Roberts Originally Voted to Strike Down Obamacare [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Roberts Originally Voted to Strike Down Obamacare


Ruble Noon
07-02-2012, 13:56
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/roberts-decision-kennedy-cbs/2012/07/01/id/444121?s=al&promo_code=F5B0-1

DonGlock26
07-02-2012, 14:21
Who turned him?

_

Ruble Noon
07-02-2012, 14:26
Who turned him?

_

Maybe they threatened to Vince Foster him. Obama does have that secret kill list now and the power to assassinate American citizens. :whistling:

Cavalry Doc
07-02-2012, 16:26
Also heard he was trying to lobby Kennedy for a month or two.

Maybe when he retires and writes his memoir, well know. Till then, it's just gossip.

beforeobamabans
07-02-2012, 16:47
It doesn't matter now. The die is cast.

What this does do is debunk the idea that choice of a presidential candidate somehow controls the SCOTUS nominees you're going to get. The fact that Romney is from the liberal NE and those are the people he knows and trusts tells me we cannot count on him for strict constructionists.

Cavalry Doc
07-02-2012, 17:01
I'd bet after the Roberts fiasco, if we have conservatives in the Senate, they will at least try to get some strict constructionists in. Not even an option if Barry is picking them.

Fred Hansen
07-03-2012, 01:15
Who turned him?

_IF he turned...

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that Romney's frontrunner status in the primary was a huge influence. The timeline would be approximately correct. Maybe Roberts figured that if the Republicans plan to run Hussein's doppelgänger as the "fix" to the worst presidency in history, then why should he stick his neck out? He did seem to imply that the ****ing Americans got, was the ****ing they gave themselves. :dunno: I can't say that I would disagree with such an assessment.

OTOH maybe he caved from the pressure of not being asked to hang out with all the kewl kids who inhabit that dismal swamp. Perhaps he dreams of being invited for a Whoopi/Joy/Bawbwa 3-way lapdance on The View for sweeps week, now that he is a rock star. :puking: :dunno: :puking:

What ever it was--turned or not--we're all ****ed now. If there is no power the Congress lacks--provide that a majority of Justices claim said power is a tax--then I can hardly see what the point of having a SCOTUS is anymore. Even death penalty appeals could be rendered moot. The sentencing judge can simply claim it is a tax the condemned pays with his life.

And Romney is already backing off of repeal by sending one of his staff asswipes out to say the ACA isn't a tax. So much for the repeal fantasy.

cowboywannabe
07-03-2012, 01:23
for it to pass constitutional muster roberts had to rewrite it as a tax. why he did this? only his gay lover black mailing him really knows.

BLACKMAGICK
07-03-2012, 02:25
for it to pass constitutional muster roberts had to rewrite it as a tax. why he did this? only his gay lover black mailing him really knows.

No, it STILL doesn't pass Constitutional muster. Roberts flat out ignored the Constitution and with a what he felt was a deft maneuver called it a tax because he knew they hadn't. This slight of hand is lost on no one here. We all know that even as a tax it does not meet the requirements of the type of tax the government can impose. He knows it and we know it. The Constitution is very clear on what can be taxed and something you don't buy isn't one of them. This could very well be why the fine/tax whatever the &*%! you want to call it isn't enforceable by the IRS.

Bren
07-03-2012, 04:44
No, it STILL doesn't pass Constitutional muster. Roberts flat out ignored the Constitution and with a what he felt was a deft maneuver called it a tax because he knew they hadn't. This slight of hand is lost on no one here. We all know that even as a tax it does not meet the requirements of the type of tax the government can impose. He knows it and we know it. The Constitution is very clear on what can be taxed and something you don't buy isn't one of them. This could very well be why the fine/tax whatever the &*%! you want to call it isn't enforceable by the IRS.

It does seem strange that he called it a tax, while the government's lawyers were insisting that it was not. Maybe there is more to the thinking. Who knows?

eracer
07-03-2012, 04:48
Anonymous sources 'apparently' close to the Supreme Court?

Sounds like the kind of speculative nonsense we get from the liberal vomitoria every day.

walt cowan
07-03-2012, 06:32
Black mail.

JFrame
07-03-2012, 06:52
I'd bet after the Roberts fiasco, if we have conservatives in the Senate, they will at least try to get some strict constructionists in. Not even an option if Barry is picking them.


Yup...


.

evlbruce
07-03-2012, 06:58
I'd bet after the Roberts fiasco, if we have conservatives in the Senate, they will at least try to get some strict constructionists in. Not even an option if Barry is picking them.

Alternatively, Mittens and his fellows could see all the praise lavished by the MSM on a "wise" and "prudent" justice and see such appointments as the key to retaining office.

JFrame
07-03-2012, 07:00
We need to get more conservative GOP senators elected into office.


.

certifiedfunds
07-03-2012, 07:31
He has certainly carved out his place in history.

The Roberts court and its landmark decision.

Perhaps he was inspired by John McCain...........

Dbltapglock
07-03-2012, 11:08
deleted

HexHead
07-03-2012, 11:21
It does seem strange that he called it a tax, while the government's lawyers were insisting that it was not. Maybe there is more to the thinking. Who knows?

