Justice Roberts Convoluted explanation.

[308bolt]

More grasping at straws or does this make sense?
I can't seem to wrap my mind around it.


From "Erick Erickson" MorningBriefing@email.redstate.com

As you have no doubt heard by now, the Supreme Court largely upheld Obamacare with Chief Justice John Roberts writing the majority 5 to 4 decision. Even Justice Kennedy called for the whole law to be thrown out, but John Roberts saved it.
Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.
First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.
Second, in writing his opinion, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.
Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.
Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.
Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.
Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.
60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.
It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.
*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now.

[JasonB]

Simple, he is wanting you to vote republican no matter how they vote or what their sc appointments do.

[D P Six]

Anyone who needed a supreme court decision to suddenly realize there are massive tax consequences for such a mandate is quite delusional. Anyone who thinks the republicans are coming to the rescue come 2013 is equally so. And no, I don't hear the sound of 'the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney.'

[EPC WN]

I do agree Roberts is playing the thinking man's game on this subject. He essentially has polarized the campaign, giving it two distinct sides, even if it is only for a solitary issue. Most Pubs were outraged about the decision in the beginning. Like most mindless creatures they acted out of pure visceral emotion because it didn't go their way. Yet while initially perplexed by the decision and how whom voted which way, I felt more was at play than what a gut reaction could ellicit. I think my first response was correct though. Chess to Poker is a very good assessment of what is currently underway. Put down the chips and start marching pawns gentlemen.

[EPC WN]

Originally Posted by D P Six

Anyone who needed a supreme court decision to suddenly realize there are massive tax consequences for such a mandate is quite delusional. Anyone who thinks the republicans are coming to the rescue come 2013 is equally so. And no, I don't hear the sound of 'the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney.'

I'd like to buy you a beer.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by EPC WN

I do agree Roberts is playing the thinking man's game on this subject. He essentially has polarized the campaign, giving it two distinct sides, even if it is only for a solitary issue. Most Pubs were outraged about the decision in the beginning. Like most mindless creatures they acted out of pure visceral emotion because it didn't go their way. Yet while initially perplexed by the decision and how whom voted which way, I felt more was at play than what a gut reaction could ellicit. I think my first response was correct though. Chess to Poker is a very good assessment of what is currently underway. Put down the chips and start marching pawns gentlemen.

Yeah. Gaming the election--that's the ticket...



Sorry, but buying that would require me to believe that John Roberts' understanding of the big picture is on par with DakTo's and GitfiddleBob's.

[EPC WN]

I just can't connect dots any other way. I would like to hear a more in tune interpretation. Remember I am just a boy. If everything were so simple why didn't it just cut party lines? Are they trying to kid a bunch of kidders that are trying to kid themselves for the sake of the court's supposedly "non-partisan" appearance? Or am I giving a known tool too much credit? School me sir. I am a willing pupil.

[carguym14]

Justice Roberts is one of "ours",that means there has to be a reason he ruled this way.

That he would "compromise" is out of the question.

It has to be a fantastic move in this grand chess game to finally get us close to winning......you know,like all the great chess moves in the past that have brought us to where we focking are today.

[308bolt]

I wish I could disagree.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by EPC WN

I just can't connect dots any other way. I would like to hear a more in tune interpretation. Remember I am just a boy. If everything were so simple why didn't it just cut party lines? Are they trying to kid a bunch of kidders that are trying to kid themselves for the sake of the court's supposedly "non-partisan" appearance? Or am I giving a known tool too much credit? School me sir. I am a willing pupil.

I know very well that you know what game is afoot. Losing the power of life and death over the livestock would be a fatal setback for the syndicate. The fix is in, and it is just a question of how to frame the drama to make it exciting for the spectators, and make the win a close one.

Just like all the other deus ex machina antics over the last dozen years or so, such as Arlen Specter switching sides in a timely manner, as did Jumpin' Jim Jeffords.

Gotta make the contest close, so the booboisie think they lost their heritage fair and square.

[308bolt]

Originally Posted by shlomo

Gotta make the contest close, so the booboisie think they lost their heritage fair and square.

Bread and circuses.

[juanni]

They now can tax you for spending YOUR money they way you want (property, cars. liquor, guns, cigarettes etc.
And they can tax you for not spending YOUR money the way you want.

Doesn't leave much left now, does it?

The ability to legally coerce the citizens into doing whatever they want and effectively nullifying the Constitution was the goal.
Mission accomplished, without firing a shot.

Now they have the carrot and the stick, all verbal contortions and black robe theatrics aside.



