July 03, 2012
— Ace If he wanted to demonstrate the Supreme Court was apolitical, he shouldn't have bowed to political pressure. Right?
Last Friday on NPR, liberal columnist E.J. Dionne said something very revealing about why Chief Justice John Roberts decided to affirm the constitutionality of ObamaCare. The remarks proved even more enlightening when we learned for a certainty from peerless Supreme Court reporter Jan Crawford that Roberts did indeed change his mind a month after voting it down with the conservative bloc.“I think Justice Roberts in this case saw . . . the attacks that [the high court] was facing from lots of people — including me, I should say — were just going to escalate,” Dionne said. This was a problem for Roberts, the pundit surmised, because Dionne & Co. were raising doubts about “the legitimacy of the court, which has already been called into question by decisions from Bush v. Gore through Citizens United.”
This rhetorical assault against the court “was going to escalate further,” Dionne said. “And I think he was trying to avoid that.”
And Crawford's report at CBS suggest that's exactly what happened. After first voting to strike down the mandate...
“[O]ver the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow.”This mattered, says Crawford, because “Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public. There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court — and to Roberts’ reputation — if the court were to strike down the mandate.”
And so, sources told Crawford, Roberts got “wobbly.”
Posted by: Ace at
09:08 AM
| Comments (434)
Post contains 294 words, total size 2 kb.
Posted by: steevy at July 03, 2012 09:09 AM (Xb3hu)
Fuck him.
Posted by: Dorothy Parker at July 03, 2012 09:10 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: steevy at July 03, 2012 09:10 AM (Xb3hu)
Posted by: toby928© at July 03, 2012 09:10 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: steve walsh at July 03, 2012 09:11 AM (gB9nl)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 09:11 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 09:11 AM (8y9MW)
And Crawford didn't exactly say it was media pressure. I thought her take was the other justices and severability.
Posted by: Vic at July 03, 2012 09:11 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Cicero at July 03, 2012 09:11 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Darth Vader, from that scene at the begging, you know, from the good star wars... at July 03, 2012 09:12 AM (UZQM8)
Posted by: Kensington at July 03, 2012 09:12 AM (/AHDz)
Posted by: Vic at July 03, 2012 09:12 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 09:12 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: DangerGirl at July 03, 2012 09:13 AM (4+PCd)
Posted by: Dr Spank at July 03, 2012 09:13 AM (4cRnj)
He's lost everybody. The left will never trust him, since he's proven to be a traitor; and we'll never trust him, because he's proven to be a traitor.
Way to go, Johnny!
Posted by: Jeff Weimer at July 03, 2012 09:13 AM (tuOLO)
SCOTUS = Political cover for liberal policies
Rule of Law < Rule of man
Roberts personal side-note in history = man of weak character and coward in the face of adversity when challenged to make the correct choice.
Nice legacy you got their, good luck removing that historical stain.
Posted by: Fire with Fire at July 03, 2012 09:14 AM (lcwvr)
Posted by: toby928© at July 03, 2012 09:14 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: Comrade Arthur at July 03, 2012 09:14 AM (rktaC)
Congrats Roberts, your court will for ever be known as one that comes to decisions based on media pressure instead of the constitution.
dickweeb.
Posted by: robtr at July 03, 2012 09:14 AM (MtwBb)
Yep. "Why" doesn't matter so much when faced with the "What" of the Chief Justice deciding we can all be slaves.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 09:14 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: nickless at July 03, 2012 09:14 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: The Guy Who Always Wants To Go Directly To The Source at July 03, 2012 09:14 AM (NersQ)
Posted by: Hon. Roger Taney at July 03, 2012 09:15 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 03, 2012 09:15 AM (XCxgL)
Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 09:15 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: toby928© at July 03, 2012 09:15 AM (QupBk)
Vidkun Quisling
John Roberts
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 01:12 PM (8y9MW)
Judas
John Roberts
Benedict Arnold
Vidkun Quisling
Put in proper order and added one more.
Posted by: Fire with Fire at July 03, 2012 09:15 AM (lcwvr)
Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at July 03, 2012 09:15 AM (SDkq3)
Posted by: toby928© at July 03, 2012 09:16 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: Icarus at July 03, 2012 09:16 AM (B5y+v)
Is there an app for that?
Posted by: Buzzsaw at July 03, 2012 09:16 AM (tf9Ne)
Posted by: kbdabear at July 03, 2012 09:16 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: John Roberts at July 03, 2012 09:17 AM (QKKT0)
Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 09:17 AM (vOMX+)
Apart from the fact that Romney has always viewed a mandate-with-penalty as not a tax, doing so gives him the largest number of clubs to use in the campaign, even if being able to cry IT'S A TAX! may have an immediate emotional charm.
Posted by: @ParisParamus at July 03, 2012 09:17 AM (GFX++)
Posted by: Chief Justice Taney at July 03, 2012 09:17 AM (kSaUf)
Which undermines the whole court and the mythology we place on the court. Good. It's about time we tear down our elite overlords.
If the judiciary has no regard or respect from the American people, so much the better. I'm tired of black-robed masters who think they are philosopher kings.
Roberts' opinion was so stupid, he would have been better off sticking with "emanations" and "penumbras".
It's part of the reason I don't worry about this case from a precedent angle. It's such a mess, no judge could unravel the meaning of this for a future case.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 09:17 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: steevy at July 03, 2012 09:18 AM (Xb3hu)
Posted by: MTF at July 03, 2012 09:18 AM (B5y+v)
Leadership role, huh?
I do not think this means what he thinks it means.
Posted by: Tami at July 03, 2012 09:19 AM (X6akg)
I, at least, had the modesty to recognize my place was to interpret the law as written--not as I thought it should be.
Posted by: Chief Justice Taney at July 03, 2012 09:19 AM (kSaUf)
Posted by: Filly at July 03, 2012 09:19 AM (xiJmL)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 03, 2012 09:19 AM (XCxgL)
Posted by: Dr Spank at July 03, 2012 09:19 AM (4cRnj)
Posted by: toby928© at July 03, 2012 09:20 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: MTF at July 03, 2012 09:20 AM (B5y+v)
Roberts, like so many Republicans in Washington, has yet to realize that print media is a dinosaur on its last breath.
And the whores in TV media are irrelevant.
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 03, 2012 09:20 AM (G/zuv)
Gutless bastard Roberts assured that the legimacy of the court would be called into question. He confirmed that it is political, after all. Fucking fool just burned his crediblilty like a piece of asswipe.
Posted by: maddogg at July 03, 2012 09:20 AM (OlN4e)
If he's best buddies with Ginzberg and now deceased hubby its a tell that he's not what you think he is. You can look for more of his future 'opinions' to be favoring the not so conservative side of the court.
When a judge decides that he wants to be liked rather than make a decision based on the law then he's terminally corrupted.
Posted by: Gmac at July 03, 2012 09:20 AM (uZSl0)
Posted by: Paul Revere at July 03, 2012 09:21 AM (iqtXM)
Posted by: steevy at July 03, 2012 09:22 AM (Xb3hu)
Posted by: toby928© at July 03, 2012 09:22 AM (QupBk)
Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 09:22 AM (r2PLg)
It is clear by his opinion that he knew this was a horrible decision, that it was wrong in every sense, but he is so sensitive to the notion that the court is political that he decided not to overturn an unconstitutional law, thereby making the court even more political.
The integrity of an institution is the result of its integrity, not its fear of entering other arenas. If it's unconstitutional, then it is, let the chips fall where they may.
So, Justice Roberts, why not end the Court and go with a direct democracy, then?
I have a member post about this on Ricochet. The posters there think it's a bad idea, but I argued that it could be no worse.
Also, we could get a third of our government out of the hands of an unresponsive guild.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 09:22 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Ma Bell at July 03, 2012 09:22 AM (uVuwp)
Being swayed by our opinions is just as bad as being swayed by liberal intimidation tactics*, if not worse.
*If that is completely his reason for making this decision.
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 09:23 AM (d6QMz)
Concern, yes.
Fear, no.
Posted by: EC at July 03, 2012 09:23 AM (GQ8sn)
Posted by: maddogg at July 03, 2012 09:23 AM (OlN4e)
I think Justice Roberts in this case saw . . . the attacks that [the high court] was facing from lots of people — including me, I should say — were just going to escalate,” Dionne said. This was a problem for Roberts, the pundit surmised, because Dionne & Co. were raising doubts about “the legitimacy of the court
because the only 'legitimate court 'is one where progressive boots are licked with fervor.
Posted by: willow at July 03, 2012 09:23 AM (TomZ9)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 09:23 AM (0q2P7)
As highlighted on our new policy page http://www.google.com/appserve/mkt/ApI7UWRj6OCZpd, in order to comply with the Google Shopping policies you need to comply first with the AdWords policies http://www.google.com/appserve/mkt/StQ08jAzM4fVtG. We do not allow the promotion or sale of weapons and any related products such as ammunitions or accessory kits on Google Shopping. In order to comply with our new policies, please remove any weapon-related products from your data feed and then re-submit your feed in the Merchant Center. For more information on this policy please visit http://www.google.com/appserve/mkt/GbBNIGHOribLzf.
Posted by: Dr. Evil at July 03, 2012 09:23 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: kbdabear at July 03, 2012 09:23 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Chief Justice Taney at July 03, 2012 09:23 AM (kSaUf)
Fair. I was just pointing out what august company he'd joined.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 09:24 AM (8y9MW)
Roberts is going to find out the hard way why you don't negotiate with terrorists.
