Blog chatter: Impeach John Roberts [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Blog chatter: Impeach John Roberts


Ruble Noon
06-30-2012, 08:00
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77947.html

Jonesee
06-30-2012, 08:18
That is total idiocy. Plain and simple.

He broke no law, he wasn't derelict in his duties.
What would the grounds for impeachment be? Disappointing conservatives?
There is no impeachable offense.

Absolute idiocy.

Ruble Noon
06-30-2012, 08:26
He abused his power by legislating from the bench.

Berto
06-30-2012, 08:42
Soooo do they impeach the other 4 justices too?

Jonesee
06-30-2012, 08:45
He abused his power by legislating from the bench.


That is not a crime or an impeachable offense.

He heard a case and became 1 of 5 votes that made a legal ruling. He and the other 8 Justices did exactly what they are supposed to do.

The Supreme Court Justices are given a lifetime appointment to protect from political pressure. This is a perfect example why.

Again, the idea is total idiocy.

Ruble Noon
06-30-2012, 09:01
That is not a crime or an impeachable offense.

He heard a case and became 1 of 5 votes that made a legal ruling. He and the other 8 Justices did exactly what they are supposed to do.

The Supreme Court Justices are given a lifetime appointment to protect from political pressure. This is a perfect example why.

Again, the idea is total idiocy.

SC justices are not supposed to write law, which Roberts did.

QNman
06-30-2012, 09:13
Soooo do they impeach the other 4 justices too?

Agreed.

It is pure foolishness to think about impeaching Roberts for his vote. He IS a conservative by nature, and is generally reliable as such. Why would any sane conservative-minded person want to impeach Roberts over, say, Kagan?

Kagan clearly violated ethical considerations when she failed to even consider recusing herself from a case related to a law she helped to usher into existence. She never even considered the thought.

What about Sotomayor? She lied to the American people, stating she thought the second amendment was "settled law" in Heller, immediately before voting the opposite in Chicago.

Personally, I think Roberts made a mistake. I think Krauthammer had it right, in that he was too concerned with the view that if struck down, Obamacare would represent to the left a biased SCOTUS. The left suffers from no such dilemma - we KNOW for CERTAIN which way each of the lefties will vote religiously, and they care not a whip about what conservatives think about it.

But to prattle on about impeaching the Chief Justice over this? Pure idiocy.

Let's instead focus our efforts on the TRUE enemies of liberty - those who un-apologetically thumb their noses at the COTUS at every turn. If we want to expend the political capital - not to mention time and resources - necessary to impeach someone, lets start with Kagan and work our way to the middle, rather than start with Roberts and work our way left.

Jonesee
06-30-2012, 09:14
No he didn't. He ruled on the constitutionality of a law that was already written, passed, signed, in place and before him for appeal.


Ruble, when you didn't get you way as a child, did you stand in the middle of the room and throw a tantrum?

QNman
06-30-2012, 09:15
SC justices are not supposed to write law, which Roberts did.

Kagan, Ginsberg, Sotomayer... did they not do the same? Do they not attempt the same with EVERY VOTE?

Let's focus on the true enemies. Once they are dealt with, we can focus together on who may need trimming.

Ruble Noon
06-30-2012, 09:19
Agreed.

It is pure foolishness to think about impeaching Roberts for his vote. He IS a conservative by nature, and is generally reliable as such. Why would any sane conservative-minded person want to impeach Roberts over, say, Kagan?

Kagan clearly violated ethical considerations when she failed to even consider recusing herself from a case related to a law she helped to usher into existence. She never even considered the thought.

What about Sotomayor? She lied to the American people, stating she thought the second amendment was "settled law" in Heller, immediately before voting the opposite in Chicago.

Personally, I think Roberts made a mistake. I think Krauthammer had it right, in that he was too concerned with the view that if struck down, Obamacare would represent to the left a biased SCOTUS. The left suffers from no such dilemma - we KNOW for CERTAIN which way each of the lefties will vote religiously, and they care not a whip about what conservatives think about it.

But to prattle on about impeaching the Chief Justice over this? Pure idiocy.

Let's instead focus our efforts on the TRUE enemies of liberty - those who un-apologetically thumb their noses at the COTUS at every turn. If we want to expend the political capital - not to mention time and resources - necessary to impeach someone, lets start with Kagan and work our way to the middle, rather than start with Roberts and work our way left.

SC Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for letting his Federalist leanings affect his rulings.

I agree with you about Kagan as she had a definite conflict of interest and should have recused herself on this ruling.

Ruble Noon
06-30-2012, 09:21
No he didn't. He ruled on the constitutionality of a law that was already written, passed, signed, in place and before him for appeal.




No he did not. The government argued that this law was constitutional under the commerce clause and the fine was a penalty which Roberts deemed unconstitutional. Roberts rewrote it as a tax and allowable under the legislatures taxing ability.

Jonesee
06-30-2012, 09:25
OK, so you do throw tantrums when you don't get your way.

Good luck to you and your goal of impeaching Roberts. I'll keep up on your progress in the news.

