June 30, 2012

Laura Ingraham's O'Reilly Factor Interview with Two Constitutional Scholars
— rdbrewer

Laura Ingraham had a great interview with two constitutional scholars last night, Michael Carvin, the attorney who argued the case before the Supreme Court and law professor John Eastman. She started with a quote from Ann Coulter from 2005, "We don't know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever." Carvin said that Roberts deliberately ignored the law and called a ball a strike. Eastman said Roberts should resign. From Mediate's report:

Ingraham asked her guests if conservatives are right to feel “mortified” about Roberts being a turncoat. Michael Carvin, a constitutional lawyer opposed to Obamacare who argued before the Supreme Court on this case, boiled Roberts’ decision down to “What Congress did… was unconstitutional, so I’m gonna pretend they did something different and make it constitutional.” He credited Roberts for being “a terrific lawyer who understands the rule of law,” but admitted that unlike Coulter, he did not see a ruling like this coming.

Law professor John Eastman also found the ruling somewhat questionable, stating that the role of the Supreme Court is to tell Congress whether they have or don’t have the authority to do something. And for Roberts to do what he did and find and alternative way to keep it constitutional, Eastman concluded that the chief justice needs to resign.

At the Weekly Standard, Jay Cost makes the case for John Roberts, saying that there is a counterintuitive case to be made that Roberts' decision is a victory for conservatives.

This points to the gravest danger of Obamacare. Much like the progressives of the 1910s, the New Dealers of the 1930s, and the liberals of the 1960s, Obama and his allies assured us that this law was entirely consistent with what had been offered in the past. Nothing new to see here; move along! But that was not at all true. In fact, Obamacare represents the single greatest qualitative expansion of federal power in 80 years.

But, in a subtle way, Chief Justice Roberts did away with much of that. Where he could justify Obamacare on existing federal authority, like the taxing power, he let it stand. Though his factual argument here was admittedly strained, his legal reasoning seems to have created no qualitative expansion of the federal taxing power, which is very broad to begin with (and has been for centuries). But where there was no extant power to back up the bill, he struck it down. In so doing, Roberts actually secured two, hugely important consitutional victories (if not policy ones) for conservatives. He lmited the scope of the Commerce Clause in a meaningful way, spoiling the liberal hope that it confers upon the Congress a general police power. He also won a significant victory for supporters of our dual sovereignty system; by striking down portions of the Medicaid expansion, he sent a clear message that there are limits to how the federal government can use money to boss the states around. These are two enormous triumphs in the century-long war over the principle that the Constitution forbids unlimited federal power.

Cost goes on to point out that there are many who are made worse off by the bill, including "seniors who lose their Medicare Advantage, employees who get dropped from their employers’ plans, families who will see their premiums increase, businesses that have to endure the employer mandate, the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the whole thing." In other words, the bill is politically unpalatable, and, in Cost's opinion, conservatives can more easily deal with policy problems at the ballot box than they can stealth the constitutional innovations.

It just seems that Roberts could have done both while siding with the four who dissented. Roberts needed no "political space," in my opinion. He could have just done his job. But heaven forbid we inflame the hard left--the same people who would never expect the liberals on the court to side with the constitutional conservatives in order to protect the integrity of the court.

Video of the Ingraham interview below the fold.

Follow me on Twitter.

Posted by: rdbrewer at 07:03 AM | Comments (394)
Post contains 705 words, total size 5 kb.

1 Ingraham has quite the annoying voice.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at June 30, 2012 07:08 AM (ak7FB)

2 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure...

Posted by: phreshone at June 30, 2012 07:08 AM (Bxm/r)

3 I'm getting really sick of beltway pundits using tortured logic to justify this decision, as if it some part of a long term strategy.  Robert's task was to determine if the legislation was Constitutional.  It wasn't.  He failed.  End of story.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 07:08 AM (c9PA0)

4 oh, and a miserable tyrant too

Posted by: phreshone at June 30, 2012 07:09 AM (Bxm/r)

5 I couldn't be more depressed.  Well, actually I could.

I'm just so damned angry.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 07:09 AM (UOM48)

6 I posted this in the open thread, but on-topic here...

The problem with Roberts’ “independent” Opinion is the basis on which he based it on… that the Court should give the Congress the benefit of the doubt and not invalidate a law… NO... The Court is the last stand to uphold the Constitution and protect the States and their citizens  from the Congress and the Executive Branch.  He had the opportunity to protect the Rights of the People and strike down a 2700 page leviathan (basically 100 normal bills, considering Glass-Stegal was 37 pages and it was the basis for successful bank regulation for over 60 years)

Could not his nuanced lesson/message still have been delivered within an Opinion which still provided a full repudiation of the Act? Or is the age and composition of the Court and the lawlessness of Barack Obama and his administration placed the Republic in such a precarious state that it will not survive without a complete uprising of the People, providing a mandate to reign in the Federal Government at every turn?

Time will tell if his contortions will be seen as 3 dimensional chess or if he just lost a game of tic-tac-toe to the chicken in Chinatown.

Posted by: phreshone at June 30, 2012 07:12 AM (Bxm/r)

7 No, there is no way to justify Roberts' stab in the back as a good thing. I get more and more angry every time I read someone try. He wanted the people at the pretty parties to like him. Period.

Posted by: 8) at June 30, 2012 07:12 AM (hNLFW)

8 preview would be my friend... if mu.nu had it...

Posted by: phreshone at June 30, 2012 07:13 AM (Bxm/r)

9 Go away stupid failed cool guy sock.

Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 07:13 AM (hNLFW)

10 #7  One good thing is that I am seeing a lot more discussion about what's actually IN the Constitution and in Obamacare.

Since you don't want to hear anything good,  however,  I will just head to another site for a while.

Posted by: Miss Marple at June 30, 2012 07:15 AM (GoIUi)

11 This idea that Roberts has somehow limited the scope of Commerce Clause jurisdprudence is simply fucking retarded. He expressed his opinion, and he explicitly stated that it was just his opinion. This will have no impact on continued expansive use of the Commerce Clause. And there's no reason for me ever to read anything written by Jay Cost again. He's an idiot.

Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 07:15 AM (IoNBC)

12 Let's forget this stuff about how Roberts has reined in the future of Commerce Clause expansionism.

Strictly speaking, the 5-Justice "ruling" on the Commerce Clause is what lawyers call "obiter dictum" - a very fine discussion, but one not necessary to the result of the case, and - therefore - "it doesn't count".  It's not binding in future rulings by either SCOTUS or, in fact, any of the lower courts.

The bottom line in the case was that the law was valid on almost all counts (except the Medicaid bit - a tremendously important "bit", but not a Commerce Clause issue).  Obviously, therefore, that mighty fine discussion of the Commerce Clause was not necessary to the result.

As Roberts says: all you have to do is read the statute as a tax, and - Shazam - it's constitutional.  End of actual holding in the case.

So put that mighty fine Commerce Clause discussion in the Smithsonian, so your grandkids can go look at it.  Ain't worth a fart in a windstorm.

Posted by: A One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store at June 30, 2012 07:15 AM (eMtQ2)

13 phreshone, may I posit a guess?

Posted by: The Chicken at June 30, 2012 07:15 AM (Bxm/r)

14 Too bad the video of that guy offing himself after being convicted of arson isn't of Roberts after he announced that bullshit decision.

Posted by: Kanye at June 30, 2012 07:16 AM (kEOQs)

15 Jane, I'm angry and frustrated because when I look at my empty wallet knowing that the liberals want the wallet as well.

Posted by: dantesed at June 30, 2012 07:16 AM (MsxAm)

16 Posted by: at June 30, 2012 12:12 PM (hNLFW)

What's wrong? You don't like your shit sandwich on a beautiful plate with great looking garnishes?

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at June 30, 2012 07:17 AM (nEUpB)

17 The IRS cannot impose a penalty for nonpayment of the ACA TAX.

From FactCheck.org:
The law prohibits the IRS from seeking to put anybody in jail or seizing their property for simple refusal to pay the tax. The law says specifically that taxpayers “shall not be subject to any criminal prosecution or penalty” for failure to pay, and also that the IRS cannot file a tax lien (a legal claim against such things as homes, cars, wages and bank accounts) or a “levy” (seizure of property or bank accounts).

What happens if you refuse to pay only that TAX amount?

Will the IRS sue for the relatively small amount of the TAX if they can't collect a penalty? Or threaten criminal sanctions?

Here is the language from the law according to Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation's most recent language, March 16, 2012 (with added bold highlights):

C. Excise Tax on Individuals Without Essential Health Benefits Coverage (sec. 1501 of the Senate amendment and new sec. 5000A of the Code)
On page 33, the first full paragraph should be deleted and replaced with the following description of the limitations on administration and procedure of section 5000A as enacted:
1 The penalty applies to any period the individual does not maintain minimum essential coverage and is determined monthly. The penalty is an excise tax that is assessed in the same manner as an assessable penalty under the enforcement provisions of subtitle F of the Code.
2 As a result, it is assessable without regard to the restrictions of section 6213(b). Although assessable and collectible under the Code, the IRS authority to use certain collection methods is limited.

 Specifically, the filing of notices of liens and levies otherwise authorized for collection of taxes does not apply to the collection of this penalty. In addition, the statute waives criminal penalties for non-compliance with the requirement to maintain minimum essential coverage. However, the authority to offset refunds or credits is not limited by this provision.

If you don't want to pay the penalty tax or the tax penalty – It looks like you could limit your withholding.

Posted by: infoman at June 30, 2012 07:17 AM (8QbmU)

18 These are two enormous triumphs in the century-long war over the principle that the Constitution forbids unlimited federal power.

That's a real reach, Mr. Cost. It's nice to be a glass-half-full kinda guy, but...

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at June 30, 2012 07:17 AM (vbh31)

19 Is he trying to help get rid of it this way? Did he take away a campaign slogan and send it back to the people?

Posted by: ryukyu at June 30, 2012 07:17 AM (MOHSR)

20 It will be interesting to see how this case is used as precedent going forward. If it does, in fact, limit the Commerce clause as many are saying, that is a big victory in he long run. But I'm goingbto have to see that it actually does that before I get excited about that aspect of the decision. The Medicaid portion of the decision is a definite in for federalists/conservatives, and not an insignificant one either. Maybe this will be our Dunkirk instead of Waterloo in the long run, but I'd rather it hav been their Ardennes Offensive, and it could hav been, if Roberts hadn't spit the bit on the major issue and not said a tax is a tax except when it isn't.

Posted by: Conservative Crank at June 30, 2012 07:17 AM (1zwZo)

21 RD

Thx for the post, but the 1st Link is fkd.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 30, 2012 07:18 AM (famk3)

22 Laura also had a good take down of Geraldo last night. he is such a douche, and when I heard he was the next guest, I almost changed to HGTV. I was glad I didn't.

Posted by: Chilling the most at June 30, 2012 07:18 AM (6IV8T)

23 Strictly speaking, the 5-Justice "ruling" on the Commerce Clause is what lawyers call "obiter dictum" . . . .

Actually, there was no decision of the court on the Commerce Clause issue.  That was Roberts alone.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 07:19 AM (Iyg03)

24 Though it could look like the Nazis had planned a genocide , it could also be self defense.

I claim it was self defense, so that it would be legal.

Nuremberg , you're welcome.

Posted by: Justass Roberts at June 30, 2012 07:19 AM (AWmfW)

25 Thanks, wet cut-loop.  Fixed.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 07:20 AM (Iyg03)

26 So put that mighty fine Commerce Clause discussion in the Smithsonian, so your grandkids can go look at it. Ain't worth a fart in a windstorm.

Posted by: A One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store at June 30, 2012 12:15 PM (eMtQ2)

Yup.  I think a lot this mad search for a silver lining is motivated by an unwillingness to express buyer's remorse.  A hell of a lot of conservatives (myself included) were very enthusiastic about the Roberts nomination.  We thought we'd found an exceptionally intelligent originalist that would be a stalwart defender of the Constitution for decades.  Apparently we were wrong.  I'm willing to admit that I WAS WRONG ABOUT ROBERTS.

 

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 07:20 AM (c9PA0)

27 Posted by: infoman at June 30, 2012 12:17 PM (8QbmU)


So the Dem's codified that creating a tax-refund is bad method for building household savings ...

Posted by: Bill from Chappaqua at June 30, 2012 07:21 AM (Bxm/r)

28 IMO, Roberts engaged in taxation without representation by re writing the law as a tax.

Under the constitution taxation is enumerated to the legislative branch, not the judiciary.

Posted by: willy at June 30, 2012 07:21 AM (kUCQ4)

29 Ugh so many typos there, sometimes I hate my iPad...

Posted by: Conservative Crank at June 30, 2012 07:21 AM (1zwZo)

30 10 - Seems to me, if good people must respond to this by doing good things, that doesn't make the act any gooder. It's like arguing that the Germans bombing Pearl Harbor was a good thing, since it got us to kick their arses on both sides of the world. Thanks Germany and Japan!

Posted by: BurtTC at June 30, 2012 07:21 AM (2pG7H)

31 Wow, a "conservative" defending a government subsidy for private corporations - Medicare Advantage.

Killing that shit off is the only good part of Obamacare.

Posted by: Mary Jane Rottencrotch at June 30, 2012 07:21 AM (deJfP)

32 Actually, there was no decision of the court on the Commerce Clause issue. That was Roberts alone.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 12:19 PM (Iyg03)

=================

The Kennedy dissenting opinion (with four justices joining) make up the five I refer to.

Posted by: A One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store at June 30, 2012 07:21 AM (eMtQ2)

33 You don't need to be a "constitutional scholar" to know the ruling was shit. In fact, I think we would do better if we had plane no affiliated people on the court who's only qualification was the ability to read English.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 07:22 AM (YdQQY)

34 Me likee Justice Lobelt! He arleady owe me $50,000 and daughtel's vilginity when she come of age! Me denounce serf fol being offensive lacial steleotype.

Posted by: Tic-tac-toe Playing Chicken in Chinatown at June 30, 2012 07:22 AM (G9qZk)

35 Soon

Posted by: November 6th at June 30, 2012 07:22 AM (PEwU1)

36 I WAS WRONG ABOUT ROBERTS. I was, too. I was sold a bill of goods by the fucking GOP.

Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 07:23 AM (IoNBC)

37 The Kennedy dissenting opinion (with four justices joining) make up the five I refer to.

They didn't join with Roberts on anything.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 07:23 AM (Iyg03)

38 Whatever his motivation, Roberts and the majority rewrote the statute to provide a fig leaf for saving it. I think he can stop being referred to as a conservative justice.

Posted by: real joe at June 30, 2012 07:23 AM (omojD)

39 Cockypop on all that.

If it's a tax then the SCOTUS shouldn't have been able to rule on it.

Can't they now go back and claim that that ruling is null because they ruled on a tax?

As to the so called precedent and stuff; if O gets reelected does anyone think that 5 or 7 liberals will worry about precedent in zipping right past this ruling?

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 07:24 AM (CP+yl)

40 Did they, A One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store?  I'll have to look again, dammit.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 07:24 AM (Iyg03)

41

The pundits trying to polish this turd of a decision are tying themselves into knots almost as much as Robbertz twisted the Constitution to reach his vile, putrid ruling.

