SCOAMF would con too many numbskull voters with the notion that he'd turned it around, just as he single handedly killed OBL.


Unfortunately for the un and underemployed that is no longer likely.


No economic rebound, but victory laps for Obowbow none the less.

47 From my blog about this resurrection of ObamaCare as THE campaign issue: The costs of ObamaCare already more than doubled since it was passed, from $940 billion to over $1.76 trillion in just the first decade. So they lied about it being a tax, they lied about how much it would cost, and they lied about the effects the new law would have on health care, that premiums would go down and 'if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor'. Virtually EVERYTHING they promised about this turd of a bill has turned out to be a lie. AND NOW IT'S BACK. They barely got this thing passed back in 2009, then suffered huge voter outrage over it in 2010, and just in time for the big run up to the 2012 election, like a zombie rising from the dead to haunt them, HERE COME OBAMACARE AGAIN. Now they have to talk about it again, and Obama is going to be forced to RUN ON IT. Doesn't matter if he WANTS to. He's going to be FORCED to. And Pelosi & Reid and other top Dems will have to circle the wagons around him and try to sell this tax increase to the public in order to get Obama re-elected. I almost feel sorry for them. ALMOST.

48 Politics is culture, and culture is politics. Until we claw into a position of near parity in the academic, legal, and media guilds, the liberals will continue to have the power of declaring who are heroes and who are villains. ======== Amen to that.

49 Watching conservatives twist themselves into knots to claim that losing was winning and Sandra Day Roberts isn't drifting to the left he's actually executing a brilliant long-term strategy... Well, denial is the first stage of loss, isn't it?

50 AFAIK, the only means of collection is via the tax return. People who OWE taxes can get away Scott free. I think.

Posted by: Serious Cat at June 29, 2012 08:33 AM (zrpqj)

 

 

 

 

 

Aha!  I wondered how the Dems would exempt themselves.  Now I see it.

51 The beauty of the decision is that there's no magic power that makes Obamacare stick. Roberts took it away from them. The Democrats stuck their necks out to pass Obamacare in the legislature. Republicans will have to stick their necks out to repeal it. ACA is unpopular on its face. We can't win this argument?

52 There are 193 pages to this decision.

On page 12 of the pdf:

It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

I believe that Roberts knows what he is doing and wants the people to regroup to get this killed in the election box. This is why voter fraud needs to take up space on a front burner.

53 How about we solve unemployment by mandating everyone get a job or pay a fine? Fuck it. Unemployment solved.

54 There are two battles here: one to repeal this abortion of a health care law, and one to limit the federal government's ability to compel an individual to do anything under the sun through its taxing power.

The first battle is made easier by this decision as it places the weight of this tax increase squarely on the dems' and Obama's shoulder's, and there are some nice money shots out there with Obama rejecting that the individual mandate penalty is a tax. (Let's Bush '41 this guy.) This was not a bi-partisan effort - the dems and Obama made sure of it - and the voters will remember it. It is unpopular for a reason. It's a nice political byproduct of any repeal effort that the dems are going to have to own this tax increase during a recession and after Obama's promise to not raise taxes on anyone below X income level. (Some constitutional scholar, eh?) Let them choke on it come November.

The second battle is more difficult. The only good thing that came out of this decision is that we finally found out an end to the limitless expansion of the commerce power, which has been expanding ever since the FDR era. This may result in a constitutional amendment to be able to ultimately limit what the government can compel an individual to do under the taxing power.

The suckers crowing about health care this and health care that, we won, and so on, seem yo fail to recognize the importance of this expansion of federal power. That is, they will be eating their words once governments start exploiting this poor decision to compel individuals toward or against behaviors that are an anathema to them (e.g., gun ownership, abstaining from abortions, charitable giving, community service etc.).

Yesterday was a sad day in the history of this country, regardless of your stance on the ACA or your political tendencies.

55 None of you were bitching about Roberts when he made rulings you liked.

56 I gave to Romney yesterday, and want these c*cks out of office, but I am not hitching myself to the Repeal Wagon. This monstrosity has as much chance of being repealed as my office chair does of turning into a pile of $100 bills.

57 @49 yep

58

It hurts deep down, way deep down to admit what has happened.

It's happened again and again, it's been happening for years and now we are on just about the last hill to die on.

Miss Marple is sort of right, but so is Ace.  We really don't know WHY Roberts did what he did.  I really don't think it was about social identification.  Maybe he was threatened, maybe he was undermined in a way we will never understand.

But it doesn't really matter.  Because this is the way things are NOW. 

I frankly have little faith or belief that the election this fall will fix what's wrong.  I don't think what's happened to this country is fixable in the short or middle term.  I think we will have to go through years of really terrible things, and even then, it is not a sure thing we will ever get back to anything like a Constitutional Republic, because the Republic is now dead.

Say that again and remember it going forward. The Republic is now dead.

59 Initially I thought that this was some kind of brilliant legal move by Roberts, to insulate against congress run amok under commerce and good and proper, and to give states what is theirs, but after reading more from people in the know, there is a very strong hint that there was a last minute conversion, that Roberts indeed has succumbed to political pressure, that this was a political rather than a legal move by the chief justice.  After all, he could have done the same (prevented congress from going off the deep end under the Commerce Clause) without upholding obamacare.  He decided not too.  Roberts is obviously intimidated by obama and his cronies.  Good thing he was not on the court when Bush v. Gore was decided, huh ?

60 @55 wait and so we're suppose to just accept paying taxes for not participating in something?

61 And another point to all of those trying to put a bow on this shinola, the "win" on the Commerce clause may not mean what you think it means.  The left wing of the Court will undo that in a second when they get the chance.  You think they will have any hesitation in going back on this "precedent" when it suits their aims? 

62 If this bill had minor ramifications on everyday life, I would feel more strongly along "part loaf" lines. But since it cuts deeply, probably deeper than anything else in the last couple of decades, I would have preferred that it be overturned.

63 In my mind, the enemy is Obama, not Roberts. Posted by: Miss Marple at June 29, 2012 08:16 AM (GoIUi) ========== I'm totally in this camp, too. If not for the spineless GOP in Congress (and their own rejection of the people, including the Tea Party), we wouldn't be in this situation. Blame ourselves. And, give props to the Tea Party for actually getting something done. I was thinking what Erik Erikson at Red State wrote yesterday before he wrote it.

64 About the tax increase. Most Dems truly believe they won't pay it. They could be right about that. A lot of Dems aren't paying taxes now. Enough, anyway.

65 28 Denver is have a little Tea Party at thecapital today at noon. I'm going.  

Posted by: Lily at June 29, 2012 08:29 AM (igSv+)

 

***

 

Thanks for the heads up.  I'll try to be there.

66 Morning morons!

Here's my two cents: 

1)  Roberts is no longer what we thought he was.

2)  There aren't enough of us center-right folks in the country anymore to affect the magnitude of course-correcting needed.  We may win some here and there, but the trend is still to the left.

As more and more time goes by, we aren't gaining enough ground to swing it back.  Why?  Because people like the fact that someone else is large and in charge and taking care of them with someone else's money.  In short:  we're fucked.  Steel yourselves as best you can and prepare for the worst.

67 @52

Again, Roberts was not playing some sort of 3D chess.

He had the opportunity to the the right thing, the constitutional thing and
he let those who would destroy this country sway him.

68 Trying on my new name today. 

69 I agree about rallying, but I disagree with all this nonsense that we actually "won." We didn't "win." We let them win. Not Roberts, the current scapegoat.

70
Our side wins the argument. The other side just wins the case.

71 I disagree. Roberts is playing a longer game. The Obamacare decision was a short term defeat on policy but a long term victory for Federalism.

Umm...no.

The federal government can now say "Hey, you need to buy a specific car...and if you DO NOT, we will tax you the current retail price of the car minus $1 (to stay in Robert's ruling that it's ok because it's LESS than the price of the good)."

Enjoy being a slave, because Roberts was a giant douchebag and turned into a lefty swing vote for the SC.

72 Republicans will have to stick their necks out to repeal it. ACA is unpopular on its face. We can't win this argument? --- How long will Republican squishes last in the full glare of a burning "How dare you racists overturn the signature achievement of our First Black President?" Media campaign? Do you honestly think Mitt Romney has bigger balls than John Roberts?