Frankly, after what Obama did at SOTU, if I were a justice, I'd be inclined to declare everything he did unconstitutional, down to declaring national dog-lovers month.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 09:24 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 09:24 AM (r2PLg)
Being swayed by our opinions is just as bad as being swayed by liberal intimidation tactics*, if not worse.
*If that is completely his reason for making this decision.
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 01:23 PM (d6QMz)
yes.
Posted by: willow at July 03, 2012 09:24 AM (TomZ9)
You know...when I see pictures of Helen Thomas, my dick gets wobbly. But I don't turn gay, I just look at pictures of Kate Upton and soon all is right in the world.
"Wobbly" my ass. Roberts is a stealth liberal.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 03, 2012 09:24 AM (nEUpB)
Posted by: Vic at July 03, 2012 09:25 AM (YdQQY)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 03, 2012 09:25 AM (XCxgL)
Posted by: Bing at July 03, 2012 09:25 AM (QupBk)
Expect it hard and heavy from both sides now, no respite ever. Currency established.
Posted by: Mr. Obvious at July 03, 2012 09:25 AM (UxKxm)
That said, John Roberts laid down on the damn job. Slacker.
Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at July 03, 2012 09:25 AM (VMcoS)
Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 09:26 AM (r2PLg)
When SCOTUS actually adheres to the text and intent of the Constitution: "The Supreme Courts is playing politics!!! How dare they! We need to question their legitimacy!!!"
Thanks for confirming that the political left- who doesn't give two shits about what's actually written in the US Constitution- gets to decide how legitimate the Supreme Court is, Justice Roberts.
By the way, there are topical ointments that can help with the vaginal infection.
Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 03, 2012 09:26 AM (SY2Kh)
John Roberts is only 57yo and probably figures it would be easier to just get in league with the bullies rather than endure 30 years of hatred.
The man's a bitch.
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 03, 2012 09:26 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at July 03, 2012 09:26 AM (SDkq3)
I'm going to sue Zippy and his administration for the insomnia they've caused me over the past 4 years. {spit}
Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 09:26 AM (vOMX+)
You guys crack me up!
Posted by: Jinx the Cat at July 03, 2012 09:26 AM (l3vZN)
Posted by: steevy at July 03, 2012 09:26 AM (Xb3hu)
Posted by: maddogg at July 03, 2012 09:26 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 09:27 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: [s]Chief Justice Roberts[/s] GOD at July 03, 2012 09:27 AM (Qxdfp)
Posted by: sexypig at July 03, 2012 09:27 AM (wWV5q)
Posted by: BlackOrchid-TeamDagny at July 03, 2012 09:27 AM (J6kXj)
Posted by: The Guy Who Always Wants To Go Directly To The Source at July 03, 2012 01:14 PM (NersQ)
Sorry, he's crying in the ladies room.
Posted by: Mr. Wonderful at July 03, 2012 09:27 AM (iBGQ2)
Thank you law schools!
Even in Europe today, they don't let their elites graduate from the easiest possible graduate program. Three years, no math, no dissertation, no competition from foreign students -- it's like public junior high school.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 09:28 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: Pecos at July 03, 2012 09:28 AM (2Gb0y)
If you don't fear them, those in the cavalier crowd. You forget what they are capable of. What they will do if they ever gain the power they seek.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 09:28 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Fire with Fire at July 03, 2012 09:28 AM (lcwvr)
Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 09:28 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Beckoningchasm at July 03, 2012 09:29 AM (P7hip)
Posted by: Drumwaster at July 03, 2012 09:29 AM (Nxs01)
So, was everyone in the Romney camp betting that the SC would overturn the ruling?
I wasn't happy with the ruling either. Like everyone else on this site, when the first report stated that Obamacare was repealed, I jumped out of my chair with joy.
What's done is done. Yelling and screaming at Roberts isn't going to change things. Only the conservative nominee running against Obama can do that.
Now what?
Posted by: mrp at July 03, 2012 09:29 AM (HjPtV)
Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 09:29 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: SFGoth at July 03, 2012 09:29 AM (dZ756)
The Matrix has him.
Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 09:30 AM (NJpun)
Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 09:30 AM (x7g7t)
Posted by: maddogg at July 03, 2012 09:31 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 03, 2012 09:31 AM (Y5I9o)
I'm just guessing here, but probably like Obama's dick.
Posted by: huerfano at July 03, 2012 09:31 AM (bAGA/)
There can be no question that this must have forced the Chief Justice to completely reverse his position on the most important decision of his career. The logic of this was confirmed by E.J Dionne himself on NPR, so it's pretty much lock-solid info.
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at July 03, 2012 09:32 AM (+lsX1)
Exactly what good will this do? None.
Meanwhile, everyone is ignoring the fact that Obama might be sandbagging us on the amount of money he will raise, that he has already started implementing amnesty, that there is an oil strike off of Israel, and many other things, including that we should be concentrating on our real enemy, Obama.
I get it. Roberts is weak, a turncoat, a wesel, a traitor, whatever. NOTHING ANYONE SAYS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE DECISION.
Get over it and move forward. What if Washington had spent all of his time sending out pamhlets explaining what an asshole Benedict Arnold was? We would still be paying taxes to the crown.
Stop it! All it is doing is making everyone lose focus!!
Posted by: Miss Marple at July 03, 2012 09:32 AM (GoIUi)
It all goes back to the SOTU when Obama, the piece of shit, ridiculed the Court over Citizens United while the Justices sat in the audience.
Alito was pissed off. But if you remember Roberts just sat there like a little pussy. He was scared and hurt. Obama got to him, that day.
And who knows what Obama said to Roberts in private. Roberts doesn't like being scolded.
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 03, 2012 09:32 AM (G/zuv)
And the whores in TV media are irrelevant.
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 03, 2012 01:20 PM
They still don't get that if the MBM had been honest and impartial, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh never would have become as big as they are now, and blogs would be talking about recipes, movies, and kittehs
Posted by: kbdabear at July 03, 2012 09:32 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Marmo at July 03, 2012 09:32 AM (QW+AD)
----
Less influential than Dionne Warwick although I don't know whether she scares Roberts or not.
Posted by: WalrusRex at July 03, 2012 09:33 AM (Hx5uv)
Kenendy, we've disagreed from time to time. But on the biggest cases that have come down the pike, you've stood up to consistently limit government power, both on the second amendment, and, here.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 09:33 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: John Roberts at July 03, 2012 09:33 AM (4cRnj)
Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 09:34 AM (vOMX+)
Agreed. It would have been so easy to do that. Kill the mandate, have several hundred pages on why the rest of it might be OK as a tax, but say that it's moot because the administration said the bill was not severable.
Tell them to try again.
Historic achievment(virtually only achievement) of the historic first black President.That was why he rolled over.
Sadly, I think that may be the case as well.
The racism of paternalistic condescension.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 09:34 AM (T0NGe)
Stop it! All it is doing is making everyone lose focus!!
Posted by: Miss Marple at July 03, 2012 01:32 PM
Haven't you heard? Yelling at the TV changes the world!
Posted by: kbdabear at July 03, 2012 09:34 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: Miss Marple at July 03, 2012 01:32 PM (GoIUi) <<<<<<
What good will it do? Well, it sure as hell worked for the liftards, didn't it? The yellow bastard upheld, rather rewrote so he could uphold Zerocare, didn't it? Answer?
Posted by: maddogg at July 03, 2012 09:34 AM (OlN4e)
Not really. They'll kill you. They'll threaten your family. They don't want civilization.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 09:34 AM (T0NGe)
Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 09:35 AM (x7g7t)
Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 03, 2012 09:35 AM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: stare decisis at July 03, 2012 09:35 AM (oZfic)
Think about it. If Citizens United went the other way, Obama would coast to victory in '12.
No wonder Obama was pissed. Roberts' Court cost him an easy reelection.
If you were a megalomaniac like Obama, what would you do? You'd make reigning in the Court your top priority. Obama did just that.
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 03, 2012 09:35 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: BlackOrchid-TeamDagny at July 03, 2012 09:35 AM (J6kXj)
Posted by: John "Chicken" Roberts at July 03, 2012 09:36 AM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: Dante at July 03, 2012 09:36 AM (w+4Xb)
Posted by: hmmmm at July 03, 2012 09:36 AM (e9LVX)
Has he ever acted in this way before last week? If not-- and if he truly is a liberal-- then why not? The fact that some of his acquaintances and former co-workers are honestly surprised would also indicate that he is a conservative. No, it seems more likely that he either "went wobbly" and/or that he reluctantly believes what he wrote regarding tax versus penalty.
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 09:36 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: nickless at July 03, 2012 09:37 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: WalrusRex at July 03, 2012 09:37 AM (Hx5uv)
This is the best, smart blog around but the staunch conservative Tea Party folks are the only ones who care. Maybe a growing group, but of no consequence to the beltway folks.
If Obama is still ahead in various polls, regardless of sample, there is little hope for this republic. I'm arming up, finding some ranchland and getting ready if this clown gets re-elected.
Posted by: GW McLintock at July 03, 2012 09:37 AM (791az)
Doesn't matter. Everybody believes it's true.
So it's true. Perception IS reality.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 09:37 AM (T0NGe)
What a vile thought.