Sam Spade
06-30-2012, 09:26
SC Justice Samuel Chase was impeached for letting his Federalist leanings affect his rulings.



And that itself was a political travesty. However romantic the vision of impeaching judges over rulings or of duels being fought over politics, I have no desire to return to the varied forms of idiocy the Founders engaged in.

Ruble Noon
06-30-2012, 09:29
OK, so you do throw tantrums when you don't get your way.

Good luck to you and your goal of impeaching Roberts. I'll keep on your progress in the news.

Since you seem determined to go down this road, did your dear momma stick your head in a gas oven to lull you to sleep as a child? It would help to explain your posting history.

marchboom
06-30-2012, 09:32
SC justices are not supposed to write law, which Roberts did.

100% agreement. Roberts was not put on the bench to trash the Constitution. Which he clearly did Thursday. Traitor is the only word that comes to mind.

Definitely shows that we cannot trust him to do the right thing in the future. Just as we can't trust democrats to do the right thing. Wonder what will happen when the next 2nd Amendment case comes before the court? If you don't have the guns and ammo you want, better get it now.

greentriple
06-30-2012, 09:34
Those who wish to impeach a Justice or for that matter a President because he or she does not decide things the way that person wants is the most Un-American thing I've read today. But then it's only 8:30 am.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

nmk
06-30-2012, 09:35
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0612/77947.html

Complete nonsense and very dangerous.

rgregoryb
06-30-2012, 10:11
Those who wish to impeach a Justice or for that matter a President because he or she does not decide things the way that person wants is the most Un-American thing I've read today. But then it's only 8:30 am.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

so, greentripe, in your world voicing an opinion (even misguided) is un-American? great ,censorship of free speech.

wjv
06-30-2012, 10:20
Personally, I think Roberts made a mistake. I think Krauthammer had it right, in that he was too concerned with the view that if struck down, Obamacare would represent to the left a biased SCOTUS. The left suffers from no such dilemma - we KNOW for CERTAIN which way each of the lefties will vote religiously, and they care not a whip about what conservatives think about it.

But to prattle on about impeaching the Chief Justice over this? Pure idiocy.

If he actually voted the way he did because he was concerned about the politics of how the court would look, opposed to voting based on his interpretation of the Constitution, then he deserves impeachment.

However. . . Unless he confesses to that, good luck proving it. And if he were to be impeached, guess who gets to appoint his replacement. . .

JFrame
06-30-2012, 10:30
If he actually voted the way he did because he was concerned about the politics of how the court would look, opposed to voting based on his interpretation of the Constitution, then he deserves impeachment.

However. . . Unless he confesses to that, good luck proving it. And if he were to be impeached, guess who gets to appoint his replacement. . .


Good points...


.

QNman
06-30-2012, 10:52
If he actually voted the way he did because he was concerned about the politics of how the court would look, opposed to voting based on his interpretation of the Constitution, then he deserves impeachment.

However. . . Unless he confesses to that, good luck proving it. And if he were to be impeached, guess who gets to appoint his replacement. . .

Only Chief Justice Roberts knows his true motivation for his decision. Impeachment of an otherwise conservative justice for a disagreement with ONE decision is political canibalism. The liberals will not do this.

And yes - if Obama were allowed to appoint his replacement, do you thinkmhe'd do better or worse?

Cavalry Doc
06-30-2012, 12:14
Can we do holder and Barry first??

JFrame
06-30-2012, 12:29
Can we do holder and Barry first??


That would only be fair and just...


.

Brucev
06-30-2012, 12:52
Impeach? Yes! Impeach him and impeach the squatter. Do it without any fooling around about silly little niceties.

steveksux
06-30-2012, 14:10
Great idea! Impeach him immediately.

I'm sure Obama will appoint someone more to your liking.

Randy

JFrame
06-30-2012, 14:12
Great idea! Impeach him immediately.

I'm sure Obama will appoint someone more to your liking.

Randy


...Cass Sunstein!!! :scared:


.

jakebrake
06-30-2012, 14:13
making a brain dead decision isn't an impeachable offense. if it were, the entire congress would have been flushed once a week. not an idea i'm against, but still.

steveksux
06-30-2012, 14:18
I fear for the Republic. What's next? The govt requiring you to buy no fault auto insurance?????

Just sayin...

Maybe. Just maybe, it ain't the end of the world, and it's even possible them judges know more about the law than we do....

Chill. Laws can be overturned.

Randy

Philo Beddoe
06-30-2012, 14:41
I think impeaching Roberts makes prerfect sense...after Romney gets elected so that a conservative replacement can be nominated.

The constitution is supposed to be the SC's ultimate guise, and Roberts obviously violated that trust. It's time we let these guys know that making a ruling based on some goofy notion that the integrity of the court needed to be preserved by a bi-partisan vote, will not be tolerated.

LawScholar
06-30-2012, 14:43
That is not a crime or an impeachable offense.

He heard a case and became 1 of 5 votes that made a legal ruling. He and the other 8 Justices did exactly what they are supposed to do.