73 I had that thought as well. The proper and ultimate repudiation is the *political* repudiation; a Supreme Court strikedown feels like short-circuiting that. Now, I would have preferred that, just because a win in hand is better than a hypothetical future win. But yes, the right way to do this is to win political power and repeal it. And then appoint three to five conservative justices to outvote Roberts and whatever liberals remain. Posted by: ace at June 29, 2012 08:24 AM (aw5Tx) I also would have taken the win in hand, even going further to say, if given the choice by fate, to have endured another 4 years of Obama in return for the whole law being struck down. Now all we have in front of us is the hard work, high payoff option.

74 He won't want to, but now Obama will be FORCED to spend major time over the next 4 months leading up to the election defending this huge new tax increase.  

Posted by: drawandstrike at June 29, 2012 08:31 AM (8sTGK)

 

 

 

 

 

 

LOL.  The media will not allow it to go down that way.  They're going to spin spin spin and push this thing down the memory hole as hard as they can until the election is over.  The only coverage this will get is a spewing of praise, reminding folks how the EVIL insurance companies will be fored to let them cover little Johnny until he's 26. 

 

 

75 It is Roberts way of saying " F#ckyou, you trusted him" to the 52%.

76 Frankly, the four liberal justices would have sided with Roberts if his legal reasoning was "Today is Thursday, therefore, legal." The problem really came down, I think, that they were so intransigent that they just wore him down, so he used this as a Hail Mary pass. He knows Scalia, Thomas and Alito will not leak things or go outside the court to undermine it. But, Breyer has, before, deliberately threatened to sabotage the court (See the Citizens United decision). So, he finds it a tax, a kind-of, sort-of understandable position, calls everyone gigantic liars, then throws it out there: "There's only one way to deal with liars." It sucks, but that's the hand we're dealt.

77 When are we going to join the European Union?

78 So basicly Roberts was some fucker that put on a good job interview, and turned out to be a worthless fuck. Imagine that.

79 Precedent - Now you can phrase a law any way you want in order to get it passed,  and the supreme court will later call it what it actually is.  They'll change the wording for you.  The wording that would have doomed it if it had been used when the law was written.  The supreme court can do that for you now.  They are now editors.  They'll fix it.  They know what you meant to say.

Legislating from the bench has set a new standard.

80

Lots of bad guys in this play;    Congressmen who voted party line against their own and their constituents feelings;  Industries that sold out to make a deal behind the scenes like the pharmaceutical companies, Individual politicians that had it in their power to stop this travesty but sold out for money; and lastly a horrible rump of a free press that has abandoned its role in our society.

 

We have one slim chance to recover somewhat, and that is in November.   If we lose then, the that's the ballgame.

81
But, but...we won the Commerce Clause argument!
Yippeee!!
Posted by: Glaucon





Now we shall triumph in Moot Court!
Posted by: Yale Law Bush III

82 True, baracka did not expect this kind of judicial activism, rewriting the law and calling it a tax, when he and his acolytes tried so hard to disguise it as one.  Unfortunately for now, the taxing authority of the Fed Government has become unlimited.

83 The court decision overshadowed the FnF contempt charge.

Yesterday was a busy day.

84 Our side wins the argument. The other side just wins the case.

Posted by: Glaucon at June 29, 2012 08:40 AM (mP9Rx)

Cold comfort, that.  We're still stuck as subjects, rather than citizens.

85 In short: we're fucked. Steel yourselves as best you can and prepare for the worst. Posted by: EC at June 29, 2012 08:39 AM (GQ8sn) Yep pretty fucking much.

86 And weak men like John Roberts will continue kowtowing to their judgments

We'll only know this for certain with the next controversial case.

87 24 Liberal "logic"

A SC vote turning down Obama care on a 5-4 margin is a hyper partisan sham

A SC vote upholding Obama care on a 5-4 margin is a triumph of our system of government. Huzzah!

-------------------
Yeah, just another grievance to file away until the opportunity arises for me to follow a drunk liberal who wanders into a dark alley and beat the living shit out of him.

88 How do 30% of doctors retiring fit into this game of 70 story five-dimensional chess?

89 Well,  I see my opinion isn't shared by most.

That's fine.  I will move on to other sites for a while until tempers calm down.  I do suggest that posters here do some reading of other's opinions about this ruling.

Yes,  if I were in charge I would have struck the entire thing down.  But then,  I am a little too impulsive,  and sometimes one has to take the long view.

Whatever,  I choose not to get involved in attacking Roberts.  If you want a judge who is not an activist,  then sometimes that type of judge will choose not to intervene on your favorite cases.  It seems that it is silly to demand he not be an activist except when he agrees with me.

All of you guys have a great day!

90 THESE are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.

91 When are we going to join the European Union? Posted by: Case at June 29, 2012 08:41 AM

No later than Bark Obama's seventh term as president. Possibly sooner.

Boner will cry, but he and the other Republican left in Congress will vote for it as a "reach-across-the-aisle" gesture.

92 "It's time for outrage" is far too insipid a response. As if we need to be told permission and as if outrage says ALL that we feel. As if we haven't been outraged since Pelosi/Reid railroaded the "you have to wait until it's passed to read" bill/law on Obama's behalf. The ENTIRE PROCESS of creating ObamaCare in Committee (locking every Republican committee member OUT), the tax that isn't a tax that is a tax because labels don't matter originating in the Senate instead of the House, refusing to allow debate on the floors of the House and Senate, not even allowing the constitutional protocol voting procedure before passing it on for Obama's signature to MAKE a universal mandate federal law enforced by the IRS.

To say "It's time for outrage" is an insult, as if telling us that our outrage to this point never counted. The 2010 election results of fiscal conservative victories to rescind ObamaCare in Congress never happened. That those who "count" haven't felt abused until now; and perhaps only feign outrage for temporary fear of their own political careers. If they're so dense as to ignore the "Tea Party" 2010 response to federal abuse, let 2012 hit them on with tsunami effect that clears out ALL the riff raff, regardless. Painful, but an act of gaia god.

Congressional outrage too often amounts to a tempest in the tea pot, once the steam whistles, insiders in concert turn down the heat to go on as if nothing happened, allowing federal authoritarianism to reach this point playing their kabuki dances. Swing your partner round and round...

It was already a given that ObamaCare will fiscally bankrupt and ruin the quality of American medical treatment, rationing according to eugenics. Given Roberts' SCOTUS, from the Judicial Branch there is no such thing as natural rights. Time to put the SCOTUS back where it began as a very small and nearly insignificant portion of the federal government which of itself respects Liberty and The Constitution as the Supreme Law of the Land.

2012 "Renew" the Coolidge administration's job performance in the next POTUS. Romney shouldn't find it too difficult to embrace except for the STRICT Constitutional adherence Coolidge exercised.

Coolidge (Melon Sec./Treasury) balanced the budget, cut back staffing at the BIR (IRS), cut the national debt nearly in half, increased public revenue to government, after cutting and eliminating much taxation on the rich and DOMESTIC corporations (only the very wealthy had been taxed on income). Growth and the average real wage were up after the tax cut for the rich. After-inflation employee earnings grew 16% from 1923-29.

Here's the cut. Strict Constructionist. 

93 @74 : This ain't 2008 any more & Mitt is not McCain. Yes, the MSM will spin it. But in case you haven't been paying attention, the MSM isn't the only game in town any more. They've lost control of the narrative and they aren't getting it back.

94 I agree with Miss Marple, Obama is the enemy, not Roberts or Bush. Was Roberts decision based on a political, self serving reasoning, perhaps but as it stands right now focus needs to be on the real enemy, Obama and his Bolshevik cohorts. Obama and crew now has the stark reality of putting in place the largest tax increase in history with a lot of new tax increases in the bill that have nothing to do with health care.If the Republicans cannot convey to the American public the realities of this tax increase on the middle class and up, on how they blatantly lied time and time again on how this was not a tax to pass such a nation busting bill then all is lost IMHO. Roberts really pissed me off, his ruling made no sense to me but what do I know.That being said, fugget about him.We need the Whitehouse AND the Senate.We need to focus our energy there.

95 Whatever, I choose not to get involved in attacking Roberts. If you want a judge who is not an activist, then sometimes that type of judge will choose not to intervene on your favorite cases. --- Roberts essentially rewrote the legislation from the bench in order to make it Constitutional...but he's not an activist. /sarc

96 The Long March Through the Institutions has worked marvelously.

97 Hey, guys, I know you think there's a heat wave sweeping the country right now, but I'm telling you, it's snowing!

It's snowing brown stuff on your head.