 

Almost.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 30, 2012 07:24 AM (d0Tfm)

42 @36 not soon enough...

Posted by: Conservative Crank at June 30, 2012 07:24 AM (1zwZo)

43

Conservative Crank,

 

Once again, it DOES NOT limit the commerce clause.  Roberts discussion on that point was not joined by the majority, it holds no water and appeals courts from now forward have to ignore what he said regarding the commerce clause.

And all the "conservatives" like Kraut and George Will and those  people who have tingly legs for Romneycare can go to hell as they try to make this sound like a victory for conservatism.

What it is simply is a victory for big government technocrats whether they are Democrats or Republicans.

It's a victory for Romney, not because he is more likely to be elected (he isn't), but because he gets his precious mandate now so that if he does get elected he has cover for mandating all sorts of crap unto us.

Posted by: doug at June 30, 2012 07:24 AM (gUGI6)

44

I saw this last night. ....Thanks rdbrewer, for posting it.

 

Laura Ingraham clerked for Justice Clarence Thomas.

That's why I tuned in to see what she would be saying about this.

Michael Carvin ripped up The Dread Justice Roberts....and ripped him good.

It was gratifying to watch.

Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 07:24 AM (jPxSq)

45 The extent to which conservative pundits are lauding Roberts' skill in "getting LIBERALS to go along with" the Fed-limiting stuff in his opinion is a tragedy. He could have gotten the same ruling using the hard-earned originalist votes we have sitting on the bench. He shouldn't be writing opinions to accommodate the Libs at all. Saying he needed the votes of the 4 Libs only ignores this one fact: The rulings of the conservative justices do not thwart Liberalism because they are political. Their rulings thwart Liberalism because the CONSTITUTION thwarts Liberalism.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at June 30, 2012 07:25 AM (Ym6ye)

46

34

There really was something to Buckley's statement that he would rather be governed by the first 1,000 people in the Boston telephone book than the faculty of Harvard.  These so-called elites don't have a damn bit of common sense.

 

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 07:25 AM (c9PA0)

47 38 They didn't join with Roberts on anything. “The joint dissent and THE CHIEF JUSTICE cor­rectly apply our precedents to conclude that the Individual Mandate is beyond the power granted to Congress under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.”

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at June 30, 2012 07:26 AM (d6QMz)

48 I posted this Obamabot gloating in vox populi in our local paper in the thread below:

"Obama did it!  Ain't nothing stoppin' him now!"

I hope the idiot trips on a train track, hits his head, and wakes up just in time to see his ass about to get run over.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 07:26 AM (UOM48)

49 The Kennedy dissenting opinion (with four justices joining) make up the five I refer to.Posted by:A One-Eyed Cat

I posted this yesterday but worth repeating, imho:

Mark Levin email to The Corner:

"But respecting Part III- A, the commerce clause and necessary and proper section, the decision notes that Roberts is writing for himself, not for a majority.  Furthermore, the Dissent is labeled as: “Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, dissenting.” It is not labeled as “dissenting in the judgment, concurring in part” or some permutation.

You cannot say it was the “opinion of the court” that the mandate violated the commerce clause. You have to cobble together sections where Roberts is writing for himself and the dissent (which did not formally join with Roberts), is writing for itself."

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 30, 2012 07:26 AM (famk3)

50 38 The Kennedy dissenting opinion (with four justices joining) make up the five I refer to.

They didn't join with Roberts on anything.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 12:23 PM (Iyg03)

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


No - but their opinion held the Commerce Clause did not provide authority for the ACA.  Same result (said differently) Roberts reaches about the Commerce Clause.  Bottom line: five justices said Commerce Clause is not Constitutional authority for the law - BUT not necessary to the ruling, even though five justices agree on the point (saying it differently).

Posted by: A One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store at June 30, 2012 07:26 AM (eMtQ2)

51 "He could have just done his job. But heaven forbid we inflame the hard left" -- Yes, and I agree that the court shouldn't be involved in political calculations, too. But do seriously consider the plausible alternative scenario where the law was totally struck down, the Left was riled up, the president demagogued it to a November win, and then the far Left set policy for 4 more years with an uninhibited 2nd term pres. Maybe then the Pyrrhic victory would have been ours...

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at June 30, 2012 07:27 AM (Y5I9o)

52 His comments about the fort and where he made them and the laughs and grins he got tells the whole story. It shows his disdain for the People and their opinion. He admits HE KNEW WHAT HE WAS DOING WAS CONTRARY TO THE MAJORITY OF THE COUNTRY'S WILL.

He's a thin lipped puss faced little wanker and he's been waiting for years to apply his true self to a ruling. This was his chance and he took it.

He's a liar, he's a fraud. (unless of course GW who's no conservative knew this when he nominated him.)

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 07:27 AM (CP+yl)

53

Jay Cost is wrong, Roberst did expand the taxing power of congress. Since Bailey V Drexall Furniture  the congress has been prohibited from using its taxing power as a penalty. They get around it by  using the taxing power as an enticement such as the home mortgage deduction but they have never been allowed to use that power as a penalty. Such as if you don't buy a house you get taxed.

 

I don't know where Cost is coming from on this. Roberts just gave them a huge increase in taxing power.

Posted by: robtr at June 30, 2012 07:27 AM (MtwBb)

54 Counterintuitive's ass.  It's like making lemonade out of turds.  Doesn't pass the smell test and tastes like shit.

Posted by: The Reverend Al at June 30, 2012 07:27 AM (bAGA/)

55 It may be a bad decision, you guys, but look on the bright side:  Roberts will get a lot of positive attention on the cocktail party circuit.  Laurence Tribe will laugh and smile and treat him like he's a mensch.  And others in powerful circles will know he's a Big Man.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 07:28 AM (Iyg03)

56 I keep being told by certain conservatives and right leaning pundits that this is somehow a win for us..

So why do I feel that there's a funny taste in my mouth when they insist it isn't there?

Posted by: Dave C at June 30, 2012 07:28 AM (bNK+3)

57 A guy who has taken his check from the government since the Reagan Administration is going to go native and become a statist...  So much for the protections from government provided by our Founders through the Constitution...

Posted by: Bill from Chappaqua at June 30, 2012 07:28 AM (Bxm/r)

58 The problem with the analysis by Jay Cost and others like it, is that if Roberts could write such an unprincipled decision on this case, he would surely toss the commerce clause under the bus at the next opportunity.

Posted by: real joe at June 30, 2012 07:29 AM (omojD)

59 53 - Please, Bitter Clinger, no need to insult us.

Posted by: Thin Lipped Puss Faced Little Wanker Union Local 710 at June 30, 2012 07:29 AM (CEec/)

60 And frankly, if on some future ruling Roberts is arguing that he set precedent with this one, as regards to the Commerce Clause, don't you think other courts and other Justices will laugh at him? Seriously dude, you're going to claim YOUR words set this stuff in stone, and NOT the words in the actual Constitution? Hahahahahaha! Sure, Dread Justice Roberts. Sure.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 30, 2012 07:30 AM (2pG7H)

61 @57 I keep being told by certain conservatives and right leaning pundits that this is somehow a win for us.. -- It's not a win, but it's not necessarily as big or unmitigated a loss as some people are saying. We have to wait to see the fallout to judge the whole picture.

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at June 30, 2012 07:30 AM (Y5I9o)

62 Doug, I don't know your qualifications. I am not a JD, I hav read part of the decision but not all of it, and I only know the basics of jurisprudence. As I said, IF these pundits are right and IF a precedent has been set, which I am not qualified to determine myself, then it is more of a win than many are saying in the long run. I put a lot of qualifiers in there for a reason.

Posted by: Conservative Crank at June 30, 2012 07:30 AM (1zwZo)

63 even though five justices agree on the point (saying it differently).Posted by: A One-Eyed Cat Peepin

Which makes it only so much flatus from the bench. It has zero force and won't be used to justify future rulings.


Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 30, 2012 07:31 AM (famk3)

64 Anyone who sees any kind of "conservative victory" in this is full of more shit than a Christmas turkey.


It was a screwing and nothing short of it.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 07:31 AM (YdQQY)

65 We are serfs. The more we work the more we owe. Want to withhold money from the government in protest? Easy. Quit your job. What? Can't do that? Oh, well. Guess you're fucked then. That was last week. Now, you are fucked if you try to disobey orders from your betters. The only solution is to eliminate all forms of income taxation and all forms of collectivization. Sadly, this is impossible, and the calliope will crash to the ground.

Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 07:31 AM (ejmiE)

66

For all you dipshits that keep saying the commerce clause became limited because Benedict Roberts and the four dissenters say so:

It goes like this:  NO CONTROLLING OPINION SAID SO.

The only hope is that the 5 tipped their hand if this law was to reach the SCOTUS without the tax issue - but it didn't.  There is nothing else to read into it.

On any other issue that is not as vile as this, Justice Kennedy will side with Congress on the Commerce Clause and that 5 will be 4.

 

Shit on you and all you Romneycare supportors that gave us this vile montrosity of a pile of shit.

Posted by: doug at June 30, 2012 07:31 AM (gUGI6)

67 Roberts should have limited the Commerce clause, upheld the rights of the states, AAAAND thrown out the law.

Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at June 30, 2012 07:32 AM (WYTHl)

68 You can polish it make it shiny but it still f*king stinks.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 30, 2012 07:32 AM (GE1+K)

69 Seriously dude, you're going to claim YOUR words set this stuff in stone, and NOT the words in the actual Constitution? Hahahahahaha! Sure, Dread Justice Roberts. Sure.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 30, 2012 12:30 PM (2pG7H)

 

 

Yeah that's pretty hard for him or anyone else to claim considering the fact that while he supposedly setting presedent on the commerce clause he was throwing presedent on the taxing power under the bus.

Posted by: robtr at June 30, 2012 07:32 AM (MtwBb)

70 Second look at military dictatorship?

Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 07:33 AM (IoNBC)

71 You can polish it make it shiny but it still f*king stinks. Posted by: MikeTheMoose at June 30, 2012 12:32 PM

I'll take turds for $1000, Alex.

Posted by: The Reverend Al at June 30, 2012 07:33 AM (bAGA/)

72 The next insult to the American taxpayer will be unionization of doctors, nurses, and ancillary hospital staff.


No, it is the second step in nationalizing the healthcare industry.  And another mark in the road to turning the US communist.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 07:34 AM (YdQQY)

73 Jerry Pournelle on "Madison, the Federalist, and Chief Justice Roberts" ... http://tinyurl.com/6njwy2b Historical perspective regarding constitutional crises.

Posted by: Grumpy the Younger at June 30, 2012 07:34 AM (jts1f)

74 Shit on you and all you Romneycare supportors that gave us this vile montrosity of a pile of shit. Posted by: doug

Hate to point out the obvious here, sparky, but Romney's got nothing to do with this. Don't bother with the shit flinging.

Posted by: weft cut-loop [/i] [/b] at June 30, 2012 07:34 AM (famk3)

75 Some people still don't get what a huge loss this.is. This goes ay,, way beyond Obamatax. This radically changes the make up of the court. Romney must win, and some liberal judge must leave. Then Romney better nominate someone yo the Right of Thomas.

Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 07:35 AM (9jJOH)

76 I am not a JD, I hav read part of the decision but not all of it, and I only know the basics of jurisprudence. Sadly I'm afraid those that are saying this does nothing to constrain the Commerce clause are correct. If the majority opinion had stated that all of the Justices held this to be true then it could be considered as precedence in future Supreme Court rulings because it would be considered "the opinion of the court". That's not what happened I'm afraid. Roberts was very specific that the portion of the opinion concerning the commerce clause was his personal opinion, not the opinion of the majority of the court. As such it's not worth squat. You couldn't even get a cup of coffee for that at Starbucks.

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 07:36 AM (R5yLq)

77 72 - Second look at bringing zombie King George III back? At least he had a "benevolence" clause in his stack of powers.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 30, 2012 07:36 AM (2pG7H)

78

Loved G Beck's rant about SCOTUS nominees   "litmus test" Thursday following the decision. He said, essentially, "Hell yes there's a litmus test. Do you support abortion? If you do, then get  out of my office, you just disqualified yourself!"

 

I'd like to hear these   question posed of a nominee: "Do you think the  Constitution places limits on the power of the government?"

 

"Will your decisions be based at all times  on the principle that the power of the government should always be as limited as possible?" 

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 30, 2012 07:36 AM (d0Tfm)

79 Romneycare has everything to do with this.  Without Romneycare there would have been no Obamacare. 

Posted by: doug at June 30, 2012 07:37 AM (gUGI6)

80

This ruling does not establish any precedent. It's simply too goofy and arbitrary.

 

A Chief Justice being pressured into changing his opinion -- maybe that's a precedent.  Now that they know Roberts will cave, the Left will be back with pressure every single time one of their big concerns is being decided by the Court. In fact, maybe they'll be more inclined to take cases the Supreme Court, for that reason alone. Four hard-core Leftist hacks and a squish.  Yeah, they'll be back.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at June 30, 2012 07:37 AM (8hBZi)

81 Garcon! Another round of those fancy pink drinks with the umbrellas in them!

Posted by: CJ Roberts, reporting from Malta at June 30, 2012 07:37 AM (vbh31)

82

Many of these elite "conservative" beltway pundits were telling us that Roberts decided as he did in the Arizona illegal alien case to give himself political cover when he threw out Obamacare.

 

They don't know shit from shinola.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 07:37 AM (c9PA0)

83 Seniors need to know that their premiums for part B medicare will go up to 240.00 a month in 2012. That is up from the 207.00 you pay now. Now you tell me who does that hurt the most. I know many seniors that will not be able to pay their bills with that increase. Wake up seniors get to the polls in November and vote for every R on the ballot. We need the senate the house and the WH to stop this theft from seniors.

Posted by: Alborn at June 30, 2012 07:38 AM (+oksp)

84 The ONLY thing that will save us now is an Article  V convention.  I will repeat what I said early this morning:

Here is what I think are the most important items for the Article V convention to address.

First set the rules.  No convention member can ever have been elected to any political office.  Each State gets one vote on all matters, but can send as many delegates as desired (same rules as the original).

Now the issues

1. Complete rewrite of the duties of the Supreme Court and how it is nominated. I would make it where each State got to pick one judge as they saw fit. Take it completely out of Washington.

2. Define the commerce clause for its original intent.

3. Repeal the 14th amendment, except leave citizenship and change it to require at least one parent already be a citizen.

4. Remove the Preamble or simply State that it has no meaning as far as interpretation.

5.  Add a new statement to the enumerated powers list that says these are the ONLY powers of congress and nothing else in the document shall presume them to have any additional ones.

6. Apply term limits to both Houses of congress.

7. Rewrite the income tax amendment to limit it to a flat tax of 10% and require federal spending to be limited to no more than collected in taxes the previous year. Provide the only exception being a declared war. 

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 07:38 AM (YdQQY)

85 That's not what happened I'm afraid. Roberts was very specific that the portion of the opinion concerning the commerce clause was his personal opinion, not the opinion of the majority of the court.