The Supreme Court Justices are given a lifetime appointment to protect from political pressure. This is a perfect example why.

Again, the idea is total idiocy.

/thread - +1

Impeachment is not for when you disagree with a ruling.

Ruble Noon
06-30-2012, 15:39
/thread - +1

Impeachment is not for when you disagree with a ruling.

It's not a matter of disagreement rather, it is a matter of Roberts writing law from the bench and changing the penalty to a tax.

Gundude
06-30-2012, 19:51
Blog chatterThat about sums it up.

Anybody with an Internet connection can write a blog. It gives their words as much weight as those of the guy at the street corner arguing with the lamp post.

Jerry
06-30-2012, 20:10
I think impeaching Roberts makes prerfect sense...after Romney gets elected so that a conservative replacement can be nominated.

The constitution is supposed to be the SC's ultimate guise, and Roberts obviously violated that trust. It's time we let these guys know that making a ruling based on some goofy notion that the integrity of the court needed to be preserved by a bi-partisan vote, will not be tolerated.

I keep hearing this, "he did it to preserve the integrity of the court". As far as I'm concerned he just TRASHED the "integrity" of the court. :steamed: But then I lost respect for it a long time ago.

LawScholar
06-30-2012, 20:32
I keep hearing this, "he did it to preserve the integrity of the court". As far as I'm concerned he just TRASHED the "integrity" of the court. :steamed: But then I lost respect for it a long time ago.

Only a few years ago, the Court defeated the greatest single threatening argument against the Second Amendment - the militia clause - and forever enshrined 2A as an individual right.

Did you have faith then?

We cannot tar and feather the institution because we don't always agree with it.

greentriple
06-30-2012, 20:56
so, greentripe, in your world voicing an opinion (even misguided) is un-American? great ,censorship of free speech.

No, voicing the opinion is not Un-American, I never said voicing it was Un-American. In fact the 1st Amendment makes voicing the opinion American. What's Un-American is the opinion.

You see exercising a right that is American does not make one an American.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
06-30-2012, 20:57
Opinions can be Non-American.

greentriple
06-30-2012, 21:01
Only Chief Justice Roberts knows his true motivation for his decision. Impeachment of an otherwise conservative justice for a disagreement with ONE decision is political canibalism. The liberals will not do this.

And yes - if Obama were allowed to appoint his replacement, do you thinkmhe'd do better or worse?

Better.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
06-30-2012, 21:04
Only a few years ago, the Court defeated the greatest single threatening argument against the Second Amendment - the militia clause - and forever enshrined 2A as an individual right.

Did you have faith then?

We cannot tar and feather the institution because we don't always agree with it.
What he said.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ModGlock17
06-30-2012, 21:22
I thought it was a brilliant move for conservatism, as long as you are not myopic.

SCOTUS' decision to uphold "Obamacare" is likely to become a moot point by Jan 2013. The Legislative Branch is capable of UNDOing its previous "pass it then read it" mistake. That's point #1. If the people want to abolish it, let the people do it.

Point #2. By turning it from a Fed intrusive requirement into a Tax Issue, it is easier to repeal. Your repeal argument now become: simply "less tax", rather than the commerce issue of Fed making personal decision for you.

Point #3. The last Read-my-lips-no-new-tax promise factored into a one-termer for G. HW Bush. Obama had just "step in it". Obamacare has become OBAMAtax !

Had SCOTUS decided against Obamacare, Obama stands better chance to be re-elected, meaning more trash and more liberal Justices appointed in his next term !

It's a case of win-the-battle but lost-the-war.

certifiedfunds
06-30-2012, 23:09
The ACA will never be repealed. Never.

TDC20
07-01-2012, 00:44
Only a few years ago, the Court defeated the greatest single threatening argument against the Second Amendment - the militia clause - and forever enshrined 2A as an individual right.

And in doing so, also wrote innumerable measures by which the govt. could restrict and regulate the right to keep and bear arms, and forever enshrined a nullification of the "shall not be infringed" clause.

I know I'm in the minority, but I really didn't see that as a "win" for the 2A. In one way it is, in others, it is not.

The SCOTUS (and all federal courts, especially the appellate) has become nothing more than a political tool for the 2 party system. They use it as a rallying cry for why we should vote for one candidate or the other. The real minority on the court are those who actually follow the COTUS. It's a damned shame, it really is.

LawScholar
07-01-2012, 00:48
And in doing so, also wrote innumerable measures by which the govt. could restrict and regulate the right to keep and bear arms, and forever enshrined a nullification of the "shall not be infringed" clause.

I know I'm in the minority, but I really didn't see that as a "win" for the 2A. In one way it is, in others, it is not.

The SCOTUS (and all federal courts, especially the appellate) has become nothing more than a political tool for the 2 party system. They use it as a rallying cry for why we should vote for one candidate or the other. The real minority on the court are those who actually follow the COTUS. It's a damned shame, it really is.