............juanni

[EPC WN]

Well I guess all that's left is for them to come and take them,no? And there ain't enough of them to do it. F**k 'em

[357ross]

The dirty little secret here is that 'Obummercare' is not Obummers. It has been sitting in a desk drawer at least since the days of FDR. The democraps are patient, and waited for the right time to go forward with it. Remember when Hillary tried this crap, and the whole nation screamed? It didn't go away, just back in the drawer to wait. The second dirty little secret is that ALL politicians LOVE this kind if legislation, whether they be Obummer, or Reagan. The trick is to find enough career politicians to fall on the sword, and vote for it. Sure, the democraps know they will lose in the next election, but losses are temporary, one day they will have a majority again. This is democrap chess, and they are thinking long term. We're screwed.

[tdb59]

Originally Posted by 308bolt

Bread and circuses.

More like a bowl of pottage

[308bolt]

Or a crock of........

[carguym14]

Originally Posted by 357ross

The dirty little secret here is that 'Obummercare' is not Obummers. It has been sitting in a desk drawer at least since the days of FDR. The democraps are patient, and waited for the right time to go forward with it. Remember when Hillary tried this crap, and the whole nation screamed? It didn't go away, just back in the drawer to wait. The second dirty little secret is that ALL politicians LOVE this kind if legislation, whether they be Obummer, or Reagan. The trick is to find enough career politicians to fall on the sword, and vote for it. Sure, the democraps know they will lose in the next election, but losses are temporary, one day they will have a majority again. This is democrap chess, and they are thinking long term. We're screwed.

Imagine if Obama never pushed healthcare,and Romney got elected and passed healtcare at the federal level (same as we just got)-The R's would be justifying it and praising Romney,while the D's would be screaming about it raising the debt and being unConstitutional.

Tell me where you can get better theater???

[Dave Hume]

Two things here that the legal 'experts' seem to have failed to mention together:

1) Roberts******* reasoning (arguably) gives the government the power to tax anything, to any extent.

2) Now you can be taxed/penalized economic activity you DO NOT take part in...WTF?

Those are the two things that jump out at me.

Those that claim this to be a victory for 'conservatism' are so FOS that is beyond comprehension. Any belief that this is a constitutional republic limited by the forenamed Constitution is incredibly naive.

[Mebsuta]

He was probly told if his court threw this out, he would sleep with the fishes.

[DABTL]

Paranoia dominates the Falfiles now. Weird.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by CRAWDABTL

Paranoia dominates the Falfiles now. Weird.

Now that you're back again, (last week's announced "vacation" didn't last long enough for a return date pool to get organized) the needle will move back toward mental illness once more.

[homelandprotector]

Originally Posted by DABTL

Paranoia dominates the Falfiles now. Weird.

Justifiable paranoia........

You might as well stay away from the Files.....no way in hell you can defend the disaster called Obumbler.

[Otis Treekiller]

"We’re on poker. He’s on chess."

What, the old checkers vs. chess routine start gettin' old?

There's no poker or chess going on up in DC, maybe some three card monty.

Let's stop trying to interpret his actions to fit a preferred narrative and just take the man at his word. He believes that a fine is not really a coercive penalty but a tax, and that Congress is virtually unlimited in its ability to tax, either for activity or inactivity.

Screw the checkers, chess and poker. Let me know when it's time to play whack-a-mole. I really enjoy that game.

[Dave Hume]

Originally Posted by carguym14

Justice Roberts is one of "ours",that means there has to be a reason he ruled this way.

That he would "compromise" is out of the question.

It has to be a fantastic move in this grand chess game to finally get us close to winning......you know,like all the great chess moves in the past that have brought us to where we focking are today.

That's funny...

I assume you are being satirical.

Man, Ockam's Razor or one of it's corollaries needs to be applied here.

When you hear hoofbeats, expect horses...not zebras.

[V guy]

I am tellin ya that Roberts did it right.

It will be years before the dems finally realize that the Interstate commerce Clause--the "commerce clause" has been locked down by Roberts. Now, the retro disassembly of the current use of the commerce clause, by SCOTUS can continue.

What the hell, Obamacare was destined to get modified anyway. Why would Roberts have to act as God on a dead issue, and piss off the libs for all time?

The march of medical technology and tremendous advances in cancer research, will in another decade have rendered all of Obamacare moot.

Hopsitals will decentralize, for example, and keep you hooked up to a monitor and bank of machines, in your own bedroom.

[Dave Hume]

Originally Posted by V guy

I am tellin ya that Roberts did it right.

It will be years before the dems finally realize that the Interstate commerce Clause--the "commerce clause" has been locked down by Roberts. Now, the retro disassembly of the current use of the commerce clause, by SCOTUS can continue.