I guess you weren't paying attention during the oral arguments. 0bama's Solicitor General repeatedly referred to the payment as a tax. He was even reminded by Justice Breyer that it was supposed to be a penalty, and he then referred to it as a tax penalty before correcting himself.

I guess Roberts was listening while the guy was speaking.

HexHead
07-03-2012, 11:24
Anonymous sources 'apparently' close to the Supreme Court?

Sounds like the kind of speculative nonsense we get from the liberal vomitoria every day.


Yes, I wonder where this came from? SCOTUS justices aren't know for having loose lips. I doubt he was discussing it with the janitor cleaning his office at night.

G29Reload
07-03-2012, 11:30
looks like my original prediction was correct.

It was gonna go down hard, 5-4.


The problem is, roberts is vain. He's a little girl, more like Penny Marshall than justice marshall after who he fancies himself.

He's concerned with image and politics more than weighing the balance against the COTUS.

As Krauthammer said,if he's gonna go to every length to make sure a statute stands, even when its a reach, WTF is the point of having the Court and Judicial review? If it passes congress, that's it, its law and you should never get in the way of that. Just close the whole damn court down.

The main driver Roberts cited was some old precedent, i don't have the slip opinion in front of me, but it was something to the effect of, every possible reasonable construct should be engaged in order to find a law constitutional. You should grant the law every reasonable chance and if even one way exists, it should be observed and upheld.

I am of a different opinion. Laws should be passed above board and every care made to see the law follows the COTUS.

If said law is so suspect that it meets a major court challenge, the law should then be held to the HIGHEST standard, and if there's anything remotely unconstitutional about it, it should be immediately be struck down. Get it right because fidelity to the COTUS is more important than anything else unless there is some outrageously compelling reason to find otherwise. Benefit of the doubt should always be to the COTUS, not temporary politicians.

cowboywannabe
07-03-2012, 11:46
looks like my original prediction was correct.

It was gonna go down hard, 5-4.


The problem is, roberts is vain. He's a little girl, more like Penny Marshall than justice marshall after who he fancies himself.

He's concerned with image and politics more than weighing the balance against the COTUS.

As Krauthammer said,if he's gonna go to every length to make sure a statute stands, even when its a reach, WTF is the point of having the Court and Judicial review? If it passes congress, that's it, its law and you should never get in the way of that. Just close the whole damn court down.

The main driver Roberts cited was some old precedent, i don't have the slip opinion in front of me, but it was something to the effect of, every possible reasonable construct should be engaged in order to find a law constitutional. You should grant the law every reasonable chance and if even one way exists, it should be observed and upheld.

I am of a different opinion. Laws should be passed above board and every care made to see the law follows the COTUS.

If said law is so suspect that it meets a major court challenge, the law should then be held to the HIGHEST standard, and if there's anything remotely unconstitutional about it, it should be immediately be struck down. Get it right because fidelity to the COTUS is more important than anything else unless there is some outrageously compelling reason to find otherwise. Benefit of the doubt should always be to the COTUS, not temporary politicians.

Sir, allow me to :rofl::rofl::rofl:. you must not have witnessed the DNC in action or any other extremist groups.

you said this part which i underlined like you thought America still exsisted. truth is Amerika is becoming more and more the English colony it once was, and loosing much of its freedom.

Fred Hansen
07-03-2012, 12:00
It does seem strange that he called it a tax, while the government's lawyers were insisting that it was not. Maybe there is more to the thinking. Who knows?If it is a tax, wouldn't the Tax Anti-Injunction Act preclude a ruling until after the tax is collected?

Perhaps this is the first law that is simultaneously everything, and nothing, and thus proof of Hussein's Messiah status. :upeyes:

norton
07-03-2012, 12:15
If memory serves, the Democrats put up very little fight to the nomination of Roberts, certainly nothing like Thomas and other Republican nominees. The dem's apparently knew something-
Republicans nominate SCJ's, and sometimes they get snookered.
Democrats nominate SCJ's and they get exactly what they want.
Democrats know how to play the game.
Republicans can be rubes at times.

Narkcop
07-03-2012, 12:37
Working class Americans got ****ed!!!

Cavalry Doc
07-03-2012, 13:31
Alternatively, Mittens and his fellows could see all the praise lavished by the MSM on a "wise" and "prudent" justice and see such appointments as the key to retaining office.

If you had to pick one, only one has a chance of getting a conservative on the bench, the other is 100% liberal.

Sucks huh? No easy decisions this time around.

G29Reload
07-04-2012, 02:22
you said this part which i underlined like you thought America still exsisted.

No, you fail to comprehend what I wrote. I pretend no such thing, or we wouldn't have anything to even talk about here.

I said that's the way it SHOULD be. And that I disagree with the precedent he relied on. I was suggesting what we OUGHT to be doing.

cowboywannabe
07-04-2012, 10:24
no, you fail to comprehend what i wrote. I pretend no such thing, or we wouldn't have anything to even talk about here.

I said that's the way it should be. And that i disagree with the precedent he relied on. I was suggesting what we ought to be doing.

magwa understand white man very much. The tongue in cheek smilie is elusive.

Fred Hansen
07-04-2012, 13:00
magwa understand white man very much. The tongue in cheek smilie is elusive.:rofl: