Roberts: this is a stretch but... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Roberts: this is a stretch but...


callihan_44
06-28-2012, 15:03
We do not consider whether the act embodied sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenge provisions.”

Sounds to me like he's trying to clear the court and put blame where it belongs...WITH THE ELECTED POLITICIANS
Im not giving him a pass but knowing how unpopular obamacare is, in a way did he just throw obama under the bus? That is- getting the base enraged and people on the fence to vote against this/obama coming in november?

Ruble Noon
06-28-2012, 15:04
Roberts is a big government POS.

evlbruce
06-28-2012, 15:23
With no limits to the powers of Congress why bother with a SCOTUS?

Seeing the reaction to the decision, I don't think President 0 has much to be worried about: The only people getting upset weren't voting for him anyway, Dems are ecstatic having "won" (never mind the fact that ObamaCare is unabashed corporatism).

Ruble Noon
06-28-2012, 15:25
With no limits to the powers of congress why bother with a SCOTUS?

With unlimited executive power, why bother with congress?

Gundude
06-28-2012, 15:44
Roberts is a big government POS.I still haven't seen any explanation of the dissent against his position. Does it or does it not make sense?

Maybe, just maybe, he's the one impartial judge on the Supreme Court, judging only to the extent he's constitutionally authorized.

countrygun
06-28-2012, 16:03
With no limits to the powers of Congress why bother with a SCOTUS?

Seeing the reaction to the decision, I don't think President 0 has much to be worried about: The only people getting upset weren't voting for him anyway, Dems are ecstatic having "won" (never mind the fact that ObamaCare is unabashed corporatism).


Maybe you had best read the decision and not form an opinion based on the reactions of others, whomever they may be.

The SCOTUS put a big slapdown on the power of Congress to use the "Commerce Clause".

Obama care is still repealable, but Congress has been limited in it's use of one of it's favorite clubs.

Glock26z
06-28-2012, 18:36
Roberts did this for one reason, to get rid of Obambam in the up coming election. Roberts knows that we would be upset if it was reversed. and Kagan should have reclused herself from the proceedings and the vote.

barbedwiresmile
06-28-2012, 18:42
Ironically, it would seem this decision renders the court itself irrelevant.

beforeobamabans
06-28-2012, 18:57
I still haven't seen any explanation of the dissent against his position. Does it or does it not make sense?

Maybe, just maybe, he's the one impartial judge on the Supreme Court, judging only to the extent he's constitutionally authorized.

The dissent (written by Kennedy BTW), clearly and simply declares the WHOLE law unconstitutional. Had Roberts not switched sides, it would be dead as a doorknob right now.

beforeobamabans
06-28-2012, 19:00
Anyone notice that Roberts overlooked one basic constitutional principle in declaring this a constitutional tax? This bill originated in the Senate. They do not have the power to tax.

Dexters
06-28-2012, 19:06
We do not consider whether the act embodied sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenge provisions.”

Sounds to me like he's trying to clear the court and put blame where it belongs...WITH THE ELECTED POLITICIANS
Im not giving him a pass but knowing how unpopular obamacare is, in a way did he just throw obama under the bus? That is- getting the base enraged and people on the fence to vote against this/obama coming in november?

I don't think so. I don't remember anyone call it a 'tax'. My recollection is that it was called a penalty.


Also, they were using the 'commerce clause' as a justification. The SC called it a tax and based approval on the ability of the congress to tax.

So, to me it looks like they went out their way to find a reason to approve it. And in so doing they gave congress permission to do more 'taxing' - do something or pay a tax.

lancesorbenson
06-28-2012, 20:19
I don't think so. I don't remember anyone call it a 'tax'. My recollection is that it was called a penalty.


Also, they were using the 'commerce clause' as a justification. The SC called it a tax and based approval on the ability of the congress to tax.

So, to me it looks like they went out their way to find a reason to approve it. And in so doing they gave congress permission to do more 'taxing' - do something or pay a tax.

Exactly. The Congress has now been given a blank check to force any kind of regulation under penalty of fines or fees. They don't even have to call it a tax. This ruling and the Commerce Clause combined means anything is fair game. At least that's how I read it.

Yessir How High
06-28-2012, 20:56
Exactly. The Congress has now been given a blank check to force any kind of regulation under penalty of fines or fees. They don't even have to call it a tax. This ruling and the Commerce Clause combined means anything is fair game. At least that's how I read it.

So, I am a little confused about taxes. In yon days of yore.....

If you had income, you paid a tax.
If you owned property, you paid a tax.
If you inherited your father's farm, you paid a tax.
If you bought a bottle of bourbon, you paid a tax.
If you bought a pack of smokes, you paid a tax.
If you bought a pair of breeches, you paid a tax.

Where is it in our tax code that if you do not do something, you have to pay a tax?

I yam guilty of NOT doing a lot of things. Now, will I have to pay a tax for all of those things?

Something is seriously wrong here.