As such it's not worth squat. You couldn't even get a cup of coffee for that at Starbucks.

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 12:36 PM (R5yLq)

 

 

That's not true is it. I thought the commerce clause part was the 7 to 2 vote?

Posted by: robtr at June 30, 2012 07:38 AM (MtwBb)

86 consider the plausible alternative scenario where the law was totally struck down, the Left was riled up, the president demagogued it to a November win,

Except that 2/3 of the people still oppose the law.

Posted by: real joe at June 30, 2012 07:38 AM (omojD)

87 We're fucked. Electing Republicans won't change that.

Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 07:39 AM (IoNBC)

88 78 *** Romney must win, and some liberal judge must leave. Then Romney better nominate someone yo the Right of Thomas.*** Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 12:35 PM (9jJOH) That ice water will be here soon, right?

Posted by: people in hell at June 30, 2012 07:39 AM (CEec/)

89 You know I can instantly tell that Roberts' ruling is a victory for us? The NYT, the WaPo, and MSNBC all praised his wisdom immediately.
 
In poker lingo, that's a big fucking tell.

Posted by: GnuBreed at June 30, 2012 07:40 AM (ccXZP)

90 79 - If I recall correctly, during his confirmation process Roberts made the point that precedent was as (or nearly as) important as actual text. If anybody doubts his statements that these opinions are not precedent setting, they know this man even less than they thought the did before this ruling.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 30, 2012 07:40 AM (2pG7H)

91 Still think the most logical explanation is that Barry was blackmailing Robert by inviting his dog to the White House for dinner....

Posted by: Bob's Country Bunker at June 30, 2012 07:40 AM (Bxm/r)

92 his radically changes the make up of the court. Romney must win, and some liberal judge must leave. Then Romney better nominate someone yo the Right of Thomas. Actually Lauren I think it's far, far worse than that. We just had a supposedly conservative Chief Justice of the Supreme Court completely and totally ignore both the law and the Constitution to get an end result he desired. Some people think that their is some sort of grand master scheme and that Roberts is doing it to somehow help Republicans, some people think he just went full on lib, etc. Truth is it really doesn't matter. His motivations are not at all relevant. What he has done is to show everyone that the Supreme Court need no longer even give lip service to the Constitution when issuing their rulings and can specifically ignore sections of the Constitution that state in no uncertain terms that Congress does not have a certain power if the Court wants to grant it to them. The Constitution can no longer protect our rights, it can be ignored at will. That is the true legacy of this decision.

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 07:40 AM (R5yLq)

93 Forget secession.

That's not the American way.

The American way is to limit our exposure but reducing our interface with the government.

It is possible to do so. It won't be easy but if enough people do it, it will get easier and easier for others to follow.

go GALT.

Off the grid.

Under the radar.

Black economy.

Those who preach insurrection or other forms of violence forget one necessary part of that is first one must disassociate oneself with the government for the purposes of safety and security.

Just take as many steps as you can to do so one step at a time.

Make preparations and start planning.

One benefit will be you will find your overall costs go down. You find your healthier, less aggravated and less fatigued.

Retract from the liberal establishment. Don't pay into their money streams. Pay only into conservative money streams. Patronize only those places that epitomize the American Ideal.

Close unnecessary accounts or move them to those who are more conservative or smaller.

It can be done.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 07:40 AM (CP+yl)

94 It's not a Power Outage , it's an Energy Savings!!!!




Posted by: Desperately Sweating Conservative Pundits Who Want To Believe at June 30, 2012 07:40 AM (zsgo8)

95 Sanctuary cities are legal , upholding the fed law is illegal for AZ.

Thank me.

Posted by: Justass Roberts at June 30, 2012 07:41 AM (AWmfW)

96 Doug, I call bullish*t on that. NObama would have put forth a similar plan regardless of what Mittens had done before. Romney was just a Trojan Horse so he could lay claim to it having bipartisan support.

Posted by: Conservative Crank at June 30, 2012 07:42 AM (1zwZo)

97 I'm just like John Marshall now. 

Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at June 30, 2012 07:43 AM (Iyg03)

98 The Dems have wanted to nationalize Healthcare since FDR.

They finally succeeded.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 07:43 AM (YdQQY)

99 In his last act as Captain of the Titanic Captain Smith declare the ship in now a submarine and ordered Dive! Dive ! Dive!

Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 07:43 AM (ejmiE)

100 1 Ingraham has quite the annoying voice. Yeah, but she's still kinda hot.

Posted by: rickl at June 30, 2012 07:43 AM (sdi6R)

101

I remember how people scoffed at Newt Gingrich...for suggesting that SC Justices be hauled into Congress, to face questioning, whenever they make boneheaded rulings like this.

I liked the idea, at the time.

I still like the idea.

 

Lifetime appointments are turning out to be a really bad idea.

Too much power.

Zero accountability.

It's more than we can afford to give anyone, without the possibility of removing them from office when they abuse their power.

 

Yeah, I know.

We're supposed to be able to Impeach them.

Like that will ever happen. 

Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 07:44 AM (jPxSq)

102 Reading Jay Cost rationalizing what happened with Roberts reminds me of Anthony Wiener saying someone had hacked his Twitter account.
NO, Wiener took a pic of his Johnson and sent it....
Of course
Roberts TOLD us his Johnson was a TAX...
 

Posted by: redgrains at June 30, 2012 07:44 AM (TExGL)

103 After all, part of my job is worrying about the image of the court.  Image is so important, at times it's necessary to not do your job and to rewrite statutes. 

Image is everything.

Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at June 30, 2012 07:44 AM (Iyg03)

104 8. Specifically state that "reproductive rights" are NOT enumerated anywhere in either the document proper, or in its subsequent Bill Of Rights.
 
9. Remove/amend ALL ambiguity with regards to the 2nd Amendment.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at June 30, 2012 07:44 AM (vbh31)

105 I wonder how all the Volt owners in the DC area are loving their clown cars now?

Jeebus.  I've got to go out in this heat and run errands.  Should have dragged my lazy ass out of bed early this morning.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 07:45 AM (UOM48)

106 @102    I lol'd

Posted by: reality check at June 30, 2012 07:45 AM (zsgo8)

107 That's not true is it. I thought the commerce clause part was the 7 to 2 vote?

Posted by: robtr at June 30, 2012 12:38 PM (MtwBb)

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


Five justices said it was a tax (the libs + Roberts, in the official part of his opinion)

Five said it was no-go on Commerce Clause (Roberts + the four conservatives, in a separate opinion)

Seven (all but Ginzy & The Wise Latina) said you can't take away States' Medicaid funds if they do not adapt the ACA.

Posted by: A One-Eyed Cat Peepin' in the Seafood Store at June 30, 2012 07:45 AM (eMtQ2)

108 Romneycare has everything to do with this. Without Romneycare there would have been no Obamacare.


Because no one in Washington would have conceived of socialized medicine or crushing government power before Romneycare.

Posted by: fluffy at June 30, 2012 07:45 AM (z9HTb)

109 So to sum up - Everyone is full of shit and has no idea what is going on... Is that about right Mr. producer??

Posted by: izoneguy at June 30, 2012 07:47 AM (hbRed)

110 102 In his last act as Captain of the Titanic Captain Smith declare the ship in now a submarine and ordered Dive! Dive ! Dive!

Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 12:43 PM (ejmiE)


Counterintuitive but a long term win.


Smart like me.

Posted by: Justass Roberts at June 30, 2012 07:47 AM (AWmfW)

111 Does anyone know if Robert Bork has weighed in on this decision?  I'm fairly confident he'd be able to cut through the bullshit and explain its real long-term consequence.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 07:47 AM (c9PA0)

112 Roberts  = maginot line of defense

Posted by: Count de Monet at June 30, 2012 07:47 AM (BAS5M)

113 Would the last justice to leave constitutional government please turn out the personal liberty?

Posted by: WalrusRex at June 30, 2012 07:48 AM (04fgZ)

114 Steyn, as usual, has an excellent article about this decision, and the comments following it are great. Roberts should resign. he swore to uphold the constitution, and did not do it.

Posted by: Chilling the most at June 30, 2012 07:48 AM (6IV8T)

115 Yeah, I'm pretty much set on us being royally boned. I disagree that secession is unAmerican though. We were never meant to be "indivisible". Any state within a federation of stats should have the option to pull out if the central head becomes to onerous. Of course, I doubt that will happen. I fully expect.us to continue marching down the Road to Serfdom. Perhaps the next generation will wake up.

Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 07:48 AM (Kp1CB)

116 Anyway, liberals have the best cocktail parties.  And they're so into social rank and stuff... I just had to throw them a bone that wasn't in the Constitution.  Look, I can hang out now. 

Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at June 30, 2012 07:48 AM (Iyg03)

117 Obamacare bad. Bad Obamacare.

Bad.

...


Donate today!!!!

Posted by: Mitt Romney at June 30, 2012 07:48 AM (zsgo8)

118 That's not true is it. I thought the commerce clause part was the 7 to 2 vote? As I understood it the 7-2 vote concerned the expansion of Medicare. This part of Obamacare would coerce states to accept the new funding levels by threatening to cut all current Medicaid funding for states that do not comply. The court said that was a no go, which is about the only real "silver lining" in this whole mess. But that really doesn't restrain the commerce clause nor was the issue of whether or not the government had the right to force you to engage in commerce was not really addressed other than as a personal opinion in the weak ass sauce Roberts wrote as the majority opinion.

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 07:49 AM (R5yLq)

119 Stroke my vanity , serfs.

Posted by: Justass Roberts at June 30, 2012 07:49 AM (AWmfW)

120 Gah, I'm sorry guys. I'm typing on a new phone, and it hates me. I can't figure out how to get the swype autocorrect to work, and it keeps skipping ariund and inserting random punctuation.

Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 07:50 AM (r9LWA)

121 Because no one in Washington would have conceived of socialized medicine or crushing government power before Romneycare. Posted by: fluffy at June 30, 2012 12:45 PM (z9HTb) Yes, but RomneyCare actually happened. It wasn't just a plan on paper. That makes a huge difference. The Goddess Irony is doing her Kate Upton boogie thinking of how Mitt Romney is now the White Knight that is supposed to slay the National Health Care dragon.

Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 07:50 AM (ejmiE)

122

111Romneycare has everything to do with this. Without Romneycare there would have been no Obamacare.

The idea of socialized medicine has been around for a very long time.  Look at Ronald Reagan's speech in the 1960s opposing it.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 07:50 AM (c9PA0)

123 A good friend of ours is married to a cousin of Clarence Thomas.  The Thomas's vacation in their RV at a local state park down here (not far from his birthplace) a lot.  He's offered to introduce him to us next time he's down.

I'd dearly love to meet him.  I'd also dearly love to know what he thinks of Roberts.


Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 07:50 AM (UOM48)

124 Hate to be downbeat, but... The gut feeling that told me that the SCOTUS would do nothing to rid us of Obamacare now tells me Obamacare is never going to be completely done away with. Face it: The Republicans will never have the guts to get rid of Obamacare. Like the high school cheerleader forever surprised that the he jizzed in her mouth after all, we forever expect otherwise from our "conservative" Justices and politicians.

Posted by: CoolCzech at June 30, 2012 07:50 AM (niZvt)

125 Besides, I just helped elect Romney, and we all know that Romney is reliable and will put constitutional conservatives on the bench. 

Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at June 30, 2012 07:51 AM (Iyg03)

126 The court said that was a no go, which is about the only real "silver lining" in this whole mess. But that really doesn't restrain the commerce clause nor was the issue of whether or not the government had the right to force you to engage in commerce was not really addressed other than as a personal opinion in the weak ass sauce Roberts wrote as the majority opinion.

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 12:49 PM (R5yLq)

 

 

Yeah I just looked it up. the vote was 5-4 that it didn't fall under the commerce clause. Levin says that even doesn't mean shit since the guys that voted with roberts re: commerce were disenters on his opinion.

 

As we just saw though, the court doesn't give a shit about presedent anyways. They care what the liberal media will say about them.

Posted by: robtr at June 30, 2012 07:51 AM (MtwBb)

127

"But do seriously consider the plausible alternative scenario where the law was totally struck down, the Left was riled up, the president demagogued it to a November win, and then the far Left set policy for 4 more years with an uninhibited 2nd term pres."

What many people aren't getting is that this decision IS going to rile up the left.  Probably moreso.  They now think they have a political and judicial mandate and will defend this monstrosity with renewed vigor at the ballot box.

 

Now Romney has to reverse his history as an elected official and find some Thomases and Scalias to nominate, then get them through the process.......if he even gets elected.

 

People just aren't getting how big of a loss this was on so many fronts.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 30, 2012 07:51 AM (rX1N2)

128 Do you have Scarlett Johansson's digits? No, you do not.


#winning

Posted by: Chief Justice Awesome at June 30, 2012 07:51 AM (zsgo8)

129 Roberts is namby-pamby.

Posted by: Denny Crain at June 30, 2012 07:52 AM (BAS5M)

130 I'd dearly love to meet him. I'd also dearly love to know what he thinks of Roberts.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 12:50 PM (UOM4



I don't think he would tell you Jane.  I think he has a lot of class and would not vent about his colleagues to outsiders.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 07:52 AM (YdQQY)

131 Every.Single.Senator.andCongresscritter should be forced to give up their healthcare plans and go on Obamacare.

And that goes for the SCOAMF and his ugly wife and the kiddies, too.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 07:52 AM (UOM48)

132

Posted by: CoolCzech at June 30, 2012 12:50 PM (niZvt)

 

Yeah, I remember when Social Security became a tax and the Republicans were able to do away with it.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 30, 2012 07:53 AM (rX1N2)

133

118

 

If Obama slimes his way to victory, you're going to hear a lot of debate about a state's right to secede.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 07:53 AM (c9PA0)

134 I know, Vic.  I'd love to be able to read his mind.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 07:53 AM (UOM48)

135 Epstein disagrees with the rosy view (link to American Thinker blog instead of NYT): http://tinyurl.com/6r6wdax I thought this piece over at Red State on Thomas' one-page dissent was interesting: www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012/06/29/thomas-dissents-it’s-all-unconstitutional/ He's been a good justice for us. I can remember back during the Anita Hill crapola I was so incensed by how he was being treated that I FedEx'd letters to several of the committee members. Best fifty bucks I ever spent.

Posted by: Y-not at June 30, 2012 07:53 AM (5H6zj)

136 YOU. are in our. power,?

obEY us or we! will cut off** you're? access.#

Posted by: Jane's New Phone Overlord at June 30, 2012 07:54 AM (CP+yl)

137 Friend --

Today is one of the most important fundraising deadlines of this campaign so far.

We might not outraise Mitt Romney.

But I am determined to keep the margin close enough that we can win this election the right way.

To do that I need your help today.

Please donate $3 or more before tonight's deadline:

The stakes in this election are Shit just got real. Thanks for all your support so far.

Good week.

Barack



The psychic side of me just couldn't help it. I felt the need to convey his true feelings in that last sentence.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 07:54 AM (piMMO)

138 "Perhaps the next generation will wake up.

 

Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 12:48 PM (Kp1CB)"

 

The next generation has already been assimilated.

