How Bout That "Conservative" John Roberts?...

[konradv]

LOL Loose cannon because I hate my hard earned money taking care of someone else??

Yep.

As I said. If you think its a great idea then you and all likeminded just open up your wallets and have at it.

By all means. Carry on.

How is your hard-earned money going to taking care of someone else? That's already happening whenever the uninsured gets treatment and we pay higher bills and premiums to cover them. If you already have insurance, you won't be taxed. If you don't, then you're one of the freeloaders.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Sorry, no bamboozle.

To repost a text I wrote in another thread....
The Robertson decision is good for conservatives for several reasons:
1. It makes the Obamacare law easy to repeal. Since it is a tax legally now, there can be no filibuster to defeat a repeal in the Senate, so the GOP only needs 51 votes now not 60.

2. It struck down individual mandates. An individual mandate can have many kinds of penalties from house arrest to property forfeiture to jail time, but since Roberts accepted the Obama argument that this was a tax, the only 'penalty that can be assessed in this case is a fine and it can pass in the form of a tax increas for everyone that buying the insurance allows you to be exempt from. This is a huge decision in favor of individual rights.

3. This decision has made the law a plain out right tax increase, making Obama the unsurpassed record holder for tax hikes in US history, as well as for deficit creation.

4. Lastly, but most importantly, he struck down the Medicaid withdrawal for states that opt out, saying that such laws are unconstitutional and violate the Tenth Amendment. This is the by far the biggest set back to the growth of federal power since the Civil War. Now if Congress passes another law like the mandatory seat belt law which penalized a state by witholding its highway funds if they didnt make seat belts mandatory, the states can take it to court arguing that in the Obamacare decision these kind of penalties are unconstitutional. This just cut the domestic testicles from DC as a power center, and we are going to see states act much more autonomously from now on.

 

[Liability]

I would definitely say Roberts is a good conservative. He is not an activist justice and did his fucking job without influence of his political leaning - as he is supposed to do.

He acted objectively.

No. He did not. He acted like a liberal and reached a bogus set of conclusions like a liberal activist. Indeed, his opinion reeks of activism.

Congress called the penalty a penalty not a tax. They did so having REJECTED a prior version which called it a tax. The choice was THEIRS to make and they did so for a variety of reasons. But still, the choice was made. CJ Roberts rewrote the legislation in order to preserve it. That was not his valid right to do.

And he doubletalked like a liberal motherfucker to then AVOID some of the CONSEQUENCES of calling it a "tax."

If it were a tax, and it did not originate in the House, then it violated the Constitution and should have been voided on that basis alone. Not even ADDRESSED by the SCOTUS.

If it were a tax, it should have been apportioned. Addressed, but not honestly or even intelligently by the CJ, who instead advised us that it wasn't THAT kind of a tax. Please.

Also, if it were a tax which nobody has yet paid (which of course nobody has yet paid or could have yet paid), then according to the anti-injunction law, the case was not ripe for judicial review. But that problem got glossed over by the CJ in similarly bogus way, again suggesting that it's not the KIND of tax which the anti-injunction law was designed to rach.



It was a hideous and dishonest decision. It WAS judicial activism and it creates a host of future problems. The CJ ought to be ashamed of himself.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It wont be too long beofre a lot of red meat conservatives are going to look back at their reactions these last two days and feel embarrassed.

This was a win and we got the Tenth Amendment hugely strengthened on top of all that for a freeby.

 

[Liability]

It wont be too long beofre a lot of red meat conservatives are going to look back at their reactions these last two days and feel embarrassed.

This was a win and we got the Tenth Amendment hugely strengthened on top of all that for a freeby.

False.

A bogus set of conclusions reached via absurd straining and activism are not harbingers of good things to come.

We got the wrong result courtesy of the very kind of judicial behavior we have railed against for so long; but this time a supposedly "conservative" jurist led the charge.

Trying to find little nuggets of "good" in that pile of shit is not an endeavor I believe will ever prove fruitful. Hey, there's an uneaten kernel of corn in my shit. Anybody want some corn?