This country has gone through hell because of race. That these people will continue to dredge up the past for political expediency makes me want to spit in their faces.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 03, 2012 09:37 AM (nEUpB)
Yes and no. Roberts is a symptom of a much larger problem. The election is like a surgical cancer extraction, except thanks to Roberts, it metricized first. No we can get rid of Obama, and God willing reverse ObamaTaxandDie. But even if we do all of that, we are still miles away from restricting government in the way it needs to be thanks to Roberts.
He has pretty much said, want to live in a free country, you have to repeal the income tax. That's a tall tall order. And coming to grips with that is going to take a while.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 09:37 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 09:38 AM (r2PLg)
@131 Thank you!!! I am amazed at how many conservative bloggers are suddenly rushing to proclaim as gospel the bullshit coming from people like EJ Dionne and SeeBS News and the New York Times. Since when did conservatives believe anything these communists had to say?
Talk about your epistemic closure.
Posted by: rockmom at July 03, 2012 09:38 AM (NYnoe)
Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 09:38 AM (x7g7t)
Can a president “demote” a Chief Justice to an Associate Justice and appoint someone else?
Posted by: jwest at July 03, 2012 09:38 AM (ZDsRL)
Posted by: Pecos at July 03, 2012 01:28 PM
Oh swell, I suppose they're going to expect me to know his name
Posted by: King Barry the Blameless at July 03, 2012 09:38 AM (Y+DPZ)
Alito was pissed off. But if you remember Roberts just sat there like a little pussy. He was scared and hurt. Obama got to him, that day.
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 03, 2012 01:32 PM (G/zuv)
--------------------------------
I just can't understand that kind of gutlessness. I would RELISH the power that Roberts has, if only he would use it. I'd flaunt my power with the expressed intent of making the libtards cry. It would be glorious. It would be epic. It would allow the fullfillment of a life-long dream of shitting in leftist corn flakes on a national scale.
Only a worm gives away his power. It is sickening.
Posted by: Reactionary at July 03, 2012 09:39 AM (xUM1Q)
Posted by: jwest at July 03, 2012 09:40 AM (ZDsRL)
Is he a liberal with conservative tendencies? Sure. But this was a huge case with profound implications for the freedom of future generations. He had the opportunity to push the country back toward the rule of law and respect for the strictures placed on the federal government by some very intelligent men.
Instead, he chose to pander to the most base, anti-intellectual crap that was being flung by the left.
Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 03, 2012 09:40 AM (nEUpB)
You all better start praying that the Catholics have more clout and better lawyers. Maybe we should have Cardinal Dolan give him a call.
Meanwhile, this is all venting to no purpose. What good does it do to go over and over this?
And while I am on the subject, who in the HELL thinks that CBS News and E.J. Dionne are reliable?
Doesn't anyone understand that this is how they play us? Every time they see an opening, they "leak" stories about how the target was "worried about media criticism" or "softened his hard-right stand due to influences from constituents" and we, suckers that we are, immediately go off the rails.
Dammit! This is how they divided the conservatives on Bush. You guys are not understanding what they do. For God's sake, wise up!
And do not start down that "Bush was not a conservative" line. He was all we had, and instead of propping him up and encouraging him, you all undercut him due to MEDIA PRESSURE from radio talk show hosts!
Wise up!
Posted by: Miss Marple at July 03, 2012 09:40 AM (GoIUi)
This is the sticking point for me. What Obama did in that speech to SCOTUS should have been the start of sticking any appeal right up POTUS' well used orifices.
Posted by: GW McLintock at July 03, 2012 09:40 AM (791az)
Hugh Hewitt @hughhewitt
If the CJ believed the taxing power reached Obamacare, would you want him to set aside that belief just to win? #tcot #hewitt
Why, yes -- yes I would.
You immense git.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at July 03, 2012 09:41 AM (kdS6q)
Conservatives and Republicans will generally stick with a person who abides by common, consistent decisions on the basis of principle. Even if we don't agree, if the decisions at least possess plausible or arguable elements of originalist constitutional doctrine that relationship endures.
Yet, with liberals it is always inventive, fact-less and unsupported by almost all intellectual thought processes.
And still, people like Roberts yield- casting all principle and intellectual thought processes aside and scorning those they once called friends.
Your only as good as your last decision with liberals. Which means to keep the accolades coming, Roberts must now be their life-long sock puppet.
Coward does not even go far enough.
Posted by: Exile at July 03, 2012 09:41 AM (O0lVq)
I do NOT understand why in the CJ's eyes it is so much more important for the leftist fishwraps and elites to be impressed with him than the American people.
But then I'm not an elitist.
Posted by: Marybeth at July 03, 2012 09:41 AM (Ks0w4)
Roberts is a coward. Holder is a fugitive.
And there's nothing we can do about it. There is nothing else to focus on. Our entire judicial system has run amok.
If we're lucky, we still have one more free and (mostly) fair election.
Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines at July 03, 2012 09:41 AM (G/zuv)
EJ Dionne just wants free healthcare that will fix that bizarre lisping thing he does with his mouth.
Posted by: Rev. Dr. E. Buzz. Bunnies. Trump. at July 03, 2012 09:41 AM (tcSZb)
Posted by: The Clingy Justice John Roberts at July 03, 2012 09:41 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at July 03, 2012 09:42 AM (C8mVl)
Posted by: Sam Adams at July 03, 2012 09:42 AM (KZBl/)
Posted by: fluffy at July 03, 2012 09:42 AM (z9HTb)
Posted by: The Left at July 03, 2012 09:42 AM (QKKT0)
No he couldn't. He was only one judge. It would have been 4-4 and 1 punt which means no ruling, lower courts rulings (all of them even if contradictory) are upheld.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 09:42 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Sam Adams at July 03, 2012 09:43 AM (KZBl/)
Posted by: hmmmm at July 03, 2012 09:43 AM (e9LVX)
Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 09:43 AM (cVYiZ)
Posted by: John at July 03, 2012 09:43 AM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: starboardhelm at July 03, 2012 09:44 AM (hHgxI)
In time, we will have a better understanding of his decision. Now we need a clear message from leading Republicans and conservatives on how to employ the Obamacare issue in the fall campaign.
A coherent strategy would be a good start.
Posted by: mrp at July 03, 2012 09:44 AM (HjPtV)
That the highest court in the land can have someone so easily swayed means he should not be in said position. Period.
He has essentially re-written the law to show favor to outside forces and IS therefore a pussy-- kowtowing to others just like the President has done. EPIC FAIL.
Posted by: DefendUSA at July 03, 2012 09:44 AM (S0aj8)
I'd like him to explain in detail which taxing power, so I know what part of the Constitution needs ammendin' to be free.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 09:45 AM (0q2P7)
173
Shit! It doesn't matter how good a lawyers the Catholics have. Zero's lawyers had nada. All the Zero needs is for his MFM to start talking shit. Then Viola, the chicken turd squirts left.
Posted by: maddogg at July 03, 2012 09:45 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: CJ John Origami Roberts at July 03, 2012 09:45 AM (+56Bh)
Posted by: Darth Vader, from that scene at the begging, you know, from the good star wars... at July 03, 2012 09:45 AM (UZQM8)
So we should just move along and accept whatever they say? No point in discussing it to make sure we are better informed and we can better inform people. SCOTUS said it so it must be true.
You wouldn't even have a 1st Amendment to protect a statement like that if it weren't for people who wouldn't stop 'fucking this chicken'
Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 01:35 PM (x7g7t)
I'm fine with 'discussing' this decision. But you're not 'discussing it.' You've already made up your minds what happened, and seem to get your rocks off by throwing around as many insults and pejoratives at John Roberts as you can. You're so desperate for evidence that you're right, that now you're believing E.J. Dionne and SeeBS News. That's the 'chicken' you keep f8cking.
Posted by: rockmom at July 03, 2012 09:45 AM (NYnoe)
How come the Bush v. Gore case keeps getting lumped in to show the extreme right-wingedness of *this* SCOTUS?
It was a completely different court than the one that gave us Citizens United. Roberts and Alito weren't involved since they didn't get appointed to the bench until Bushitler became Pres.
And wasn't the saintly Sandra Day O'Connor among the majority, in Bush v. Gore. How did she suddenly become an evil Tea Party type? I thought she was always the swing vote that everyone always coveted? So now the MFM, etc. are claiming she was instrumental in SCOTUS' lurch to the right?
These people are so fucking dumb.
Posted by: not understanding at July 03, 2012 09:46 AM (c98sL)
Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 01:43 PM (cVYiZ)
Drugs, motherfucker! Do you take them?
Posted by: fluffy at July 03, 2012 09:46 AM (z9HTb)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 09:46 AM (bBBdT)
Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 09:46 AM (cVYiZ)
We need a new party. We need a TEA Party. Republicans are too gutless to fight, and backstab us at every turn. It is time for the Second Declaration of Independence, and a second American Revolution.
Posted by: Sam Adams at July 03, 2012 09:46 AM (KZBl/)
osted by: sympleton
--
I certainly hope you're right, but the recent noises coming from Mitch "Obamacare will be hard to overturn" McConnell and the Romney camp have caused me to lose a lot of my initial optimism. I still think it's possible, if we win big in November, which we're well-placed to do if the GOP doesn't mess it up.
So yeah, this isn't over yet...but I think this really is the hill to die on, after which, well...you're dead.Posted by: John at July 03, 2012 09:46 AM (Y5I9o)
Well, that's kind of the problem with using unnamed sources isn't it? CBS probably isn't lying about what the unnamed sources are saying. Are the unnamed sources lying? How would you know?
