Was the SCOTUS ruling tainted by fear of riots ?

[Zxereus]

I've been thinking about this a lot today. There have been articles and much talk designed to intimidate Roberts into not turning the court into anactivist court. Of course all of us on the right know that's what happened anyway.

Anyway, is it possible that Roberts feared that when you have people outside the court chanting such things as "Don't take my Obamacare away", and that when you consider the lefts history of rioting in the streets, and with the recent Occupy movement, which has proven to be violent in many cases, that he was determined to get this piece of crap passed one way or another ?

He knew it was unconstitutional based on the commerce clause, but he knew that despite the arguments against the bill being a tax, that he could marshall it through calling it such.

I'm thinking he was more concerned about a segment of America's reaction, than he was about the law.
In other words, I suspect he was intimadated into this ruling.

 

[Luissa]

No

 

[Zxereus]

No

I wouldn't blow it off that fast. In a perfect world courts would rule based only on law, but we all know that's not the case.

 

[squinch]

No

I wouldn't blow it off that fast. In a perfect world courts would rule based only on law, but we all know that's not the case.

If he was intimidated into a ruling then he shouldn't be on the bench.

 

[Black_Label]

 

[Zxereus]

No

I wouldn't blow it off that fast. In a perfect world courts would rule based only on law, but we all know that's not the case.

If he was intimidated into a ruling then he shouldn't be on the bench.

Agreed, but that doesn't mean rulings are not subject to the feelings or concerns of justices.
When you look at the recent actions of the left in the streets via the "Occupy" movement, imagine throwing gasoline on their fire by striking down their precious new entitlement.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I've been thinking about this a lot today.

Thats the first lie

 

[Douger]

No

I wouldn't blow it off that fast. In a perfect world courts would rule based only on law, but we all know that's not the case.

If he was intimidated into a ruling then he shouldn't be on the bench.

Interesting word "bench" It comes from Latin "banco", the same place "Bank" came from. Understand yet ?
How about court ? Basketball, tennis ? No matter. It's just a game.

 

[Charles_Main]

I've been thinking about this a lot today. There have been articles and much talk designed to intimidate Roberts into not turning the court into anactivist court. Of course all of us on the right know that's what happened anyway.

Anyway, is it possible that Roberts feared that when you have people outside the court chanting such things as "Don't take my Obamacare away", and that when you consider the lefts history of rioting in the streets, and with the recent Occupy movement, which has proven to be violent in many cases, that he was determined to get this piece of crap passed one way or another ?

He knew it was unconstitutional based on the commerce clause, but he knew that despite the arguments against the bill being a tax, that he could marshall it through calling it such.

I'm thinking he was more concerned about a segment of America's reaction, than he was about the law.
In other words, I suspect he was intimadated into this ruling.

Really don't think it had anything to do with it at all. If you want to blame anything, I would think it more Likely Roberts changed his Vote in order to protect the integrity of the Court and try and quiet the Criticism that it was nothing but another partisan Political Institution.

However, that is not what I think Motivated it. I think Roberts found a way to both Uphold the Law, While giving the American people the Best shot they had at Repealing it if they don't like it, and showing everyone that what Obama sold as not a tax, was a tax. He also managed to curtail the Feds Power under the Commerce Clause at the Same time, and rule that they can not Coerce Cooperation with Federal Efforts through intimidation or threats to Funding.

I don't know why Liberals are so convinced that this law being Upheld is going to help Obama in NOV, It will clearly help get out his Base, but it is also sure to piss off the more than 60% of Americans who do not like the Bulk of this Bill. Think 2010. The American people swept Republican into the House, gave them Gains in the Senate, and massive Gains across State houses, and Governorships, all in reaction to the Passing of this Bill against the will of the people.

Now Democrats think just because the Court says it is legal, but oh by the way it's a tax, that people are going to all of the sudden be happy and Reward Obama for it. Doubtful.

Add to that, stuff like the AZ ruling, F&F, Using EP. And I see a very High Turn out on the Republican side in Nov.

 

[BreezeWood]

Was the SCOTUS ruling tainted by fear of riots ?

There are 9 Justices - interesting you must believe the other 4 had rioting in mind with their opinions, which may be more true than Roberts siding with the liberals ... contrary to the OP it was not violence but political deceit Roberts saw in the other 4 that motivated his decision.

 

[alan1]

I've been thinking about this a lot today. There have been articles and much talk designed to intimidate Roberts into not turning the court into anactivist court. Of course all of us on the right know that's what happened anyway.

Anyway, is it possible that Roberts feared that when you have people outside the court chanting such things as "Don't take my Obamacare away", and that when you consider the lefts history of rioting in the streets, and with the recent Occupy movement, which has proven to be violent in many cases, that he was determined to get this piece of crap passed one way or another ?

He knew it was unconstitutional based on the commerce clause, but he knew that despite the arguments against the bill being a tax, that he could marshall it through calling it such.

I'm thinking he was more concerned about a segment of America's reaction, than he was about the law.
In other words, I suspect he was intimadated into this ruling.

Maybe it's time for the rightwing to start loudly protesting.

Just imagine if all the evil conservative companies took a day to shut down as a day of protest.

Big oil shuts down, you can't buy gasoline nor use the convenience store most gas stations have.
Banks shut down, your debit card and credit card are of no use anywhere.
Walmart, Target, Family Dollar, Dollar General and whatever grocery store chain in your neighborhood all shut down for a day.
AT&T, Verizon, et al shut down and your iPhone or droid are rendered useless for a day.

Liberals think that a bunch of people protesting is some sort of noble act, but they would all shit their pants if a bunch of corporations did the exact same type of protest.

