1 Well, you know, monarchs can do that.

2 Need a photoshop of Roberts as a black-robed weathervane.

3 I think about half the population of this country consists of retarded traitorous punks. I am really starting to think that.

4
this again?

5 They will never love you, Roberts. Idiot.

6 The rule of law is dead. Long live the rule of men. This man in particular.

7 I don't get the impression our judges and justices avoid socializing at all.  As we've seen in the news recently, our circuit courts take dozens of lawyers at a time--and their families--on power-player invite-only junkets to "judicial conferences" in places like Maui.  Conferences.  It's not the tradition in America for the bench to try to avoid any possible appearance of impropriety like the French do.

All this is to say, I would prefer hearing that Chief Justice Roberts does not read newspapers, and that he does not have a select few people with whom he might occasionally discuss a pending case--or, say, a pending issue.  Cases should be argued solely in the Supreme Court, not in some shadow supreme court in Laurence Tribe's backyard.

I'm not saying there is such a thing.  I'm talking about the little touches of social pressure--the thing the parties and the rest of the public can't do. 

It's difficult to believe that Roberts stood alone all that time.  If he was discussing pending issues over brandy and cigars, well, that's not right.

He's not only done damage to the Constitution, he's damaged the court.  People have to have confidence in the judicial branch.  He's hurt that.

8 Deja vu all over again?

9 Several years ago, I did all the appellate briefing work for a case in which The Firm was arguing for the overturn of many decades of precedent.  We won and I was thrilled.  I was thrilled, that is, until I read the decision and it was very clear that the appellate court wanted to reach the decision it gave and our case happened to be the handy case to do it.  I wanted to win by persuading the court my position was correct, not because the court wanted that outcome and would get there by hook or by crook.  There's no honor in that.


I am concerned as to what will happen now that it is apparent that no branch of government has the consent of the governed.  Whatever it is, it will be bad.

10 >> I was telling the cob-loggers in email that in France their tradition is that judges don't party. Eet is true. Zat is why I did not become zee judge.

11 I think about half the population of this country consists of retarded traitorous punks. I am really starting to think that.
***
The dependent class wants your money, and they don't care how they get it.

The ruling class wants more power, and they are perfectly willing to pay off the dependent class with your money.

12
Wasn't this obvious from the remarks Roberts made post decision? We didn't need Jan Crawfish of CBS News to tell us that Roberts knew exactly that he was making a political decision that would rub people the wrong way.

It was also obvious that Roberts was referring to the Tea Party in his remarks. And it was further obvious that Roberts, like most Republicans in Washington. regard the Tea Party as a small fringe group.

13 The dependent class wants your money, and they don't care how they get it. The ruling class wants more power, and they are perfectly willing to pay off the dependent class with your money. ------ In other words, there is no saving this country.

14 My bowtie? Totally exempt, bitches.

15
John Roberts made his shitty decision because he was afraid of being called the Tea Party Justice.

16
Now put up the goddam cheese thread.

17 You could have just stopped at afraid, soothsayer.

18 In other words, there is no saving this country. Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at July 01, 2012 04:38 PM (caAEA) Depends on what you mean by saving. Rebuilding a better republic from the wreckage of this one does not scare me. The Dems and the GOP want you to be scared of that.

19 OUT: Diana Ross and the Supremes IN: DIAF, Supremes!

20
Levitated Cheese Mass

21 Is there ANY recourse available to us if it turns out he changed his opinion, particularly if it was in response to blackmail/pressure from the Administration (which is a rumor flying around)?

22 Who's got two thumbs on the Scales of Justice? This guy!

23 My John Roberts action figure just asked me "Does this robe make my ass look fat?"

24 I think trying to protect the image of the Court is fine as long as it does not come at the expense of something else. But there is a danger in paying too much attention to the opinions of the editorial boards and politicians' threats. That is especially true in this case because the journalists and liberals in the other two branches of government were essentially engaged in a form of blackmail.

25 Is there ANY recourse available to us if it turns out he changed his opinion, particularly if it was in response to blackmail/pressure from the Administration (which is a rumor flying around)?
***
Impeachment for both Roberts and Obama - high crimes indeed.

But the Republicans won't do it, and if the Obama administration did blackmail/bribe him they likely did it with enough room to claim plausible deny ability.

26 This is sort of off-topic, but it's been bugging me for a few days:  if the consequences for not having health insurance under Obamacare are considered a tax, shouldn't the Anti-Injunction Act have required SCOTUS to find that the plaintiffs lacked standing or that the court otherwise lacked jurisdiction over the suits?

27 Is there ANY recourse available to us if it turns out he changed his opinion


If you mean any recourse to get the opinion pulled, nope. 

28 Depends on what you mean by saving. Rebuilding a better republic from the wreckage of this one does not scare me. ---- Yeah I'm gonna have to stop you right there. There will not be a 'better' Republic. Not ever. There will be no 'great rebuilding' of this country. We will remain an empty husk of a great nation. That is it. More than half of Americans just don't give a shit. They don't care about the Supreme Court ruling and they sure wouldn't care enough to start anew. Please stop deluding yourself.

29

The Left are fantastic illusionists.

They have fooled the people into thinking that a minority is the majority, that the fringe is the mainstream.

Even the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court is fooled by the illusion.

30 >>If you mean any recourse to get the opinion pulled, nope. But in criminal (and I suppose civil) trials, isn't it true that their results can be overturned (or mistrial declared) if it turns out the judge has been bribed? Couldn't we at least get a do-over, at least in theory? I mean, it really seems like Scalia knew what was going on. If he spilled the beans, wouldn't something have to come of that?

31 They have fooled the people into thinking that a minority is the majority, that the fringe is the mainstream. "The Media is the Enemy" - Andrew Breitbart

32 This is sort of off-topic, but it's been bugging me for a few days: if the consequences for not having health insurance under Obamacare are considered a tax, shouldn't the Anti-Injunction Act have required SCOTUS to find that the plaintiffs lacked standing or that the court otherwise lacked jurisdiction over the suits? Posted by: notthatGreg at July 01, 2012 04:44 PM (XXWQp) Roberts ruled the pitch is a strike if the plate is right where it is, but a ball if the plate is over there. Thus, it is a ball because I'm saying the plate is over there.