98 The U.S. Supreme Court's decision upholding "Obamacare" will have major implications for patients, insurers and hospitals. It will also determine the future of jobs in the health-care industry.

More money will flow to "pharmaceutical companies, doctors, hospitals, the people they employ, and even insurers," said Joseph White, Luxenberg Family Professor of Public Policy and chair of the Department of Political Science at Case Western Reserve University.



And where in the hell is the money going to come from? Just magically jobs and money will appear. The utter lack of understanding of economics by these ass clowns is breathtaking. This why schools are in trouble too many fuckwits are running them

99 What is scary is Roberts has found that we do not own ourselves, we are owned by the State. Conservatives and Libertarians alike should shudder at the notion that yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that the government has unlimited control over us through the powers of taxation. Un. Limited. Control. We are subjects. We are slaves. We are no longer "We the People". It is now "We the Subjects of an All Powerful State."

100 The court decision overshadowed the FnF contempt charge.

Yesterday was a busy day.
Posted by: sTevo at June 29, 2012 08:43 AM

Yup. But Holder will have a good time on his trip to Disney World, so there's that.

101 Weak men have weak necks, and find their hats very heavy.

102 32 I think Roberts did us a favor... I don't think this. I think it just made our job harder. Many opposed to ObamaTax now think it is a good thing, because the SC said so. Remember, people, that is all they see, the headlines. And, what Jon Stewart tells them.

103 @58 

I'm afraid I agree with you.  Someone said on here a few days ago something pretty thought provoking:  we're surrounded (by progressives).  Not so much in terms of hard numbers, but the sway.  Most of the entire media, Hollywood, academia, all branches of gov't are infested with these communists.  They've brainwashed the younger generation into freaking hating their own country, for crissakes.  They've infiltrated the highest levels of our military and made it priority numero uno to be PC and gay friendly almost to the exclusion of other things.  We've got a country full of people who think the polar bears are dying because of their SUVs, anyone making more than you is a thief and you are deserving of their earnings, Christians are savages and Muslims just want peace, we've let millions and millions stream across our borders and practically handed them a voter card and forms for any social services they can apply for.....

It's really discouraging and hard to be optimistic after yesterdays ruling.  I will not give up, but I'm losing faith that anything resembling my America I love so much will ever live again. 

FIAF.  I'm going for a run before it hits 100.

104 The elites may write the history books. But they won't be read when the full effect of the elites' vision is felt. Books will mildew; at best, they will be used as kindling for cooking fires. As for the elites . . . they're going to be long pork. They are unable to survive without the trappings of civilization, the very trappings they're destroying.

105

Can anyone tell me why people are relieved that the commerce clause was toned down? It doesn't make a #$%@ difference! The taxing authority can now be used in exactly the same fashion that leftists used the commerce clause, and now it's been approved by the SCOTUS!

106 The new Roberts Precedent -

Plaintiff: Your honor,  this guy sold me a ham sandwich and I got two pieces of bread with shit in the middle.

Judge: Well I do have a problem with that being called a ham sandwich when it's actually a shit sandwich.  So what you bought is a shit sandwich,  what's the problem?

107 We're about to go from seeing him crow about this Supreme Court decision to actively trying to run away from his signature achievement as more Americans realize it's now a huge new tax. Except, his new angle, "we'll fix what's wrong with it," "what you don't like," "we'll tweak it to make it what you want..." This will work, folks. We need to stay on the economy and jobs.

108

yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that the government has unlimited control over us through the powers of taxation. Un. Limited. Control. We are subjects. We are slaves. We are no longer "We the People". It is now "We the Subjects of an All Powerful State."

-----

They already had unlimited access to a cut of everyone's paycheck-  up to 100%. Now they don't even need to channel the tax through that.

 

109 Now when CO2 is deemed a pollutant by court , EPA can regulate how much you can breath.

"Not genocide, it's carbon tax!" - Justice Roberts

110

"In my mind, the enemy is Obama, not Roberts."
Posted by: Miss Marple at June 29, 2012 08:16 AM (GoIUi)

 

He voted with the enemy, therefore he is no better than the enemy.  I don't care what kind of fig leaf he hung in front of the decision to placate the David Brookses of the country.  In the end, what he did has hurt us.  That he supposedly left the door cracked for a possible political victory in the end is pure conjecture.

 

I am so tired of this too-cute-by-half crap.  This kind of thinking got us a tiny little income tax on the super rich a hundred years ago.  Now it eats half your fucking paycheck.

111 To those of you who think that Roberts did us a small favour by limiting the use of the Commerce Clause as justification for Obamacare, think about this:

do you think that will stop Democrats from trying to pull this shit again?

112 79

What has the SCOTUS become?

spell checkers of words, just words (deleted from The Constitution).

113

How bad can "the worst" be?

Rampant inflation, high unemployment, rioting in the streets, demands for "more" from the government (i.e., more authority, more command, more restraint on anything that resembles a "free market"), because that's what people want.  Well, some people.

Barack Obama basically wants the country to look like Detroit, or Philadelphia.  I was in Boston for the first time in years last month, and I couldn't believe how shabby it had become.  This is the fate of the country.

As more and more money is sucked down the huge maw of the entitlement black hole (because whitey owes us, bitches),  the whole country is going to get poorer and shabbier.  The core of most big cities, if they have not already become shabby, will become shabby.  It's fate.

And class struggle, race struggle, the bottom third against the top "1%" or whomever they think is keeping them from what they deserve. 

 

114

do you think that will stop Democrats from trying to pull this shit again?

----

No need to now.

115 Why is everyone so excited about tunning on Obamacare, when Mittens is our nominee?

116 What Michelle Bachmann said: “People are angry. They’re shocked. What Americans must realize is there’s one option left, just one option is the ballot box in November and I think more than ever Democrats and independents are going to be looking at a Mitt Romney for president. Because it’s a very clear contrast. It’s Barack Obama and you keep Obamacare or it’s Mitt Romney and you repeal it… And people should’t be fooled to think that we need to have 60 Republican seats in the senate. We don’t. We need fifty plus one. That’s all we need. That’s what the Democrats had wiht the reconciliation bill and we can repeal Obamacare. Don’t give up hope. We can get this done.” ht gatewaypundit

117 Romney Campaign Raises Over $4 Million in 20 Hours Off Obamacare-tax Ruling not enough, I say

118 People are talking about November being the ball game.  I agree up to a point.  We can lose the game in November.  But if we win in November, we only win the right to play more innings.  It doesn't stop there, and the bastards we elect will need CONSTANT supervision.

119 No need to now.

Exactly my fucking point.

The takeaway from this decision is that all you have to do is simply get any kind of  bill passed.  Never mind how fucked up it is and how many constitutional limits it crosses.  Do whatever you can to get it across the Resolute desk and get it signed, because after that it's untouchable.

120

Haven't read all the comments yet, but does anyone have the link posted by another moron early Thursday evening about the blind acceptance of Roberts's alleged conservatism when he was nominated? 

 

Like most of those who want consideration to SCOTUS, he was said to be a blank slate, but the blogger who posted about him years ago mentions specifically how he was deemed "invaluable" in some PRO-BONO work supporting gay marriage ina piece cited by the LA Slimes many moons ago. 

 

Remember Monday's Arizona decision?  Roberts sided with the feds, not the states.  We've all been assuming he was a conservative when that does NOT appear to be the case.  Oh, yeah, he was suggested to W and cheer led for by none other than Steve "Uncle Fester" Schmidt, architect of the McLame Disaster Campaign, and a guy who many thought was a Romney infiltrator.

 

121 Remember Monday's Arizona decision? Roberts sided with the feds, not the states. We've all been assuming he was a conservative when that does NOT appear to be the case.


He's turning out to be another Justice Breyer.

122 The ruling is what it is...and I hate it...but on to November. This is one diff between us and "them"...they would whine for the next 4 mos (and try and undermine institutions)...we will pick the next task and get on with it!!!
What else is there to do?

123 I thought one of the clever aspects of the ruling is that it's now a states's rights issue--a state can decline to enforce it.

124 >>Maybe he was threatened, maybe he was undermined in a way we will never understand.