 

That's just how badly we've been outplayed.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 30, 2012 07:55 AM (rX1N2)

139 115 Roberts = maginot line of defense

Posted by: Count de Monet at June 30, 2012 12:47 PM (BAS5M)


What ? If we just gives Germany the Sudetenland , it will never go that far.

Piss for our time.

Posted by: Justass Roberts at June 30, 2012 07:55 AM (AWmfW)

140 See? I' veee screwed up her name hehehehehe

repeat 140

Posted by: Lauren's New Phone Overlord at June 30, 2012 07:55 AM (CP+yl)

141 We will soon reach the tipping point where there will be no "next generation".

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 07:56 AM (YdQQY)

142 Yes, but RomneyCare actually happened. It wasn't just a plan on paper.

That makes a huge difference.



Huge? I don't think so. They had a bad idea they wanted to act on. I would say it was encouragement for them, but the Massachusetts plan was more of a symptom than a cause.

Posted by: fluffy at June 30, 2012 07:56 AM (z9HTb)

143 Vee vill take your patio tomatoes!

Posted by: Scummy Dread Lord Judge Pirate Roberts at June 30, 2012 07:57 AM (YdQQY)

144 138 - I suspect that these people, and there are only 9 of them at any given time, see themselves as having much more in common with each other than they do the rest of us, so even when they completely disagree on the law, as people they are feel that bond with each other very strongly.

Posted by: BurtTC at June 30, 2012 07:57 AM (2pG7H)

145 Re: Commerce Clause precedent. I do not believe it is controlling for the reason that haz not been actually and necessarily decided. Because ACA was upheld under taxing authority, they never had to reach the Commerce Clause question. Therefore, all discussions of it are merely dictum. Just my two cents. I am only a lawyer in real life, but I don't play one on TV.

Posted by: ObjectionSustained at June 30, 2012 07:57 AM (RGetl)

146 Eastman said Roberts should resign.

So Obama can appoint someone?  Somehow I don't think that would be a good idea.  Bad as things are, they can be worse.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at June 30, 2012 07:57 AM (i0App)

147 I can almost taste the glory I'll be basking in at the next DC barbecue.  Tribe will be slicing bell peppers, and he'll look over and say loudly, so that everyone can hear, "That was a brave and admirable thing you did."  And everyone will look at me with warm, knowing smiles.

Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at June 30, 2012 07:58 AM (Iyg03)

148 so have we finally found our hill?

Posted by: phoenixgirl, team dagny at June 30, 2012 07:58 AM (Ho2rs)

149 We have no branch of government left that will protect We the People from tyranny.  I've been out and about since Thursday, looking at the faces of the people I pass and wonder....do you have any idea at all what has just happened to you?

Posted by: Lady in Black - ObamaTaxCare opponent - This means war, bitchez at June 30, 2012 07:58 AM (vOMX+)

150 Face it: The Republicans will never have the guts to get rid of Obamacare.

It's just my opinion, but I truly believe that part of it is a deep-seated fear amongst the elites of the societal consequences of closing the lid on the 'gubmint cookie jar. 

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at June 30, 2012 07:58 AM (vbh31)

151 152 so have we finally found our hill? Of course this isn't the hill to die on. That tanning bed tax is quite disturbing, though.

Posted by: John "Studly" Boehner at June 30, 2012 07:59 AM (IoNBC)

152 Well, for me personally I feel a little more confident in Romney vis a vis healthcare than I did a few months ago, at least in the short term. If he wins, it will be because we rallied behind him specifically over Obamacare. He's got to be smart enough to know not to betray that (in his first term, anyway). But I will say I'm not sure if I'm in the majority vis a vis conservatives trust of Romney. I was *shocked* to be talking with some Utahns yesterday, well-connected in both the church and the government (including a state legislator), who were expressing quite a bit of concern about Mitt's reliability on this issue. He (Mitt) needs to address that. I think Leavitt was a poor pick as his transition team guy. Mitt would do well to load up with some firm constitutionalists. I'm more worried about him -- and the GOP "leaders" -- on immigration, frankly. But it is what it is.

Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 07:59 AM (5H6zj)

153 I feel like I'm living through a Plan 9 From Outer Space scenario.  Completely idiotic.

Posted by: Count de Monet at June 30, 2012 07:59 AM (BAS5M)

154 If he resigned today the commie in chief would not get to appoint another.   The Republicans have already shutdown confirmation of ALL new judges for the federal court.

This is common for all judge appointments in the last 6 months of a term.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:00 AM (YdQQY)

155 Re-Peel !  Re-Place!





Donate Today!




Posted by: Mitt Romney at June 30, 2012 08:00 AM (zsgo8)

156 143 - Let the Germans rearm! When they have rebuilt their factories, have tanks and planes and long range guns, we'll then have something for our fighters to strike! Brilliant! Just ignore that Churchill fellow, he's mad. Mad, I say.

Posted by: S. BaldwinTC at June 30, 2012 08:00 AM (2pG7H)

157 Who says they wouldn't have thought of ObamaCare without RomneyCare?

You're forgetting the smartest woman in the world Hillary Rodham Clinton in '92 and her committee and the reeking pile that was produced then?

Strangely enough Bob Dole stopped that in it's tracks.

Posted by: Lauren's New Phone Overlord at June 30, 2012 08:00 AM (CP+yl)

158 Ingraham has quite the annoying voice.

Posted by: Dr. Varno at June 30, 2012 12:08 PM (ak7FB) 


She does.

Posted by: antisocialist at June 30, 2012 08:00 AM (j/nZn)

159 I dont know. Conservatives still have a lot more kids, on average, than liberals. We have 3.5, and nearly all my conservative friends have at least 3. I have to believe that will count for something.

Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 08:00 AM (Kp1CB)

160 Just my two cents. I am only a lawyer in real life, but I don't play one on TV.

Posted by: ObjectionSustained at June 30, 2012 12:57 PM (RGetl)

 

 

They voted on it though so doesn't that mean it was decided?

Posted by: robtr at June 30, 2012 08:00 AM (MtwBb)

161 So what's up Baraka's skinny sleeves next?  Giving our nukes to Russia?  Doing away with our borders?

Nothing the damned commie bastard would have planned would surprise me.

He's a stuttering clusterfuck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 08:00 AM (UOM48)

162 "Huge? I don't think so. They had a bad idea they wanted to act on. I would say it was encouragement for them, but the Massachusetts plan was more of a symptom than a cause.

 

Posted by: fluffy at June 30, 2012 12:56 PM (z9HTb)"

 

The problem is that repeal of Obamacare is going to be Romney's rallying cry.  The low info voter is going to look at that and say "Wait, but he did the same thing!" 

 

They're going to differentiate between the two about as much as they're going to differentiate between a mandate and a tax - read: none

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 30, 2012 08:01 AM (rX1N2)

163 Huge? I don't think so. They had a bad idea they wanted to act on. I would say it was encouragement for them, but the Massachusetts plan was more of a symptom than a cause. Posted by: fluffy at June 30, 2012 12:56 PM (z9HTb) Must disagree. MA was the foot in the door. The desire for National Healthcare was the salesman walking the neighborhood.

Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 08:01 AM (ejmiE)

164 so have we finally found our hill?


Hill? I think we just discovered we are on a featureless prairie. We will be lucky to have tall grass.


Fix bayonets.

Posted by: fluffy at June 30, 2012 08:02 AM (z9HTb)

165 I agree w/ Jane.  He will do anything he wants...nobody will stop him...and whatever it is, it will be terrible for America.  God help us, in the truest sense, should this bastard get reelected.  I just can't imagine another 4 years of this.

Posted by: Lady in Black - ObamaTaxCare opponent - This means war, bitchez at June 30, 2012 08:02 AM (vOMX+)

166

163

With amnesty, it won't count for much I'm afraid.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 08:02 AM (c9PA0)

167 Look, Masscare is indefensible as enacted and implemented. The politics of the thing happening, I don't really hold very hard against Mitt (and I never did), but I do think he was an ass to refuse to state it's been a failure. And I do hold that against him. Still voting for the dick though.

Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 08:03 AM (5H6zj)

168 66 ... The only solution is to eliminate all forms of income taxation and all forms of collectivization. Sadly, this is impossible, and the calliope will crash to the ground. Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 12:31 PM (ejmiE) The Bill of Federalism http://tinyurl.com/pb2acs

Posted by: Grumpy the Younger at June 30, 2012 08:04 AM (jts1f)

169 Stupid phone keypads. Next to impossible to fix mistakes.

Posted by: ObjectionSustained at June 30, 2012 08:05 AM (RGetl)

170 My fingers are angry and making it difficult to type.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 08:05 AM (UOM48)

171

Even if it's stipulated that they managed to limit the commerce clause...

 

The ruling does not set any limits regardless.  After all, just call the damn thing a tax and they can require whatever they want.

 

Calling this thing a tax, especially to justify that it is acceptable, is appaling.  Based on this precedent, the only way to challenge similar legislation would be to show that the 'tax' is not only punitive in nature , but excessively so.  And good luck getting standing to challenge it before it's implemented now as well.

 

Guess we'll all be required to buy a Volt soon - or face increased taxes.  After all, the government needs these cars to sell so that GMs stock price will go up and we can reclaim our initial investment right?

 

As long as this ruling stands, I'll be pushing my representatives to pass a tax for failure to own a gun... Once everyone owns a gun, then we'll have to set minimums for ammunition purchase, target practice, etc. or face another tax...

Posted by: Dilligas at June 30, 2012 08:05 AM (/Odq7)

172

Listening to John Batchelor (sp) on radio the evening of SCOTUS decision unveiling, and he had on 2-3 guests.  All of the guests, as well as Batchelor, sermised that the decision was made and it appeared that Roberts changed his mind at last minute.  The Holding appeared to differ from his purported original opinion.  I have not looked at the decision, so just basing this on the discussion on air.

 

Did Roberts not meet with the Obama admin  at about this time?  What else could have caused this shift?

Posted by: Prisoner at cellblock H at June 30, 2012 08:05 AM (rZZA3)

173

"I dont know. Conservatives still have a lot more kids, on average, than liberals. We have 3.5, and nearly all my conservative friends have at least 3.


Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 01:00 PM (Kp1CB)"

 

My retort to that is going to come across as racist, so I'm going to refrain.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 30, 2012 08:06 AM (rX1N2)

174 and the calliope will crash to the ground

Blinded by the light, wrapped up like a douche, another runner in the night...

Posted by: Bruce Douchesteen at June 30, 2012 08:06 AM (vbh31)

175 I think all the shit about the last minute change are pure speculation, nothing more.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:06 AM (YdQQY)

176 Don't be fooled. ObamaCare is not some socialist benefit.

It is a full out effort to control and manipulate the electorate.

It is a means of ostracism.

A means of involuntary euthanasia.

Population control. (they haven't flinched at killing 50 million children why do you think that killing old people would bother them?)

Thought control.

Economic control.

Independence has been lost. You're every decision will now be colored by what effect it might have on your access to life sustaining assistance.

Let's call this what this is; It's a DEATH CONTROL MECHANISM.

No bullets needed. No soldiers with guns. No sheriffs with hoses.

You will live in fear of the government holding up or denying access to life saving procedures and professionals.

Your children will be threatened by your every political act.

Moving to another state will be onerous and perhaps even penalized somehow. Or to another job. Or your party registration.

You all understand somewhat. How about all those who have no clue. They won't realize the impact until it's too late.

Posted by: Lauren's New Phone Overlord at June 30, 2012 08:07 AM (CP+yl)

177

Vic @ 87 and Soap McT @ 107...

 

10. All laws will be written in plain English.

 

11. All Executive Orders  must be reviewed  for their adherence to the Constitution.

 

12. The Constitution will be the only law permissible  within the borders and territories. International  law  or   sharia law will not be tolerated in the US.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at June 30, 2012 08:08 AM (d0Tfm)

178

...is there a search party we can send out for all of the lost spaces?

 

I know they were in the comment when I typed it... maybe it's some new 'space' tax that I haven't figured out how to properly pay...

Posted by: Dilligas at June 30, 2012 08:08 AM (/Odq7)

179 Via twitter: @kesgardner Here's a thorough analysis by @KeithHennessey on who pays the Obamatax under Obamacare. And the estimates may be low. http://t.co/ZTmzpPBN

Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 08:08 AM (5H6zj)

180

#69 - this

I've tried to agree with Kraut, Will, Hewitt who say this is a win but keep coming back to Occams Razor.  The simplest answer is often the correct one.  The simple answer here is that Roberts caved.  All the things the Wills and Hewitts say he got with this ruling would have been gotten by striking the law down which would have happened had he sided with the 4 no votes.  The only thing he avoided was liberal outrage which, as noted above, makes him look very weak. 

As noted above the only answer now is to defeat O and take over the Senate while holding the House and then pray Romney picks some good ones

Posted by: NObama12 at June 30, 2012 08:08 AM (EIHH8)

181 ironically, I am reading a book by Walter McDougal called "Freedom Just Around The Corner".

How sad.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:08 AM (YdQQY)

182 AAAARRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHHH


SOOOOOOOOOOOOCCCCCCCCCCKKKKKKKKKKKK OFF.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 08:08 AM (CP+yl)

183

What gives me hope.....is our conservative Governors.

 

If it weren't for our conservative Governors, this case would have never made it to the Supreme Court.

For they are who filed these suits in the first place.

And they are the ones who are now vowing to continue to fight this.

 

It's also heartening to see how energized the various Tea Party groups are now.

They were silent....waiting to see how the Supremes would rule.

From what I hear, they are now planning a lot of demonstrations for the 4th....and between now and November.

Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 08:09 AM (jPxSq)

184 My fingers are angry and making it difficult to type.


I am going to go mow my lawn into unconditional surrender.

Posted by: fluffy at June 30, 2012 08:09 AM (z9HTb)

185 Damn, my phone overlord is NOT a fan of Obamatax.Perhaps we can be friends after.all.

Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 08:09 AM (hNLFW)

186 Blinded by the light, wrapped up like a douche, another runner in the night...

Posted by: Bruce Douchesteen at June 30, 2012 01:06 PM (vbh31




Okay.  This made me laugh.  Thanks!

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 08:10 AM (UOM48)

187 My hope is this will anger enough people to vote this worthless excuse for a President in November.

Posted by: dantesed at June 30, 2012 08:10 AM (MsxAm)

188 149 Because ACA was upheld under taxing authority, they never had to reach the Commerce Clause question. Therefore, all discussions of it are merely dictum. “It is only because the Commerce Clause does not authorize such a command that it is necessary to reach the taxing power question. And it is only because we have a duty to construe a statute to save it, if fairly possible, that §5000A can be interpreted as a tax. Without deciding the Commerce Clause question, I would find no basis to adopt such a saving construction.” Does this make a difference or not really?

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at June 30, 2012 08:11 AM (d6QMz)

189 I seriously have to get out of the house and run errands.  Damn this heat.  The index is supposed to be 115 today.

Heat makes me angrier.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 08:11 AM (UOM48)

190 Out of office I mean.

Posted by: dantesed at June 30, 2012 08:11 AM (MsxAm)

191 Let us be clear on this. Roberts did not limit the commerce clause. Ginsburg did not join in that finding. It is mere dicta. Roberts was had by Ginsberg. Played like a fiddle.

Posted by: pat at June 30, 2012 08:11 AM (UFxap)

192 ...is there a search party we can send out for all of the lost spaces?

It's a new blog "enhancement" module called the Random Space Gobbler. It was lifted from the original Pacman code.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at June 30, 2012 08:11 AM (vbh31)

193 Heat makes me angrier.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 01:11 PM (UOM4


It is already near 105° here now Jane.  How is it there?

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:12 AM (YdQQY)

194 so have we finally found our hill?


****


Fire up the logs!

http://bit.ly/MJcCWA

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 08:12 AM (piMMO)

195 I have a name for you Romney: Janice Rodgers Brown

Posted by: theworldisnotenough at June 30, 2012 08:12 AM (dCpBL)

196 Has anyone seen a projection of how many employers will stop offering insurance coverage? IIRC, a lot are planning on doing just that. Most of the libs gleeful about the ruling seem oblivious to that likelihood.

Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 08:13 AM (5H6zj)

197 "I dont know. Conservatives still have a lot more kids, on average, than liberals. We have 3.5, and nearly all my conservative friends have at least 3.

Yeah, and most conservatives send their kids off to the public schools that have been run by liberals for nearly a century.

So, no, it's not much of an advantage.

Posted by: OregonMuse at June 30, 2012 08:13 AM (xm1A1)

198 To quote "Bluto" Blutarsky - "My advice to you is to start drinking heavily."

Posted by: antisocialist at June 30, 2012 08:14 AM (j/nZn)

199 >>187 What gives me hope.....is our conservative Governors. Me too. Wish I had confidence in our Senators.

Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 08:14 AM (5H6zj)

200 My old employers have already stopped it as a benefit of retirement for new-hires.  They did that way back before I retired in 2005.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:14 AM (YdQQY)

201 Roberts has either been the stealth progressive (ala Coulter) hiding out on the right all the time -- like we've come to expect -- or he was frightened at the 11th hour into changing his opinion from  what became the Kennedy dissent (that has elements showing it was written as the winning opinion.) Someone, maybe another RINO, said something. Perhaps something like from out of The Godfather. Truth repeatedly is shown, after the revelations come out, to be stranger than fiction. And they are not really RINOs. They may not even be CINOs. But the people who are destroying our republic certainly are SKUNCS. Statists Knowingly Undermining National Charters. Yes, they are infested all over the globe, especially in governments established with Western values.

Posted by: Pascal at June 30, 2012 08:15 AM (OULR2)

202 Yeah, and most conservatives send their kids off to the public schools that have been run by liberals for nearly a century. So, no, it's not much of an advantage. Posted by: OregonMuse at June 30, 2012 01:13 PM (xm1A1) Where do you think Obama's election came from? Even back 2000, who would have believed the election of a Socialist to the White House was even possible?

Posted by: CoolCzech at June 30, 2012 08:15 AM (niZvt)

203 I think the spaces get gobbled when you let your browser word wrap.

It's also browser and hardware related.

I see problems here that arent' at any other site but I've discovered that it's due to how ff handles the specific code and not the site.

cOUrag.e!

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 08:15 AM (CP+yl)

204 It is already near 105° here now Jane. How is it there?

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 01:12 PM (YdQQY




It's 94 in town right now (where I'm headed) and the actual temp is supposed to be 100.



It's a tiny bit cooler out here on the island where we live.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 08:16 AM (UOM48)

205 Even back 2000, who would have believed the election of a Socialist to the White House was even possible?

Posted by: CoolCzech at June 30, 2012 01:15 PM (niZvt)


The ONLY time we have had a President in office that was NOT a socialist was when RR was in office.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:16 AM (YdQQY)

206 >>Where do you think Obama's election came from?

His initials are: George Soros.

Posted by: sTevo at June 30, 2012 08:16 AM (VMcEw)

207

184
I've tried to agree with Kraut, Will, Hewitt who say this is a win....

 

Krauthammer?

When did he say this was a "win"?

He's been ripping it.....from what I've seen.

I don't always agree with Krauthammer.

But on this, he has been talking about how Roberts made a bad call, and merely trying to give some logic as to 'why' Roberts would do such a bad call.

Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 08:16 AM (jPxSq)

208 Barry is NOT a socialist.  he is a communist.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:16 AM (YdQQY)

209 >>My retort to that is going to come across as racist, so I'm going to refrain.

Eh. There's extremely little cultural difference between the trailer parks of the rural Midwest and the inner cities with respect to unwed women making babies with multiple men.

Both PJMedia and NRO have been publishing pieces lately calling childless women "parasites" on society. I want what they're chooming--there's no fucking way in reality I'm a "parasite" but my HS classmate whose illegitimate daughter just gave her a illegitimate granddaughter (the births and vaccinations and housing and food etc paid for by state and federal tax dollars) is the host being weakened by my working and paying taxes with no deductions for dependents.  No fucking way.

Posted by: HeatherRadish is still at work cleaning up other people's fucking mess at June 30, 2012 08:18 AM (ZKzrr)

210 Barry is NOT a socialist. he is a communist rat f#cking bastard.

FIFY

Posted by: sTevo at June 30, 2012 08:18 AM (VMcEw)

211 Well Jane, they are calling for 108 over in my old hometown about 100 miles West of you.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:18 AM (YdQQY)

212 Even with public school indoctrination, most kids end up sharing political beliefs with their parents. On the other hand, the liberal offspring are a particularly nasty bunch. We're doomed, aren't we?

Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 08:18 AM (hNLFW)

213 200 Has anyone seen a projection of how many employers will stop offering insurance coverage? IIRC, a lot are planning on doing just that. Most of the libs gleeful about the ruling seem oblivious to that likelihood. Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 01:13 PM (5H6zj) We're already planning a $1M per employee penaltax for that. Suck it, teabaggerz!

Posted by: The Democrat/Republican Oligopoly at June 30, 2012 08:19 AM (IoNBC)

214 They voted on it though so doesn't that mean it was decided? Posted by: robtr at June 30, 2012 01:00 PM (MtwBb) First, these things are very fluid. Future courts will use previous ruling in any way they can to support a current decision. In this case -- and it's only my arrogant opinion -- it appears that the Court did not cross the Commerce Clause bridge to decide the merits of the case. At this point, I would argue that the Commerce Clause discussion is only persuasive and not binding. Unless, of course, I am arguing for a client who needs it to be binding.

Posted by: ObjectionSustained at June 30, 2012 08:19 AM (RGetl)

215 Good grief, Vic.  Ugh.

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 08:19 AM (UOM48)

216 Can anyone explain WTF the point of "Constitutional Scholarship" is, anyway? The Constitution simply means whatever a group of Libs and the latest "Conservative" justice to stab us in the back says it means at any given moment in time, as a matter of convenience. What's the "scholarship" in that?

Posted by: CoolCzech at June 30, 2012 08:19 AM (niZvt)

217 I hope this will energize folks to vote for Romney, but don't forget the other side of the coin, which is that Democrats are stupid and will vote for anything a Democrat wants, regardless of consequence.  There are people who are CONVINCED that ObamaCare is a good thing, and those people vote.

If the Dems said giving cocaine to toddlers was a good idea, the Dem voters would scream about how awesome the idea is. 

The Dead and the Fictitious are not the only Democrat constituencies that consistently vote for them.  The Brain-Dead are also very reliable for them.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at June 30, 2012 08:19 AM (i0App)

218 First, guidelines will now be made on what will constitute an allowed policy.

Policy. Who are we kidding. This isn't insurance anymore folks. Its' shared cost.

It's a PONZI scheme.

it will survive ONLY if enough 'buyers' don't need it. that's why the mandate. It wouldn't work without millions of younger, healthier payors.

(ahem, excuse me)

Then companies will evaluate whether or not what they have qualifies. If it doesn't then they evaluate the cost of compliance. If that's larger than the penalty, they'll cut the insurance benefit and force their employees to buy their own.


Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 08:20 AM (CP+yl)

219 Once a communist always a communist.

Posted by: dantesed at June 30, 2012 08:20 AM (MsxAm)

220 Eh. There's extremely little cultural difference between the trailer parks of the rural Midwest and the inner cities with respect to unwed women making babies with multiple men.


That may be true but the last census data that I saw for rate of illegitimacy had this

blacks 75%
Hispanics 45%
Whites 25%

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:20 AM (YdQQY)

221 And Chairman Fuckwit wants the military to have to pay more for their healthcare. 

*seething rage*

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 08:20 AM (UOM48)

222 Kraut rationalizes Roberts' ruling while stating he would not have ruled that way. I think he's wrong to even go that far. http://www.dailymail.com/Opinion/krauthammer/201206290084

Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 08:21 AM (5H6zj)

223

211 - I thought there were articles at HotAir and elsewhere with Kraut spinning this as a win.  If incorrect my bad. 

My point remains that this was a big loss and the rest is all spinning/hope

 

Posted by: NObama12 at June 30, 2012 08:21 AM (EIHH8)

224 >>That may be true but the last census data that I saw for rate of illegitimacy had this

Percentages.  Go look at raw numbers.  75% of 11% of the population; 25% of 50% of the population...

Posted by: HeatherRadish is still at work cleaning up other people's fucking mess at June 30, 2012 08:22 AM (ZKzrr)

225 "Eh. There's extremely little cultural difference between the trailer parks of the rural Midwest and the inner cities with respect to unwed women making babies with multiple men."

Watch it. Watch it.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 08:22 AM (CP+yl)

226 Hypothetical question: 1) Obama hires Pee Wee Herman to present the administrations position before the court 2) Roberts still feels the need to bow to the media Doesn't the court's decision stay the same?

Posted by: ADK46er at June 30, 2012 08:22 AM (tkY5j)

227 So help me, I'm going to refuse to be in the same room with my libtard idiot in-laws and sister.  If they continue to support the SCOAMF I'm done.

Stupid, brainless fuckwits.  And my lib m-i-l, 87 years old with health issues....hope she enjoys her Obamacare.


Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 08:23 AM (UOM48)

228 Barry is NOT a socialist. he is a communist.

That cannot be under-emphasized, IMO. The smokescreen cleared away, long ago.  

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at June 30, 2012 08:23 AM (vbh31)

229 Jesus, this place has decayed into a sewer of armchair quarterbacking and idiocy by fools with zero legal education. Imposing self-ban. Fuck you nay-sayers. Sit here and masturbate each other with defeatism. I'm going to fight.

Posted by: IdowhatIwant at June 30, 2012 08:23 AM (a4CUi)

230 We were in the 100s yesterday and likely for the next couple of days. But it's a dry heat!* ;-) *Actually, that does help. Overnight lows get into the 50s.

Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 08:23 AM (5H6zj)

231 Backing into it here:  Can a tax be implemented without properly defining it as a tax? How will it be defined in the tax code? If it isn't defined as a tax, how can it be enforced?

Since Roberts defined it as "a tax", which Obama continues to deny, it seems they are caught in a bit of a circular argument. As for opening us up to labeling everything a tax in the future, I think the Dems gnashing of teeth over this supports the argument that nobody is going to be too quick to go down that path.


Just my thoughts.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 08:24 AM (piMMO)

232 Roberts Resign?? So Obama can replace him with who, Eric Holder? There's a big difference between being angry and being suicidal.

Posted by: DaMav at June 30, 2012 08:24 AM (rT08W)

233 You're going to ban me for saying race isn't the issue?


Fine.  See ya.

Posted by: HeatherRadish is still at work cleaning up other people's fucking mess at June 30, 2012 08:24 AM (ZKzrr)

234 If I manage to get the bureaucracy to declare me disabled due to alcoholism, will I get free government whiskey? Might not be a bad way to go.

Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 08:24 AM (IoNBC)

235 Percentages. Go look at raw numbers. 75% of 11% of the population; 25% of 50% of the population...



The point is you are looking at cultural differences, not total illegitimate babies born.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:24 AM (YdQQY)

236 Government Healthcare has an incentive to lower the life expectancy of citizens. Doing so saves on entitlement payments. Death Panels at all stages of life.

Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 08:24 AM (ejmiE)

237 Romneycare has everything to do with this. Without Romneycare there would have been no Obamacare.

Posted by: doug at June 30, 2012 12:37 PM (gUGI6)

------------->>>>

Dude, I'm no happier about the SCOTUS decision than you are, but .... that's delusional.  The Democrats have been pushing for nationalized healthcare for a long time.  The machinations to get the "Affordable Care Act" out of Congress had nothing to do with the existence of Romneycare and everything to do with President Obama.

Posted by: Retired Buckeye Cop at June 30, 2012 08:25 AM (M0NzJ)

238 No. No he did fucking *not* "limit the scope of the Commerce Clause in a meaningful way"! Damn,man! I miss out on all the good choom, not living near D.C. apparently.

Posted by: Deety at June 30, 2012 08:25 AM (rH+V2)

239 Roberts made the mistake of thinking liberal justices in the future will act in good faith and respect the precedent he tried to set.  They won't.

Posted by: LIGuy at June 30, 2012 08:25 AM (+usC4)

240 Imposing self-ban. Fuck you nay-sayers.

Buh, bye.

Posted by: Don't let the door hit ya... at June 30, 2012 08:25 AM (vbh31)

241 My family sells medical equipment, specifically nano cameras that detect heart disease. They were not fans of Medicare D, because it made it tougher for them to break into the market. But Obamacare is a sales tax of about $4000 per camera that they can't pass on to the buyer, because other countries will underbid them. They work with the Cleveland Clinic.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 08:25 AM (i330i)

242

"Then companies will evaluate whether or not what they have qualifies. If it  doesn't then they evaluate the cost of compliance. If that's larger than the  penalty, they'll cut the insurance benefit and force their employees to buy  their own."

 

As for all those that note that the employer will give the employee a raise for  cutting the insurance benefit... Any raise that may be given, will be after  factoring in the penalty they have to pay... which means the employee takes  another pay cut to maintain (or acquire) the required insurance.  As it will  undoubtable cost much more than anything the employer may pass on to the  employee in savings.

Posted by: Dilligas at June 30, 2012 08:25 AM (/Odq7)

243 I'm off to run errands.  So help me, it's going to take every ounce of restraint I have not to rear-end the first car I see with an Obama sticker. 

Posted by: Jane D'oh at June 30, 2012 08:25 AM (UOM48)

244 Posted by: IdowhatIwant at June 30, 2012 01:23 PM (a4CUi) Buh-bye.

Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 08:25 AM (IoNBC)

245 Jesus, this place has decayed into a sewer of armchair quarterbacking and idiocy by fools with zero legal education.

Imposing self-ban. Fuck you nay-sayers. Sit here and masturbate each other with defeatism. I'm going to fight.


***

Heh. Are you new here?!

Did you miss the Sarah/Perry/Gingrich/Romney/Santorum months?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 08:26 AM (piMMO)

246

Could a Conservative group send out a memo to Ontario that basically states WE would be willing to nation-build with all our great values,$$$, and businesses if they would allow us to create our own constitution separate and distinct from Canada?