33 Taken together, RDBrewer's two posts make an excellent, credible, and tragic analysis.

Roberts has assured his legacy, and Brewer has nailed it shut.

34 Please stop deluding yourself. Posted by: Joffen, fucking sunshine patriot at July 01, 2012 04:44 PM (caAEA) What makes you think that other half will have any voice?

35

"The Media is the Enemy" - Andrew Breitbart

A rule to live by.

36 So, CBS is reporting that it was the news media which swayed Roberts.

Spiking the ball?

37
Hey, how 'bout those Dodgers? Wow they really shit the bed in the last 2 weeks.

Hey, how 'bout that fugitive Attorney General we have?

38
Am I the only one who remembers Eric Holder is a fugitive from justice?

I'd like to see the focus put on Holder's evasion of the law.

39 They pulled every dirty trick in the book to shove through this abomination. Roberts flipping due to pressure is just the corn niblet on top of the shit sundae.

What a weak, vain little coward.

40 well look on the bright side. he will only be chief justice for, what, 20 years?

41 This is my problem with people who claim that we can put pressure on Romney and other squishy Republicans to "do the right thing." The Republican establishment listens to the editorial boards of the Washington Post and the New York Times. That's their barometer of public opinion. They never even hear what we say. In fact, I would say you could define "establishment" as "a group of people who think the prevailing opinion of media figures reflects the mood of voters." We have to find a way to let these people know what's really going on. We have to break through the misinformation they're fed. At least some of that misinformation comes from their aids and bureaucratic underlings (who also religiously read the NYT and WP).

42

What we need is a NEW Court Case...

 

The Federal Governments ability to tax is NOT without limits.  Income Taxes may be uncapitated, BUT, any direct Tax MUST till be capitated according to the Constitution.... only income Taxes, Excise Taxes, Duties and Imposts are exempt from that requirment.

 

Now, the Individual Mandate is indeed tied to Income, as the Penalty is a either a set amount, or a percentage of your income.... BUT....

 

There is also the Business Penalty side of this, which is a set amount, just based on how many employees you do not cover.  It is not tied to INCOME at all... thus, it is a DIRECT TAX... which must still be capitated.

 

This law also has religious exemptions... which you cannot do with a TAX... or it gives some religions an advantage by Act of Congress.... somthing Unconstitutional...

 

It also, because States may opt out of parts, make the Tax non uniform throughout these United States....

 

So, next case up? As Roberts says this was a TAX?  Attack it AS a TAX!

 

This aint over folks.

43 At the very least, it is encouraging to see the "silver-lining" arguments of George Will, Charles Krauthammer, and Erick Erickson  getting demolished by an overwhelming majority of conservative opinion.

44 Wow. So a little thing like mean words in the NY Times sends this prick cowering in fear? He sold everyone of us into slavery to the Feds because he doesn't want to be called a bad name? He obliterated the Constitution for in hopes the NY Times will like him? Right now soldiers are risking their very lives and their families are sacrificing for us and this prick can't even stand up to the NY Times?

45 35 "The Media is the Enemy" - Andrew Breitbart A rule to live by. Posted by: Kim Priestap at July 01, 2012 04:50 PM (xDetv) Yes. And I do see their grip loosening slowly. The reliance of getting talking points from media leaves Progs unable to combat informed Conservative who reads blogs and follows Twitter. I am demanding plain talk from every Prog I meet. I insist they lay out their entire belief system, and keep asking them "why" questions. They cannot do it for long. I ask them why it is that I know their side of an argument AND mine, while they only know the cheap cliches and talking points they get from MSNBC. I ask them to explain what the Facebook post that reads: "If ObamaCare is unconstitutional, what the hell is the Patriot Act?" means. I point out strawmen, logical fallacies, false assumptions, confirmation bias, cognitive dissonance and EDUCATE them on how to recognize these things... because I am tired of talking past them. There is no good faith argument anymore, only knowledge versus ignorance. As Dickens warned (paraphrased): "Behold Man's children, Want and Ignorance. Fear the former, but fear the latter more.

46 And another thought: judges always insist on juries being sequestered. What kind of hypocrisy does it take for a judge to put himself above sequestration?

47 41 This is my problem with people who claim that we can put pressure on Romney and other squishy Republicans to "do the right thing." --- I am incredibly disappointed by (and frustrated with) the decision to *not* apply pressure on Romney now. Clearly we're not supposed to criticize him. I think that's foolish. That said, we have no other option but to get the prick elected. None. This is the guy we got and Obama must be stopped.

48 That said, we have no other option but to get the prick elected. None. This is the guy we got and Obama must be stopped.
***
Read my lips, no *new* healthcare mandates.

49 Roberts is a Santy Claus cockblocker.

50 @48 Our liar is better than their liar.

51

If there is actually a sliver of silver-lining to this outcome, its that it might make some conservatives actually see the trees despite the forest.

 

We keep losing because our representatives are timid and mealy-mouthed.  They aren't bold.  Whatever you say about the liberals in Congress, they were aggressive in pushing this legislation through, despite the fact that it was in the middle of a bad economy and against public opinion.  We simply don't have enough idealogical warriors in government.  The GOP is terrified of appearing extremist, the Democratic party is not.

 

Aw hell, I'm not sure that even this pile of dung decision will be enough to wake up the party.  Maybe we do need a new one.

 

52

OH.... and if Roberts was sooo worried about how the Court LOOKED?  Its Reputation?

 

Why was Kagan allowed anywhere near this decision... Let alone be the vote that tipped the scales.... as a 4-4 Vote UPHOLDS the lower court verdict, that it is UnConstitutional!

 

 

53 John Boehner won't let us spike the ball.  We never win so we can't spike the ball.  Roberts is a Bush a'hole.  If Jeb Bush ever runs for President I will not vote.

54 Does anyone happen to wonder why all of this information is coming out about Roberts,  and why the NYT and CBS suddenly have all of this juicy info,  and why we are being directed to consider Roberts the enemy,  rather than Obama?

Sometimes I wonder why conservatives pride themselves on rationality,  when they are so obviously emotional.

Occam's razor says Roberts was threatened.  Whether personally or a threat towards the court,  we do not know.

All of this analysis and  trashing of Roberts (perhaps deserved,  perhaps not) is getting us nowhere.

Roberts vote wouldn't have made a difference if we didn't have Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan.

I am going with the "Thug president threatened Roberts or his family." 