Remember all the proggs sneering at his wife and young child when he was introduced as the nominee?

And then Obama lying about the court to their faces at that one SOTU?

>>and sometimes one has to take the long view.

Apparently the long view is that American citizens are the property of the federal government, to be looted as Congress sees fits.

125 Any way the members of congress can bring suite against the supreme court for changing the wording of a law?  When has that ever happened?

Where does the word "tax" appear in the bill?  And now it's a "tax."

I really thought the congress would have to go back and pass that section with the accurate word "tax" appearing.  But this is double speak bullshit.

126 Robert's assertion about not being the protector of our political process struck me about the same as getting a hummer from a great white shark. I was under the impression the Constitution's intent was to protect the people from a tyrannical government. As interpreter of the Constitution then it seems to me SCOTUS's only job is to enforce that concept. Where did I go wrong?

127 Precedent - Phrase a law any way you want to get it passed.

Originate it from anywhere you want to get around the rules of congress and the constitution.

The SCOTUS will tell everyone what it actually is later.

128 He hits me because he loves me.

129 My post at Hot Gas: You know what cheeses me off about Roberts besides seeing the word tax hidden behind a penumbra somewhere? He said it is the voters fault for the bill so heÂ’s not gonna save them from themselves. Well, Mr. Roberts, we have no control during the time in between the elections, so YOU need to be that friggin control. Its not like they let us vote on the individual bills you putz. What a POS. Also, IÂ’m sorry for doubting Justice Kennedy all this time. It was a completely other snake.

130 The federal government was constituted by the founders for a certain few common provisional necessities.

It was not meant to be the central hub of all of our lives.

The elites and commies that infest it have an entirely different view and agenda. Roberts must be aware of this and had to know that he was in a unique position to stem a destructive tide while working within the framework.

He sold out for some nuanced sense of insider acceptance.

Once again we've been Beltwayed.  

131 "He's turning out to be another Justice Breyer."

More like Holmes.

I think it's important that when anyone blames "the Court" for this, we remember that Roberts did this *alone.* It's a 1-8 win. No one else on the Court supported his reasoning. The lefties didn't come up with this crap.

But now they *have* it, forever, because Roberts gave it to them.

And he did it so Laurence Tribe would pat him on his head and say "Good boy."

And no amount of elections will ever change it.

132 Fuck it, I'm joining the other side, too.

Obamaaaaa gonnnnnnaaaaa fix iiiiiiiit
Obamaaaaa gonnnnnnnnnaaaaaa make it goooooooooood
mmmm, mmmm, fucking MMMMMMMM

133 This "gutting the Commerce Clause" defense is nonsense. What matters is how much power the federal government can claim, whether it uses the Commerce Clause or the power to tax. If a man breaks in your house, bonks your wife, and kills your children, who cares whether he claims the legal right to do so based on his first name being John or his last name being Roberts?

I think we can now answer with confidence how Roberts would have voted in Kelo.

134

Coming soon to a jurisdiction near you:

 

1.  Non-Unionization tax.  Pay the difference between union wage and that of your own employees.

 

2.  Life Insurance tax - you don't have "good enough" life insurance.  Pay tax.

 

3.  Veggie Deficiency tax - since you don't buy enough healty food, you will be taxed.

 

4.  Non-Exercise tax - you don't work out enough, so you will be taxed to help fund health care.

 

5.  Consumption Deficiency tax - you don't buy enough goods (of whatever specified type) so you will be taxed the delta between what you actually spent and should have spent.

 

6.  Inadequate Reproduction tax - you don't breed up enough little tax payers for the next generation of bureaucrats to squeeze, so you will pay tax to help cover the cost of the mass bastardy being bred up in the slums.

 

135 morning......nothing good about it

136 Does anyone really think those without insurance have the $700 to pay the IRS? Whats the IRS going to do seize their $140 tax returns, their EITCs, their SSDI payments, their cash EBT card? Come on we can't stop illegals from claiming twenty dependents on a fake SSN and throwing an annual fiesta or people using thei rf EBT cards at strip joints. I can see a quick market in spawned insurance account numbers developing. This thing is designed to fail.

137 One reason Roberts may have made this decision is a fear that this President would be successful at destroying the Supreme court in a second term.

He may have weighed the likelihood of Obama doing something to destroy the Supreme court. (don't ask me what other than through nominations.)

We've seen that Obama has no problem usurping  the other branches power and since the Supreme Court already was a target for Obama, feared that he would do more if the decision went the other way.

He also probably reckoned that, as he said, if we changed the composition of the government by electing those who would repeal this act, then both the Supreme court and the public would be safe.

I doubt he would have taken this step if he didn't decide that Congress is too feckless and myopic to protect the court and the country from an out of control President.

Since they have yet to do so after numerous inroads on their own power and prerogatives.

138

I don't know yet. Maybe.

I think that it may be too soon to tell. A couple of the articles I have read this morning have called it brilliant.

It clarified it as a tax- meaning a simple majority to repeal. It also drew a line against abuse of the commerce clause and strengthened states rights.

We need to get our reps to do their jobs and repeal this monstrous tax.

139 Fucking sock.

>>Its not like they let us vote on the individual bills you putz.

Shit, they don't even follow their own parliamentary procedures and rules for the votes.  "Deem and pass"?! 

140 53 How about we solve unemployment by mandating everyone get a job or pay a fine? Fuck it. Unemployment solved.

Posted by: Mr Pink at June 29, 2012 08:36 AM (GZhKn)

And after that, "everyone must by a house, it's mandated"

And "every man over 60 must have a trophy wife, it's mandated"

And "there must be an American car in every garage, it's mandated"

And "you must join the union (doctors and lawyers, that means you too) it's mandated..."

This crowd could go on and on and on...

141

I thought one of the clever aspects of the ruling is that it's now a states's rights issue--a state can decline to enforce it.

 

True.  But King Barry I can then then threaten to withhold fed. money (i.e. money a state's own residents have kicked up to D.C.) for roads and such, just like the adherence to seat-belt law and speed limits = fed road money. For those gyvs that refuse to comply with ObamaTaxCare, I don't give many conservative guvs the stomach to withstand the beeyotching from constituents about the drastic reduction in services, etc.

142 I truly think its a mistake to think Roberts caved to some sort of political (or worse) pressure. I can't do the research right now but someone has to put the pieces together regarding the specific crafting if the House bill and the peculiar tax decision of Roberts. The House bill seems to be crafted in such a way that makes it immune to overrule by Article 1 Sec 7 in the Constitution. You may say then that Roberts did us a favor by making Obamacare vulnerable to reconciliation but if Roberts was passing out favors why didn't he just strike the whole damn thing like his colleague Kennedy? JUSTICE KENNEDY PEOPLE. The fix was in from the very beginning and once again we conservatives were played like fools. What's three years of vision (HR 3200) to progressives Who have been playing the game for 100 years plus? Hell what's 7 years vision (Roberts sworn in 2005)? Roberts is a full blown progressive sworn in for this exact purpose. To destroy this country from within. Now Roberts and his ilk may not believe that's what they are doing, in fact he may have "good" intentions. It's all for our own good isn't it? They always know best.

143 137 One reason Roberts may have made this decision is a fear that this President would be successful at destroying the Supreme court in a second term.

He may have weighed the likelihood of Obama doing something to destroy the Supreme court. (don't ask me what other than through nominations.)

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 29, 2012 09:04 AM (CP+yl)

Why would Obama destroy the supreme court if he gets a second term?

They will become his own Guardian Council if he gets a second term.

144 Invisible ink legislation.  FUCKING BULLSHIT.  Fuck that commerce clause shit.  THIS is what Roberts did yesterday.  INVISIBLE INK PRECEDENT.

Now that is has been called a TAX,  can suit be brought that it didn't originate in the house and it doesn't contain the fucking word "tax" in it?

145 To sell America on Social Security, the FDR administration produced newsreels of a typical housewife hanging up her laundry in conversation with the camera, being told that all she needed in order to benefit a LIFETIME of monthly benefits from Uncle Sam was to enroll in Social Security and make ONE PAYMENT.

That was still available for re-educational propaganda during civics in grade school 1960s where my class watched. I knew it to be a rip-off from the start, making the recurring pay losses all our lives that much harder, knowing it was doomed as a fraudulent scheme. That Congress absconded with our forcibly withheld income proves the stupidity in giving government what they ask, no matter their deceitful promises.

ObamaCare deals not simply with the fiscal matter and our private property, but our bodies with mandated pharmaceuticals regardless of what the patient and/or doctor determine best. "With the best intentions, of course," already authoritarianism is the means to implement what bureaucrats and corrupt government officials leading each branch of government have determined (follow the money) what will happen when we need medical treatment, or when we prefer none. Authoritarians do not tolerate "free will".

146 The attack at Drudge on Robert's mental health - due to the epilepsy drugs is quite crude. I guess the question is, can it really affect him, or is this just a pissed off hit piece?

147 >>Where does the word "tax" appear in the bill?

There is that excise tax on medical devices...gotta stick it to those fat cat parasites with pacemakers, amirite?!

148

So what some of you are saying is that CJ Roberts is Snape to Obama's Voldemort, playing the long game and taking heat now for the greater good down the road? I hope you're right because it feels more like he's Dolores Umbridge right now.

I'm taking my brother's kids to Harry Potter World in a couple of weeks so I'm getting into the mood.

149 Months ago, David Barton has said that he doesn't see the Constitution lasting through whatever great upheaval we've still got coming down the road.  He was right, and we haven't even had the riots/martial law yet.

150 He hits me because he loves me.

Posted by: The Constitution at June 29, 2012 09:02 AM (jucos)

That made me laugh and cry.

151 Temper Tantrum at June 29, 2012 09:08 AM (AWmfW)

Not if Roberts had tossed the whole ACA.

152 Let's not overlook that last night Europe took a dump.  All of the "insane" countries threatened Merkle with political chicanary to force Germany to buy their "Junk" bank bonds at a lower rate.  They are doomed...

As well as we are.. but, we get to land on ther nice cushy bodies after we jump off the cliff! YAY!

153 It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.-- CJ Roberts Yay Roberts! Apparently he is saying it is not his job to strike down Federal power grabs. Well, since the Legislative branch has no regard for the Constitution, and the Executive branch certainly finds it non-operative and flawed, it is good to know that although he will not uphold the Constitution either he has given the greenlight to the only "political" solution. For example see the US Civil War.

154 ObamaCare is Rape.

Federal Judges ruled it unconstitutional.

The SCOTUS rape-raped America.

155

Posted by: ace at June 29, 2012 08:23 AM (aw5Tx)

I agree Ace, that simply saying "we won" is a bit of horseshit.

At the same time, once I calmed down, and thought about it.  I'm fairly certain that we didn't loose either.  We kinda split the baby as it were.

Things could have certainly gone worse. I will ascribe no chess playing to Roberts, in fact I think it's far more likely that he felt (as his decision described) that the court had a duty to find any law constitutional if it could.

But in doing so, he did not expand the commerce clause, and the medicaid expansion was found to be coercive.  Thus, not a win, but not a loss either.

And perhaps (although unexpectedly) this is the most promising outcome of them all.  Because, if we work hard, elect republicans and hold their feet to the fire, we can get the holy grail: a legislative repeal.  (It's by no means certain of course.)  It's promising though because we didn't have to go through an expansion of the commerce clause (i.e. complete upholding of the Government's original argument) to keep legislative repeal on the table.  Nor are we stuck with claims of a "partisian court" for Obama to run against and, (God forbid) a more liberal court to overturn down the road.

Would I go so far as to say: "This is my preferred outcome."  No.  But I will say "I'll take it."

And I know that some will say "but the Taxing clause was expanded! That means everything!"  To which I'd say: eh? The taxing clause was already pretty powerful, and quite frankly taxes are unpopular.  Future congresses trying this shit will have to pass a tax to do it, and I suspsect that will be summarilty rejected by the American people.  But furthermore, I suspect if I think hard enough, I could arrive at some possible use of the expanded commerce clause (had that happened) that would have been legal, but no where near a tax, which makes it dangerous precisely because it won't be as roundly rejected as taxes are.  Furthermore, sufficent Tax reform will make shit like this a lot harder to do in the future anyway.

The thing about the court I've noticed is you take the good with the bad quite frankly.  Had we won this case outright (i.e. the Kennedy Opinion.) The left would be saying almost exactly these same things.  History is a bit cyclical, and although conservatives aren't on top now, I suspect they will be again, and then we'll have a court allied with us and a bunch of liberals whining that they sided with the loosers?  And then what? Will we decry the political nature of it all?  No, not likely.  Take the good with the bad on this one frankly.

156

The attack at Drudge on Robert's mental health - due to the epilepsy drugs is quite crude.

One of the commenters yesterday attributed this to Michael Savage, who was dead serious about it.  If you listen to the inital opinion from Roberts, it's bizarre.  (Heh.  Some people have even accused MoHamHead of dictating the more heinous sections of the Koran when he was in the throes of epilepsy.  Of course, some folks' epileptic fits are other folks' Satanic Verses.)

157 "67 @52

Again, Roberts was not playing some sort of 3D chess.

He had the opportunity to the the right thing, the constitutional thing and
he let those who would destroy this country sway him.

Posted by: General Woundwort at June 29, 2012 08:39 AM (06lNq)"

"He had the opportunity to the the right thing, the constitutional thing and
he let those who would destroy this (country-cross out) him sway him."

158 He hits me because he loves me.

Posted by: The Constitution at June 29, 2012 09:02 AM (jucos)

That made me laugh and cry.
Posted by: EC

He told me it was my fault that he hit me, that I deserved it.

159

Like I said yesterday - why are we continuing to try play chess against someone who's trying to beat the shit out of you with a baseball bat? 

 

The assholes swing the bat at our heads and our response is to try and come up with a subtle, sublime move. 

 

 

160 159 Make that a tsunami.

161 Roberts is a full blown progressive sworn in for this exact purpose. To destroy this country from within. Now Roberts and his ilk may not believe that's what they are doing, in fact he may have "good" intentions. It's all for our own good isn't it? They always know best. Posted by: Quiz at June 29, 2012 09:08 AM (uPYEJ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Oh for fuck sakes. Get a grip, retard.

162 One thing I haven't seen mentioned much is that Roberts is, reportedly, a devout Catholic. What if the political pressure came from... THE POPE? *organ sting*

163 Let's all not lose sight of other findings that have been conservative and returned the constitution to it's original effect.

For one is Heller.

Many don't realize how important Heller is.

Most all Liberals have considered the 2nd amendment almost moot for 80 years. Only recalcitrant "bitter clingers" (ahem) have held off it's final demise.

Yet Roberts et al reestablished the true meaning of the amendment and that the repercussions have yet to reach their full effect.

An effect that may well be our only salvation in the coming years.

164 What *is* our job?

To administer the Constitutional oath of office flawlessly and look awesomely bitching in these swank judge robes.

Oh wait. I guess it's just the part about the robes.

165 Can anyone tell me why people are relieved that the commerce clause was toned down? It doesn't make a #$%@difference! The taxing authority can now be used in exactly the same fashion that leftists used the commerce clause, and now it's been approved by the SCOTUS!

Posted by: Morseus at June 29, 2012 08:49 AM (YWZwH)

Commerce and the commerce clause are nebulous concepts, even among educated and aware conservative voters. I just had this conversation last night with the M-I-L, and had to explain the expansion of the commerce clause and the resultant alphabet soup of federal regulatory agencies that came from this expansion.  Conservatives don't like big government, but some don't seem to know how it got so big. 

Nobody of the American Idol watching drooling masses gives a rip about the commerce clause and its over-expansion.  But you mention the word, "tax," to these knuckle-dragging half-wits and every one of them will instantly relate this with negative consequences for them.  That is what we are up against.  And that is why the commerce clause limit was a small silver lining.  Classifying it as a tax gives us some small measure of hope that it can be defeated by appealing to the masses.

Upholding the ACA is not what I wanted, but I am happier that the IM is called a tax in contravention to Obama's characterization (a lie), than to have it being upheld under the commerce clause.

166 A problem I'd had with the decision really amounted more to my expectations that the USSC would assume a role they weren't intended for. If it had gone our way, the Libs would be yelling the Court bowed to popular political pressure, and calling them cowards to boot.

But, honestly, I think they did their jobs. I understand the opinion itself is filled with snide remarks unusual for an opinion that more or less say "if you vote for an idiot and the idiot passes a crap law, we can't protect you from that. We can only interpret that crap law and see if its legal". I think, properly, the Justices are reminding us that, in the end, the People are responsible for themselves and that we have the power to change this if only we will.

The Founders would yell at us to FIGHT. Do so.

167

But in doing so,he did not expand the commerce clause, and the medicaid expansion was found to be coercive. Thus, not a win, but not a loss either.

And perhaps (although unexpectedly) this is the most promising outcome of them all. Because, if we work hard, elect republicans and hold their feet to the fire, we can get the holy grail: a legislative repeal.

 

I see this line of thought a lot.  My first reaction is, "Have you ever seen Ogabe defer to anything he doesn't like, even if it's court ordered?"  He and Rodent Nation wouldn't have cared what the exact language was.  All he heard was "I WON."  Again.  Full speed ahead.

 

Also, when was the last repeal we saw? Prohibition?

168 This disgusting monstrosity has been deemed "constitutional" under the terms of the filed complaint. This decision was reached through some bizarre mental gymnastics, but it is what it is.

Still doesn't make this monumental pile krep good law- anytime there are over 1,000 exemptions to a law before it is even implemented, you have some truly awful legislation best handled whilst wearing a hazmat suit.

Like the man said, on to plan A - vote the scum out (to be more specific, the more stridently socialist scum denoted by the "D"s after the names) and have our scum repeal it.

Quick question for the legal brains 'round here- my understanding is that this challenge of hellcare was based on the unconstitutionality of the mandate/lack of severability. What of the challenge filed by the Catholic Church on the basis it violates the 2nd (?) Amendment?

Or did yesterday's decision handle the Catholic Church's challenge, or did the Catholic Church not actually file a legal challenge?

Help me out here, people- I am but a poor mead swilling moe roan from planet soontobedrunk.

169 @18 "As I have said before, we move leftward only."

Yup. When the left gets power, they push the country as hard and as far and as fast to the left as they can until they get rebuked, because they know, THEY KNOW, the right does not push as hard the other way when it's their turn. They ALWAYS find a squishy "moderate conservative" and seduce him/her with their lying siren calls that THIS expansion of power is good, THIS new regulation is for the best, the people WANT this intrusion into their liberty.. and the squish caves. So the left rams through a dozen horrible new laws, and the right repeals a couple of them. The left passes some questionably-constitutional (at best) monster, and a right-leaning but squishy judge twists himself into knots to uphold it.

In the long run, the left has won virtually every battle over the size & scope of government for roughly the last century, because the right DOES NOT FIGHT BACK. Yesterday was just the latest example.

170 Also, when was the last repeal we saw? Prohibition?

Posted by: RushBabe at June 29, 2012 09:23 AM (tQHzJ)

 

 

 

 

 

This.

We need a new Amendment - "Congress shall pass no law that does not simultaneously repeal 2 other existing laws."

171 We did NOT split the baby. We lost our freedom. We lost the Republic. No one in the District gives a flying fuck about anything but power. Including the Supremes. Let's see, It is legal to spy on any US citizen within our borders. It is legal to "disappear" a citizen within our borders without a warrant. The executive branch can make any laws via regulatory power they want. The feds will now hold every citizen's medical history and will dictate how, if and when any treatment will be given the sick. Illegal aliens are given preference over citizens in most educational, representative and legal circumstances. And now to be an American citizen you have to buy a product from some company controlled by the Federal Government or be jailed. Did I miss anything? I would leave the Country but there is no where else to go.

172 "Conservatives simply do not have much sway at all in some of the most critical institutions in America. And we'll continue paying a high price for that until we change that." So how do you propose that we change this? Media? Education? Congress/Executive/Supreme Court? I have been trying all of my adult life to change things politically. I stay informed, know my rights, and then I am forced to choose between a progressive Democrat or Republican. So I have have been a good soldier and selected the lesser of two evils in particular hopes to change the makeup of the Supreme Court. Nothing changes. All we get is a big FU.

173 the right DOES NOT FIGHT BACK. Yesterday was just the latest example.

Posted by: I.M. at June 29, 2012 09:25 AM (1HVeO)

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly right.  They never give us enough excuse to take the action we are cabable of when pushed too far.  Our desire to obey the law and maintain peace in society is our downfall.

174 None of you were bitching about Roberts when he made rulings you liked.

Posted by: JEA at June 29, 2012 08:37 AM (hxLER) <<<<

 

Even for a troll, you are particularly stupid.  Why would anyone, in any circumstance, bitch about something they LIKE, you fucking imbecile?

175 @166

That is specifically the role the supreme court plays.

They effectively said if the Congress wishes it, the constitution be damned, who are we to say otherwise.


IT'S THEIR JOB TO SAY OTHERWISE.

176 F*** John Roberts.  Damn him straight to hell for compelling me - forcing me at the point of a gun - to pay for health care of folks who aren't my family.  I gladly give to charity as part of the Biblical commandment to love your neighbor as yourself.  However, this is not charity, it is endorsement and encouragement of socialism.  Look at Europe.  We know how that story ends.

I am furious.  The damage this court has done to the America I'd hoped to pass on to my children is sickening.

177 Don't you guys understand that Obamacare and its appeal is now the least of our worries. Getting Romney in as president is meaningless. The Supreme Court has stated that the government is free to eliminate freedom through taxation. Government can tax anything, in anyway, for any reason Through the force or threat of force brought on by taxation government can make you buy something, not buy something, control how many children you have, and even what you eat. It is this taxation precedent that must be addressed and controlled. Control it and Obamacare is removed.

178 i hate to posit this (somewhat) reductio ad absurdum, but doesn't this decision mean that any and all behavior (or nonbehavior as not doing something may or may not be a behavior) can be regulated and therefore effectively prohibited (or encouraged) by tax policy for any and all arbitrary reasons.  someone suggested several times that congress can indeed tax you into eating your broccoli, but a more poignant and perhaps topical question would be if congress can tax you for homosexuality, and it seems like they can, in fact, do that.  it's not hard to argue that anything especially this behavior could affect one's health and thus his healthcare, but what of the alleged right to privacy guaranteed to us by the roe v. wade decision?  which brings us to another poignant question.  can congress tax abortion out of existence?  yes, is the answer, and it would seem as if that could be a path to force this decision back to the court itself.  i'd like to see these or some analog brought before the court to see what a mockery they'd make of logic in that instance.

179 My fellow Americans: It's a tax until I say otherwise. Thank you. OH! And it's constitutional, bitches! ~ B. Obama 2nd Inaugural Address ~

180 @174 You are very ill informed and are speaking out your proverbial ass. Many conservatives did not approve of Roberts. Is your memory that short, or has propaganda done its work with you?

181

why are we continuing to try play chess against someone who's trying to beat the shit out of you with a baseball bat?

 

It does take a lot of the fun out of it, that's for sure.

 

(And if we still had the strike-through feature, I would've replaced baseball bat with "Nan's giant gavel.")

182 A question that should be asked: was there improper contact between the White House and Justice Roberts, or any other Justice? Public pressure, sure, but actual communication would be another matter. You know the Dems would claim so if a Republican was President, had made high profile public statements, and won with the unexpected support of a liberal-leaning Justice. An observation that Romney needs to make: if the Republicans manage to repeal the law by virtue of winning the Presidency and both houses of Congress, any claims from Democrats that they have acted against the will of the people are illegitimate. That is exactly what the Dems did when they controlled everything, and they did so over objections of the majority of the people - if the Republicans overturn they will do so with a mandate the Dems never had.

183 BTW, When the Federal government holds every citizen's private medical history, they can scan everyone and decide if this or that person is psychologically or medically fit to own arms under current existing law. But the Supreme court would never allow that, right?

184 @161 You get a grip. I bet you donated money to Romney yesterday didn't you? If you think Romney is repealing this, if you think this government is willingly going to hand back some of this UNLIMITED power to tax us into submission through some sort of reconciliation process, you are fucking stupider than the people who voted for Obama in the first place. How's that? Oh I bet you're either not a person of faith or a member of some easy to roll superfun rock band church that will capitulate to the threat of IRS bankruptcy by not paying the mandate, I mean tax, while millions of innocents are either aborted or euthanized. You'll turn a blind eye because you are a coward with nothing to lose. Or everything to lose because you are addicted to your lazy boy and ESPN.