What the hell, Obamacare was destined to get modified anyway. Why would Roberts have to act as God on a dead issue, and piss off the libs for all time?

The march of medical technology and tremendous advances in cancer research, will in another decade have rendered all of Obamacare moot.

Hopsitals will decentralize, for example, and keep you hooked up to a monitor and bank of machines, in your own bedroom.

Crock, it is.

I suggest you read Barnhart for a little dope-slapping edification:

http://westernrifleshooters.wordpres...pid-jackasses/

http://barnhardt.biz/

Stupid, Stupid Jackasses. Part 2
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - June 30, AD 2012 3:29 PM MST
And now the argument that if we just get a few more “republicans” into Washington D.C., we can stop him!

This plane of stupidity makes me the most irate. What in the hell is wrong with you people? Do you not have any recollection of anything that has happened? How did those 2010 elections work out for you? Boy, that really put the brakes on the Obama regime, huh? Wake the hell up. Obama has not been slowed down in any way. His tyranny and destruction has not been held up or checked in any way. It has only accelerated since the day he usurped the White House.

Remember the Debt Ceiling fiasco? Remember how Obama utterly rolled everyone, and I had to explain that we didn't win, but instead got prison raped while everyone on the right was celebrating the great victory over Obama? Remember that clusterbungle? You know what the Congress managed to do with regards to the debt ceiling? Um, yeah, they gave Obama EVERYTHING he wanted, plus some. Obama said, “Raise the ceiling.” They raised it. Obama said, “Increase taxes.” January 2013 will mark massive tax hikes kicking in. Obama said, “Increase spending.” Done. Obama said, “Give me carte blanche spending authority with no Congressional oversight so I can loot the Treasury and embezzle and write billion-dollar checks to my oligarch cronies.” Done. Automatic spending cuts, called “sequestration” were written into the debt ceiling negotiations. Obama has just said, “Blow the sequestration cuts off.” Done. In September, Obama will say, “Just eliminate the ceiling altogether.” Nancy Pelosi has already said that is what is coming. Guess what will happen?

Obama just declared by executive fiat de facto amnesty. What have your precious little Tea Party freshmen done to counter that? Nothing.

Obama has by executive fiat declared same-sex marriage the “law of the land.” What have your precious little pants-pissing Tea Party congressmen done to counter that? Nothing.

Obama has started wars and entered the United States military into new combat theaters with ZERO congressional approval, and has told the congress through Leon Panetta that congress will no longer even be CONSULTED OR INFORMED of new wars. No. Obama MIGHT notify them, after he has consulted the U.N., if he has the time and feels like it. What have your mighty, mighty Tea Party freshmen done to counter that? Exactly nothing.

Obama has intentionally armed narco-terror armies in Mexico with the expressly stated intention of using firearms found at scenes of mass murder in Mexico to engage in sedition against the Second Amendment and thus disarm the American people. I count at least THREE capital offenses in that: mass murder, shadow war against a sovereign nation, and sedition against the United States. What have your precious little Tea Partiers done? Written a few letters with some mildly strong language? Sat and watched while the Attorney General LAUGHS at them? Take a purely symbolic vote to “shame” people who are murderous psychopaths and have no shame?

Arrest Holder, Hillary Clinton, and Obama, try them for mass murder, making war against Mexico and sedition against the United States, convict them with due process, put them against a wall and shoot them until they are dead, and then you come back and give me your little rah-rah speech about how “everything’s gonna be fine.” But not one second before.

And for the last time, spare me any of your truly, truly demented and psychotic fantasy-weaving about Mitt Romney, the father of ObamaCare and vociferous defender of the mandate, riding to the rescue and repealing his own precious, beloved demonspawn.

Watch the video below. I recorded it back in January and almost forgot about it. I listened to it this morning, and hearing Patrick Henry’s words again now in the context of Roberts’ decision, the escalated and unfathomable lawlessness of the Obama regime just since January, and the complete state of insane denial of reality from the right makes Henry’s speech positively SPOOKY.

Bottom line, if you continue to argue that Roberts’ decision was anything less than the end of the Republic, then you are either a total jackass, or you are despicable liar looking to keep some stream of revenue or power concentration flowing. And may God forgive you for whichever sin you choose to wallow in; unrepentant cowardice, unrepentant willful stupidity or unrepentant greed; because, knowing what’s coming, I’m not sure I can.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cup9C...layer_embedded

End of Barnhart

[308bolt]

I think the Rs are sifting through a pile of shit looking for a cherry.

I'm with D P Six: "I don't hear the sound of 'the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney."