Were the world black and white, I would agree with you completely, but there were tens of millions who'd have seen guns stripped from the citizenry completely. Real life is messy and doesn't cut in straight lines. Victories aren't clear-cut. You can't ever expect total victory in something as hairy as politics. Heller & McDonald were close to the strongest victory for gun rights we could have possibly hoped for - in reality, not ideology.

But I'm at risk of derailing the thread, for which I apologize.

BLACKMAGICK
07-01-2012, 02:43
I thought it was a brilliant move for conservatism, as long as you are not myopic.

SCOTUS' decision to uphold "Obamacare" is likely to become a moot point by Jan 2013. The Legislative Branch is capable of UNDOing its previous "pass it then read it" mistake. That's point #1. If the people want to abolish it, let the people do it.

Point #2. By turning it from a Fed intrusive requirement into a Tax Issue, it is easier to repeal. Your repeal argument now become: simply "less tax", rather than the commerce issue of Fed making personal decision for you.

Point #3. The last Read-my-lips-no-new-tax promise factored into a one-termer for G. HW Bush. Obama had just "step in it". Obamacare has become OBAMAtax !

Had SCOTUS decided against Obamacare, Obama stands better chance to be re-elected, meaning more trash and more liberal Justices appointed in his next term !

It's a case of win-the-battle but lost-the-war.

I keep trying to wash and rinse using this view but I keep finding the same stain...that Roberts found a tax/tax fine constitutional for something...we don't buy. Wasn't he supposed to address that part of it? I believe (and I'm not 100% sure as I didn't read their dissents) Scalia and Thomas approached it from that angle. I would have preferred Roberts did also, as THAT part is what gets me...not the tax itself.

I would have preferred a direct tax on income as opposed to forcing me to buy something I otherwise wouldn't regardless of how right or wrong anyone feels it is...it is another freedom of choice gone and leaves a huge, gaping hole open for the next "We think you should buy so and so because so and so..."

Hell, he could of ruled it unconstitutional just based on how many waivers there are, thus an "unequal" tax.

That this was some kind of brilliant, political strategy by Roberts so O is done come November...I'll need more convincing. Even if Mitt wins and even if this is repealed (I think I have a better chance of walking on the moon personally) what about the part where we were taxed for NOT buying something? Does THAT get addressed or is that now considered precedent?

I would like to be as optimistic as you are but personally, I feel it's over, it's done but for a few finishing touches to come. No one would be happier to be wrong than I. Though it's not the end of the world, it's a huge blow to personal freedom IMO and I think it's just the beginning of this type of legislation now that the door is open.

I take vacation every year, the week of the 4th to barbecue, watch the fireworks and celebrate what was the birth of a nation of free people, giving rise to the greatest nation the world has ever known IMESHO. Though I'll be on vacation this year too...I just ain't feelin' it. I will always be proud of my country as founded and for what was the intent of the founders who to me were nothing short of absolute, unadulterated genius. And I will always be proud of those who understand the sacrifices that were made for personal freedom and those who so easily make them but the tree of liberty can take just so many blows of an axe.

rgregoryb
07-01-2012, 05:28
Opinions can be Non-American.

and who is the judge of said opinions?

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 07:29
The ACA will never be repealed. Never.

Unfortunately, you are correct.

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 08:27
I don't understand why so many are shocked.

If the federal government can force you into a retirement plan by calling it a tax, why can't they force you into a healthcare plan by calling it a tax?:dunno:

Most here seem to support the retirement plan. Why don't you support the healthcare plan?

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 08:29
I don't understand why so many are shocked.

If the federal government can force you into a retirement plan by calling it a tax, why can't they force you into a healthcare plan by calling it a tax?:dunno:

Most here seem to support the retirement plan. Why don't you support the healthcare plan?

Once they start paying into it they will defend it as vigorously as they do SS.

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 08:34
Once they start paying into it they will defend it as vigorously as they do SS.

Bingo!!

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 08:35
How is this any less constitutional than Medicare??

HexHead
07-01-2012, 08:36
I agree with you about Kagan as she had a definite conflict of interest and should have recused herself on this ruling.

Are you aware that Kagan was one of the three Justices that found forcing the States to expand Medicaid under duress of losing all Federal Medicaid funding unconstitutional?

Yes, the only part of 0bamacare that was struck down was with Kagan's help.

Maybe all you idiots need to stop reading Politico or listening to Krauthammer and actually read the 193 page decision for yourselves instead of being told what to think?

Jonesee
07-01-2012, 12:06
Are you aware that Kagan was one of the three Justices that found forcing the States to expand Medicaid under duress of losing all Federal Medicaid funding unconstitutional?

Yes, the only part of 0bamacare that was struck down was with Kagan's help.

Maybe all you idiots need to stop reading Politico or listening to Krauthammer and actually read the 193 page decision for yourselves instead of being told what to think?

RubleNoon gets all his information from blogs. We have discussed this in other threads too. And if you ask to footnote an actual fact he will send you to yet another blog...

Long on speculations and hearsay, short on data.