After all,  it's in character,  and my sources are as good as CBS. 

55 All of this analysis and trashing of Roberts (perhaps deserved, perhaps not) is getting us nowhere. Roberts vote wouldn't have made a difference if we didn't have Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Kagan. --------- I think Roberts deserves the (intellectual) beating he's getting. I don't think it does us a lick of good to blame Bush. If we're going down that path, then it's the Senate GOP that deserves the beating because as you point out they didn't block some patently lousy appointments.

56 Lets go in the way back machine and pretend W had appointed Alito as CJ and had followed with Harriet Miers. Then the smug, mewling right-wing court watchers backed him down and he came up with John Roberts. Of course the Left has no problem with locked-in reliable partisan hacks like Kagan and Sotomayor, but the right is pure in its reverence for the integrity of the Supreme Court.

57 That said, we have no other option but to get the prick elected. None. This is the guy we got and Obama must be stopped. No question. But I recall not a few who thought we could turn Romney into the second coming of Barry Goldwater if we "put pressure on him." They never explained how we would go about that, and I can't really think of a way myself.

58 roberts should have read his oath instead of the newspapers since he violated it. roberts should resign.

59

53

Neither will I.  I'm sick of the delusional bullshit among the Bushies that GWB was any sort of conservative in practice.  His brother isn't either.

60 But I recall not a few who thought we could turn Romney into the second coming of Barry Goldwater if we "put pressure on him." ----- Yeah, those folks, including a few here, are delusional. FWIW, I think Romney is more dependable on health care now than he was before this shit storm hit. He's a big government compassionate conservative, but I think he'll toe the line in his first time so he can get re-elected. That's assuming we regain the Senate. Unfortunately, I think he and our party leadership (term used loosely) are much more likely to betray us on immigration. Infuriating.

61

Posted by: Miss Marple at July 01, 2012 05:14 PM (GoIUi)

 

Sorry, but you are incorrect.... if the vote was Four to Four, the lower Court Decision STANDS... ie that Obamacare was Unconsitutional.

62
The man had to admire the dishonest rascal for being so shrewd because the children of this world are more shrewd in dealing with the world around them than are the children of the light.

HereÂ’s the lesson: Use your worldly resources to benefit those who make powerful friends. Then, when you are tossed out, they will welcome you.

Luke 16, 8-9

63

54

The backlash against Roberts is necessary.  We have to stop being thankful for the rain when one of our own is merely pissing on our leg.

64 Someone commented here on Saturday that Obama never seemed like anything BUT an intentional  single termer , when considering the vacations, cheap shots and vitriol toward opponents,  golfing , spending like someone who had "found a credit card" and was trying to spend it before it got cut off etc. etc. I think I have to agree.

I can't look at McCain's "campaign" , TARP, the timing of the housing crisis , the midnight Obamacare vote, Robert's wacko ruling etc. without looking behind the scenes for an old guy in a holographic global map room petting a white cat.

Romney's a business guy, not an American idealist. He will be looking for what he thinks is the "best deal" not saving the Republic. I'll vote for him so I can tell my grandkids that I did....while we nosh on leftover squirrel bones in the back of the cave.

Not to go tin foil hat conspiratorial , but it's in the air and water these days , it seems.

65 Roberts has managed to achieve exactly the backlash he thought he was going to avoid. What a nutless wonder.

66 We have to stop being thankful for the rain when one of our own is merely pissing on our leg.


People pay big for that kind of action

67 HTrue that there are potential court challenges to the shit sandwich, but the more immediate remedy is political. Turn the fucks out of office and repeal it. We still ultimately cannot trust a court with 4 libs and 2 squishes to fix the problem.

68

What this does show, is that the system of checks and balances on Federal Power we THOUGHT we had, is illusionary.

 

You cannot allow the ONLY check on Federal Power, to be the Federal Government itself, because it APPOINTS those who are the arbiter of said Power.

69

43

There also is the requirement that all tax bills originate in the House.  Roberts overlooked that apparently.

70 51---"The GOP is terrified of appearing extremist, the Democratic party is not." The GOP is subject to relentless attacks by the MSM, whereas the Democrats, no matter how extremist, are depicted as being normal and moderate. Again, the media is the enemy. Without such a slanted media, the Progs could never have done so much over the years. The real wonder is that, after generations of propaganda, a good third of this country still believes in the Founding principles.

71 And how can a law be a tax when it isn't ever called a tax as written?

72 Roberts isn't seeing a backlash from the NY Times so he doesn't care.

73 69 43 There also is the requirement that all tax bills originate in the House. Roberts overlooked that apparently. Posted by: Reggie1971 at July 01, 2012 05:26 PM (4mGuz) It did originate in the House. Reid took a House bill, gutted it, used the "shell" to insert ObamaCare and passed it. 'Cause he's a servant of the People and shit.

74

protecting the image of the Court?

he just deligitamized His and the courts poisition. They are to Uphold the Constitution, They are to defend it with Honor and Grit

how does allowing legislation through changing the  state to citizen interaction in a negative way constitutional?

We now MUST eat brocolli if so told.

how does this give credibitlty to the constitution which they are to uphold or the Justice system sent to withhold it FOR the people? at all?

75 Oh i know Living Breathing Constitution?

76 another thing when did we get wind of the idea Kagan leaked?

77 So, next case up? As Roberts says this was a TAX? Attack it AS a TAX! This aint over folks. Posted by: Romeo13 at July 01, 2012 05:05 PM (lZBBB) As the Roman poet Virgil said: "Do no yield to evil. Attack, attack, more boldly than fortune would even seem to permit!"

78 @64
oops wrong thread

79 Hey, you stole my argument about Roberts being the only judge favoring severability!

I hope at least my comment to that effect on the other pose was persuasive in you reaching your conclusion. Or maybe we're both brilliant. Or maybe I just have a low threshold for considering a thought brilliant.

80 @79 "pose" = post*

81 65--- "Roberts has managed to achieve exactly the backlash he thought he was going to avoid. " Oh? What backlash has he gotten from the MSM? He's gotten nothing but applause from the popular clique, the cool kids. He doesn't care about the tiny conservative media. Geeks and nerds!

82 realjoe, didn't HE change the wording so it read as a tax?