 

[Si modo]

I would definitely say Roberts is a good conservative. He is not an activist justice and did his fucking job without influence of his political leaning - as he is supposed to do.

He acted objectively.

No. He did not. He acted like a liberal and reached a bogus set of conclusions like a liberal activist. Indeed, his opinion reeks of activism.

Congress called the penalty a penalty not a tax. They did so having REJECTED a prior version which called it a tax. The choice was THEIRS to make and they did so for a variety of reasons. But still, the choice was made. CJ Roberts rewrote the legislation in order to preserve it. That was not his valid right to do.

And he doubletalked like a liberal motherfucker to then AVOID some of the CONSEQUENCES of calling it a "tax."

If it were a tax, and it did not originate in the House, then it violated the Constitution and should have been voided on that basis alone. Not even ADDRESSED by the SCOTUS.

If it were a tax, it should have been apportioned. Addressed, but not honestly or even intelligently by the CJ, who instead advised us that it wasn't THAT kind of a tax. Please.

Also, if it were a tax which nobody has yet paid (which of course nobody has yet paid or could have yet paid), then according to the anti-injunction law, the case was not ripe for judicial review. But that problem got glossed over by the CJ in similarly bogus way, again suggesting that it's not the KIND of tax which the anti-injunction law was designed to rach.



It was a hideous and dishonest decision. It WAS judicial activism and it creates a host of future problems. The CJ ought to be ashamed of himself.

I respectfully disagree. As someone already posted, he affirmed to all that the SCOTUS really does take the 10th seriously and no POTUS or Congress can fuck with that.

He limited, albeit slightly, that abomination of the Commerce Clause.

He ensured that this abomination of an act will go back to where it was fucked up - Congress, and a different Congress at that.

He validated what the opposition has been saying for some time - Obama and the Dems are snake oil salesmen.

And, I didn't realize this until today, that abomination of an act actually did originate in the House as an HR for housing of vets. They completely scratched that and substituted this shit act in its place, in an HR.

Now, I totally agree that the principle of taxing individuals for just being alive is wrong, and he should have gone further in that. Unfortunately, and it seems to me, that he did all he could within the existing law.

And, I am loving that this self-proclaimed 'constitutional scholar' got his fraudulent ass kicked on that subject matter.

 

[Luissa]

Roberts disagreed -- and his distinction swung the case. Roberts argued that the penalty resembled a tax in a few ways. First, it raises money (about $4 billion a year according to the IRS) just like a tax. Second, it's paid to Treasury when households file their tax returns. Third, the fee is calculated based on taxable income and number of dependents, like taxes.

http://m.theatlantic.com/business/a...ed-obamacare-why-the-penalty-is-a-tax/259140/

 

[Luissa]

I would definitely say Roberts is a good conservative. He is not an activist justice and did his fucking job without influence of his political leaning - as he is supposed to do.

He acted objectively.

No. He did not. He acted like a liberal and reached a bogus set of conclusions like a liberal activist. Indeed, his opinion reeks of activism.

Congress called the penalty a penalty not a tax. They did so having REJECTED a prior version which called it a tax. The choice was THEIRS to make and they did so for a variety of reasons. But still, the choice was made. CJ Roberts rewrote the legislation in order to preserve it. That was not his valid right to do.

And he doubletalked like a liberal motherfucker to then AVOID some of the CONSEQUENCES of calling it a "tax."

If it were a tax, and it did not originate in the House, then it violated the Constitution and should have been voided on that basis alone. Not even ADDRESSED by the SCOTUS.

If it were a tax, it should have been apportioned. Addressed, but not honestly or even intelligently by the CJ, who instead advised us that it wasn't THAT kind of a tax. Please.

Also, if it were a tax which nobody has yet paid (which of course nobody has yet paid or could have yet paid), then according to the anti-injunction law, the case was not ripe for judicial review. But that problem got glossed over by the CJ in similarly bogus way, again suggesting that it's not the KIND of tax which the anti-injunction law was designed to rach.