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at July 03, 2012 09:46 AM (+lsX1)
Some of you still won't accept the fact that Roberts is lost to us. We can no longer count on him for anything.
At best, in future cases he'll be on the fence like Kennedy.
At worst...
Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines at July 03, 2012 09:46 AM (G/zuv)
Brent Budowsky
Posted by: Dr. Evil at July 03, 2012 09:47 AM (e8kgV)
Agreed. I also enjoyed being scolded in his "elections have consequences" opinion as if this whole thing were my fault even though I am doing all in my power to resist.
The more I think about it, the more liberal his opinion was: "Not *my* fault. Your fault." He refused to face up to the responsibility of his position, and therefore the responsibility of his decision. It is disgusting.
It kind of reminds me of "1776," when James Wilson was portrayed as only voting to approve the Declaration in order to avoid "being the man who prevented American independence." 'Course, that particular incident turned out slightly better.
Posted by: Filly at July 03, 2012 09:47 AM (xiJmL)
http://bit.ly/LMATqj
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 09:47 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 09:47 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Darth Vader, from that scene at the begging, you know, from the good star wars... at July 03, 2012 09:47 AM (UZQM8)
He did use it. He used it to put the Tea party in its place. Look at his comments.
Posted by: GMan at July 03, 2012 09:47 AM (sxq57)
Here we go again with the eleven-dimensional chess game.
Posted by: Cicero at July 03, 2012 09:48 AM (QKKT0)
=====
See, the shock has worn off and now I've got to put you nutters in your place so I can get back to where I really need to be...on my knees in front of Mitt Romney.
Right, Duane?
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at July 03, 2012 09:48 AM (/AHDz)
The Constitution is silent on the requirements to be a Supreme Court Justice. So how did we end up with an entire Court that attended either Harvard or Yale and who then spent most of their careers on campus or inside the Boston to DC corridor political culture? With at least one from each victim group?
It wasn't Bush who gave us Roberts. His first choice was a relative outsider who had spent much of her career outside Washington as a private sector lawyer and was the graduate of a regional law school. It was immense pressure from the right wing pundit class upset that the nominee wasn't an Ivy League graduate with a long history of schmoozing the political class hat gave us John Roberts. Now that same pundit class has the the nerve to be appalled. What exactly did they expect?
Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at July 03, 2012 09:48 AM (VGgPb)
=====
John Roberts is playing "Halo" on Legendary mode.
Posted by: Kensington at July 03, 2012 09:49 AM (/AHDz)
I do NOT understand whyin the CJ's eyesitis so much more important for the leftist fishwrapsand elitesto be impressed with him than the American people.
But then I'm not an elitist.
Posted by: Marybeth at July 03, 2012 01:41 PM (Ks0w4)
ACe's post yesterday about the 13 year old conservative was the perfect illustration of what may have been going on with Roberts.
As the kid got older he faced the pressure of HS, his liberal teachers and his classmates. He had to change, he'd have no friends as he'd already come out of the closet as a conservative.
Washington DC metro area is truly a bubble. They socialize, they have play dates with one another's kids, their kids attend the same schools, they all go to the best parties. Obviously, Robert's knows this. It's possible that there was even pressure at home from the folks who like having friends and going to parties. Besides, if you see the republicans/conservatives as weak, if you believe the tea party has died, if you see the world only from the beltway then you might not want to stand on a principle if you think it wouldn't matter anyway.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 03, 2012 09:49 AM (oZfic)
Something has bothered me for a bit...why in the world did the IRS and HHS start these ObamaCare processes while this wasn't settled?
Did they know the fix was in, as it would be?
It's just odd...but as I know how govt works, these leeches are always looking to clamp on as soon as possible with their fucking budgets.
But it is odd...and now Turtle Face McConnell comes out and says we can't do nuthin about it.
Yeah, if you already resigned your country to letting it happen, you asshole.
No matter what, the left wins, they get the encroachment they sought, no going back now...it's full speed ahead. turtle face is going to get his ass kicked by the Communists, boehner might as wlel go get drunk, the shiftless asshole.
So depressing.
Posted by: Rev. Dr. E. Buzz. Bunnies. Trump. at July 03, 2012 09:49 AM (tcSZb)
Posted by: fluffy at July 03, 2012 01:46 PM (z9HTb)
Everyday or else I would go nuts
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at July 03, 2012 09:49 AM (mFxQX)
Posted by: Darth Vader, from that scene at the begging, you know, from the good star wars... at July 03, 2012 09:49 AM (UZQM8)
If it is a tax. Answer the damn question Roberts wouldn't which damn one?
Is it an income tax, though it is not in any way linked to income?
Is it a direct tax? If so is it evenly applied and distributed amongst the states according to the census?
Which F*KING TAX IS IT?!!! BECAUSE WHICHEVER IT IS NEEDS TO F*KING GO!!
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 09:49 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: phoenixgirl, team dagny at July 03, 2012 09:50 AM (Kf54I)
One year ago during the battle over the debt ceiling increase this exact same thing happened.
Obama and Democrats and their media kept saying to the Republicans better not do it, better not do it, you'll pay dearly if you allow a default and a shutdown.
What did the Republicans do at the 11th hour? Same thing Roberts did. They folded.
Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines at July 03, 2012 09:50 AM (G/zuv)
Expect it hard and heavy from both sides now, no respite ever. Currency established.
Posted by: Mr. Obvious at July 03, 2012 01:25 PM (UxKxm)
-
The problem is, he'll only hear one side, the side that's heavily represented in the mainstream media.
This is the cost of nominating and appointing "stealth conservatives" who only say, do and as far as we can tell think what is commonly "received" in "mainstream" sources. If those sources are leftist (and we know they have been for a very long time), then your hot-house "stealth conservative" is someone who drinks deep of leftist propaganda daily, and has nothing real or even incorrect but unconventional and thought-provoking to compare it to. He or she lives in the mental bubble that the big money leftist mass media machine strives to create and maintain.
If those sources say that the Chief Justice needs to "grow in office," betray the right and exalt the left, why that's just common sense. And if those sources say that the reputation of the court is in danger and it's time to panic, that is to act decisively in an unusual way to move the court away from the danger of being partisan, so be it.
Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 09:51 AM (NJpun)
Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 09:51 AM (cVYiZ)
I played golf once, is anyone calling me a golfer?
But you suck on one dick, they call you a cocksucker!
Posted by: John Roberts at July 03, 2012 09:51 AM (Y+DPZ)
This is crap and sounds like left-wing propaganda.
Knock it off.
Posted by: Miss Marple at July 03, 2012 09:51 AM (GoIUi)
You're going to eat yours when the next dem imposes an obesity tax, a failure to have a gym membership tax, a failure to belong to a union tax. . .
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 09:51 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 09:52 AM (r2PLg)
"Let's not be angry about this guys, we got more important things to worry about."
Bullshit.
Read up on those who are considering the limits of this new power--there are none!!!
This is the final piece the JEF and his running dogs needed to completely overwhelm the states and make us all subjects to the federal government--effectively a mob democracy with the Democrats and utterly corrupt patrons and royalty as the large strongholds of the Democrats, the cities, will now run everything.
I just don't get it: There is no silver lining. We may win the (temporary) political victory and get a repeal. But we have lost our Constitution. Where before, we were (nominally) free men, and only those rights we granted to the federal government were they allowed, today? Today, the only rights we have are to do or not do as the federal government sees fit.
Or, as the piss-yellow coward put it: We are free to exercise our rights, we are not free, however, to refuse to pay the tax if the federal government decides to tax our rights.
Posted by: RoyalOil at July 03, 2012 09:52 AM (kSaUf)
Posted by: Shockwave at July 03, 2012 09:53 AM (udRDY)
Don't take them before posting. You just posted a bunch of gibberish.
Posted by: fluffy at July 03, 2012 09:53 AM (z9HTb)
Posted by: John at July 03, 2012 09:53 AM (Y5I9o)
Posted by: RushBabe at July 03, 2012 09:53 AM (qxsyW)
Can a presidents E.O.'s be subject to appeal?
Posted by: Velvet Ambition at July 03, 2012 09:54 AM (mFxQX)
Posted by: CJ John Origami Roberts at July 03, 2012 09:54 AM (+56Bh)
Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 09:54 AM (cVYiZ)
=====
Dear Lord, for the millionth time...:
WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO "RESCIND" THE DAMN TAX IF ROBERTS HAD DONE HIS JOB AND STRUCK THE DAMN LAW DOWN!
Posted by: Kensington at July 03, 2012 09:54 AM (/AHDz)
So, basically, now the Supreme Court can be bullied. Great.
Posted by: antisocialist at July 03, 2012 09:54 AM (j/nZn)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 01:46 PM (bBBdT
Doesn't the Westboro Baptist Church have their own blog?
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at July 03, 2012 09:54 AM (+lsX1)
I think I'll go read the comments on NY Jets blogs to cheer up
Posted by: kbdabear at July 03, 2012 09:54 AM (Y+DPZ)
Posted by: maddogg at July 03, 2012 09:55 AM (OlN4e)
Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines Local 103
Awww shit, even our freedom fighters are organized now! Does your contract require you only to carry your weapon and not shoot it? Someone else load the rounds into magazines? Someone else cleans the weapons?