83

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at July 01, 2012 05:35 PM (C8mVl)

 

More so... the Converative Pundits on Fox have been hailing him as a GENIUS!  Some great Chess Player.... not someone who just threw any question of Impartiality of the Court out...

84 You cannot allow the ONLY check on Federal Power, to be the Federal Government itself, because it APPOINTS those who are the arbiter of said Power. The judiciary was not intended to be a check on Federal power. The states and the people were intended to check Federal power through interposition and, if necessary, secession (see the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 179 . But that's rejected these days. Why? Because the judiciary said so! They simply assert that they are the ultimate arbiter of legitimacy. The Federal courts staged a coup, essentially, and nobody really notices or cares.

85

@43 So, next case up? As Roberts says this was a TAX? Attack it AS a TAX!

This aint over folks.

 

^^^THIS^^^

 

He took the teeth out of the mandate - what are they going to do if all of the taxpayers decide that it's time for all of the Obama voters to pay for everyone else's healthcare?

 

Last time I checked, it's a crime to not pay your taxes; if I'm in jail, I don't have to pay for my healthcare OR any taxes.  And I get 3 meals a day and a roof over my head.

 

If enough of us decide we're not going to play ball, what are they going to do?  As long as we've paid the penalty, we CANNOT be denied healthcare at any emergency room - which is how we got here in the first place.....

 

http://is.gd/sqYXwA

86 I think this is a clear case of two things:

1. THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES
2. BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WISH FOR

Because we are not time travelers, we cannot see into the future to learn what the true ramifications of this Roberts decision will be.  It's like winning the lottery and then having the money destroy your life.  What seems good may end badly and what seems bad may end well.

It really depends on how you respond.  So they key is to respond well by controlling what you can.

My personal belief, despite Roberts using quite questionable judgement, is that he has just handed Romney the election.  Bottom line, Obamacare is unpopular and taxes even moreso.

87 26 This is sort of off-topic, but it's been bugging me for a few days: if the consequences for not having health insurance under Obamacare are considered a tax, shouldn't the Anti-Injunction Act have required SCOTUS to find that the plaintiffs lacked standing or that the court otherwise lacked jurisdiction over the suits?

Posted by: notthatGreg at July 01, 2012 04:44 PM (XXWQp)

That was one of the four themes that this case was about - could this case even be heard before 2013, before the mandate comes into effect?

I have seen that question raised in a lot of places.  Beyond that, all I've seen are acknowledgements that it's a strange ruling, and few snarky comments about "it's-a-tax-because-I-say-so" type of stuff.  But I have not yet seen that question actually answered.

SCROTUM made an internally contradictory call.

88

Posted by: rfichoke at July 01, 2012 05:44 PM (Y1c/9)

 

Oh.... I agree... problem is that most of the electorate think the Supremes Courts Role IS to ensure the Constitution is followed... as it took that role upon itself...

 

The Real killer to any Federal Power check was when the Senate went from being Representatives of the State Governments, to elected representatives of the States people...  because they then had up to 6 years of no consequence for poor decisions...

89 82 realjoe, didn't HE change the wording so it read as a tax?

Posted by: willow at July 01, 2012 05:36 PM (TomZ9)

In his mind.

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

91 Posted by: Romeo13 at July 01, 2012 06:01 PM (lZBBB) You sound a lot like Thomas E. Woods. And that's a good thing. :-) You're right about the 17th amendment, of course. I do share some sympathy with the concerns that led us to it. But it was misguided at best.

92 But Woodrow Wilson was still an arrogant evil SOB.

93 Good grief, rdbrewer.  Get a grip.  Extensive quotations from unnamed sources in a big article by a CBS reporter ought to be a warning sign.  Heck, Ace won't even link to Politico anymore.  If I follow your logic a) CJ Roberts reads newspapers therefore b) CJ Roberts betrayed the Rule of Law, the Constitution, and the Republic in order to get good press.  That is, if the CBS account is accurate.

The only thing the Dems can hope for at this point is that conservatives will destroy themselves, because it is becoming increasingly clear to independents that Obama is the problem, not the solution for the next four years.

94 When is Robert's tee time with King Putt?

95 80's where's that quote Volokh from?

96

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 01, 2012 06:11 PM (d6QMz)

 

Which is exactly why you will hear that story on blogs, but NOT from any MSM 'Conservative' Pundit (Kraut et al....)...

 

They LIKE the power the Press has to pressure people... They LIKE being in the drivers seat... and in order to maintain that Power and Access, they must 'play the game'...

 

Which is why while many of us think Roberts is a Wimp who caved to pressure, and sold out his Court for good press, the MSM will most probably never touch this story...

97 Looks to me that Roberts is 1/32 conservative.

98 "My personal belief, despite Roberts using quite questionable judgement, is that he has just handed Romney the election. Bottom line, Obamacare is unpopular and taxes even moreso."

That is true for SOME voters.  However, the almost 50% who pay no federal taxes do not give a rat's rear-end if ObamaCare costs anything.  They LOVE ObamaCare because they think they are sticking ot to the rich and will be getting free healthcare.  As for taxes, they don't pay any so they don't care about them.

THat is why I am pessimistic about Romney winning.  We will learn in November if the Moochers outnumber the producers.

99

someone made a comment that because the mandate itself did not write in tax language  it can not be reconciled as a tax?

Did Roberts change it by calling it a Tax?

100 96 80's where's that quote Volokh from? http://bit.ly/LRyD1W This is also interesting: "Did the Supreme CourtÂ’s Deliberations on Healthcare Leak?"> http://bit.ly/LI0DUL

101 From the last link @ 101- "Equally weird was the senatorÂ’s [Leahy] focus on the Chief Justice at a time when most Court-watchers still expected Justice Kennedy to play his traditional swing-vote role. But Senatory LeahyÂ’s remarks donÂ’t even mention Justice Kennedy. Instead, he zeroes in on the Chief...The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee has not seen much commentary devoted to the Chief JusticeÂ’s role in the healthcare case, so he decides to give a speech that reads like like it was written for an audience of one. It offers flattery and it offers threats, all of them personalized to appeal to Chief Justice Roberts alone."

102 Willow, Roberts didn't have the power to literally rewrite the statute. He construed it as lawful if it is considered to be a tax, i believe. I just don't understand how a law not written as a tax can be judges as if it was.