It was a hideous and dishonest decision. It WAS judicial activism and it creates a host of future problems. The CJ ought to be ashamed of himself.

I respectfully disagree. As someone already posted, he affirmed to all that the SCOTUS really does take the 10th seriously and no POTUS or Congress can fuck with that.

He limited, albeit slightly, that abomination of the Commerce Clause.

He ensured that this abomination of an act will go back to where it was fucked up - Congress, and a different Congress at that.

He validated what the opposition has been saying for some time - Obama and the Dems are snake oil salesmen.

And, I didn't realize this until today, that abomination of an act actually did originate in the House as an HR for housing of vets. They completely scratched that and substituted this shit act in its place, in an HR.

Now, I totally agree that the principle of taxing individuals for just being alive is wrong, and he should have gone further in that. Unfortunately, and it seems to me, that he did all he could within the existing law.

And, I am loving that this self-proclaimed 'constitutional scholar' got his fraudulent ass kicked on that subject matter.

Yeah, I kind of took him saying it was a tax has a slap to Obama's face. Yeah, he let it stand but it's the point he made by calling it tax that is important.

But I feel, if you are not purchasing health care and can afford it it's your own problem if you are penalized/taxed.
I am not worried about it, I pay for my own health insurance.

 

[GuyPinestra]

I am telling you after NOV 4 we will be listening to a Chours of Lefties talk about How Roberts and the Republicans must have secretly met and Decided on this Masterful Strat to Declare the Mandate a Tax, and Inflame the Right into a Frenzy that Brought Obama down, and Gave the GOP both Houses of Congress as well.

Just wait and see.

That argument goes out the window as soon as people understand that if they have insurance, there is no tax.

There is a laundry list of new taxes imposed to support ObamaCare which fall on the backs of various and sundry businesses. In my experience I've learned that ANY tax imposed on business will be passed on to the consumer in the form of higher prices. I'm sure you realize this, as well, but it seems you're too dishonest to admit it.

Typical, really...

 

[bripat9643]

I would definitely say Roberts is a good conservative. He is not an activist justice and did his fucking job without influence of his political leaning - as he is supposed to do.

He acted objectively.

Horseshit. he's a good little boot licking statist toady. There's nothing objective about calling a penalty a tax.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL Loose cannon because I hate my hard earned money taking care of someone else??

Yep.

As I said. If you think its a great idea then you and all likeminded just open up your wallets and have at it.

By all means. Carry on.

How is your hard-earned money going to taking care of someone else? That's already happening whenever the uninsured gets treatment and we pay higher bills and premiums to cover them. If you already have insurance, you won't be taxed. If you don't, then you're one of the freeloaders.

If that's the case, then why does ACA include $900 billion in additional revenues? What's all the new money for? How can you claim its cheaper when we are being assessed additional taxes to pay for it?

Libturd brains all have a short circuit.

 

[paulitician]

Good Americans hauled off to Jail for not paying their Health Insurance 'Tax.' What an awful travesty. Shame on John Roberts.

 

[WillowTree]

I just love watching you people. When a Justice Finally does not let his Political Bias Effect his Decision you attack him, when they do, You attack them. It's Unreal.

so many of you need to Read up on what the Courts Job is. It's not to act as a Political tool where 1 Party can over rule the Other with No Basis in Law. If they can find a way under the Constitution to declare something legal, they have to. Period. If they don't they are Legislating from the Bench.

Roberts just sent it back to the people man, Obama and the Dems are gonna take a Beating in Nov, and now that it's a Tax and Not a Mandate much of the Teeth of this Bill can be more Easily Repealed with a simple Majority Vote.

I am Telling you, Conservative who are against this bill, and want to see Obama defeated in Nov, who are bitching now, are going to look back on this someday and Realize Roberts did the Right thing here.

That's the way I look at it too. But remember if the court had gone the other way the nazi libtards were prepared to castigate the fuck out of them. I still laugh cause we won Citizens United. there is some justice left in the justices. and Karma too.