Posted by: EC at July 03, 2012 09:55 AM (GQ8sn)
No he couldn't. He was only one judge. It would have been 4-4 and 1 punt which means no ruling, lower courts rulings (all of them even if contradictory) are upheld.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012
--
It was still up in the air then. I could see where Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Scalia would take that punt over what we ended up with, if it had been a negotiating point, as long as the commerce clause was unconstitutional. Their main concern was the damage to the constitution. I don't know why that wasn't an option.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 03, 2012 09:55 AM (XCxgL)
re: Roberts' remark about not the Court's duty to overturn the laws passed by elected legislators
Besides being completely wrong and stupid, why did Roberts overturn the perfectly Constitutional law passed by AZ's elected legislators?
Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines Local 103 at July 03, 2012 09:55 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 03, 2012 01:19 PM (XCxgL)
-
Nah, they have to deal with him. Not respect him; that won't be possible any more. But deal with him. The Supreme Court is a small world.
Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 09:56 AM (NJpun)
ok, i have a question, re It's a Tax?
how can it be dealt with as a Tax, diferently than a penalty?
does the writing of the bill make it easier or harder to fight as a Tax bill situation?
Posted by: willow at July 03, 2012 09:56 AM (TomZ9)
Thanks for the reminder!
Posted by: Miss Marple at July 03, 2012 09:56 AM (GoIUi)
Posted by: Margarita DeVille at July 03, 2012 09:56 AM (C8mVl)
Just fucking kill it with fire already
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at July 03, 2012 09:56 AM (famk3)
Posted by: Jean at July 03, 2012 09:56 AM (WkuV6)
You can do whatever you want. But you have to pay. So, if you mention extortion again, I'll have your legs broken.
Posted by: Carmine DePasto at July 03, 2012 09:56 AM (QKKT0)
If it's a tax, why didn't the Congress call it a tax? Hmmm? I don't care how SCOAMT characterizes it, I care what the bill says- and the bill calls it a penalty, not a tax.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 09:56 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: nickless at July 03, 2012 09:56 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 09:57 AM (bBBdT)
Posted by: BlackOrchid-TeamDagny at July 03, 2012 09:57 AM (J6kXj)
=====
Sounds okay to me!
Posted by: Chief Justice John Roberts at July 03, 2012 09:57 AM (/AHDz)
175
Hugh Hewitt þ@hughhewitt
If the CJ believed the taxing power reached Obamacare, would you want him to set aside that belief just to win? #tcot #hewitt
The awesome cluelessness of Hewitt on display.
The traitorous, tongue-swallowing CJ obviously dazzled Hugh with his freedom-loving brilliance.
Posted by: Mr. Wonderful at July 03, 2012 09:57 AM (iBGQ2)
Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 09:57 AM (cVYiZ)
I dunno. stinks all the way around. Roberts went wobbly? So did my schlong after I saw rosie o'donnell,
Posted by: mallfly at July 03, 2012 09:58 AM (bJm7W)
Posted by: rockmom at July 03, 2012 09:58 AM (NYnoe)
I actually don't have an issue with the whole "hey you idiots are the ones who voted for this make the legislature fix it" position. That's Scalia's point in Lawrence v. Texas, it's not the Supremes job to decide whether or not a law is a good idea, just if it's Constitutional.
Having said that, Roberts screwed the pooch in applying that proposition here.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 03, 2012 09:58 AM (VtjlW)
You guys are bitching on a board when you could be being productive. Don't make me tax you
Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at July 03, 2012 01:53 PM (60GaT)
You mean productive like Bertha Lewis? She thanks Beck and Limbaugh for reinvigorating ACORN. Maybe we could ask her if she has some of that resoluteness that she could loan to Mitt. Yes, kids, it's the new-and-improved voter fraud strategery for 2012! But if Obonehead already has everything he wanted from the presiduncy (well, besides us in camps), what does it matter?
Posted by: RushBabe at July 03, 2012 09:58 AM (qxsyW)
Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 03, 2012 09:58 AM (UZQM8)
Posted by: Filly at July 03, 2012 09:59 AM (xiJmL)
Posted by: ejo at July 03, 2012 09:59 AM (HzC9j)
So the guy goes to have his high blood pressure checked and what he hears in the doctor's office nearly gives him a stroke. I spent the next two hours calming him down. He was angry, really angry and he kept repeating "what do you mean I have no say, this is America not soviet russia" Now this guy fought in the war, I"m not sure which one though. He doesn't have a computer, he gets his news from the NY slimes and the msm and he was furious with his doctor for not telling him about this. He kept asking me if he missed a breakdown of these new health laws in the paper. He can't be the only one reacting like this.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 03, 2012 09:59 AM (oZfic)
Posted by: Jean at July 03, 2012 10:00 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 10:00 AM (cVYiZ)
Here is my hope going forward -- he comes back after this ass-kicking in the press and goes on a conservative tear.
Doesn't work that way.
Posted by: Jonathan Krohn at July 03, 2012 10:00 AM (qxsyW)
John Roberts, you saved the Court's reputation by trashing the Constitution. What are you going to do next?
Roberts: I'm going to Malta World!!
Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines Local 103 at July 03, 2012 10:00 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 03, 2012 10:00 AM (UZQM8)
Posted by: John Roberts, in meme mode at July 03, 2012 01:30 PM (YmPwQ)
Pretty damn good!
Posted by: Anderson Poofter at July 03, 2012 10:01 AM (wAQA5)
We need to really engage with people on moderate & lib leaning blogs and let people know what kind of absolute trash this law is.Demotivate the zombie youth, and motivate the independents to kick Obama out. It's the Republic's only hope.
Posted by: Linlithgow at July 03, 2012 10:01 AM (Gim9y)
--------
Only this time, it's a tax for forcing the purchase of a product. Don't want the tax? Don't purchase the product. That's now blown out of the water. The federal government now tells you to jump....and you can only say, "how high?"
Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 10:02 AM (vOMX+)
Posted by: CJ John Origami Roberts at July 03, 2012 10:03 AM (+56Bh)
Wrong again.
Excise taxes are based on transfers. Where's the transfer in NOT purchasing hcare insurance?
Excise taxes are ad valorem; Obakacare is not. Obakacare is based on income, not an item or service's value.
You really need to work on these contrarian piles of phlegm you keep coughing up.
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at July 03, 2012 10:03 AM (famk3)
It would be real easy for Obama to set up some sort of fake documents that made it look like Roberts got those kids overseas through fraud. maybe even kidnapping. With the State Department, a cooperative overseas government and a pathetic eastern European woman crying on TV, they could pretty much force him to resign.
It is not necessary to bring in a spurious gay charge in order to explain this. And you have NO evidence, so MY theory is as good as yours.
Posted by: Miss Marple at July 03, 2012 10:03 AM (GoIUi)
They won't let us win in November...
It definitely has me worried. The Left does not want to give up power and they'll go to any lengths to keep it.
Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines Local 103 at July 03, 2012 10:04 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 03, 2012 10:04 AM (UZQM8)
Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 10:04 AM (cVYiZ)
FUCK THIS.
Any proof of any of it?
Even if it's true SO FUCKING WHAT.
Nowhere in his JobDesc. does it say get in front of the Commie Cannibal army because the old GOP is gutless.
and to be called a coward by one of that armies dog-whistlers.
And YOU got no business using the word ever dood. You blog anon. and get the vapors over being noticed by one of the CCA's extra-psycho leiutenants. sp?
Aren't you always going off about self-awareness?
Posted by: DaveA at July 03, 2012 10:04 AM (864A5)
Of course, the entire media establishment is on their side, so it makes that part easier for them. But they really don't care what we think.
Posted by: Jay in Ames at July 03, 2012 10:05 AM (UEEex)
Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at July 03, 2012 10:05 AM (F0o5k)
Exactly how stupid are you?
Excise taxes are on activities- specifically purchases, most often (I suppose the tanning tax counts as an "excise tax."
Simply being fat? Not a taxable activity - until this decision.
Choosing not to purchase something? Not a taxable activity - until this decision.
Do you just not get that the Government has now usurped a power it did not have: that is, to force you into behaviors against your will? Never before has there been a tax on not doing or not purchasing something.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 10:05 AM (8y9MW)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 03, 2012 10:05 AM (05RcU)
We were this close to killing the whole thing plus reigning in the commerce clause. But, alas, that would have been a conservative decision, so it could not be.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at July 03, 2012 10:05 AM (EtuU3)
Is he a liberal with conservative tendencies? Sure. But this was a huge case with profound implications for the freedom of future generations. He had the opportunity to push the country back toward the rule of law and respect for the strictures placed on the federal government by some very intelligent men.
Instead, he chose to pander to the most base, anti-intellectual crap that was being flung by the left.
That still does not answer the question. If he is merely a liberal with conservative tendencies, then why has he not shown his "true colors" before now? One can be a conservative and still occasionally violate one's principles. On the other hand, if this becomes a habit, then it shows he has become nothing but a careerist. As for breaking one's oath, if Roberts has, in fact, done that, he ought to resign.
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 10:06 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 01:26 PM (vOMX+)
-
Heck no. He was in the majority in the decision that smashed flat Arizona SB 1070, the bill that other states were using as a model. That means he has zero deference to the consequences of elections and the popular acts of the people's representatives.
Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 10:06 AM (NJpun)
And do not start down that "Bush was not a conservative" line. He was all we had, and instead of propping him up and encouraging him, you all undercut him due to MEDIA PRESSURE from radio talk show hosts!
Wise up!--Miss Marple
Someguy? Are you going to start screaming about not punching down?