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 12:17
RubleNoon gets all his information from blogs. We have discussed tis in other threads too. And if you ask to footnote an actual fact he will send you to yet another blog...

Long on speculations and hearsay, short on data.

Did your momma stick you back in the gas oven?

Cavalry Doc
07-01-2012, 14:30
Attack on debate tactic followed by personal attack.

QNman
07-01-2012, 16:03
Better.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Then you're either a liberal or blindly disingenuous.

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 16:23
Then you're either a liberal or blindly disingenuous.

Ya think?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

engineer151515
07-01-2012, 17:00
No he did not. The government argued that this law was constitutional under the commerce clause and the fine was a penalty which Roberts deemed unconstitutional. Roberts rewrote it as a tax and allowable under the legislatures taxing ability.

This is truth. And I would argue that it proves Roberts is incompetent.

Since we can't even get the Democrat tax evaders and conflict of interest money funnelers to justice, I don't think we have a chance in hell of Congress actually defending the Consitution and the simplist mechanics of the Judicial branch of government.

Besides, Liberals have spent 50 years dumbing down public education and Social Sciences in order for this entire concept of Constitutional deconstruction and mob rule to pass the public muster. Everything you see the Democrats doing, from class envy "tax the rich" to running the country without a budget, to orchestrating healthcare as a public right, all require lack of fundamental understanding of self governance, and an economic over-reliance of more than half of the public on the government.

With this ruling, Liberals have validated their success in reforming the public's concept of what their government should be doing for them. The philosophy of the United States of America has been generationally changed. We might not see the return to true Constitutional Republic concepts until our children are taught the meaning of the basic documents that formed this country. Goodness knows when that day will come.

LawScholar
07-01-2012, 17:16
Did your momma stick you back in the gas oven?

Aaand the personal attack without any other argument - a whole post just to insult - murders any remaining credibility.

Why should people listen to you if you can't defend your points without stuff like that?

steveksux
07-01-2012, 17:18
In point of fact, if Roberts HAD hatched an ingenious plan to make Obama lose the election by issuing this ruling as a millstone around his neck, THAT would be (seems to me) at least as onerous as "legislating from the bench".

Not sure if that rises to the level of an impeachable offense, but it would be way out of bounds, would make a mockery of the institution of the Court. Would be just as true no matter which side of the aisle was benefited by it. Clear violation of his oath.

Randy

Ruble Noon
07-01-2012, 17:22
Aaand the personal attack without any other argument - a whole post just to insult - murders any remaining credibility.

Why should people listen to you if you can't defend your points without stuff like that?

Why should we listen to you? If you look back through this thread you will see that Jonsee started the personal attacks and FYI he is just another troll that stalks me on this forum. Nice of you to interdict though.

greentriple
07-01-2012, 20:44
and who is the judge of said opinions?

Well, clearly conservatives spear head that definition, ask one.




Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
07-01-2012, 20:46
Are you aware that Kagan was one of the three Justices that found forcing the States to expand Medicaid under duress of losing all Federal Medicaid funding unconstitutional?

Yes, the only part of 0bamacare that was struck down was with Kagan's help.

Maybe all you idiots need to stop reading Politico or listening to Krauthammer and actually read the 193 page decision for yourselves instead of being told what to think?

👍


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
07-01-2012, 20:49
Then you're either a liberal or blindly disingenuous.

Genuinely a contrarian, critical thinker, non-conformist, non-joiner, sarcastic SOB and general sceptic PITA.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

greentriple
07-01-2012, 20:50
In point of fact, if Roberts HAD hatched an ingenious plan to make Obama lose the election by issuing this ruling as a millstone around his neck, THAT would be (seems to me) at least as onerous as "legislating from the bench".

Not sure if that rises to the level of an impeachable offense, but it would be way out of bounds, would make a mockery of the institution of the Court. Would be just as true no matter which side of the aisle was benefited by it. Clear violation of his oath.

Randy

Very well scribed.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Drjones
07-01-2012, 21:24
I thought it was a brilliant move for conservatism, as long as you are not myopic.

SCOTUS' decision to uphold "Obamacare" is likely to become a moot point by Jan 2013. The Legislative Branch is capable of UNDOing its previous "pass it then read it" mistake. That's point #1. If the people want to abolish it, let the people do it.

Point #2. By turning it from a Fed intrusive requirement into a Tax Issue, it is easier to repeal. Your repeal argument now become: simply "less tax", rather than the commerce issue of Fed making personal decision for you.

Point #3. The last Read-my-lips-no-new-tax promise factored into a one-termer for G. HW Bush. Obama had just "step in it". Obamacare has become OBAMAtax !

Had SCOTUS decided against Obamacare, Obama stands better chance to be re-elected, meaning more trash and more liberal Justices appointed in his next term !

It's a case of win-the-battle but lost-the-war.


I agree with this perspective for these reasons and more. I've held off posting on GT about this issue until I really wrap my brain around it more and read the actual decision, but I do believe that, even if the decision is not outright good, it contains lots of positive elements/precedent for future SCOTUS decisions.

