Was the SCOTUS ruling tainted by fear of riots ?

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.

I agree, but we really do need to do something with those dregs of society. I mean if you're gonna protest, do it peacefully and try to make points instead of headlines.
 
Just a thought, Rioting is always a real threat, both in hard times and Polarized times. What is silly is to discard the threat. Here is something from a Year back.

The Intel Hub
Shepard Ambellas & Alex Thomas
July 24, 2011

Update: July 31, 2011

Since we published this report further evidence has been released in regards to a possible economic collapse and troops on the streets.

We must also be aware of the fact that they could be purposely gearing up the military and martial law threats in order to pass a draconian debt ceiling deal.

Ron Paul’s Urgent Warning On The Inevitable Collapse Of The Dollar
Black Helicopters Seen In Multiple States As Pentagons Deployment Of 20,000 Troops Inside United States Set To Be Ready This Year
Rule: ‘Martial Law’ – Obama To Use Dictatorial Powers To Raise Debt Ceiling If Need Be
Military Train Convoy Of Tanks And Jeeps Seen Near Bakersfield California – Photos

Note: I want to preface this article with the following statement — “Please get this information out to everyone. It is better to be safe than sorry.” — Shepard

In 2008 The Pentagon announced plans to deploy a 20,000 strong internal troop force inside the continental United States (CONUS) that was set to be trained by 2011, thus dovetailing into the current troop and equipment movements around the country reported by truckers as well as many more troop sightings by everyday citizens.

Interestingly enough, this plan directly correlates with a 2009, Army funded, Rand Corporation study that called for an internal United States police force to combat civil unrest.

This study asks several questions. First, is a Stability Police Force (SPF) necessary? An SPF is a high-end police force that engages in a range of tasks such as crowd and riot control, special weapons and tactics (SWAT), and investigations of organized criminal groups. In its ability to operate in stability operations, it is similar to such European forces as the Italian Carabinieri and French Gendarmerie.

Pentagon To Deploy 20,000 Troops In CONUS For Civil Unrest, Possible Threats To Populace :
 
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.

The only people calling for riots were those who were making threats if Romneycare was upheld. the next time you listen to fox news make a bullshit claim that people would riot for Romneycare please pay attention to their calls for riots if Romneycare stayed. I would suggest using your new health insurance to get that selective hearing and delusion problem you have fixed. I hear psychiatrists do wonderful things for schizophrenic village idiots like yourself.
 
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.

You know i saw a person with the bumper sticker that said piss off a liberal and do something i could not read. So i gave the dude what he wanted and drove him and his whole texas family into a ditch on the highway.

the lesson, that is a great opinion for you to have on the internet, keep it to yourself in regular public because you may just get what you asked for.
 

Forum List

Back
Top