Posted by: Klawnet at July 03, 2012 10:06 AM (a/VXa)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 10:06 AM (bBBdT)
Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 03, 2012 10:07 AM (UZQM8)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 03, 2012 10:07 AM (05RcU)
Posted by: mpfs at July 03, 2012 10:07 AM (iYbLN)
Posted by: nickless at July 03, 2012 10:07 AM (MMC8r)
@268 - I can easily explain Roberts' decision. It's very close to exactly what I predicted he would do, and not becasue I think he is a coward or a closet liberal, because he respects Congress' superior role as the elected body which is repsonsible to the people. When I first read his opinion I thought the tax argument was a bit of a stretch, but Roberts wanted to be as deferential to Congress as possible because that is what he believes. He cited an 1895 Court ruling that whenever the Court can find some way to read a law to make it Constitutional, that is what it must do. I don't think the 1895 Supreme Court was filled with liberal judicial activists.
I was surprised and disappointed with the Arizona ruling, but not surprised at all by this one.
Posted by: rockmom at July 03, 2012 10:08 AM (NYnoe)
I've been thinking about Roberts coming out and saying no one is recusing themselves.
You start to line up all the cues and realize you came to the wrong conclusion cause you read it, saw it the way you wanted to read, see it, and not necessarily how it actually was. It's demoralizing.
Posted by: stare decisis at July 03, 2012 10:08 AM (oZfic)
Even before Roberts made his awful decision, the only way to truly kill Obamacare, the only silver bullet, the only stake through the heart, is if we elect people who will then repeal it.
Roberts decision actually makes our job easier. We now have the momentum and passion. We need to get our arguments for real healthcare reform in front of people, and focus on the high costs and flaws in Obamacare. Then elect people who will do something about it. We did it in 2010.
Posted by: starboardhelm at July 03, 2012 10:08 AM (hHgxI)
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 10:08 AM (0q2P7)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 03, 2012 02:07 PM (05RcU)
Uh-oh.
Posted by: John Roberts in Malta at July 03, 2012 10:08 AM (iBGQ2)
That means he has zero deference to the consequences of elections and the popular acts of the people's representatives.
It's possible he evolved.
...after I threatened him with a lifetiome of being branded a racist!
Posted by: Barakhenaten I at July 03, 2012 10:08 AM (V9GJx)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 03, 2012 10:08 AM (05RcU)
But then he wrote his decision to allow the law under the tax code and COMPEL people to buy a product from a private company or pony up a tax. So he's a liar.
Posted by: Linlithgow at July 03, 2012 10:09 AM (Gim9y)
Posted by: mrp at July 03, 2012 01:29 PM (HjPtV)
-
Now: changing the way right-wingers, conservatives and Republicans do business. No more "stealth conservatives"!
Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 10:09 AM (NJpun)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 10:09 AM (bBBdT)
Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 10:09 AM (cVYiZ)
Posted by: mpfs at July 03, 2012 02:07 PM (iYbLN)
Well, three less Obama voters..
Posted by: John Roberts in Malta at July 03, 2012 10:09 AM (iBGQ2)
Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 10:10 AM (r2PLg)
Has anyone else noticed that some of the comments calling for calm are the most unhinged and personally insulting comments in all these threads?
Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines Local 103 at July 03, 2012 10:10 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 10:10 AM (bBBdT)
-----
I am very worried as well. These marxist/communists have waited a long, long, long time to get where they are now. Thanks to them, the republic is dying and they are on the precipice of instituting an entirely different governmental system. They. will. not. let. go. Ends justifies the means and they will cheat like nothing else to retain their control and finish our republic off. Yep, very worried about it.
Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 10:10 AM (vOMX+)
Posted by: DaveinNC at July 03, 2012 10:10 AM (boNGU)
"Those decisions are entrusted to our NationÂ’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security."
Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at July 03, 2012 10:10 AM (qwK3S)
We're sitting here re-hashing the traiterous act of Roberts, when we should be focusing on that shit-weazel McConnell.
I don't know. So many signs point to the horror that the train has already left the station.
Posted by: Soona at July 03, 2012 10:11 AM (Qvc8d)
Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 10:11 AM (cVYiZ)
Posted by: Vernon Wormer at July 03, 2012 10:11 AM (jts1f)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 10:11 AM (bBBdT)
Too early to drink, too early to drink . . .
Posted by: logprof at July 03, 2012 10:11 AM (ValRz)
There's venting and sussing out what transpired.
And then there's this rational response: ARE YOU PEOPLE STUPID? CALM DOWN, EVERYONE. JUST SHUT UP ABOUT THIS, ALREADY. AAAAAARRRGGHHHHHH!
Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines Local 103 at July 03, 2012 10:11 AM (G/zuv)
---
Uh, we have NO CHOICE but to participate in SS. I'd rather invest my own money and give jack shit to the government. They won't let me.
Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 10:12 AM (vOMX+)
He told the doctor he wanted his records taken off the computer and kept on paper. The doctor essentially told him he had no say.
From my experience? The only one who has no control over his/her records is the patient. The HIPAA privacy regs were promoted as giving the patient the final say in who would get what medical records. This was, how to put it politely, an utter fucking lie from the get go. I remember when the regs first went into effect that patients were being told that they could not have copies of their own medical records. I got into more than one screaming match with doctor's offices where I tried to get through their heads that if a patient was standing in front of them saying "copy my entire file" they had to copy the entire file and that, yes, a non-psych patient had every right to a copy of his/her records. My personal favorite was calling a hospital to ask for the mailing address for the hospital to send an authorization directly to the pharmacy department and being told that this information could not be given to me due to HIPAA. My eye still twitches when I think of that.
I had a doctor show me my electronic records, all proud of how high tech them were. I cocked an eyebrow, pulled out my netbook, got into their "encrypted" wifi (the password was a default password), got on their network and showed him my medical records on my netbook. He stared and I suggested that maybe, just maybe, they needed to have a chat with their IT people about security.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 03, 2012 10:12 AM (VtjlW)
Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 03, 2012 10:12 AM (UZQM8)
Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 10:12 AM (r2PLg)
Posted by: Marion Wormer, the dean's wife at July 03, 2012 10:12 AM (G/zuv)
/bitch off....
Posted by: Tami at July 03, 2012 10:12 AM (X6akg)
Posted by: logprof at July 03, 2012 02:11 PM (ValRz)
Speaking of drinking, when are you all going to be here in El Paso?
Posted by: TexasJew at July 03, 2012 10:13 AM (iBGQ2)
And even that is in addition to the fact that Art 1, sect 8 does not authorize congress to legislate on healthcare in any fashion.
That is where the ruling should have been place. Piss on Roberts. Taney who looked out for the States would not have ruled this way and he was, in fact, a better judge.
Posted by: Vic at July 03, 2012 10:13 AM (YdQQY)
It's an income tax, you freaking skidmark. Don't make an income? You don't pay social security taxes.
Even if you want to torture logic and call it an "excise tax" you're still taxing activity (work) and not inactivity. Your investment or lack thereof does not impact your social security taxes in any way.
If it were an "an exicise tax on - not investing" you wouldn't have to pay SS taxes if you had a 401(k) or private investment account. However, even having those things does not protect you from SS taxes.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 10:13 AM (8y9MW)
BS.
41% of the voters don't know whether or not SCOTUS has ruled on the case.
Out of those 41% how many do you suppose even know what O-care is? Say nothing of the definition of a mandate outside of Anderson Cooper's favorite hobby.
If Roberts killed it, what would change for the average voter? Nothing except saving a few companies from dumping employee coverage.
OOoooh scarrry!!!!!
Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at July 03, 2012 10:14 AM (famk3)
Posted by: ObjectionSustained at July 03, 2012 10:14 AM (i5LDG)
Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 02:10 PM (vOMX+)
-----------------------------------------------
My question: Why do they need to cheat when they have the peckers of Roberts, McConnell, and Boehner in their pocket?
Posted by: Soona at July 03, 2012 10:14 AM (Qvc8d)
Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 10:15 AM (cVYiZ)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 10:15 AM (bBBdT)
Posted by: bubba at July 03, 2012 10:15 AM (4x8W0)
Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 03, 2012 10:16 AM (UZQM8)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 10:16 AM (bBBdT)
Posted by: kbdabear at July 03, 2012 01:16 PM (Y+DPZ)
--One reason I never click on NYT links from here or anywhere.
Posted by: logprof at July 03, 2012 10:16 AM (ValRz)
Posted by: Jean at July 03, 2012 10:16 AM (WkuV6)
Posted by: nickless at July 03, 2012 10:16 AM (MMC8r)
Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 03, 2012 10:17 AM (UZQM8)
It really doesn't matter what the "punishment" is, be it a tax or a penalty.
No, it doesn't!
Romney, Obama, Roberts, and Pelosi can call it whatever they want, it's still being being stuck up our asses.
We're blowing this opportunity to make Obama and the Democrats own this punishment, as Vic calls it. This game of semantics is stupid and we've been sucked into it.
Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines at July 03, 2012 10:17 AM (G/zuv)
Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 10:18 AM (cVYiZ)
Already at skidmark and approaching retarded paramecium territory.
Definition of Excise Tax: A Federal or state tax imposed on the manufacture and distribution of certain non-essential consumer goods.
It specifically refers to goods not crossing borders, it's also known as an "inland duty tax." Taxes on the same kinds of things which do cross borders are known as "customs duties" or "border taxes."
In both cases, they are "indirect taxes." That is, the tax is applied to the seller (or, in the case of services, the vendor) and expected to be recouped by them from the buyer or client.