I still would have loved for the court to throw it out completely, but as I heard on the radio; dems got their victory, but the GOP now has a cause. I think this decision will galvanize, rally & energize people to get out & vote for Romney.

We should all be far more energized to go vote, much more than the commies, who are all thinking, "k, we won, now we can relax and rub it in those right-wing nuts' faces!"

Striking down husseincare would have galvanized the left. I pray Roberts didn't take any of this into consideration when deciding this case, but as said above, we will never, ever know.

In any case, one of the biggest positives of this decision is that he called out the prez & the left as the liars they all are: all along we were assured that "it's just not a tax", now SCOTUS said, the only reason we are letting this live is because it IS a tax!"

Again, still formulating my final opinions on this, but overall I think we will be ok, if not better off because of this decision.

Just bought a shotgun and more ammo this weekend anyway though. :supergrin:

Drjones
07-01-2012, 21:26
I keep trying to wash and rinse using this view but I keep finding the same stain...that Roberts found a tax/tax fine constitutional for something...we don't buy. Wasn't he supposed to address that part of it? I believe (and I'm not 100% sure as I didn't read their dissents) Scalia and Thomas approached it from that angle. I would have preferred Roberts did also, as THAT part is what gets me...not the tax itself.

I would have preferred a direct tax on income as opposed to forcing me to buy something I otherwise wouldn't regardless of how right or wrong anyone feels it is...it is another freedom of choice gone and leaves a huge, gaping hole open for the next "We think you should buy so and so because so and so..."

Hell, he could of ruled it unconstitutional just based on how many waivers there are, thus an "unequal" tax.

That this was some kind of brilliant, political strategy by Roberts so O is done come November...I'll need more convincing. Even if Mitt wins and even if this is repealed (I think I have a better chance of walking on the moon personally) what about the part where we were taxed for NOT buying something? Does THAT get addressed or is that now considered precedent?

I would like to be as optimistic as you are but personally, I feel it's over, it's done but for a few finishing touches to come. No one would be happier to be wrong than I. Though it's not the end of the world, it's a huge blow to personal freedom IMO and I think it's just the beginning of this type of legislation now that the door is open.

I take vacation every year, the week of the 4th to barbecue, watch the fireworks and celebrate what was the birth of a nation of free people, giving rise to the greatest nation the world has ever known IMESHO. Though I'll be on vacation this year too...I just ain't feelin' it. I will always be proud of my country as founded and for what was the intent of the founders who to me were nothing short of absolute, unadulterated genius. And I will always be proud of those who understand the sacrifices that were made for personal freedom and those who so easily make them but the tree of liberty can take just so many blows of an axe.



I also agree with this post.

But I think we've already walked on the moon, haven't we? ;)

certifiedfunds
07-01-2012, 21:31
Genuinely a contrarian, critical thinker, non-conformist, non-joiner, sarcastic SOB and general sceptic PITA.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

:rofl:You fall pretty much lock step with the folks over at the DU.

ModGlock17
07-01-2012, 22:01
.

...

I would like to be as optimistic as you are but personally, I feel it's over, it's done but for a few finishing touches to come. No one would be happier to be wrong than I. Though it's not the end of the world, it's a huge blow to personal freedom IMO and I think it's just the beginning of this type of legislation now that the door is open.

..

Keep the faith. If we'd fall over and forfeit every time the road gets tough, we don't deserve to be part of this country because it was (and still is) built by much better men than that.

Here's a reason to get out and vote this Nov.: on the calendar of SCOTUS for the next 10 years, there are many more landmark cases to rule on... regarding personal freedom, the way you run your businesses, the tax you pay, hiring quotas, etc.

If Obama gets to appoint a couple more liberal judges, we'd have A WHOLE WAY OF LIFE to lose.

Let me say that again. If O wins this November, we'd have A WHOLE WAY of LIFE to lose....

Gundude
07-01-2012, 22:10
Keep the faith. If we'd fall over and forfeit every time the road gets tough, we don't deserve to be part of this country because it was (and still is) built by much better men than that.

Here's a reason to get out and vote this Nov.: on the calendar of SCOTUS for the next 10 years, there are many more landmark cases to rule on... regarding personal freedom, the way you run your businesses, the tax you pay, hiring quotas, etc.

If Obama gets to appoint a couple more liberal judges, we'd have A WHOLE WAY OF LIFE to lose.

Let me say that again. If O wins this November, we'd have A WHOLE WAY of LIFE to lose....Obama's judges ruled the same way those he replaced would have ruled. The same can't be said for Bush's judges. If you think Romney wouldn't also shift the makeup of the court to the left, you're dreaming.

ModGlock17
07-01-2012, 22:14
....

Again, still formulating my final opinions on this, but overall I think we will be ok, if not better off because of this decision.

Just bought a shotgun and more ammo this weekend anyway though. :supergrin:

My thinking is this: if Obama doesn't enter the lecture circus at Liberal Colleges starting January but rather picking more liberal judges for the SCOTUS....

then my right to carry a firearm, enjoying it, etc. may end when a liberal dominated SCOTUS decides that the 2nd Ad is meant ONLY for the late 1,700s when an armed force of the US was inferior to that of England, that it had to rely on armed citizens to defend the country, that we no longer need it since we've the most awesome military capability in the world.