 

Win-win, right Ontario?

Posted by: Prisoner at cellblock H at June 30, 2012 08:27 AM (rZZA3)

247 After wading through this, I think Roberts protected his legacy and said fuck you to both parties. Obama has to sell this crap sandwich to the voters, and the Republicans have to figure out a way to seize power.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 08:27 AM (i330i)

248 Buh-bye. Damn. I hate it when mine isn't the first "buh-bye."

Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 08:27 AM (IoNBC)

249 For all you dipshits that keep saying the commerce clause became limited because Benedict Roberts and the four dissenters say so:
It goes like this: NO CONTROLLING OPINION SAID SO.
***
Actually, it is even worse then that.

Does anyone seriously believe that a liberal justice would be constrained from advancing government power by precedent? So even if Roberts had signed the liberals onto his argument, they would not considered themselves bound by it.

And *either* Obama or Romney will appointment more liberals to the court, so the best case scenario is that in 4 or 8 years the court continues to be 4 liberals, 2 left to moderate justices, and 3 conservatives.

Posted by: Justice Roberts at June 30, 2012 08:27 AM (AUeaU)

250 Romneycare has everything to do with this. Without Romneycare there would have been no Obamacare.


*****

Have you forgotten Hillary-care?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 08:27 AM (piMMO)

251 You're going to ban me for saying race isn't the issue?


Who said that?

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:28 AM (YdQQY)

252 After wading through this, I think Roberts protected his legacy and said fuck you to both parties


*****

You think his legacy has been "protected"?  You can't be serious.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 08:28 AM (piMMO)

253 I have long suspected that O was never meant to get a second term.

Look at his actions. Are his past actions and attitude one of someone who might be concerned about fooling people into voting for him again?

Look at all the golf and trips. It's like someone found a credit card and is using it on anything and everything before it gets denied.

He was hired to do one thing maybe two.
1. impose a Population/electoral control act
2. reduce 2nd amendment/gun ownership

He failed at 2 and the SCOTUS put a nail in any future actions in it. (done also by Roberts court)

He succeeded at 1 only because their was a malfeasant Democrat controlled House to aid the Democrat controlled Senate.

Remember that we got a Democrat controlled House first then O.

This was PLANNED people. They saw the window and jumped through it.

Obama was just the messenger, the ultimate sock puppet.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 08:29 AM (CP+yl)

254 who is heatherradish talking to about banning her, someone is banning her? WTF?

Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at June 30, 2012 08:29 AM (RZ8pf)

255 Sock fail

Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 08:29 AM (AUeaU)

256 Roberts made the mistake of thinking liberal justices in the future will act in good faith and respect the precedent he tried to set. They won't.
***
What makes you think that this was anything other then an endorsement of unlimited government power by a smarter then average left of center judge?

Roberts is another Souter.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 08:29 AM (AUeaU)

257 Also, Congress got more power under the taxing power, they same they would have gotten under commerce, but the judiciary was the real winner. Since we arrived here by the Dems backing Roberts into a corner, he basically created Thunderdome for this election by way of returning the favor.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 08:29 AM (i330i)

258 There was at least one time I can think of a tax for not doing something. It was part of a movie and war time. The Enrollment Act, (draft) with Commutation. If you want you can not go to war and pay a mandate, fee, tax or whatever. $300 which would be around $10,000 in today money and get out. But if you participate in the war you do not have to pay. Same way by not participating in healthcare insurance you have to pay a tax.

It still is easier to get rid of a tax over a commerce clause regulation. Now when they cry about the Bush Tax Cut rate they will also have the weapon of the Obama tax care rate. Everything else is regulations and a proper HHS can undo more than congress could think as they just gave the department a blank paper to fill out later. The HHS can regulate what the exchanges look like or what the level of care is allowed to be covered. Get rid of the federal HHS department and Obamatax is gone as there is no one to manage it.

Posted by: TJexcite at June 30, 2012 08:29 AM (AsD76)

259 I'm going out to water my plants. bbl

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:29 AM (YdQQY)

260 @258 No one. Over-reaction to her argument being challenged.

Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 08:30 AM (5H6zj)

261 You think his legacy has been "protected"? You can't be serious. Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 01:28 PM (piMMO) This way he can't be accused of partisanship by taking down Obama's signature policy of his first term... the first black president in history. This was a political calculation, but one that irritated him.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 08:31 AM (i330i)

262

96Forget secession.

That's not the American way.

It's certainly not something that I would consider ideal, nor am I advocating it at this point, but this country was formed because of it.  We essentially seceded from Great Britain.

If there were to come a time when our Constitution is nothing more than a dusty symbolic document, and was in a de facto sense non-binding, then people will have to look at their options.

 

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 08:31 AM (c9PA0)

263 251 After wading through this, I think Roberts protected his legacy and said fuck you to both parties. Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 01:27 PM (i330i) What legacy would that be? He figured out yet another way to stab conservatives in the back. Great legacy you got there, Roberts.

Posted by: CoolCzech at June 30, 2012 08:31 AM (niZvt)

264 Power Co: As a result of the storms that came through our service territory, we have estimated that approximately 80% of our membership is without power. ...We have several broken poles, cross arms and spans of wire tore down. We expect the duration of this event to span for days.

I am one hot moron.

Posted by: sTevo at June 30, 2012 08:32 AM (VMcEw)

265 And really, the Dems determine legacies. They run the schools and networks and write history.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 08:32 AM (i330i)

266 Have you forgotten Hillary-care?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 01:27 PM (piMMO)

****

Obama wanted Hillarycare, but even with Democrat majorities in both houses he didn't think he could get it.

So he gave us Romneycare instead, since it was easier to get through congress, and shockingly the courts. 

It is interesting to consider that Obama might have lost the Obamacare battle, in a Democrat congress, with a Hillarycare clone proposal.


Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 08:32 AM (AUeaU)

267 Don't forget Muzzies exempt because it's against their religion.

Posted by: hmmmm at June 30, 2012 08:32 AM (e9LVX)

268 Fine. See ya.
Posted by: HeatherRadish

If that's aimed at me, I was joking about stereotyping the mid west and trailer parks.

I concur otherwise.  pace.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 08:32 AM (CP+yl)

269 This way he can't be accused of partisanship by taking down Obama's signature policy of his first term... the first black president in history. This was a political calculation, but one that irritated him.


*****

About a third of the nation now despises him. Is that the legacy you mean?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 08:33 AM (piMMO)

270 Stay safe, stevo.

Posted by: Lauren at June 30, 2012 08:33 AM (hNLFW)

271 The only legacy that I believe Roberts cares about is the one that will be written by NYT editors and talked about at the "right" Washington parties.  Who cares about the ants who will die from his choices?  They're only ants.

Posted by: BeckoningChasm at June 30, 2012 08:34 AM (i0App)

272 What incentive will President Romney and a GOP House and Senate have to eradicate ObamaCare? What incentive will they have to keep parts of it? What will be their inclinations? Don't be too shocked when all our efforts to put the right people in office come to nothing.

Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 08:34 AM (ejmiE)

273 "Imposing self-ban. Fuck you nay-sayers. Sit here and masturbate each other with defeatism. I'm going to fight."

Hey dipshit: We're brainstorming and also venting.

ban yourself if you want but don't be a dick about it. dick.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 08:34 AM (CP+yl)

274 And really, the Dems determine legacies. They run the schools and networks and write history.


*****

That was once the case, but no more. The internet has changed that. Information and opinion are abundant.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 08:34 AM (piMMO)

275 I am one hot moron.

Posted by: sTevo at June 30, 2012 01:32 PM (VMcEw)


Now the 'ettes will demand pics.

Posted by: chemjeff at June 30, 2012 08:35 AM (LK3ef)

276

268....I am one hot moron.

 

You're without power, sTevo?

Oh man, that sucks.

Our a/c was out for a few days in this 100 degree heat....but at least we had power.

Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 08:35 AM (jPxSq)

277 271 Don't forget Muzzies exempt because it's against their religion. What would I have to do to convince the government that I converted? Would fucking a goat be enough?

Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 08:35 AM (IoNBC)

278 Since we arrived here by the Dems backing Roberts into a corner
***
Roberts could have always done the right thing.

Instead he choose to give Obama what he wanted, at least the most important part.

We probably will never know how much fear, the desire for self benefit, and leftist ideals determined the Roberts stab in the back, but he made a conscious decision to shred the Constitution.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 08:35 AM (AUeaU)

279 Cost's article is crap. Like Krauthammer's piece for the WaPo it willfully ignores that which plain to see: Roberts took the politically expedient route for himself and essentially told the American citizens, "you want better laws, elect better leaders," which in and of itself is sound advice. On the other hand it makes a piss poor foundation for a judicial ruling.

Posted by: holygoat at June 30, 2012 08:35 AM (XnwWl)

280 : Can a tax be implemented without properly defining it as a tax? How will it be defined in the tax code? If it isn't defined as a tax, how can it be enforced? Prediction - The CJ got this stinking pile of crap through by calling it a tax, but so what. Now the administration will not call it a tax, they will start referring to it again as a mandate and implement it any damn way they please.

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 08:36 AM (R5yLq)

281 He figured out yet another way to stab conservatives in the back. Great legacy you got there, Roberts. Posted by: CoolCzech at June 30, 2012 01:31 PM (niZvt) He doesn't care about conservatives but himself. He is a vain silly man appointed by a Republican. The Democrats appealed to his vanity. Conservatives just expected him to fall in line while they nominate Mitt. He decided looking good was more important than helping the GOP find its spine. His ruling sucked, but he made it.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 08:37 AM (i330i)

282 Just the enormity of this betrayal staggers me. One man - put in his position by a Republican President - had the power to undo the hideous damage coming to our country. And he sided with the Liberals. I still can't quite wrap my mind around that, even as I expected in the last couple of weeks that things would play out that way.

Posted by: CoolCzech at June 30, 2012 08:37 AM (niZvt)

283 Now the 'ettes will demand pics.
Posted by: chemjeff

Pic of my 'smoking hotness' @sdrizo.

Will make a beer run with the next gas refill.

Posted by: sTevo at June 30, 2012 08:38 AM (VMcEw)

284 283 Cost's article is crap. Like Krauthammer's piece for the WaPo it willfully ignores that which plain to see: Roberts took the politically expedient route for himself and essentially told the American citizens, "you want better laws, elect better leaders," which in and of itself is sound advice. On the other hand it makes a piss poor foundation for a judicial ruling. Posted by: holygoat at June 30, 2012 01:35 PM (XnwWl) THIS X 1000

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 08:38 AM (i330i)

285 Imposing self-ban. Fuck you nay-sayers. Sit here and masturbate each other with defeatism. I'm going to fight. Should we be putting on some Rocky music for a training montage or something?

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 08:38 AM (R5yLq)

286 One theory is Roberts wanted to assert this as the "Roberts Court." So maybe he decided the biggest case in decades on the basis of stroking his own ego.
His crack about retreating to a fortress just shows he is spitting in our faces.

Posted by: real joe at June 30, 2012 08:38 AM (omojD)

287 What incentive will President Romney and a GOP House and Senate have to eradicate ObamaCare?
***
This is a core problem conservatives face. We want people to fight and claw to take an office, and then voluntarily fight to weaken the power of the office they just took.

Worse yet, the Republicans have seen that conservatives will vote for them no matter what they do. All the incentives for them are to NOT fight to repeal Obamacare.

They will make a token effort and fail. And then the leadership will tell us we can't do anything without 60 Senator, the presidency, and a larger house majority, just like in 2004...

Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 08:38 AM (AUeaU)

288 Now the administration will not call it a tax, they will start referring to it again as a mandate and implement it any damn way they please. Yes, and if you call it a tax you're a racist.

Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 08:38 AM (IoNBC)

289 who is heatherradish talking to about banning her, someone is banning her? WTF?

Posted by: ParanoidGirlInSeattle at June 30, 2012 01:29 PM (RZ8pf)

 

huh ? where did you see that?

Posted by: willow at June 30, 2012 08:39 AM (TomZ9)

290 Arugula.

Arr-oooo-gooo-la.

Nice woody word.

Arugula.


Roberts.

Tinny.

Tinny word, Roberts.

Is there any dog left in the fridge?

Posted by: Barky Obama at June 30, 2012 08:39 AM (Qxdfp)

291 @257

Yep. You got me.



Posted by: McCain 08 at June 30, 2012 08:40 AM (zsgo8)

292 Romneycare has everything to do with this. Without Romneycare there would have been no Obamacare. Socialized medicine for all has been a dream of liberals for decades. A number of states have tried it such as Tennessee and then dropped it to avoid going broke.

Posted by: waelse1 at June 30, 2012 08:40 AM (VaU8E)

293 276 What incentive will President Romney and a GOP House and Senate have to eradicate ObamaCare? ----- Re-election. Romney will want two terms. Congress-critters will want to be re-elected. IF we have a Senate majority, they will have a hard time making excuses to not "undo" Obamatax. Personally, I think our Party is dominated by people who, out of good intentions, will want to expand government's "safety net" further, but I think they will do it in a different way and over time. During the primaries when Mitt was getting pissy for being asked about Masscare and later one when his defenders would try to slam conservatives for bringing it up I was worried, because they were trying to say it was not THE number one issue. But now it really is. And everyone knows that. So I think we can take Mitt at his word(s), limited though they are, that he will repeal it, put the power into the states, and use the federal govt merely to facilitate that (by iirc promoting markets). I dislike the guy immensely, but if he wins it will be because the base rallied over this SCOTUS ruling. I think he knows that and won't mess with us until his second term (which I kind of hope he doesn't get).

Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 08:40 AM (5H6zj)

294 One man - put in his position by a Republican President - had the power to undo the hideous damage coming to our country.
***
And this is why we should have stopped supporting "moderate" Republicans some time ago.

By the way, Mitt Romneycare is going to overturn Obamacare on day 1....right?

Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 08:40 AM (AUeaU)

295 Afternoon all. I missed most of the last 2 weeks on Active Duty. The internet was down in the Inn and they block Ace on Base. And it sucked using my wife's iPad for blogging.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 08:41 AM (j1gX1)

296 So basically Roberts wanted to establish a legacy of being a shitty, but at least non-partisan jurist?

Posted by: Burn the Witch at June 30, 2012 08:41 AM (rX1N2)

297 Our a/c was out for a few days in this 100 degree heat....but at least we had power.


****

Buy a $100 window unit and store it in the garage. When your a.c. goes down, you can pop it into a window and keep a couple of rooms cool enough to sleep. You can take it out and store it again when the a.c. is repaired.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 08:41 AM (piMMO)

298 Roberts could have always done the right thing. Instead he choose to give Obama what he wanted, at least the most important part. **************** This is also true. I'm disappointed how it turned out, because I don't believe his ruling upheld his oath to the Constitution. There was no sound argument for his ruling, which was overreach.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 08:41 AM (i330i)

299 >>268....I am one hot moron. Go on... What are you wearing?

Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 08:42 AM (5H6zj)

300 We'll never really know why Roberts did this.

It doesn't really matter.

It has had the effect of making me a rabid Romney supporter. I only wish I could afford contributing.

I will however be offering my services to aid his election.