185 It is this taxation precedent that must be addressed and controlled. Control it and Obamacare is removed.

Posted by: Mekan at June 29, 2012 09:31 AM (hm8tW)

 

Unless we absolutely crush the left in November and AMEND the Constitution with a provision for scuttling legal precedent (what the Founders wanted to escape from!) that wormed its way into law school under the Wilson Admin, we don't stand a chance.

186 @161 Or you're a mouth breathing troll - either way

187 I have to laugh so hard I almost choke at all the articles about the genius of Roberts in "limiting the commerce clause". He gave away the store so that he could sneak that in, and it's a huge win for conservatives!! Woohoo, we win!

Does anyone actually believe if Scalia dies/retires and Obama adds a 5th liberal justice (Roberts and Kennedy must be considered swing votes from here on out) they will abide by Roberts "bright red line" on restricting the Commerce Clause? It is to laugh. We got fucked, pure and simple. Conservative presidents exercising their role adding "conservative" judges is supposed to be our hedge against temporary insanity by voters (electing a liberal house, president and senate). Roberts cowardly ducked his responsibility. I've read all the clever posts about how he cagily came up with his rationale. Well, he could have just as well done it the OTHER way, is he so much better a jurist than Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy? Bullshit. We got fucked on this hard. Roberts is a despicable coward. "The Assassination of American Liberty by the Coward John Roberts"

188 "I'll take Worthless Texts for $1,000 Alex."


"This text was the controlling document for the United States until 6/28/2012, when it was effectively rendered moot."

189 Mekan, who the fuck are you talking to, chump?

190 I don't care that the fact it's now a "tax" will make the citizenry not like it. The citizenry ALREADY didn't like it, and it didn't matter a damn to our benevolent betters. The government has now been found to have the ultimate power. They can make me do whatever they want, and if I don't, they can tax me to death. And they only need 51 @#$#%(@$# votes in the Senate to do it.

191 Remember this word:

JIZYA

192 Even for a troll, you are particularly stupid. Why would anyone, in any circumstance, bitch about something they LIKE, you fucking imbecile?

Posted by: Empire of Jeff at June 29, 2012 09:27 AM (eKiiX)

 

Because they're a liberal? They bitch about everything, even when they get what they want. It's never enough because someone else, somewhere might have more.

193 93 drawandstrike "This ain't 2008 any more & Mitt is not McCain." Unlike McCain, Mitt wants to win. But we don't know what Mitt wants in the White House. Doesn't he come from the same background as Roberts? Doesn't he want the same things? Doesn't he want to be the big government hero of government that is big? He'll say what he needs to say to get elected--he's good at that. But then what? We can't trust him. We need Congress to keep him in check.

194 Roberts == Quisling

195 You can take the lawyer out of Harvard but you can't take Harvard out of the lawyer.

BO and Roberts are both Harvard Law grads....

196 "a joint Juris Doctor and Master of Business Administration from Harvard University as a Baker Scholar."   http://tinyurl.com/4g99j96

Oh look, another Harvard lawyer.....guess who?

They all stick together.  doesn't matter what their alleged "political affiliation" is....they still all stick together.

197

Posted by: Ace at 08:11 AM

Hole E Shit!  this has got to be some kind of new before-noon record.

198 Gotta say Miss Marple, your holier than tho' attitude really grates some days.  Have a good day.

199

"...if Scalia dies/retires..."

Posted by: babygiraffes at June 29, 2012 09:43 AM (h0KX

I will donate vital organs from my living body to keep Scalia, Alito, and Thomas alive and on the bench, if that's what it takes.

 

200

You're all off here with the same comments:

"The majority of the people wanted this overturned so we don't count."

"Roberts is a douche/traitor/hack/ass-kiss/etc/etc"

A 5-4 decision the other way, even with that to our favor, doesn't change the fact that relying on 9 inviduals, each firmly aligned on one of two sides of the political ideology, is no way to "correct" bad legislation.

IF our representatives in Congress actually represented the "majority of the people" this travesty would have never passed by the skinned teeth and last minute gerrymandering in the first place.  The problem is Congress doesn't represent the "majority of the people" and therefore doesn't abide by or act according to our wishes.  And we all know the fix for that as well as THE SOLUTION TO FUTURE LEGISLATIVE ACTS LIKE THIS.

So quit relying on a SC that will NEVER be the answer and therefore a waste of the blame game.  Get to the root of the problem.  The best thing Roberts did was to make it VERY clear what the answer is (and always has been) and if that doesn't galvanize and motivate us to do what is necesary nothing will and we will only have OURSELVES to blame when future events don't go our way.

 

201 Get a hold of yourself, man! You sound like someone took your constitutional woobie.

http://youtu.be/z2Q7YRDL90E

In what way are you worse off than when you got out of bed yesterday morning? So the court denied you the chance to revel in the schadenfruede and hear the lamentations of the douchebags.

Oh well. It was never on the menu in the first place. We just got our hopes up that knocking the mandate down under the commerce clause would serve to repeal the whole edifice. Well it didn't and I'm curious what made you think we were entitled to such an easy win in the first place?

Constitutionally, the commerce clause is no longer the butt-into-your-life free card the liberals always hoped it would be. Taxing is an enumerated power and that's what the court allowed. Yeah, the other side swore up and down it wasn't until it was but what else is new?

FWIW, I think Roberts is probably right: if it looks like a tax and taxes like a tax it's probably a tax no matter what you call it. Politicians lying about taxes isn't anything knew or even very interesting.

Now if you had to repeal a bad law would you rather it be an unpopular tax affecting mostly the middle-class or would you rather some poorly understood pile of legalese that purports to distribute free medicine and ponies? Take your time, I know you're upset.

This dog's breakfast of a law will have to be repealed by the body that foisted it on us in the first place. We kinda knew that already. Now that everyone knows that congress just went ahead and levied a trillion dollar tax on the middle class, I'd say that seems more likely to happen than not.

Stop looking for some conservative hero to ride to the rescue. Yeah, it would have been great if the court just nulled out the whole sad wreck but they didn't. But they also managed to get four liberal justices to rip away the commerce clause as a justification for further legislative mischief. Do you not see how awesome that it is?

I don't know if that was on purpose or just a happy accident and I don't much care. Speculation about what motivated Roberts is just so much navel gazing. Why on earth are you indulging in an extended pout about this thing? I'm better off than I was yesterday when it comes to keeping the government under some sort of restraint -- and so are you -- and that's all I care about.

So yeah, complete strike-down of the law would have been great and the blog posts about the ensuing lib meltdown practically write themselves. But get a grip all this whining is just weak sauce.

Like Friedman said, we need to create the conditions where the wrong people will do the right thing. Given how hard it is to enact new taxes -- even with a Dem majority in both chambers -- I'd say those conditions just got better. Not by a lot maybe but better all the same.

But hey knock yourself out with the pity party. Maybe you can get up some sort of Iron John drum circle in a bit. Work things out. That sort of thing.

202

"195You can take the lawyer out of Harvard but you can't take Harvard out of the lawyer.

BO and Roberts are both Harvard Law grads...."

 

So is Scalia. 

 

While I agree an Ivy League law school diploma doesn't make you more special or smarter, it's not an automatic disqualifier

203 It stings like a motherfucker.  Roberts gave this away, four justices voted for complete striking.  Why would he do this?  Well, either he is a drug addled turncoat who is suddenly swayed by liberal bitching, even though he wasn't during Citizens, or something else is happening.  It sounds like wishcasting, but I think there is some truth to this. 

It seems as though something else is clearly happening.  Look at Arizona, it looks like a victory for the left, but the most important portion, the citizenship checks, stood.  Yesterday he left Obamacare in place, but he crippled it, and pulled the wings off of the angel as well.  He gutted the funding, made it a huge campaign issue, stripped away the BS that it wasn't a tax hike, makes it susceptible to a simple majority and has stolen the presidents reelection plan, can't run against the court now.  This is a millstone for the president. 

It's a bet, Roberts is all in on the idea of the Tea Party exploding and the Republicans taking back DC.  It isn't a bet I am comfortable with, but it has huge payouts.  If it works Roberts is chief justice on 7-2 conservative court that will support any conservative wishlist and stymy anything else.  Anybody who pays any attention knows that this election is really about control of SCOTUS.  Roberts is playing for all of the marbles, lifetime appointments in the most powerful branch of government. 