ModGlock17
07-01-2012, 22:19
Obama's judges ruled the same way those he replaced would have ruled. The same can't be said for Bush's judges. If you think Romney wouldn't also shift the makeup of the court to the left, you're dreaming.


Heresay, Gundude as to what Romney would do.

Fact is, history is... that Obama is a known and undesireable quantity for the country.

Gundude
07-01-2012, 22:21
Heresay, Gundude as to what Romney would do.

Fact is, history is... that Obama is a known and undesireable quantity for the country.How is it that the people who voted for Obama in 2008 are so dumb, and the people who vote for Romney in 2012 are so smart?

We knew who Obama was in 2008, and we know who Romney is in 2012.

Stubudd
07-02-2012, 01:39
Attack on debate tactic followed by personal attack.

lol, thanks for the play by play marv albert- which posts were you referring to though

BLACKMAGICK
07-02-2012, 01:51
I also agree with this post.

But I think we've already walked on the moon, haven't we? ;)

Yes Doc, we as a people have but I meant me personally as in the bill has as much chance of getting repealed as {I} personally...walking on the moon. I could start training to become an astronaut or NASA could start offering free rides but then we start get into even more unlikely things. ;)

BLACKMAGICK
07-02-2012, 01:52
lol, thanks for the play by play marv albert- which posts were you referring to though

Pretty sure he was referring to the two posts immediately before his.

Stubudd
07-02-2012, 01:58
Pretty sure he was referring to the two posts immediately before his.

yea i know. he left out the first personal attack in his play by play

HarlDane
07-02-2012, 03:03
No he did not. The government argued that this law was constitutional under the commerce clause and the fine was a penalty which Roberts deemed unconstitutional. Roberts rewrote it as a tax and allowable under the legislatures taxing ability.
Which part did he re-write? What text in the bill was changed by Roberts?



As a justice he isn't required to choose one of the arguments laid out by the attorney's from either side.

Jonesee
07-02-2012, 06:02
Why should we listen to you? If you look back through this thread you will see that Jonsee started the personal attacks and FYI he is just another troll that stalks me on this forum. Nice of you to interdict though.


You are wrong on many counts. You think I stalk you because I look at facts and am not afraid to call BS on anyone that is not accurate. It isn't you, don't be paranoid.

You just happen to be one of the worst about reading blogs and bringing it forward as a fact. You may agree with the unsubstantiated opinions of bloggers, but please understand these are not facts.

Do your research, debate a topic intelligently and stay away from sophomoric personal attacks.

eracer
07-02-2012, 06:13
How many of us here DON'T already have health insurance?

certifiedfunds
07-02-2012, 06:35
How many of us here DON'T already have health insurance?

Now, yes.

The law is designed to start stressing the current private system. Most analysts believe that companies will hold on as long as they can but as soon as one or two major companies drop coverage in favor of the fine (which is cheaper and will get more so) there will be a cascade of companies doing the same.

JFrame
07-02-2012, 06:41
Now, yes.

The law is designed to start stressing the current private system. Most analysts believe that companies will hold on as long as they can but as soon as one or two major companies drop coverage in favor of the fine (which is cheaper and will get more so) there will be a cascade of companies doing the same.


Yep -- Obamacare is simply an incremental step toward a U.K.-style government-run single payer system.


.

eracer
07-02-2012, 06:48
Now, yes.

The law is designed to start stressing the current private system. Most analysts believe that companies will hold on as long as they can but as soon as one or two major companies drop coverage in favor of the fine (which is cheaper and will get more so) there will be a cascade of companies doing the same.This decision allows consumers to shop for insurance across state lines, right? How is competition a bad thing? Insurance company profits may go down, as our choices go up, but that's the nature of the beast. Insurance is so far away from the ideal model of cooperative dilution of risk, it may be the best thing for us as consumers if the whole industry was just flushed.

Share holders might get all pissy. Too bad.

HexHead
07-02-2012, 07:12
Which part did he re-write? What text in the bill was changed by Roberts?



As a justice he isn't required to choose one of the arguments laid out by the attorney's from either side.

Roberts didn't rewrite anything. During oral arguments, the Soliciter General kept referring to the fine as a tax. He even had to be reminded by Justice Breyer that it was supposed to be a penalty. He then called it a tax penalty.

JFrame
07-02-2012, 07:23
He didn't rewrite anything. During oral arguments, the Soliciter General kept referring to the fine as a tax. He even had to be reminded by Justice Breyer that it was supposed to be a penalty. He then called it a tax penalty.


:rofl:

Leftists are great at the double-speak...It's the "White Hispanic" all over again... :supergrin:


.