[V guy]

Anne Barnhardt is not a valid source for backing up anything, other than maybe a pickup truck, and then I would still check myself.

[308bolt]

Originally Posted by V guy

Anne Barnhardt is not a valid source for backing up anything, other than maybe a pickup truck, and then I would still check myself.

You should love her, she has no use for Ron Paul.

[cpd109]

Originally Posted by shlomo

Now that you're back again, (last week's announced "vacation" didn't last long enough for a return date pool to get organized) the needle will move back toward mental illness once more.

The problem is that too many people don't know they have to flush twice for the supersized. When in doubt, flush twice.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by cpd109

The problem is that too many people don't know they have to flush twice for the supersized. When in doubt, flush twice.

[ronpaulFAL]

I have been seeing a lot of people saying that Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters are going to support Romney now. Of course, there is no data to back this up. I think they are just saying it, and hoping that those of us that fall into those categories will believe that the others like us are also voting for Romney. It's propaganda.

I'll just reiterate that I am still refusing to vote for Romney. Although this is a big issue and I am against Obamacare (I am a physician, so it affects me more than the average citizen), there are yet bigger issues that our country faces. On these topics (monetary policy, nation building, entitlements), I am still unconvinced Romney will move us in the right direction. If he can convince me through specific, public commitments with logical plans to accomplish these proposals, I would consider voting for him. Until then... nope.

[gates]

Boy you guys are jaded - shut up and eat your peas.

[carguym14]

Not a snowballs chance in hell of me voting for Romney.


http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_1...ag=re1.channel

The problem? The health care law Romney passed when he was governor of Massachusetts also included a "tax," by the Supreme Court's reasoning, on those who choose not to buy health care. It was even bigger, in fact, than the "tax" in the Obama-backed health care law. As Norah O'Donell put it to House Speaker John Boehner on Sunday's "Face the Nation": "The facts are that the penalty in Massachusetts under Mitt Romney for not buying health insurance was twelve hundred dollars. The penalty under the president's health care law at its highest rate would be about seven hundred dollars. The Massachusetts tax penalty was more restrictive and more punitive than the president's."


Romney not only signed off on the penalty, or tax, but even argued for it in print, writing in a 2009 op-ed: "[W]e established incentives for those who were uninsured to buy insurance. Using tax penalties, as we did, or tax credits, as others have proposed, encourages 'free riders' to take responsibility for themselves rather than pass their medical costs on to others." So in arguing that Mr. Obama is a massive tax raiser, Republicans are rather inconveniently arguing their presumptive presidential nominee is one as well.





The guy is a worthless POS with no principles.I'll vote for the Libertarian candidaterather than the status quo.

[L Haney]

Originally Posted by carguym14

Justice Roberts is one of "ours",that means there has to be a reason he ruled this way.

That he would "compromise" is out of the question.

He didn't compromise. He rolled. He was scared to death to be pilloried and villified by the media. Because they would have demanded his blood.

[308bolt]

Originally Posted by ronpaulFAL

I have been seeing a lot of people saying that Libertarians and Ron Paul supporters are going to support Romney now. Of course, there is no data to back this up. I think they are just saying it, and hoping that those of us that fall into those categories will believe that the others like us are also voting for Romney. It's propaganda.

If any one issue in this election had been able to get Romney the Conservative and Libertarian votes it was the impending SCOTUS retirements.

juanni posted this a while ago:
As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. These justices hold dear what the great Chief Justice John Marshall called “the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected”: a written Constitution, with real and determinate meaning. The judges that Mitt nominates will exhibit a genuine appreciation for the text, structure, and history of our Constitution and interpret the Constitution and the laws as they are written. And his nominees will possess a demonstrated record of adherence to these core principles.
http://50.97.136.45/forums/showthread.php?t=332650

Now the truth of the matter is out.
Our supposed "Conservative" justices really only differ in their rhetoric from our liberal justices. Add that to the fact that Willard has promised to repeal "obamacare" which has now been found to be "Constitutional" and I conclude that Roberts just damaged Willard's campaign irreparably.

[ronpaulFAL]

They won't be able to force a repeal, but they might be able to gut the bill dramatically. I fear that "right to free medical care" is going to be a permanent fixture in American politics.

People already come into the ER complaining that they have a "right" to free medical care. If any of you have kids that are thinking of med school, advise them to invest their talent elsewhere. I hear banking is very nice.

[L Haney]

Originally Posted by ronpaulFAL

If any of you have kids that are thinking of med school, advise them to invest their talent elsewhere. I hear banking is very nice.

Until the bankers become light post ornaments. Doubt doctors will invoke the same ire. Maybe in a few cases, but not that many.