 

[sarahgop]

I've been thinking about this a lot today. There have been articles and much talk designed to intimidate Roberts into not turning the court into anactivist court. Of course all of us on the right know that's what happened anyway.

Anyway, is it possible that Roberts feared that when you have people outside the court chanting such things as "Don't take my Obamacare away", and that when you consider the lefts history of rioting in the streets, and with the recent Occupy movement, which has proven to be violent in many cases, that he was determined to get this piece of crap passed one way or another ?

He knew it was unconstitutional based on the commerce clause, but he knew that despite the arguments against the bill being a tax, that he could marshall it through calling it such.

I'm thinking he was more concerned about a segment of America's reaction, than he was about the law.
In other words, I suspect he was intimadated into this ruling.

roberts is a typical republican backstabber.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I've been thinking ...

and therein lays the problem for you...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

roberts is a typical republican backstabber.

3rd person at USMB who wanted Roberts to vote as a Republican.

I thought you people believed in the US Constitution?

 

[Toro]

I've been thinking about this a lot today. There have been articles and much talk designed to intimidate Roberts into not turning the court into anactivist court. Of course all of us on the right know that's what happened anyway.

Anyway, is it possible that Roberts feared that when you have people outside the court chanting such things as "Don't take my Obamacare away", and that when you consider the lefts history of rioting in the streets, and with the recent Occupy movement, which has proven to be violent in many cases, that he was determined to get this piece of crap passed one way or another ?

He knew it was unconstitutional based on the commerce clause, but he knew that despite the arguments against the bill being a tax, that he could marshall it through calling it such.

I'm thinking he was more concerned about a segment of America's reaction, than he was about the law.
In other words, I suspect he was intimadated into this ruling.

This is silly.

 

[Zxereus]

I've been thinking about this a lot today. There have been articles and much talk designed to intimidate Roberts into not turning the court into anactivist court. Of course all of us on the right know that's what happened anyway.

Anyway, is it possible that Roberts feared that when you have people outside the court chanting such things as "Don't take my Obamacare away", and that when you consider the lefts history of rioting in the streets, and with the recent Occupy movement, which has proven to be violent in many cases, that he was determined to get this piece of crap passed one way or another ?

He knew it was unconstitutional based on the commerce clause, but he knew that despite the arguments against the bill being a tax, that he could marshall it through calling it such.

I'm thinking he was more concerned about a segment of America's reaction, than he was about the law.
In other words, I suspect he was intimadated into this ruling.

Really don't think it had anything to do with it at all. If you want to blame anything, I would think it more Likely Roberts changed his Vote in order to protect the integrity of the Court and try and quiet the Criticism that it was nothing but another partisan Political Institution.

However, that is not what I think Motivated it. I think Roberts found a way to both Uphold the Law, While giving the American people the Best shot they had at Repealing it if they don't like it, and showing everyone that what Obama sold as not a tax, was a tax. He also managed to curtail the Feds Power under the Commerce Clause at the Same time, and rule that they can not Coerce Cooperation with Federal Efforts through intimidation or threats to Funding.

I don't know why Liberals are so convinced that this law being Upheld is going to help Obama in NOV, It will clearly help get out his Base, but it is also sure to piss off the more than 60% of Americans who do not like the Bulk of this Bill. Think 2010. The American people swept Republican into the House, gave them Gains in the Senate, and massive Gains across State houses, and Governorships, all in reaction to the Passing of this Bill against the will of the people.

Now Democrats think just because the Court says it is legal, but oh by the way it's a tax, that people are going to all of the sudden be happy and Reward Obama for it. Doubtful.

Add to that, stuff like the AZ ruling, F&F, Using EP. And I see a very High Turn out on the Republican side in Nov.

Great post.

 

[Missourian]

I think Roberts was right.

The lawyers argued that it was indeed a tax, and there is no doubt that taxation is constitutional.

Roberts concluded it was a tax and therefore upheld the law.

Demanding the judiciary refrain from judicial activism cuts both ways.

Demanding an end to liberal judicial activism but encouraging the same from conservative jurists make one a hypocrite of the first order.

Personally, I am proud of Chief Justice Roberts...he upheld the law counter to his personal ideology.

I would hope that we all would do the same in a similar circumstance, but I suspect that that is a bar to high for most to reach...myself included.

 

[buckeye45_73]

I'd love an activist republican court, it would really piss off liberals and hopefully get rid of alot of these stupid liberal decisions since the 60s.
But I hope he didnt out of fear of riots, IF that's true we have a huge problem and that means the people who threatened said riots need to be dealt with.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Was the SCOTUS ruling tainted by fear of riots ?

No.

This is silly.

Yes.

 

[TruthSeeker56]

I've been thinking about this a lot today. There have been articles and much talk designed to intimidate Roberts into not turning the court into anactivist court. Of course all of us on the right know that's what happened anyway.

Anyway, is it possible that Roberts feared that when you have people outside the court chanting such things as "Don't take my Obamacare away", and that when you consider the lefts history of rioting in the streets, and with the recent Occupy movement, which has proven to be violent in many cases, that he was determined to get this piece of crap passed one way or another ?

He knew it was unconstitutional based on the commerce clause, but he knew that despite the arguments against the bill being a tax, that he could marshall it through calling it such.

I'm thinking he was more concerned about a segment of America's reaction, than he was about the law.
In other words, I suspect he was intimadated into this ruling.

Rioting by WHO? The Occupy Wall Street losers, AGAIN?

I'm sure Roberts was frozen with fear over the prospect of out-of-work losers urinating in the streets, snorting and shooting drugs in their tents, and protesting about not getting their "just rewards".

Your question/assertion is simply SILLY.