Something I've never had the time for before.

This IS war.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 08:42 AM (CP+yl)

301 Is the Daily Caller down for everyone or only me

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 08:42 AM (j1gX1)

302 Well, a House repeal vote is scheduled for July 9th. It will pass and the Senate will kill it by some technicality. I doubt Reid will allow a vote. Way too risky. Democrats who see November coming would be sorely tempted to toss the ACA. So, it will just be a show to provide raw material for the campaigns of both sides.

Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 08:42 AM (ejmiE)

303 Welcome back, Nevergiveup! >>they block Ace on Base Too bad, they had a few catchy toons. ;-)

Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 08:42 AM (5H6zj)

304 I think a lot this mad search for a silver lining is motivated by an unwillingness to express buyer's remorse. A hell of a lot of conservatives (myself included) were very enthusiastic about the Roberts nomination. We thought we'd found an exceptionally intelligent originalist that would be a stalwart defender of the Constitutionfor decades. Apparently we were wrong. I'm willing to admit that I WAS WRONG ABOUT ROBERTS.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 12:20 PM (c9PA0)

 

Reggie1971 nailed it.

Posted by: Donna V. at June 30, 2012 08:43 AM (EflcN)

305 This IS war. Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 01:42 PM (CP+yl) Amen

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 08:43 AM (j1gX1)

306 nice to see you back, nevergiveup.

Posted by: willow at June 30, 2012 08:43 AM (TomZ9)

307 "Re-election." But they're already weak-kneed about things like pre existing conditions, etc. They want to replace not repeal, and here you have a whole can of worms.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 08:43 AM (i330i)

308

@299

Welcome back, Nevergiveup.

Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 08:43 AM (jPxSq)

309 Soon?

Posted by: 1776 at June 30, 2012 08:44 AM (5H+0Q)

310 Alright, does anybody here not think they will now do what they wanted to do through commerce instead through tax? They'll just re-write and recast that's what they do

Posted by: Former Mass. Resident at June 30, 2012 08:44 AM (ZZPs4)

311 My ac unit just broke. 600 bucks to fix. FML

Posted by: Mr. Pink at June 30, 2012 08:44 AM (++kZl)

312 I'm going to be on the Sunday Today Show tomorrow. They are having a cook off between the CS's ( Culinary Specialists) Army vs Navy. I will be there in Summer Whites in the Navy Cheering section. Probably one of the only LCDR's there.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 08:45 AM (j1gX1)

313 Re-election.
***
So, when Bush spent 4 years doing nothing of note on domestic policy, except advance a few leftist policies, we threw him out in 2004, right?

Romney, Boehner, McConnell believe that conservatives will support them no matter what they do, because hey, the other guys are worse...right?

If you are expecting Mitt Romneycare to not only be more conservative then Bush 43, but every president since Coolidge - and that is in fact what you are arguing in saying he will get rid of Obamacare - you will be sorely disappointed.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 08:45 AM (AUeaU)

314 Prediction - The CJ got this stinking pile of crap through by calling it a tax, but so what. Now the administration will not call it a tax, they will start referring to it again as a mandate and implement it any damn way they please.


*****

But doesn't that open up an entirely new case for the courts?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 08:45 AM (piMMO)

315 304 I will however be offering my services to aid his election.

The one thing I can't offer is time, you'll be doing more good than a single donation (at least a normal one).

Here in CA it's a lost cause, so best to contribute money to the whole, and get some senate seats to boot!

Posted by: Clutch Cargo at June 30, 2012 08:45 AM (Qxdfp)

316 If there were to come a time when our Constitution is nothing more than a dusty symbolic document, and was in a de facto sense non-binding, then people will have to look at their options.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 01:31 PM (c9PA0)

A "nation" only meaningfully exists when the various segments of society agree upon the basic ground rules of that society. Otherwise, you have anarchy. Right now, we are on the verge of anarchy and, frankly, splitting into two or more countries seems like the best of a set of bad options, to me, although I can see why a lot of non-Leftists would disagree vehemently at this point in time.

However, as time goes on, I predict that more and more people will come around to this same conclusion. It's pretty much baked into the cake at this point. Yes, human agency enables us to achieve some scope of freedom of action and history is not deterministic, but unless you see a mass defection from the totalitarianism brewing on the Left on the part of a large enough number of Leftists, it's going to come to a point where you either acquiesce to their totalitarianism or you form a separate sovereign nation. Mr. Irresistable Force, meet Mr. Immovable Object.

Posted by: BS Inc. at June 30, 2012 08:46 AM (P2Ufm)

317

302....Buy a $100 window unit and store it in the garage.

 

That's a good idea, NDH....a very good idea.

Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 08:46 AM (jPxSq)

318 I'm going to be on the Sunday Today Show tomorrow. They are having a cook off between the CS's ( Culinary Specialists) Army vs Navy. I will be there in Summer Whites in the Navy Cheering section. Probably one of the only LCDR's there.


****

That might be the only thing that would get me to watch that show.

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 08:46 AM (piMMO)

319 My ac unit just broke. 600 bucks to fix. FML Posted by: Mr. Pink at June 30, 2012 01:44 PM (++kZl) My AC isn't broken but my wife likes it hot even in 100 degree weather? Go figure

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 08:46 AM (j1gX1)

320 But they're already weak-kneed about things like pre existing conditions, etc. They want to replace not repeal, and here you have a whole can of worms. ----- The Dems won't cooperate on a compromise. They will be emboldened by this SCOTUS ruling. So I think that the GOP will have to kill the whole damn thing. And Romney has promised to repeal it. Yes, he's got the "replace" thing as part of his slogan (which he should really drop, it's not helpful at all), but when you read the (admittedly very short) section on healthcare at his campaign website, it reads like a true federalist position with the Fed Govt's role to be to promote free markets. Honestly, I'm more worried about immigration with Romney than I am his Obamacare stance, at least in the near-term.

Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 08:47 AM (5H6zj)

321 Nevergiveup:

They've been down since early am. I assume due to blackouts around DC and east coast.

item I saw said that Amazon Cloud was down and some other sites, so I assume Dailycaller is part of this.

We now return you to your current program of lamentations and avowals of vengence.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 08:47 AM (CP+yl)

322 That might be the only thing that would get me to watch that show. Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 01:46 PM (piMMO) I hear ya. I hate that it is NBC. But it should be a good time. Going out for Drinks after with others

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 08:47 AM (j1gX1)

323 I dislike the guy immensely, but if he wins it will be because the base rallied over this SCOTUS ruling. I think he knows that and won't mess with us until his second term (which I kind of hope he doesn't get). Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 01:40 PM (5H6zj) They can and will rely on smoke and mirrors and on events to convince people to grant them a second term. They can count on the Incumbency Machine to help them.

Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 08:47 AM (ejmiE)

324

257

 

He ain't Bill Clinton, that's for sure.

Clinton started off as an idealogue, and then changed course to recover his political viability.  He took polls on anything and everything after he got slapped hard on Hillarycare, even to the point of getting public opinion on where they would like him to spend his vacation time.  America was, and I believe still is a center-right country.  That's why he served two terms.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 08:48 AM (c9PA0)

325 This IS war.
Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 01:42 PM (CP+yl)
***
For you and I this is serious shit. We are watching our country be destroyed - by Democrats...and Republicans.

To the technocratic elite that are currently running DC, this is merely a question about pushing a little faster on the socialism pedal - Obama or a little slower - Romney. There is no serious desire in the Republican leadership to change direction.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 08:48 AM (AUeaU)

326 Roberts had a huge failure of nerve and deserves to be mocked for the illogic of his opinion. Thing has more logical holes in it than a Swiss cheese, to use an old metaphor. I doubt it would pass muster in a first-year law class on Constitutional interpretation. The reason no one predicted this as an outcome is because it's completely ludicrous reasoning and no one predicted that Roberts would engage in such.

Posted by: BS Inc. at June 30, 2012 08:48 AM (P2Ufm)

327 I WAS WRONG ABOUT ROBERTS.
Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 12:20 PM (c9PA0)

Fuck that:

I WAS WRONG ABOUT GEORGE W. BUSH.

That's more accurate. Let's put the blame where it belongs.

Root causes and all that.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 08:49 AM (CP+yl)

328 317 Re-election. *** So, when Bush spent 4 years doing nothing of note on domestic policy, except advance a few leftist policies, we threw him out in 2004, right? --- No we didn't, but I think September 11th is why. All a lot of us cared about was not getting blown up.

Posted by: Y-not, Perry supporter and Romney donor at June 30, 2012 08:49 AM (5H6zj)

329

 316....I will be there in Summer Whites in the Navy Cheering section.

 

Cool.

How will we know which one is you?

No wait....that's probably not a good idea. Heh.

Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 08:50 AM (jPxSq)

330 But doesn't that open up an entirely new case for the courts?
***
No - Roberts specifically said it doesn't matter if Obama calls it a tax or a mandate.

Amusingly, even if Roberts believed his argument for this being a valid tax policy, he *should* have thrown it out because it wasn't passed as one.

But he wanted to uphold it, the only question was on which grounds.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 08:50 AM (AUeaU)

331 But doesn't that open up an entirely new case for the courts? Won't matter. It won't ever go back to the Supreme Court and even if it did since they now consider the Constitution a moot point it wouldn't do any good if it did. It's a tax when they need it to be a tax, and a mandate when the need it to be a mandate. Either way, under commerce or taxation, it is completely and 100% unconstitutional and always has been.

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 08:51 AM (R5yLq)

332 I WAS WRONG ABOUT THAT SOBER SHIT!


No day without a buzz till Barry loses.

Posted by: Billy Bob, pseudo-intellectual at June 30, 2012 08:53 AM (KZI7g)

333

320

It really is a question of what is a nation.  Is it a land mass with a bunch of people scattered about, or does it owe its existence to a set of principles.

I really do hope it doesn't come to a point of critical mass, but we've been riding down this anti-Constitutional slope for a long time now.  Eventually we will crash.

 

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 08:54 AM (c9PA0)

334 Cool. How will we know which one is you? No wait....that's probably not a good idea. Heh. Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 01:50 PM (jPxSq) I am sure I will one of the few LT. Commander's there. That's 2 wide stripes separated by a thin stripe. And I'm 5'7 1/2 on a good day.

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 08:54 AM (j1gX1)

335 Amusingly, even if Roberts believed his argument for this being a valid tax policy, he *should* have thrown it out because it wasn't passed as one. That and the fact that the Constitution only gives Congress the power to levy very specific taxes and this doesn't fit into any of those 3 categories. This is an epic fail for Roberts and the Court. Even as a tax this thing is 100% unconstitutional with out a shadow of a doubt.

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 08:54 AM (R5yLq)

336 April 12th, 1861

Posted by: trainer at June 30, 2012 08:54 AM (5H+0Q)

337 All a lot of us cared about was not getting blown up.
***
And indeed Bush 43 was far better on National Security then Kerry - as Romney would be better then Obama.

The problem is he was a terrible president overall from a conservative perspective.

And Mitt Romney's *best* case is that he would be about as good as Bush 43 was.

Mitt Romney is not going to remove any part of the bureaucratic state.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 08:54 AM (AUeaU)

338 And he sided with the Liberals. I still can't quite wrap my mind around that, even as I expected in the last couple of weeks that things would play out that way.


*****

But did he "side with the liberals"? The libs would have allowed it to stand precisely as presented. Roberts' vote put in him in the majority with the libs, but by casting it as a tax, he also broke with the the libs "individual mandate" stance.

I'm not going to presume to know what Roberts' motives were, yet, in the end, the Dems are left to defend a tax and are going nuts. How do they implement it in the form permitted by the court if they will not write it into the tax code?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 08:54 AM (piMMO)

339 I want my Soma. Now!

Posted by: Scobface at June 30, 2012 08:55 AM (IoNBC)

340

in Cost's opinion, conservatives can more easily deal with policy problems at the ballot box than they can stealth the constitutional innovations.

 

Fuck Cost.  I would rather deal with that "problem" than I would in relying on the Republicans in Congress and Romney as presdent to actually follow through and repeal this load of horse shit.

Posted by: buzzion at June 30, 2012 08:55 AM (GULKT)

341 Speaking of Tom Cruise and John Travolta I just realized that Michelle Obama has no eyebrows: http://tinyurl.com/8aaqdl6.  Except for the ones thst come out of a Sharpie-

Posted by: DAve at June 30, 2012 08:55 AM (h+/7G)

342 And if the GOP crew in charge in 2013 is later tossed out because they failed to do what they promised to do, who will we put in their place? Folks who sooper dooper promise not to fuck us up the ass?

Posted by: eman at June 30, 2012 08:55 AM (ejmiE)

343 Under trying to suck up to the enemy: Look it up in the encyclopedia and there are 2 pictures: McCain and Roberts

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 08:55 AM (j1gX1)

344 The Daily Caller's data center got taken out by the storm.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 08:55 AM (Iyg03)

345 Clinton started off as an idealogue, and then changed course to recover his political viability

Clinton's so-called triangulation to the center is a myth spawned by the Democrats and repeated infinitely by the MFM.  They give him credit for the welfare bill on this which is bull shit. He vetoed it twice before Newt sent it to him in a veto override and he had no control over it.

He got blocked by actual Republican control.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 08:56 AM (YdQQY)

346
That and the fact that the Constitution only gives Congress the power to levy very specific taxes and this doesn't fit into any of those 3 categories.
***
Unfortunately, we only have 3.5 justices that have a use for the Constitution.

Actually, that isn't fair - Roberts does have a use for it, what with the price of toilet paper going up.

Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 08:56 AM (AUeaU)

347 The Daily Caller's data center got taken out by the storm. Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 01:55 PM (Iyg03) Is it in the DC Area?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 08:57 AM (j1gX1)

348 Folks who sooper dooper promise not to fuck us up the ass? Where's the fun in voting for that?

Posted by: Meggie Mac at June 30, 2012 08:57 AM (IoNBC)

349

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 01:54 PM (j1gX1)

 

I'll be trying to figure out which one you are.

Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 08:57 AM (jPxSq)

350 My advice to Romney would be to continue his REPEAL mantra and to boost Senators in state we have a chance of turning.

Next is to hammer Obama every chance that it's a tax.

Enumerate the taxes and their estimated costs. Point out the clauses that are no longer "operative" that the CBO used to score the bill and accurately redefine what the true cost will be.

Keep promising to rescind it.

Call Obama a liar when he does. Maybe not like joe walsh but there's ways to call someone a liar that everyone knows but that doesn't use the word "liar" in them.

reiterate the above.

One last thing. If Romney wants a second term and if the House wants to stay in; they better repeal this thing.

Not because we'll vote them out, (which will happen) but because otherwise they will share in the infamy of this being the Act that reduced the American Dream to a nightmare.

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 08:57 AM (CP+yl)

351 Folks who sooper dooper promise not to fuck us up the ass?
***
Let me be clear, as I have always said, if you like being fucked in the  ass, you can continue being fucked in the ass.

Posted by: Barack Obama at June 30, 2012 08:58 AM (AUeaU)

352 @346  Folks who sooper dooper promise not to fuck us up the ass?


Swearsies!!

Donate today!!!!