So tell me, where does SS fall in "manufacture and distribution of certain non-essential consumer goods?" Hmmm?
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 10:18 AM (8y9MW)
The last non-kinetic bastion of liberty is the courts because they can rule something "a bridge too far."
Yes, the federal gov't has some power under the CC, but that doesn't mean they can say: food is interstate therefore we'll nationalize all food-related activity. Nope. That's a bridge too far. We, The People, have a vested liberty interest in this concept called 'life'.
Yes, the federal gov't has some power under the taxation language, but that doesn't mean they can say: the clothing market involves money therefore we'll put a tax on non-behavior and add 20,000 pages of regulations on the market and individual. Nope. That type of fascism is a bridge too far. We, The People, have a vested liberty interest in this concept called 'life'.
Can the government change the tax rates to 100%? CJ Roberts, is that a bridge too far?
This is the point Roberts missed. Liberty.
Posted by: Tonic Dog at July 03, 2012 10:18 AM (X/+QT)
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 03, 2012 10:18 AM (XCxgL)
Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 10:20 AM (r2PLg)
----
I have no idea what you're saying here. I will be able to get my own doctor up until such time as a) my doctor retires to get out of the oncoming hellcare freight train (my gyno has already taken early retirement because of it) or b) my employer-based insurance floats to the top of the water, belly up, and I'm thrown into my gov't issued policy, complete with assigned doctor. So no, in the end, I will not get my "own doctor" when it's all said and done. Not one of my choosing.
Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 10:20 AM (vOMX+)
*holds thumb and forefinger an inch apart*
We were this close to killing the whole thing plus reigning in the commerce clause. But, alas, that would have been a conservative decision, so it could not be.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at July 03, 2012 02:05 PM (EtuU3)
I don't think we were ever close to throwing out the whole law. We were *this* close to getting rid of the mandate, but Roberts decided he could live with the mandate but could not live with throwing out the entire 2000 pages of law over it in a 5-4 decision. That decision is certainly subject to legitimate criticism, but I thought all along that people were dreaming that we had a chance of getting the whole law thrown out. I knew Roberts wouldn't go there, and I thought Kennedy wouldn't either.
My prediction here the night before the ruling was that it would be 5-4 or 6-3 to strike the mandate (I was foolish to hope that Sotomayor might go along with it) and 6-3 to uphold the rest of the law. I said that Roberts would rule that the mandate COULD be constitutional as a tax, but Congress didn't write it as a tax and he would instruct Congress to rewrite it. It isn't far from what happened; Roberts just found that regardless of the words Congress used, they did enact a tax and that is constitutional. He didn't "rewrite the law," he said that if it walks like a tax and quacks like a tax, it's a tax even though Congress didn't want to call it a tax because taxes are unpopular.
Posted by: rockmom at July 03, 2012 10:21 AM (NYnoe)
Posted by: Jean at July 03, 2012 02:00 PM (WkuV6)
===============
That's what I keep trying to say: Roberts just said there is one part of the Constitution that trumps ALL of the rest of the Constitution. I mean, he specifically went out of his way to say that the mandate was unconstitutional under _every_other_ constitutional power EXCEPT the power to tax.
When you realize you can formulate every leftist control in that manner--we will not be free as long as this decision stands.
Posted by: RoyalOil at July 03, 2012 10:23 AM (kSaUf)
Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 10:23 AM (r2PLg)
So I doubt the Republicans got any significant chance to attack the Baucus reasoning.
The Democrats will always argue whichever position will be most helpful to them at any given time. So one day, it is a tax; the next day, a penalty; and the day after that, a tax penalty.
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 10:23 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: ObjectionSustained at July 03, 2012 10:28 AM (i5LDG)
Posted by: RM at July 03, 2012 10:30 AM (TRsME)
The entire argument within Roe is that it is a private matter and the government has no interest, so they should stay out. Well, that isnÂ’t the case any more with ObamaCare. The government is in there every step of the way.
Abortion is now a social-conservative President and an EO away from extinction.
Posted by: Dr. Evil at July 03, 2012 10:32 AM (e8kgV)
Posted by: Andy at July 03, 2012 10:33 AM (74T7W)
Thanks for the advice Rev. Phelps. Have fun protesting the Andy Griffith funeral!
Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at July 03, 2012 10:38 AM (+lsX1)
Dionne, Crawford, and sources...
Then it must be accurate? Right?
---------
Yes. Coupled with reading the opinions it's plainly obvious he switched his vote late in the game, and when you read his reasoning it's really hard to believe he flipped it based on the merits, because he choose the shittiest of all arguments.
Posted by: Rich at July 03, 2012 10:39 AM (g4AHb)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 10:39 AM (bBBdT)
congress never passed a law making abortion illegal.
Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 10:40 AM (TKF1Y)
If CJ Roberts decision was influenced by the wish to avoid a firestorm from the left, how could he not realize that he would set off an enormous shitstorm of negative reaction from the Right?
Posted by: TANSTAAFL at July 03, 2012 10:40 AM (iaOP0)
Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 03, 2012 10:41 AM (05RcU)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 10:41 AM (bBBdT)
Plus, nobody on the court, one either side, will ever trust him again. He has lost control and will never be able to get it back.
He is done as an effective chief justice.
Posted by: GaryS at July 03, 2012 10:41 AM (dcfiw)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 10:42 AM (bBBdT)
Posted by: deepelemblues at July 03, 2012 10:43 AM (gF1dk)
Michael Baumgartner was born and raised in Washington State. (Marie Cantwell was born and raised in Indiana, moving to WA in 1983 to help Alan Cranston lose the 1984 Democratic Presidential nomination.)
Michael Baumgartner is married, one child and one on the way. (Maria Cantwell has never been married, no long term relationships at all in fact, and no children. Maria Cantwell has affairs with married men though, soundpolitics.com/archives/007001.html & minx.cc/?post=299120, so she's not gay. Maria Cantwell has also had aides who were pedophiles, so it's a good thing she has no children.)
From the wiki: Michael Baumgartner taught classes at Harvard. He also gave social support to underprivileged children and mentally-ill adults in Mozambique, Africa. He volunteered as a researcher on environmental science teams with the US Forest Service. During the Iraq War, he served as the Economics Officer in the Office of Joint Strategic Planning & Assessment (JSPA) at the United States Embassy in Baghdad, helping the Iraqi government as part of the Baghdad Security Plan, receiving accolades from then General David Petraeus as well as Ambassador Ryan Crocker. In 2008, he spent 7 months working as a civilian contractor in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. That same year, the Boston Globe referred to Baumgartner as the "Architect of Hope" in the Middle East.
Maria Cantwell has been in politics since she was 28, with a short stint with RealNetWorks (after she failed an election and vowed to give up politics). This her only private sector job, which she got through a political ally, Rob Glaser. And which made her rich enough to buy a senate seat, so she went back into politics, and has gotten even richer.
So. Vote Michael Baumgartner.
Posted by: starboardhelm at July 03, 2012 10:44 AM (hHgxI)
starboardhelm, your're listing to port. We don't want activist judges considering the political impacts of their rulings. We have enough leftists on the Court.
This could have been a simple ruling: it fails on the Commerce Clause, it is a Tax, due to the Anit-Injunction Act you'll need to come back later. That way the Commerce Clause arguments are in the main opinion, Obama still has to carry the albatross, and the Court isn't being activist.
Then, if for some reason - like say a couple of squishy northeastern Republican Senators - repeal dies in the Senate. We could come back and attack all of the wacky tax provisions.
----------
This wasn't a realisitc option. If the court decided that it was a tax subject to the AIA, then the merits of the case wouldn't have been decided because the challengers would have been deemed to lack standing.
Posted by: Rich at July 03, 2012 10:44 AM (g4AHb)
Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 03, 2012 10:44 AM (bxiXv)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 10:46 AM (bBBdT)
Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 10:47 AM (TKF1Y)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 10:48 AM (bBBdT)
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joked that he’ll spend some time on an “impregnable island fortress” now that the court has ended a session that featured him casting the decisive vote to uphold President Barack Obama’s health care law.
Responding to a question about his summer break, Roberts said he planned to teach a class for two weeks in Malta, the Mediterranean island nation.
“Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress. It seemed like a good idea,” Roberts said, drawing laughter from about 300 judges, attorneys and others attending a four-day conference Friday at a posh southwestern Pennsylvania resort."
Did his wife go along?
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 10:50 AM (bBBdT)
In the future, "free speech" will be taxed $0.25/word, with a $5 excise tax on every period, commas, colon and semicolon. Umlauts will be taxed at $10 each.
Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at July 03, 2012 10:51 AM (LEI4C)
1. Romney could not beat Obama without the energy of ObamaCare.
2. Roberts has cleared the way for entitlement reform by declaring ObamaCare and therefore Social Security and Medicare as TAXES.
3. We can now rescind the ObamaCare TAX - because Roberts declared it a TAX.
4. It IS a TAX, dammit. Just because Obama is a lying weasel and says it isn't - Roberts correctly ruled that it is.
5. The Commerce clause has been severely limited. A huge win for our side - which is personal Liberty.
--------
Incoherent. Pretty sure we, and everyone else in the country, has been calling the methods used to pay for SS and Medicare taxes for decades. It's common knowledge these are taxes. Don't pretend that John Roberts somehow opened a new door to the world of unicorns and rainbows by calling this a tax. It doesn't change a thing.