 

[WillowTree]

Good Americans hauled off to Jail for not paying their Health Insurance 'Tax.' What an awful travesty. Shame on John Roberts.

Those will make for some good news cycles.

 

[WillowTree]

LOL Loose cannon because I hate my hard earned money taking care of someone else??

Yep.

As I said. If you think its a great idea then you and all likeminded just open up your wallets and have at it.

By all means. Carry on.

How is your hard-earned money going to taking care of someone else? That's already happening whenever the uninsured gets treatment and we pay higher bills and premiums to cover them. If you already have insurance, you won't be taxed. If you don't, then you're one of the freeloaders.

If that's the case, then why does ACA include $900 billion in additional revenues? What's all the new money for? How can you claim its cheaper when we are being assessed additional taxes to pay for it?

Libturd brains all have a short circuit.

Not to mention the theft of 500 billion from the medicare frunds to fund it. They stealing from the very people who need the most care. Know what that amounts to? that's right. Death panels and rationed care.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Good Americans hauled off to Jail for not paying their Health Insurance 'Tax.' What an awful travesty. Shame on John Roberts.

There is no provision to haul anyone off to jail, stop being such a reactionary. I hate the ACA as much as anyone else, and I'm one of the folks that would benefit from it, so please don't start calling me names.

The fact remains that SCOTUS has accomplished a LOT with their ruling.
1.) ACA defined as a tax, meaning it can be repealed with 51 votes in the Senate. (See: reconciliation)
2.) Significantly weakened Congress' ability to abuse the Commerce Clause, which by itself may be the MOST important part of this ruling.
3.) Limited the Federal power to punish states financially if they 'opt out' of ACA.
4.) Reaffirmed the 9th and 10th Amendments.

Not bad for 1 day's work, IMHO...

 

[paulitician]

Good Americans hauled off to Jail for not paying their Health Insurance 'Tax.' What an awful travesty. Shame on John Roberts.

Those will make for some good news cycles.

Yes, and the Nanny/Police Stater sheep will surely rejoice. What a mess.

 

[swizzlee]

Time for you to settle down..................

You're going off the deep end on this one and allowing your knee-jerk anger to control your thinking.

Justice Roberts ruled according to the law. That's his job.

He also stated that Supreme Court rulings only rule on the legalities presented and NOT on the merits of the law.

He also made it quite clear [by poking a stick in our eyes] that it is we, the people, who elected those responsible for passing this law and that if we didn't like the law, we were free to vote them out.

Relax a bit and take the time to read legitimate reviews of this decision, what it does and what it doesn't do and I think you may change your mind and begin to realize just what a brilliant decision Roberts just made.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Time for you to settle down..................

You're going off the deep end on this one and allowing your knee-jerk anger to control your thinking.

Justice Roberts ruled according to the law. That's his job.

He also stated that Supreme Court rulings only rule on the legalities presented and NOT on the merits of the law.

He also made it quite clear [by poking a stick in our eyes] that it is we, the people, who elected those responsible for passing this law and that if we didn't like the law, we were free to vote them out.

Relax a bit and take the time to read legitimate reviews of this decision, what it does and what it doesn't do and I think you may change your mind and begin to realize just what a brilliant decision Roberts just made.

How much you want to bet those who help pass the tax will still be in DC passing more tax?

 

[paulitician]

Time for you to settle down..................

You're going off the deep end on this one and allowing your knee-jerk anger to control your thinking.

Justice Roberts ruled according to the law. That's his job.

He also stated that Supreme Court rulings only rule on the legalities presented and NOT on the merits of the law.

He also made it quite clear [by poking a stick in our eyes] that it is we, the people, who elected those responsible for passing this law and that if we didn't like the law, we were free to vote them out.

Relax a bit and take the time to read legitimate reviews of this decision, what it does and what it doesn't do and I think you may change your mind and begin to realize just what a brilliant decision Roberts just made.

I respect your 'Glass Half-Full' optimism. But lets face it, this is a real kick in the nuts from another phony so-called "Conservative." So many have now lost all faith in our processes.