103 You know who has two thumbs and makes law? This guy!

104 the MFM got Nixon to resign.  They're still savoring that.  Now they have another scalp--and they'll be creaming themselves for a generation on this one

105

106 ". . .many of our justices don't read the newspapers."

ZOMG!!1!  TEH PALIN!!!

107 From now on Roberts will only vote progressive. He was always a progressive in conservatives clothing (just like bush) and no he has no reason not to vote his heart.

108 ok, thanks real joe.

109

Miss 80s I had thought that it was Kagan?

although i see from Volokhs link others think elsewhere.

110 I was willing to give Roberts the benefit of the doubt but no more. What a big p*ssy!

111 @54, Roberts deserves our scorn. But conservatives haven't forgotten the Left is their true enemy.

112

Posted by: Lessons from the Ceramic Throne at July 01, 2012 05:58 PM (QpfsD)

The reasoning of Roberts is not totally insane - though I think it's terribly wrongheaded. He writes that the Anti-Injunction Act, like the ACA, is a creation of Congress. The Anti-Injunction Act only prevents premature consideration of "taxes." The fact that Congress didn't use the word "tax" but rather "penalty" in the ACA is an indication that Congress was treating the penalty different from what it called a "tax" in the Anti-Injunction Act. Essentially, the word "tax" in A-IA is an artificial construct and Congress is entitled to make legislation in accordance with that artificial construct. So, the Congress can make any legislation with a tax in it, but as long as they do not call it such, the A-IA should not apply.

The Constitution on the other hand, is not subject to the whims of what Congress calls a tax or not. Roberts holds that the penalty is a tax for purposes of the Constitution - even if Congress didn't intend to subject it to the A-IA.

A major problem is that this gives Congress way too much credit and projects and intentionality that reasonably is not there. The natural reading, as Roberts admits, is that this is an intended exercise of Commerce Clause authority. Roberts unfortunately holds that it can also be an exercise of taxing power - even if Congress didn't intend it to be so. As I said, wrongheaded.

Roberts totally accepts the government's argument, as expressed by Verilli:

http://youtu.be/ON5qTTRzAuQ

113 Sorry for lack of spacing...I must not have some javascript enabled or something, it looked fine beforehand.

114 108 From now on Roberts will only vote progressive. He was always a progressive in conservatives clothing (just like bush) and no he has no reason not to vote his heart.

Neither of those statements are necessarily true. I understand the cynicism but you cannot say with any certainty that he will always vote with the liberals and the fact that he caved under pressure does not automatically make him a liberal. 

115 What conservatives on Fox were saying Roberts was some master chess player? Charles Lane said that on Fox News Sunday. Lane is not a conservative. Brit Hume made it clear he was disgusted by the ruling.

116 So Roberts is the bad, bad boy and the coward? And what was Sam Alito doing asking questions about how ObamaCare would raise the deficit, when that has nothing to do w/ the constitution (why a lot of us want a BBA)? Covering himself w/ glory? Or "working backward" for the result he wanted as you claim CJ Roberts did...but w/ no pretense at all of caring about the Constitution. And Kennedy is supposed to be brave when Roberts is a coward? Everyone knows Kennedy is famous for reading headlines before he gives a decision. Do you really believe if the polls said ObamaCare was enormously popular he would have been so strident on serverability? And then there's J Scalia...cracking jokes about how reading the bill might violate the Constitution "as a cruel and unusual punishment". Yeah he cares about the Constitution and the prestige of the Court. I wish we had more like him and less like Roberts...oh, wait I don't. Granted, I would have just thrown out the Mandate and dared the liberals not to save what was left (if the conservatives would not join w/ me on serverability). But anyone who doesn't think that the actions of the four conservatives had more to do w/ their thinking it was a bad law than w/ the Constitution wasn't paying attention to their questions in oral arguments. Not only that, Roberts was on solid ground because he ruled the Mandate/Tax fell under the "taxing powers" of Congress not necessarily saying it's a tax in the way it's being written here and elsewhere. Lastly, I find it hilarious that conservatives were calling for "respect for the Court" when Obama seemed to challenge it. And now that you children didn't get the exact ruling you wanted, you've so quickly become what you despised. LOL Roberts is the man. Or at least the adult.

117 We need to move the U.S. Capitol away from the East. I pick Butte, MT. In the bottom of an old Copper Mine Pit.

118 Wichita, Kansas.

119 OK, call me the most naive person in the room, but I just can't get myself to believe that John Roberts is THAT craven. It is far easier for me to believe that the Chicago Mafia made death threats against his family members. That is what thugs and tyrants DO. We already know that the Soros/Ayers cabal is capable of any evil; they've already PROVEN that. Why not threaten a justice? Have you never heard of mafiosi threatening judges before? If you haven't, then YOU're the naive one! If someone threatened my kids, I'd probably do anything they asked. Every tyrant knows this. How do you think Hitler, Stalin and Robespierre got all those people to do what they wanted? There's a reason we call such a regime a REIGN OF TERROR.

120 If the law is somehow under the "taxing power" of the state then the law should have been proposed, written, debated, voted upon and argued as a tax.

121 All the kool kidz heart tax payer funded health care. It's free!

122 Not only that, Roberts was on solid ground because he ruled the Mandate/Tax fell under the "taxing powers" of Congress not necessarily saying it's a tax in the way it's being written here and elsewhere. Lastly, I find it hilarious that conservatives were calling for "respect for the Court" when Obama seemed to challenge it. And now that you children didn't get the exact ruling you wanted, you've so quickly become what you despised. LOL Roberts is the man. Or at least the adult. Posted by: trickamsterdam at July 01, 2012 08:21 PM (uTBHY) Solid ground? Not likely. Roberts used a twisted exercise regarding taxing power to save the ACA. He did not want the mandate to rest on the Commerce Clause and he did not want to toss out the whole shebang due to severability, so he was forced to conjure up a tax spell to save the day. BTW, your run down of alleged faults of other Justices was weak sauce. Go back to Axelrod for some refresher training.

123 I admit I may be stretching in my effort to "save" Roberts, in my own mind at least, but re: the tax issue, consider "sin taxes" such as those on cigarettes. Their purpose is twofold: first, to discourage the behavior; and second, to compensate society for the additional costs it must bear as a result of the behavior, such as increased rates of lung cancer. If a large chunk of society wants to discourage the behavior of choosing to go without health insurance, why couldn't it tax it as it does cigarettes. (I'm NOT saying I agree with either of these taxes! I'm just trying to point out how someone might reason.) Also, just as with smoking, this behavior -- choosing to be uninsured -- does burden society financially, such as increased emergency-room costs. Alternatively, consider "luxury taxes." If going without health insurance is considered a luxury, then society might choose to levy a luxury tax on it. Mind you, I don't agree with either of these arguments -- and even if I did, they should be STATE taxes, not federal. I'm just trying to come to terms with Roberts' decision so I don't completely melt down in despair.

124 I like the cut of this man's jib.

125 125 +1

126 Can I get a ruling on what the meaning of the word "is" is ?And if individuals who pay taxes but make the choice not to get health insurance , by the way the hospitals still send then a bill with debt collectors/lawyers attached, are a burden . Yet the poor non taxpayers are not a burden . They have a choice to buy alcohol and tobacco like any taxpayer ? I'm confused . If they are poor and can not afford their own health insurance , why do they the freedom to buy sin taxed items ?

127

"It is far easier for me to believe that the Chicago Mafia made death threats against his family members. That is what thugs and tyrants DO. We already know that the Soros/Ayers cabal is capable of any evil; they've already PROVEN that. Why not threaten a justice? Have you never heard of mafiosi threatening judges before?"

____________________________________

We are talking about the Chief Justice of the United States here not some Cook County Circuit judge (or a an obscure US border agent or a bunch of poor Mexicans.) If the Mafia was stupid enough to threaten a Supreme Court Justice do you think he would have no recourse? That he wouldn't immediately go public with such a threat? Don't you think the left would have knocked off Justice Thomas 20 years ago if they could have gotten away with it? And, if they were successful, do you think nobody would pay any mind at all to a SC Justice - the Chief Justice - who mysteriously disappears, to be found floating in the Potomac River a few days later, especially if it happened while the world was awaiting the Court's decison on an extremely high-stakes, high-profile case? You're watched too many episodes of the "Sopranos."

I've heard some very goofy theories - Roberts' meds made him crazy, he's ghey and in the closet and being blackmailed and now this Mafia thing. As if it is just completely unheard of for a conservative justice to change his spots on the Supreme Court, to "evolve" because he wants to be loved by the editoral board of the NY Times. No, gee, that never happened before - it must be the Mob!

128

124

Cigarette taxes are referred to in legislation as just that.....taxes.

They also penalize a person for what they do.  Obamacare penalizes one for what they DON'T DO.

 

Roberts' rationale is mind-boggling, and I think it will remain that way.

 

129 @123 "eman" "Solid ground? [CJ Roberts] Not likely." How solid is the ground the conservative movement itself is on? When liberals and Obama said the Court was "intimidated" by the Tea Party, conservatives got a case of the vapors. How dare they question the Court?! And now that they didn't get the ruling they wanted they're saying it's because he was intimidated by the liberal press? Isn't that exactly what conservatives were complaining about liberals doing? Second-guessing rulings? My analysis of the other Justices was "weak sauce" but people w/ wild theories in this thread that Obama may have threatened Roberts' family is what...strong wine? Or are they just drinking that? Lastly why was Alito bringing up the deficit so much in oral arguments? Seriously? You know in your heart those four wanted that law down because they felt it was bad law...they couldn't care less if it was constitutional or not. Roberts did. And so the man who made the CU and 2nd Amendment as individual right rulings is called a coward? And Kennedy, "weak sauce" if there ever was any, who I surely believe would have ruled to have upheld Obamacare if it were enormously popular is brave? No, I don't think so. I stand w/ Roberts.

130 Look at the moby.  During Wisconsin the idiot was talking about being all about the tea party.

131 No, I don't think so. I stand w/ Roberts. Posted by: trickamsterdam at July 01, 2012 09:54 PM (uTBHY) Silly rabbit. Defend Roberts' decision without attacking the motives and analyses of others, if you can.

132 @124 "Kathy from Kansas" He [Roberts] said the penalty was constitutional under Congress' "taxing power" and it's hard to see why it wouldn't be. This was argued in Court by the President's lawyers, whatever anyone says to the contrary. I hate to clue people in but you're allowed to use more than one argument at a time in court. Conservatives wanted ObamaCare gone even though if you don't use the commerce clause it's constitutional for the same reason that liberals want Citizens Untited gone even though it's constitutional too...they consider it bad law and don't care how they get rid of it. Robert's was better than that. He took an oath to the Constitution, not the conservative movement, not the R Party. And now he's being subjected to the same sort of hell from his own side that conservatives would have condemned had it come from the Obama surrogates or the liberal press. It enlarges the man and shrinks his detractors.

133 A good judge does not have to rewrite the law from the bench in order for it to be constitutional you pathetic moby troll.  That is legislating from the bench.  Something conservatives do not appreciate.

134 @132 "eman" "Defend Roberts' decision without attacking the motives and analyses of others, if you can." The whole thread is about attacking Roberts' motives, analysis, and character. Therefore I'm afraid your comment makes no sense. You think he was intimidated w/ by the lib press and I think the other four didn't care whether it was constitutional or not because they thought it was bad law. I guess neither of us may ever know the truth. But please get the fuck off the high horse.

135 @134 "buzzion" Think what you like. I've explained myself well enough for anyone w/ the open mind to listen. The "taxing power" argument was made in court by the president's lawyer. It was a good one and was accepted. PS - A "moby" is a liberal who pretends to be a conservative to say dumb things to make conservatives look bad, e.g. subcribes to "birtherism" etc. You'd probably fit that definition more than me. But I have to take my leave for the night. So long, Ahab.

136 Every once in a while it's good to re read the Constitution.  It's maddening to see how far afield we've actually gone:  http://tinyurl.com/3hykx

137 Do you really think Roberts was wrong? Do you really think the Democrats did not know they were imposing the largest tax increase in American history? Do you think they were being honest when they tried to pass it off to the American public as something other than a tax increase? I could be wrong, but I think maybe Roberts was simply not fooled and knew the actual intent of the Pelosi/Reid Congress was to impose an enormous tax increase and deceive the American public by calling it something else.

138 138 Do you really think Roberts was wrong? Do you really think the Democrats did not know they were imposing the largest tax increase in American history? Do you think they were being honest when they tried to pass it off to the American public as something other than a tax increase? I could be wrong, but I think maybe Roberts was simply not fooled and knew the actual intent of the Pelosi/Reid Congress was to impose an enormous tax increase and deceive the American public by calling it something else.

Posted by: Lou at July 01, 2012 10:28 PM (0tCdN)

 

So say he's not wrong and its not a tax.  He has still rewritten the law from the bench to claim that the law was that way.  It was not written as a tax.  If they wanted it to fall under the taxing power then put up a new bill with the language.  The law is unconstitutional as written and that is his job.  Not to change the law so it becomes constitutional.

139 You can argue semantics all you want.  The dems have apparently been running all over the media today yelling "what's wrong with Robert's?  It's not a tax, it's a penalty!"

140 It's worth watching Chris Wallace eviscerate the WH Chief of Staff, Jack Lew, who appears to not have even half a brain.  He was hell bent on getting out those democratic talking points, even if he looked like a dummy and how embarrassing to admit that he practiced law at one time, an embarrassment to all attorneys:  http://tinyurl.com/6qab4cp

141 No, I don't think so. I stand w/ Roberts. And I stand with your dick.

142 HE'S A CLOSETED HOMOSEXUAL AKA STEALTH APPT BY W THE FRIEND OF DOROTHY CONSERVATIVE. HE IS A SILK-WEARING NANCY WHO'S SO SO SO VAIN.

143 When Kennedy is shocked and thinks WTF, it IS WTF.  Roberts is a SCOAMF and now so is the President that appointed him.

144 And so the spin cycle begins with huff poo poo:  "Obamacare Support Rises After Supreme Court Ruling, Poll Finds"   http://tinyurl.com/7vpt2ez

145 "Sen. Paul: 'It's a Bone-Headed Decision' Thu 28 Jun 12 | 10:53 AM ET"

http://tinyurl.com/6qdn6xk

More and more I wish he were running.  He gets it.

Interesting the Australian host parrots the democratic talking points and Rand Paul completely avoids his stupid question and continues to make his case.

146  I understand half the country doesn't want to work or improve themselves. What I don't understand is why they think we need them? For entertainment?  They need my money, my work and my blood, but what do I need from them? Nothing.
CJ Roberts, what do you need from us? I guess that would be a huge nothing.

147 Warren
Brennan
Blackmun
Stevens
O'Connor
Kennedy
Souter
Roberts

The last item on this long list isn't different from all the others. Roberts didn't have to be blackmailed, threatened, bribed or anything else.

He consults the left-wing mainstream media, he thinks it confers respectability or shame, and he has no philosophy of his own, so he's likely to say or do whatever seems to him to be the path of respectability. There's nothing more that needs to be said to explain his decision.

148 The Federalist Society needs to be replaced or rebuilt.

It's supposed to give Presidents who want conservative judges to nominate a Supreme Court Justice a selection from which to pick, and whoever the President picks is supposed to be solid. It's supposed to promote originalist legal reforms in other ways too, but if its no good for Supreme Court picks then the rest is moot.

How's it doing? It's not doing even moderately well. Over and over, the guy all the smart insiders say is rock solid turns out to be no such thing.

149 If this had never happened before, then blame John Roberts. He's a bum, he's a turncoat, what a bolt from the blue, who could have believed he could do that, and it's all on him. Vent, and move on.

But he's the eighth in a series. That means it's not just on him, it's on the people who keep cultivating, vetting and recommending people like him.

At that point, if you are running a right wing reform movement or even just leading the Republican Party, you have to call in the people entrusted with reforming this third co-equal branch of government, and say either "meet your replacements" or "here is what you will do from now on so that this never happens again," or possibly "tell me how you are going to change the way you do business so that this will never happen again, and make the story you are about to tell phenomenal."

150

Posted by: trickamsterdam at July 01, 2012 09:54 PM (uTBHY)

Your whole argument is weak.

Some people do go too far in their critique of Roberts. I personally don't care.

I think Roberts' opinion on the tax issue was strained and ultimately illogical. He called it a "saving construction" and even wrote that he would find "no basis" for calling the mandate a tax, except as a last resort to pull the law back from the brink of unconstitutionality. After considering the mandate under the Commerce Clause a threat to our constitutional order, it makes little sense to try mightily to save it. Roberts tries to address this contradiction, writing:

"If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling to permit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something."

Roberts cites 3 factors which purport to "allay this concern":

1. "most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity."

That's just tautological. It doesn't allay any concern. He goes on to pretend he didn't say all that stuff about the power being dangerous under the Commerce Clause, saying the power just didn't fit there but it does fit under the taxing power.

2. Roberts notes that there are outer limitations on the power to tax and at some point it really becomes a penalty...but he admits the Court hasn't set such outer limits.

3. The power to tax is broader than the power to regulate interstate commerce.

This really just encapsulates his first concern-allaying assertion...and really doesn't allay any concerns.

Roberts' opinion is internally inconsistent. He invents hoops to jump through - on the Anti-Injunction Act, on distinguishing a tax from a penalty, allowing it to be both, and in calling it not a direct tax. He invents all those arguments out of almost entirely new cloth. Are we shocked that he finds himself able to jump through the hoops he invents?

You question the fidelity and honesty of the conservative dissenters. Why? They obviously share a conservative judicial philosophy. It's rather ridiculous that liberal scholars are praising Roberts after he rejects the Commerce Clause argument they believed to be virtually unassailable. In deciding that issue as he did, was he simply being ideological?

And what about Sotomayor and Ginsburg, the only 2 justices who didn't find a single unconstitutional overreach in the 2800 pages. Were they being crassly ideological?

I personally think all the justices were being true to their judicial philosophies. Roberts' judicial philosophy happens to bend toward judicial modesty at the cost of principled interpretation and sound logic.

151 I stand w/ Roberts. Of this, I have no doubt.

152 Suddenly CBS News is truthful. When did that happen?

153 I still can't figure out how you can rule the mandate as obviously not a tax to fulfill the Anti Injunction Act, then turn around and rule it as a tax to make it constitutional. The ruling is illogical - it contradicts itself.

154

Posted by: realityman at July 02, 2012 08:38 AM (obXkJ)

I explained above @113. It's not strictly contradictory. Roberts is saying that the Anti-Injunction Act does not encompass things called something other than a "tax" - even if those things are unquestionably taxes. In Roberts view, using a different term is a signal from Congress that Congress didn't want the Anti-Injunction Act to apply. It's a purely technical matter.