How is it a tax? It was written as a penalty. It was called a penalty. It acts like a penalty. And yet, you tell us it is a tax? Based on what? The fact that IRS collects it? So this is all that is needed now to change a clear penalty to a tax? Great.
And for 90th time, who the fuck cares abou the COmmerce Clause being limited when everything they could do through that clause can now be done through the taxing clause? And, as also has been pointed out, the Commerce Clause was merely stopped from pushing us over the cliff. It's still just as expansive as it was before Obamacare. His opinion did NOTHING to cast doubt on the expansive CC rulings such as Raisch and Wickurd. They were, yet again, affirmed.
Posted by: Rich at July 03, 2012 10:52 AM (g4AHb)
Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 10:53 AM (TKF1Y)
@387: If CJ Roberts decision was influenced by the wish to avoid a firestorm from the left, how could he not realize that he would set off an enormous shitstorm of negative reaction from the Right?
1. He reads and believes the MSM;
2. He's got Potomac fever and wants to go to the best Georgetown soirees;
3. He doesn't give a honey badger's fuck about the Right.
Any questions?
Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at July 03, 2012 10:53 AM (zF6Iw)
And you peddled this, "No, Roberts has STANDARDS!" at HotAir last week as well, rockmom. I think you said something to the effect that, 'maybe he decided this way because he couldn't in good conscience do anything else.'
If he thought it was just dandy under tax law, he should have remanded it to Congress for rewrite, *not* legislate and change the law from the bench. It was not written as a tax law, and the libs get off scott free because they don't HAVE to change the verbiage in the law. So they can technically get away with saying it's a fine or penalty because there was nothing for them to do. Roberts won't change his decision if they continue to just call it a penalty, so they get their cake and eat it too. The MSM will just refer to it as a penalty and that will be that.
The Scalia decision was written as if from a majority perspective; they never changed it. Roberts, for whatever reason, changed his mind, ergo he is a traitor to the Constitution and the Republic because he just helped invent out of whole cloth a new way to affect behaviour, as other people have pointed out. The whole 'CC is restricted' line is just BS; I've heard/read several lawyers who say it's not the repudiation and defenestration of the CC as we would like it to be.
So as the sense of betrayal grows, so does the need to vent. Let's face it, Boehner is milquetoast; he needs to tack the repeal onto a bill to run a chance of it getting passed and he doesn't. They could add language to another bill saying that any tax needs to be specifically called a tax in legislation and make it retroactive. I don't know Congressional etiquette but if I was an elected Rep it would be my raison d'etre to get that pile of shit repealed, and I would try it every day in every way I could conceive. They're not doing it, because they are almost as big invertebrates as Roberts.
Posted by: Linlithgow at July 03, 2012 10:53 AM (Gim9y)
Pics of someone getting ass drilled by barnyard animals could be pretty potent juice to get them to reshape their thinking... I'm just saying. If it was blackmail, it had to be something very very potent.
Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at July 03, 2012 10:53 AM (LEI4C)
Posted by: Immolate at July 03, 2012 10:57 AM (gMyCa)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 10:58 AM (bBBdT)
Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 11:00 AM (NJpun)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 11:02 AM (bBBdT)
Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:58 PM (bBBdT)
so mark levin thinks obama blackmailed roberts?
Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 11:05 AM (TKF1Y)
Posted by: John God Roberts at July 03, 2012 11:05 AM (soZKf)
Posted by: Linlithgow at July 03, 2012 11:06 AM (Gim9y)
Except you don't tax "Abortions". You tax, "Not carrying the child to full term".
Sure it screws couples/women that have miscarriages, but it effectively "taxes" abortions.
Posted by: GMan at July 03, 2012 11:23 AM (sxq57)
Posted by: GMan at July 03, 2012 03:23 PM (sxq57)
exceptions could be added that would cover miscarriages, just have to write them narrowly
Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 11:27 AM (TKF1Y)
Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 11:32 AM (x7g7t)
Posted by: trickamsterdam at July 03, 2012 11:34 AM (uTBHY)
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 11:36 AM (d6QMz)
Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 11:40 AM (x7g7t)
Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 11:43 AM (x7g7t)
The entire argument within Roe is that it is a private matter and the
government has no interest, so they should stay out. Well, that isnÂ’t
the case any more with ObamaCare. The government is in there every step
of the way.
Abortion is now a social-conservative President and an EO away from extinction.
I was asking about this the other day. Couldn't get an answer. Everyone too busy being afraid.
Posted by: baldilocks at July 03, 2012 11:45 AM (6kWFm)
Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 11:47 AM (x7g7t)
Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 03:43 PM (x7g7t)
I know levin didnt say that, he isnt that crazyass stupid, but alan did, check post #385.
Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 12:04 PM (TKF1Y)
220 "It wasn't Bush who gave us Roberts. His first choice was a relative outsider who had spent much of her career outside Washington as a private sector lawyer and was the graduate of a regional law school. It was immense pressure from the right wing pundit class upset that the nominee wasn't an Ivy League graduate with a long history of schmoozing the political class hat gave us John Roberts. Now that same pundit class has the the nerve to be appalled. What exactly did they expect? "
Still trying to salvage an edible potato peel from the Bush compost heap. Look up "George W. Bush Supreme Court Nominations" on Wikipedia - this wasn't that long ago. Roberts was first nominated to replace O'Connor. Then Rehnquist died, and Bush switched Roberts to be HIS replacement. Then he decided to pull a fast one and nominated Myers to replace the still-vacant O'Connor seat. When that failed, he nominated Alito. The controversy over Miers gave us Alito, not Roberts. Roberts was confirmed by the Senate on Sept. 29, 2005; Miers was nominated on October 3. They're not connected. Bush owns Roberts entirely, and considering how he turned out, I can only guess what a pig Miers would have been. (Her favourite SC justic was "Warren", remember?) But he got too cute and had to back down. And I don't recall that it was only the "right wing pundit class" who protested; everyone thought her nomination was idiotic and stank of cozy insider backscratching. When left to his own devices, Bush managed to cock up a SC appointment; when the Right managed to yank the bit hard enough, they ended up with a decent conservative.
Posted by: Dr. Mabuse at July 03, 2012 12:10 PM (KOHFD)
Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 12:13 PM (x7g7t)
Posted by: trickamsterdam at July 03, 2012 03:34 PM (uTBHY)
-
Right wingers, conservatives and Republicans need to change how they do business so that there are no more Republican appointments like Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter and Roberts.
I'm not seeing any conflict between that and thinking that Kennedy may have looked at the polls too.
Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 12:15 PM (NJpun)
It should be unacceptable for Republicans to appoint judges like those in that group. Roberts and Kennedy are both had.
The Supreme Court currently has four lefties, three righties and two flippers.
Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 12:26 PM (NJpun)
Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 04:13 PM (x7g7t)
it is very whacko to go around asserting that is what happened when there is no supporting evidence.
Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 12:30 PM (TKF1Y)
Sincerely,
Wesley & Buttercup
Posted by: Tightie Rightie at July 03, 2012 12:38 PM (OfDMM)
I approve of abortions. Just consider my Obamacare opinion.
Posted by: Baracka Roberts at July 03, 2012 12:43 PM (HTtsu)
As far as Roberts goes, he is painfully naive. I remember now a big red flag that should have had us all on edge.. I watched his swearing in with Bush, and his family was dressed in 80's vintage clothes and had a strange cardboard look about them. The kind of people who don't get out much. His knowledge of how crazy democrats are is lacking, and now he's given them the precedent to destroy this country. And they want to.. as they hope it will somehow cure their mental neurosis.. we all know its true.
Posted by: Can of Raid at July 03, 2012 12:47 PM (mLZe7)
What an awful, selfish man.
Posted by: jont at July 03, 2012 02:24 PM (u3N3z)
Posted by: jont at July 03, 2012 02:25 PM (u3N3z)
Posted by: Jay at July 03, 2012 04:20 PM (PXywa)
Posted by: #OccupyResoluteDesk at July 03, 2012 04:21 PM (7QU6R)
Therefore, he must have feared those repercussions from the left more than those he calculated he would receive from the right.
Conclusion: We're doing it wrong.
Posted by: Jay at July 03, 2012 08:20 PM (PXywa)
-
Your conclusion is correct.
Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 09:42 PM (mQFjY)
And he's an asshole for doing it.
Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at July 04, 2012 12:38 AM (4s7w4)
I agree and think Roberts punted. However, how about mocking some of the liberal justices as well. Seriously, I would like to see some liberal legal minds explain some Ginsburg's reasoning, like the "self-insurance" footnote.
"In an attempt to recast the individual mandate as a regulation of commercial activity, JUSTICE GINSBURG suggests that “[a]n individual who opts not to purchase insurance from a private insurer can be seen as actively selecting another form of insurance: self-insurance.” Post, at
26. But “self-insurance” is, in this context, nothing more than a description of the failure to purchase insurance. Individuals are no more “activ[e] in the self-insurance market” when they fail to purchase insurance, ibid., than they are active in the “rest” market when doing nothing."
Are you shitting me? This is unintentional comedy. There needs to be an amendment to the Constitution where as a Justice you can't remain faithful to it, then you can be removed. She can take her South African Constitution loving ass home.
Posted by: pwr at July 04, 2012 01:52 AM (5EwaB)
Posted by: Jeff at July 04, 2012 10:26 AM (OsAig)
Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top
64 queries taking 0.3783 seconds, 562 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
Posted by: steevy at July 03, 2012 09:09 AM (Xb3hu)