HexHead
07-02-2012, 07:38
Buying across state lines is a fallacy that's not going to happen unless the federal govt. takes away regulating insurance from the states. Insurance is priced based on the claims history in that state. That's the major reason it is priced differently from state to state. Allowing anyone to buy insurance just based on price alone from wherever it's cheapest will wreak havoc with the actuarial tables used for pricing. You will either end up seeing major price increases of that cheaper insurance, or the companies will just drop out of the health insurance business all together to concentrate on other more profitable lines of imsirance, as many have already done. The people pushing for insurance to be sold across state lines are either completely ignorant how insurance works, or their ultimate goal is a govt. run single payer system.

JFrame
07-02-2012, 07:54
Buying across state lines is a fallacy that's not going to happen unless the federal govt. takes away regulating insurance from the states. Insurance is priced based on the claims history in that state. That's the major reason it is priced differently from state to state. Allowing anyone to buy insurance just based on price alone from wherever it's cheapest will wreak havoc with the actuarial tables used for pricing. You will either end up seeing major price increases of that cheaper insurance, or the companies will just drop out of the health insurance business all together to concentrate on other more profitable lines of imsirance, as many have already done. The people pushing for insurance to be sold across state lines are either completely ignorant how insurance works, or their ultimate goal is a govt. run single payer system.


Interesting point...


.

BLACKMAGICK
07-02-2012, 08:15
Keep the faith. If we'd fall over and forfeit every time the road gets tough, we don't deserve to be part of this country because it was (and still is) built by much better men than that.

Here's a reason to get out and vote this Nov.: on the calendar of SCOTUS for the next 10 years, there are many more landmark cases to rule on... regarding personal freedom, the way you run your businesses, the tax you pay, hiring quotas, etc.

If Obama gets to appoint a couple more liberal judges, we'd have A WHOLE WAY OF LIFE to lose.

Let me say that again. If O wins this November, we'd have A WHOLE WAY of LIFE to lose....

I'll try, to keep the faith that is, just hard when we can count on one party to never fail to crap all over the Constitution, while our own is only too glad to help them.

I agree with you that if he continues another four it's game over, last one out...turn out the lights. I do not however think anyone here needed another reason to get to the polls. I'll certainly be voting. I'm stunned and dismayed but I'll be voting. This was a big win for them and a big loss for us, made possible by one of our own? A Bush appointee who knows the Constitution by line and heart...yet...it's a tax...

...on something you didn't buy.

HarlDane
07-02-2012, 09:41
Roberts didn't rewrite anything. During oral arguments, the Soliciter General kept referring to the fine as a tax. He even had to be reminded by Justice Breyer that it was supposed to be a penalty. He then called it a tax penalty.
I understand that as do most here (the mantra of "any gov. fine is just a tax by another name" has been repeated often here), but Ruble seems to be confused.

engineer151515
07-02-2012, 10:12
Buying across state lines is a fallacy that's not going to happen unless the federal govt. takes away regulating insurance from the states. Insurance is priced based on the claims history in that state. That's the major reason it is priced differently from state to state. Allowing anyone to buy insurance just based on price alone from wherever it's cheapest will wreak havoc with the actuarial tables used for pricing. You will either end up seeing major price increases of that cheaper insurance, or the companies will just drop out of the health insurance business all together to concentrate on other more profitable lines of imsirance, as many have already done. The people pushing for insurance to be sold across state lines are either completely ignorant how insurance works, or their ultimate goal is a govt. run single payer system.

I have to agree.

Risks will become nationally quantified and cheap insurance States will see a huge run-up in prices.

I doubt any of the more expensive states (read: California) will actually see insurance price reductions. Just increases on the lower end.

Ruble Noon
07-02-2012, 10:29
Roberts didn't rewrite anything. During oral arguments, the Soliciter General kept referring to the fine as a tax. He even had to be reminded by Justice Breyer that it was supposed to be a penalty. He then called it a tax penalty.

Because they couldn't argue it as a tax until someone has actually paid the tax. So they posed this as a penalty under the commerce clause. Roberts ruled it constitutional as a tax and within the legislatures power.

certifiedfunds
07-02-2012, 10:29
This decision allows consumers to shop for insurance across state lines, right? How is competition a bad thing? Insurance company profits may go down, as our choices go up, but that's the nature of the beast. Insurance is so far away from the ideal model of cooperative dilution of risk, it may be the best thing for us as consumers if the whole industry was just flushed.

Share holders might get all pissy. Too bad.

Its about a whole lot more than that.

Lack of competition across state lines is such a small part of the issue it's hardly worth even mentioning. Its a distraction to keep people from examining the real issues.

Ruble Noon
07-02-2012, 10:31
You are wrong on many counts. You think I stalk you because I look at facts and am not afraid to call BS on anyone that is not accurate. It isn't you, don't be paranoid.

You just happen to be one of the worst about reading blogs and bringing it forward as a fact. You may agree with the unsubstantiated opinions of bloggers, but please understand these are not facts.

Do your research, debate a topic intelligently and stay away from sophomoric personal attacks.

No, your first post in this forum was a personal attack on me. You are a troll and a sorry one at that. Piss off you old bastage.