Posted by: Romney aka McCain II at June 30, 2012 08:58 AM (zsgo8)

353 I hear ya. I hate that it is NBC. But it should be a good time. Going out for Drinks after with others


****

You could swing by Fox and Friends and wave through the window to us.  (Do they still have a window?)

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 08:58 AM (piMMO)

354 The absolute worst thing Romney could do for himself and the country is become George W. Bush, Jr.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 08:59 AM (Iyg03)

355

Another John Roberts is probably the high bar for a Romney SC nominee. Sigh...

Posted by: mugiwara at June 30, 2012 09:00 AM (RY/Ag)

356 rdbrewer:

That's that CDN (Content Delivery Network) practice that I think is foolish.

Penny wise and pound foolish.

Putting ones eggs in one basket.

As Sheriff joe would say; "that's just D-U-M. stupid.)

Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 09:00 AM (CP+yl)

357 I'm not going to presume to know what Roberts' motives were, yet, in the end, the Dems are left to defend a tax and are going nuts. How do they implement it in the form permitted by the court if they will not write it into the tax code? I have to disagree. I do agree we have no idea what Roberts motives were, but I guess my thought process is it really doesn't matter. As the CJ of the Supreme Court he completely ignored the Constitution, even by this "call it a tax" nonsense. It's still totally Unconstitutional and Roberts ignored that to get the result he wanted. Why he wanted it is immaterial as far as I'm concerned. As to forcing the Dem's to call this a tax, sorry but I don't see that happening either. By a week from now they will go back to only referring to it as a mandate and if anyone in the sycophant media does challenge them on it, they will simply say something about how the Court called it a tax because they supported Obamacare and needed to do some legal maneuvering. They will spin this as just legalese and unimportant. What's important is Obama was right all along! Gag.

Posted by: StuckOnStupid at June 30, 2012 09:00 AM (R5yLq)

358 I'll be trying to figure out which one you are. Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 01:57 PM (jPxSq) I'd give a shout out to Ace but since I'll be in Uniform I can't really do that. I guess i could give a thumbs up sign

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 09:00 AM (j1gX1)

359 New Ace thread.

Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 09:01 AM (jPxSq)

360 Is that internet lingo, BC?  If so, the easy solution is to have battery and diesel generator backup.

Posted by: rdbrewer at June 30, 2012 09:01 AM (Iyg03)

361 You could swing by Fox and Friends and wave through the window to us. (Do they still have a window?) Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 01:58 PM (piMMO) Maybe, but I have to be at the MBC site by 7:30 AM as it is

Posted by: Nevergiveup at June 30, 2012 09:02 AM (j1gX1)

362 That would be cool, Nevergiveup.

Posted by: wheatie at June 30, 2012 09:02 AM (jPxSq)

363 The absolute worst thing Romney could do for himself and the country is become George W. Bush, Jr.
***
Comparing their records, that would also be better then you could fairly expect from a President Romney.

Vote Charybdis 2012 because Scylla is a SCOAMF!

Posted by: 18-1 at June 30, 2012 09:02 AM (AUeaU)

364 new post

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at June 30, 2012 09:03 AM (piMMO)

365 Damn, a new ace thread snuck in.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 09:03 AM (YdQQY)

366

331

I warned my friends about GWB and his damned "compassionate conservatism" back in 2000 (kindler, gentler redux).  They fell on deaf ears.

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 09:08 AM (mryu2)

367 NGU

how's about an aiguillette?

Not uniform of the day? Maybe you can fake it.

Summer whites so no stripes?



Posted by: Bitter Clinger and all that at June 30, 2012 09:11 AM (CP+yl)

368 Not only should Roberts resign, but so should Cost. What a self-delusion pile of inanity. Good God.

Posted by: gm at June 30, 2012 09:12 AM (K0tm3)

369

349

Vic, I'm not saying the slick one went conservative.  I'm just saying he became a lot more timid about implementing his true agenda.  The GOP Congress was a big factor in that, I agree.

 

Posted by: Reggie1971 at June 30, 2012 09:23 AM (mryu2)

370 "Law Professor" John Eastman calling for John Roberts to resign? This, knowing that MaObama would be the one to appoint a new Chief Justice? He simply can't be that short-sighted.

Posted by: MrC_5150 at June 30, 2012 09:33 AM (IZDSj)

371 These motherfuckers in office dont give a rats ass about you or the constitution. LOL You all fucked up years ago when mandatory school busing was implimented and no one protested!! Its been over a looong time ago.

Posted by: Zombie El Bejay at June 30, 2012 09:34 AM (Qr9Rc)

372

It seems what people are really upset about is that it's still up to them to get something done.

 

Posted by: Prez 4 Evah Superhero Genius at June 30, 2012 09:42 AM (Usk3+)

373 School busing was all fine and dandy when they were ordering it in the south. But when they ordered it in Boston they rioted.

Posted by: Vic at June 30, 2012 09:43 AM (YdQQY)

374

" that Roberts' decision is a victory for conservatives"

A couple more 'victories' like that and we'll be praying for the SMOD.

Posted by: chuck in st paul at June 30, 2012 09:56 AM (EhYdw)

375 Christine O'Donnell would have made the right decision. Yeah, I said it.

Posted by: Ward of the State #3894635A at June 30, 2012 10:05 AM (fWqsc)

376 "Christine O'Donnell would have made the right decision."

But Christine O'Donnell making the right decision would be *embarrassing*.

Whereas Roberts fucking us all to death is MONEYBOMB.

Huge win. Huge.

Posted by: nope at June 30, 2012 10:15 AM (cePv8)

377

 

Randy Barnett is a glass half full guy:

http://bit.ly/OIjwge

But if winning by losing was a great strategy, conservatives would rule the world.

Posted by: Frankly at June 30, 2012 10:17 AM (g6iAG)

378 'It just seems that Roberts could have done both while siding with the four who dissented. Roberts needed no "political space," in my opinion. He could have just done his job.' What you said. Times 1,000. Still, I recall a few times where a subtle player made a game-changing surprise move. Jay Cost may be right about Roberts, assuming that Obama doesn't get to appoint another Justice. But if he does, nothing Roberts can do will do anything but stall that same outcome anyway. We are dealing with a completely lawless executive, very similar to a dictator. Many don't wish to admit that.

Posted by: TooCon at June 30, 2012 10:17 AM (YcTIW)

379 The Dems will call the mandate a tax at some later point, when they decide it's politically safe to turn it into a "progressive" tax. That should happen right around the time insurance rates really start to skyrocket.

Oh, and... #155: Of course this isn't the hill to die on. That tanning bed tax is quite disturbing, though.-Posted by: John "Studly" Boehner at June 30, 2012 12:59 PM (IoNBC)

You know what's funny, sad, and scary about that tanning bed tax? Around the time the bill was signed into law, that tax was described as (paraphrased) "Racist... a tax on white people."

You know who said that? Frickin' Snooki, that's who.

Snooki officially understands the Constitution better than the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.

Posted by: Prothonotary Warbler at June 30, 2012 10:22 AM (3yCFy)

380 With this decision slavery was codified by SCOTUS period! The slavery of the citizenry of this country to the elite powers in Washington DC. Look up the definition of slavery and it exactly matches what is happening, we and our children and their children and on and on are now indentured servants to the political nobility of this country. Thursday June 28th 2012 was the day freedom ended in this country once and for all make no mistake about that and if you believe this travesty is going to be repealed you are deluded.

Posted by: Oldcrow at June 30, 2012 11:03 AM (rAKo4)

381 Unless the GOP gets its shit together, fully repeals it, looks to actually scale back government and improve the quality of healthcare so that Americans don't buy the idea that only nationalizing 1/6th of economy will make things better. They're the stupid party, though.

Posted by: Tattoo De Plane at June 30, 2012 11:19 AM (i330i)

382 <<It just seems that Roberts could have done both while siding with the four who dissented.>>

Bingo. And this is what infuriates me the most; the insistence that there was some sort of victory. There wasn't.

I like to call it "Phantom Menace" syndrome, wherein - as a rabid Star Wars fan - I was positive Phantom Menace was a good movie, or at least a film with likeable qualities. I finally had to admit I was kidding myself.

Posted by: Sgt. York at June 30, 2012 11:26 AM (pqW4Y)

383 I'm sorry, but conservatives have completely missed the boat on the significance of this decision: For the first time in history, the government has been allowed to tax you for something you DIDN"T DO. In all previous history, the government could only tax people to deter them from doing things, or punish them (or take advantage of them). Now ... the government may tax you for not doing what it wants you to do. It is the complete and total end of all freedom in the United States and the Supreme Court enabled it. We have no further use for this court, or our government; and we either rise up and find new guards for our defense, or the world becomes a dark, dark place.

Posted by: someguy at June 30, 2012 11:31 AM (sEXZ/)

384 Hold on boys, the Repubelican Senators and Senator wanna bees, not to mention Sir Willard of TheeRomney all say that they will repeal Obamacare on their first day in office. So, who cares what the Supreme Court says? If we believe the Repubelicans, its all academic anyway. Oh wait ....

Posted by: VADM (Red) Cuthbert Lord Collingwood (mentioned in dispatches) at June 30, 2012 11:49 AM (m7blM)

385 Cost: "...Though his factual argument here was admittedly strained, his legal reasoning seems to have created no qualitative expansion of the federal taxing power, which is very broad to begin with (and has been for centuries)..."

To the former, "strained" arguments are exactly what we don't want. That, translated, means "legislating from the bench." Justices aren't there to rewrite the legislation by selective editing; they're there to accept or reject that which is presented... nothing more.

As to the latter, how was there no "qualitative expansion"? The broad authority remains as broad and, now, we have the added distinction that Congress need only define any liberty-restricting legislation where money is the behavior modifier a "tax" (a merely semantic exercise) and, poof, it's Constitutional. I'd say that's a pretty big qualifier to justify government overreach to the point of oppression. So, both in quantity and quality, the Roberts affirmation re-entrenched the idea that the taxing authority is so broad as to permit the government to do pretty much anything as long as you massage the right term - "tax" - into the legislation.

This is a horrible outcome. Sure, you could argue that Roberts was playing 3D chess by "subtly" providing a political solution to the legal affirmation by calling a tax a "tax" which the political arena can bat around for the next election. But that would be stupid. Roberts et al. aren't there to manage elections through wordplay and subtle suggestion; they're there to decide if the Constitution is violated without inserting their own law. We lost. We lost big.

Thank you, Roberts and the majority, for nothing. You will not be forgotten. Likewise, you will not be forgiven.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at June 30, 2012 11:50 AM (eHIJJ)

386 It won't get repealed. Calling it a tax makes it more palatable to politicians and the idiots who vote for them. The immediate cost of the penalty tax is low and subtle, unlike, say, the Prohibition, which had a large negative effect from day one. Since the bill spreads the wealth tax around and never hits one person hard, the cultural shitfog will reestablish itself in people's minds very soon and life will go on as it did with all other taxes and unconstitutional laws.

If murdering unborn children doesn't bother voters enough to make it illegal, another slow-drip, undercover tax won't bother them into action either. And if I'm wrong and the tax does bother them more than abortion, so much the worse for what remains of this country's soul.

Posted by: shatburger at June 30, 2012 12:15 PM (BLcKg)

387

So Basically Roberts wiped Obama's A$$ with the Constitution.

 

The American Experiment is over.  Roberts own analogy of being an umpire is true.  He blew the call and the game is over. 

 

 Does not matter who is in the Whitehouse, Congress or Supreme Court... the end result will be more debt, more taxes, more GIvernment and less freedom..

Posted by: airandee at June 30, 2012 12:21 PM (9GHCK)

388 his legal reasoning seems to have created no qualitative expansion of the federal taxing power,


Benedict Roberts created a whole new, nearly unlimited definition of the word "tax".  Plus, he allowed it to apply on a per-statement basis, so that what is or is not a "tax", in this new ill-defined definition, can change from statement to statement in the same "logical" argument.


Jay Cost is a retard.  A well-defined retard.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at June 30, 2012 12:30 PM (X3lox)

389 The thing is we now have a law on the books that NO ONE voted for. 

Roberts crafted this legislation in his own little demented brain just as surely as if he wrote it from scratch.

If he can substitute "tax" for "mandate" then he could as easily substitute the word "shrubbery."  If there were no substantive difference between "tax" and "mandate" then the shiftless son of a bitch wouldn't have had the change the word to begin with would he?

Under Robert's jurisprudence, such as it is, he could just as easily change the bill into Beethoven's First Symphony for all of the sense it would make and all the legitimacy it would have.

What Roberts did was seditious and is the very definition of judicial advocacy.  He should be made to pay a very high price for it and his name should never be spoken lest it be in conjunction with the word "traitor."
var __chd__ = {'aid':11079,'chaid':'www_objectify_ca'};(function() { var c = document.createElement('script'); c.type = 'text/javascript'; c.async = true;c.src = ( 'https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://z': 'http://p') + '.chango.com/static/c.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(c, s);})();

Posted by: Voluble at June 30, 2012 12:52 PM (eOimU)

390 I also think we need to start referring to Obama as the first post-American president.  Whatever we are now is not what we were before.

Yeah, we probably lost this battle when FDR intimidated the shrinking Nancies on the court during the New Deal but most people are too stupid to understand that. 

Making the magnitude of what just happened understood requires there be a change in vocabulary.  This is not the United States anymore.  There are no founding documents that justify its existence.  This is something entirely new....  Call it Post-America or the USSA... whatever you like but it is certainly not something a very large part of population wants any part of and it is certainly not justified by the Constitution that supposedly legitimizes it.

Roberts was worried about the legitimacy of the court when really what he did was destroy the legitimacy of the country and every single one of its institutions.  Between Kelo and now this abomination his legacy is solidly that of someone who gave the government license to run roughshod over the people at every turn.

The only right we have left is the right to bitch about we have no rights.  And now that the government controls your health care you had best not do that too loudly.

BTW, I am not sure where all of that garbage came from at the end of my last post.  Some glitch in the software I guess.
var __chd__ = {'aid':11079,'chaid':'www_objectify_ca'};(function() { var c = document.createElement('script'); c.type = 'text/javascript'; c.async = true;c.src = ( 'https:' == document.location.protocol ? 'https://z': 'http://p') + '.chango.com/static/c.js'; var s = document.getElementsByTagName('script')[0];s.parentNode.insertBefore(c, s);})();

Posted by: Voluble at June 30, 2012 01:08 PM (eOimU)

391

Roberts is a clusterfuck and these lawyers know it.

Posted by: TexasJew at June 30, 2012 01:18 PM (iBGQ2)

392 Is there any way that Roberts can be impeached and replaced with a real conservative judge after Romney is elected?

Posted by: Mirimichi at June 30, 2012 03:48 PM (84bEu)

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

Posted by: steevy at June 30, 2012 04:52 PM (Xb3hu)

394 does anyone really think for one minute a future liberal court will give any serious thought to Robert's commerce clause hokus pokus

Posted by: edward cropper at June 30, 2012 05:14 PM (JqIMQ)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
288kb generated in CPU 0.39, elapsed 1.6684 seconds.
62 queries taking 1.3465 seconds, 630 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.