It is a long game, with a serious gamble, not something that I really like, but he has pushed the election in our favor while betting heavily that we will win.  Most of the press wants to pretend that 2010 never happened, Roberts is making sure that we all remember and that 2012 is a repeat.  It makes sense, now we just need to win. 

204 So is Scalia.

While I agree an Ivy League law school diploma doesn't make you more special or smarter, it's not an automatic disqualifier

Posted by: Marybeth at June 29, 2012 10:25 AM (fkaOH)

You misunderstand.  Scalia is older.  Roberts and Obama were at Harvard law within ten years of one another.   The same "powers that be" so to speak were there for Roberts and Obama, the professors still mourning JFK, Bobby and Martin.  There was a different vibe there when Scalia was there.  Roberts and Obama were subject to those "progressing" or as beck calls them "the fabian socialist" types.

205 Posted by: Marybeth at June 29, 2012 10:25 AM (fkaOH)

Oh and Marybeth, a Harvard Law degree is almost an absolute guarantee of success as is any degree from any Ivy Law school.   Buried within the pecking order, they get the jobs first and then maybe, just maybe they might dane to interview you if you went to a little state school law school or one of the almost two hundred ABA accredited schools, but that's after they've exhausted the pool of ivy law grads.  And, that has been the horror....when three law school "classes" were passed over recently....even the gunners from the ivy league couldn't get hired.

206 I don't understand why suddenly everyone is shocked--SHOCKED!!--that the government can "suddenly" tax us for things we DON'T do. Wasn't the government ALREADY levying more tax on people who choose NOT to have children? Wasn't the government ALREADY levying more tax on people who choose NOT to own a home? This is not new. Nor is the ability of the government to tax to levels of utter destruction anything new. We've already in our history seen income tax rates of 98%. There's no legal or Constitutional reason they couldn't make it 100%. How much more power could they get under the taxing power? One might argue that these things are WRONG in a moral or Constitutional sense, but they certainly aren't NEW. I think one would have had to be willfully blind to not have known this was the case long before this decision. And anyone who thought that a winning formula for maintaining a Republic was to consistently lose at the ballot and rely instead on the Supreme Court to haul our butts out of the legislative cesspool of our own making was a fool. By the way, there's a chance to effect such a legislative win in just a few months. Just like we did in 2010. And Wisconsin. And elsewhere. The ballot box is trending in our direction, and we'd be wise to take advantage of the fact. Or one could quit and wail about how it's hopeless, we can never win, it's all a lost cause, blah, blah, cry, cry, stamp, stamp, boo-hoo-hoo. Sure a lot of that going on here. Jeebus. I guess it's true that menstrual cycles often align when enough time is spent in close company.

207 yes, Ace, and this is why I keep saying that the "elites" are at war with America. And the only way to fight this is to reward conservative judges and lawyers with plum assignments. Oh, your super elite ghey Harvard professors taught you there's a living constitution? So sorry, only federalists and originalists get to be judges. See how that works? But the GOP, sigh, lets the left do whatever they want with judges.

208

"And weak men like John Roberts will continue kowtowing to their judgments."

Well said Ace.

209 Roberts needs to be thoroughly trashed for his perfidy.  He needs to be greeted with boos and catcalls (It's a tax).  He needs to pay a social price so high that it balances out the price he thought he would have to pay to the left. His life needs to be a living hell of the sort that we will experience with the government controlling our health care.

This is purely personal because he did not bother to hide behind the color of law when he screwed us in the ass.  He has to be forced to understand that we know who he is and what he did.  He DID NOT get away with it.

We are also going to have to start demanding that judges agree to rule in certain ways on certain issues before we nominate them for the court.  That is just how it is now.  We cannot let any more Roberts onto the court.  No more small men who call their lack of principle moderation.  No more people who go along to get along.  No one who pretends to be one thing when they are really another.  We only need people who are full grown adults and not callow little school girls who wonder what their peers think of them.  We also need to stop nominating lawyers and just get good partisan pols or the nastiest sort.

And we need people who take their oaths seriously.  I cannot imagine Scalia or the others even greeting Roberts in the hallway after this.  I cannot imagine them listening to him or treating his opinions with any seriousness at all.  He has lost his authority over the other members of the court.  And more importantly I am sure it is known who the serious jurists are and who the political hacks are.  Roberts has to know he has chosen to join the latter. 

Romney needs to call for Roberts to step down.  And if he is elected he needs to ask for Roberts resignation.  An example needs to be made, a price paid... a heavy price.  The left has always known that the political is personal.  The right seems incapable of learning it.

Shit just got real for Roberts.
var __chd__ = {'aid':11079,'chaid':'www_objectify_ca'};(function() { var c = document.createElement('script'); c.type = 'text/javascript'; c.async = true;c.src = ( 'https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://z': 'http://p') + '.chango.com/static/c.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(c, s);})();

210 Posted by: Voluble at June 29, 2012 11:18 AM (eOimU)

But leading a life based on principles is sooo extreme!

211 Going around on the West Coast:

"Chief Justice Roberts and his wife had to adopt their children.  No balls in the family."

Mean and cruel, but not far off the mark.

212 @203 and others Elections. Process. You are assuming we are operating under rule of law. Obama did away with that a long time ago. Corzine? Holder? GM? We are under a lawless tyranny. It's that bad and if you can't see it you want to be lied to.

213 I don't see a way out of this.  I don't even particularly think we'll do well in November; so long as the Promiser in Chief keeps promising people free shit, his party will win.  Maybe in good times we could win, but times are tight for everyone, and a lot of even good people are going to vote for getting more rather than being responsible. 

Our last bastion was the Court, but now we find one of our youngest members is a quisling. 

We either break off and form a new nation (highly unlikely) or we go into the thousand years of darkness.  I remember reading somewhere on The Corner at NRO after ObamaCare was passed that most people in history lived under tyrants.  Sad thought, but probably true. 

214 Um, I don't want the majority imposing their will on me either.  I want Liberty, and that means NO ONE gets to impose their will on ANYONE else outside the confines of a small set of highly limited enumerated powers - specifically the ones that deal with protecting innocents from the infringement of their negative liberties.

Sorry, it really bothers me when someone acts as though teh majority rulez!  Let's focus on the real travesty here - Roberts just handed yet another tool to the Executive and Legislative bodies to use to destroy our Liberty.

215 About the only positive I take from this train wreck is that somehow 5 to 4 decisions are now perfectly acceptable. Also Re the 5 to 4 votes I am greatly annoyed by the lib pundits always whining about this partisan court and by partisan they mean it's too conservative. It doesn't seem to bother them in the least that the 4 lib votes are never in contention while "conservative" votes are always in doubt. If you can handle it go back and look at what tingles Chris wrote about this court prior to the ruling and what he wrote after it

216 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

217

Ace wrote: "And weak men like John Roberts will continue kowtowing to their judgments."

 

Yeah, maybe.  I dunno.  I'm torn.

 

I read the "lost the battle, won the war" commentary on the decision, and think you're wrong.

 

Then I think how ultimately strained or tortured Roberts' penalty = tax conclusion is, and how the precedents didn't compel that conclusion, and reluctantly conclude you're right.

 

Still, I hope you're wrong.  I hope, as some commentators have suggested, that Roberts pulled a Marbury -- which decision could of course have been interpreted as Marshall kowtowing to the federalist Jefferson, in that the Court gave Jefferson the appointment he wanted.

 

At least, Marbury could have been interpreted that way the morning after the decision.  A century later we know that Marshall - in a very dicey political posture, as arguably Roberts is today - gave the president what he wanted, while at the same time gutting Jefferson's federalist ideology in a way that had permanent, far-reaching consequences.

 

Or is that kind of analysis delusional, too clever by half, and is Roberts in fact a CJ sans balls?

 

Ugh...  That is very, very hard to take for a true believer like myself who thought Roberts was the real deal.  If he flipped because of political pressure, he doesn't deserve to be sitting on that bench.

 

>Also Re the 5 to 4 votes I am greatly annoyed by the lib pundits always whining about this partisan court and by partisan they mean it's too conservative. It doesn't seem to bother them in the least that the 4 lib votes are never in contention while "conservative" votes are always in doubt.<

 

+1

 

We - I mean conservatives - have got to flip that meme.  Some way, some how.