In other words, Congress didn't really mean "taxes" when they wrote the Anti-Injunction Act, they meant "things we call taxes and things we don't name but you hold to be taxes, but NOT things we give another name." So Congress could pass a new payroll tax and if they call it a "peanut butter sandwich" then the Anti-Injunction Act will not apply - according to Roberts.


When it comes to the Constitution, however, Roberts says Congress doesn't dictate technical terms and that the Constitution won't treat a tax as a "peanut butter sandwich" or a "penalty" just because it has that label. Under the Constitution, the Court will decide whether it is substantively a tax. As we know, Roberts did a lousy job in calling it a tax under the Constitution, but that's the logic.

155 Roberts and Mittens...separated at birth?

156 #155 - "call it what we want to call it when we want to call it that" is insanity. Taking a "signal" from congress in one aspect, then discarding that "signal" for the next is still contradictory. As you said - it's a lousy job done by the court, and in my opinion the worst possible outcome if "legitimacy" of the court is the goal. They would have been better to go one way or the other instead of doing what they did.

157 151
Posted by: trickamsterdam at July 01, 2012 09:54 PM (uTBHY)

--

I personally think all the justices were being true to
their judicial philosophies. Roberts' judicial philosophy happens to
bend toward judicial modesty at the cost of principled interpretation and sound logic.

--

How could John Roberts be true to his judicial philosophy, when according to him in his confirmation hearings he has no consistent, over-arching philosophy, and merely calls balls and strikes?

And where was this strong bend toward judicial modesty only days ago when John Roberts shared in striking down three quarters of the parts of Arizona SB 1070 that were under challenge, leaving a lawless situation where the state has no way to control the hundreds of thousands of illegal Mexican immigrants within its borders except to phone the federals for help - with the President decreeing that, regardless of federal law, the phone will be attended no more than before? All the state's rights of self-defense, autonomy and ability to regulate its affairs in good order were swept aside and made nothing. Its Governor, its legislators and the people were united in support of the law, which merely mirrored federal law so that there could be no conflict between Arizona and the U.S. Congress (only with the lawless President) and the Supreme Court smashed it flat, forbidding the state to enforce anything.

It's not laws duly passed that John Roberts deferred to, or the executive, or the people, or the federal structure of the constitution.

John Roberts deferred only the left wing grand project, that wants all power concentrated in one great Titan, and that sees federalism as at most a natural fact, like a tree stump in the way of the plow, that may have to be gone around if it cannot be pulled out by the roots yet, but that has no rights.

Why did John Roberts defer to the left, when he was indifferent to states rights and the right? Only he can ever know, that is if he does not fool himself. But every sign suggests that when he said he has no philosophy, he told the truth. He has no anchor. The wind blew hot from the New York Times and other agencies of left wing influence, and John Roberts was blown the way they directed. He "grew in office" as the left wingers say, as many supposedly conservative judges have "grown" before him.

There has got to be a system in place so that Republican Presidents don't put any more Justices like this on the Supreme Court. The Federalist Society has not done the job.

158 Reverse jurisprudence--because it worked so well in the USSR.

159 Roberts upheld PPACA under the same logic that authorizes the existing entitlement state. If Roberts could have found a way to strike the act without endangering the New Deal and the Great Society perhaps he would have. Everything about this mess is unprecedented but it always is when our elected officials use their political power to destroy our liberty in order to save us from the crisis of the times.

160 @142 "rfichoke" : "And I stand w/ your dick" Thank God you stand w/ it instead of sitting on it, which would be enormously troubling to me if not to you. @151 "crispian" You gave a good response. I can only tell you that denying severablility was to me as much of a stretch as what Roberts did. Also remember, if they'd written it as a tax almost everyone thinks it would have been constitutional...so how did he expand that power? My blood was a little up, because Roberts is my fav Justice along w/ Thomas. Maybe I was over-aggressive. This is my feeling, written on another thread, that may show my feelings in a more rational way...although I doubt it will convince many, it might convince a few: "No way do I believe Roberts has become a liberal in the Souter (sp?) mold (i.e. "a new 5-4 liberal majority" from the initial blog). He may have gone a little left in finding that it (the penalty) was constitutional on under the "taxing power" of congress...which is a ruling I agreed with, but I would not have gone out of my way to give the libs that help...however I would have just struck down the Mandate not the rest of the law (the libs would have accepted the severability if the cons would not). But I do not believe in striking down laws just because they are bad laws and I do not think the Mandate makes the rest of the ObamaCare invalid. I think Robert's thinking was the same...had the cons bent on severabilty we might not be dealing w/ this now. So why blame only him? Who leaked all this? I think Scalia et al did. They were after all "shunning" him w/ their dissent by not mentioning him as the leaks have said. That's why I'm not as ticked as many at this ruling (I've had fights here and a reason.com about it). I really only wanted the Mandate gone in this ruling. Taking out the rest was legislating from the bench in the way that libs try to do w/ something like Citizens United (i.e. bad law in their opinion = unconstitutional). I wish he'd just chucked the Mandate, but now that it's a "tax" it's easily repealed, if Romney can get elected (I don't see a way we don't take the Senate if Romney is elected). You don't need to break a D filibuster to repeal a tax, it can be done w/ 50 Sens + the VP. And if Romney can't get elected aren't we probably screwed anyway? One more lib Justice and they'd probably just legislate Medicare for All from the bench under the Equal Protection Clause or something (i.e. healthcare is a right, not a privilege, therefore we all have an equal right to it etc). And while medicare for all might be as big an expansion of government, it'd be more efficient than Obamacare which any intelligent person realizes is unworkable, whatever your ideology. Once we've repealed the Mandate we'll have the leverage to change the rest. But you can't use Judicial power to throw out parts of laws that aren't unconstitutional. I know many or most disagree w/ me on that. But it's simply not the conservative/libertarian thing to do (IMO). You can't use the enemy's methods to defeat them. It's like trying to kill someone else by drinking poison yourself." /end ps - Thanks for your intelligent response, crispian. Sorry we couldn't agree on this one. I still stand w/ Roberts. But you've got your head screwed on straight. Happy 4th.

161 I am really starting to think that
----
Friv