Why Chief Justice John Roberts Voted 4 Obamacare

[LAfrique]

Once upon a time, republicans passed the Patriot Act II and MEHPA, both of which deprived the American people of their basic civil rights. Anyone who failed to support some act with the word “patriot” was considered un-American by republicans. Few years later, Obamacare (propped by both Patriot Act II and MEHPA) was introduced.

Of course, all of the above are unlawful amendments of 42 USC section 1983 and other US laws guaranteeing individual freedom to the people. But since both republicans and democrats have decided to deprive the people of their basic civil rights, and with the support of the unsuspecting public, who is John Roberts to say otherwise? Although I, John Roberts, know what is cooking, I will however let the people lie on the very beds that they made.

Thus, Chief Justice John Roberts, hours ago, confounded both republicans and democrats by voting for outrageous clauses of Obamacare. I think Chief Justice John Roberts merely gave you all what you wanted: Republicans got their Patriot Act II and MEHPA, and Democrats get their Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act.

 

[SniperFire]

 

[LAfrique]

SniperFire now knows why Chief Justice John Roberts voted for Obamacare. That's all.

 

[WillowTree]

Once upon a time, republicans passed the Patriot Act II and MEHPA, both of which deprived the American people of their basic civil rights. Anyone who failed to support some act with the word “patriot” was considered un-American by republicans. Few years later, Obamacare (propped by both Patriot Act II and MEHPA) was introduced.

Of course, all of the above are unlawful amendments of 42 USC section 1983 and other US laws guaranteeing individual freedom to the people. But since both republicans and democrats have decided to deprive the people of their basic civil rights, and with the support of the unsuspecting public, who is John Roberts to say otherwise? Although I, John Roberts, know what is cooking, I will however let the people lie on the very beds that they made.

Thus, Chief Justice John Roberts, hours ago, confounded both republicans and democrats by voting for outrageous clauses of Obamacare. I think Chief Justice John Roberts merely gave you all what you wanted: Republicans got their Patriot Act II and MEHPA, and Democrats get their Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act.

Because he is in favor of imposing the biggest tax hike in American history on the people. Thanks for asking.

 

[LAfrique]

I am aware of the fact that most republicans are also for endless taxation, though they often attempt to push blame to democrats. And the most outrageous thing about the tax clause in Obamacare is that the tax is ever increasing.

 

[LAfrique]

"If we want to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have to replace @BarackObama," tweeted @MittRomney on June 28, 2012.

Again I reply: How are you going to do that, Mitt? You still have to get through the Justices. Are you going to replace them? or perhaps give them some RomneySerum?

 

[LAfrique]

"The only way to stop Obamacare is to defeat Obama in Nov." tweeted Rick Santorum on June 29, 2012.


"... and then add ‪SantorumJuice‬ to ‪RomneySerum‬ to get through to the Justices? or assassinate them as is often the preferred choice of republicans?" I replied to @ricksantorum and @redstate.

 

[Ariux]

The Jews on the Supreme Court voted for Obama care because they're God Damned Jews, and destroying gentile countries is their mission. Roberts voted with the Jews because he's a Catholic and the Catholic Church is strongly supportive of socialized medicine. (Granted, the other Catholics didn't, but by being Catholic, they were more likely to.)

 

[AquaAthena]

Once upon a time, republicans passed the Patriot Act II and MEHPA, both of which deprived the American people of their basic civil rights. Anyone who failed to support some act with the word “patriot” was considered un-American by republicans. Few years later, Obamacare (propped by both Patriot Act II and MEHPA) was introduced.

Of course, all of the above are unlawful amendments of 42 USC section 1983 and other US laws guaranteeing individual freedom to the people. But since both republicans and democrats have decided to deprive the people of their basic civil rights, and with the support of the unsuspecting public, who is John Roberts to say otherwise? Although I, John Roberts, know what is cooking, I will however let the people lie on the very beds that they made.

Thus, Chief Justice John Roberts, hours ago, confounded both republicans and democrats by voting for outrageous clauses of Obamacare. I think Chief Justice John Roberts merely gave you all what you wanted: Republicans got their Patriot Act II and MEHPA, and Democrats get their Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act.

I think the Supremes have become political, also.

 

[onecut39]

Once upon a time, republicans passed the Patriot Act II and MEHPA, both of which deprived the American people of their basic civil rights. Anyone who failed to support some act with the word “patriot” was considered un-American by republicans. Few years later, Obamacare (propped by both Patriot Act II and MEHPA) was introduced.

Of course, all of the above are unlawful amendments of 42 USC section 1983 and other US laws guaranteeing individual freedom to the people. But since both republicans and democrats have decided to deprive the people of their basic civil rights, and with the support of the unsuspecting public, who is John Roberts to say otherwise? Although I, John Roberts, know what is cooking, I will however let the people lie on the very beds that they made.

Thus, Chief Justice John Roberts, hours ago, confounded both republicans and democrats by voting for outrageous clauses of Obamacare. I think Chief Justice John Roberts merely gave you all what you wanted: Republicans got their Patriot Act II and MEHPA, and Democrats get their Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act.

I think the Supremes have become political, also.

The supremes have always been politicians in robes. So much so that whenever one breaks lockstep it is a landmark story. They are appointed for their political views. Occasionally they lie sufficiently in confirmation to obscure some beliefs.

Roberts lied his ass off saying he was a firm believer in precedent and continuity.

 

[Ariux]

How about asking why the Jews on the Supreme Court voted for Obamacare?

Because they're Jews and Jews hate America.

 

[code1211]

Once upon a time, republicans passed the Patriot Act II and MEHPA, both of which deprived the American people of their basic civil rights. Anyone who failed to support some act with the word “patriot” was considered un-American by republicans. Few years later, Obamacare (propped by both Patriot Act II and MEHPA) was introduced.

Of course, all of the above are unlawful amendments of 42 USC section 1983 and other US laws guaranteeing individual freedom to the people. But since both republicans and democrats have decided to deprive the people of their basic civil rights, and with the support of the unsuspecting public, who is John Roberts to say otherwise? Although I, John Roberts, know what is cooking, I will however let the people lie on the very beds that they made.

Thus, Chief Justice John Roberts, hours ago, confounded both republicans and democrats by voting for outrageous clauses of Obamacare. I think Chief Justice John Roberts merely gave you all what you wanted: Republicans got their Patriot Act II and MEHPA, and Democrats get their Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act.

I think the Supremes have become political, also.

They always have been.

if you follow the Civil Rights rulings from Dred Scot forward, every one of them is based more on politics than the Constitution or case law.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Once upon a time, republicans passed the Patriot Act II and MEHPA, both of which deprived the American people of their basic civil rights. Anyone who failed to support some act with the word “patriot” was considered un-American by republicans. Few years later, Obamacare (propped by both Patriot Act II and MEHPA) was introduced.

Of course, all of the above are unlawful amendments of 42 USC section 1983 and other US laws guaranteeing individual freedom to the people. But since both republicans and democrats have decided to deprive the people of their basic civil rights, and with the support of the unsuspecting public, who is John Roberts to say otherwise? Although I, John Roberts, know what is cooking, I will however let the people lie on the very beds that they made.

Thus, Chief Justice John Roberts, hours ago, confounded both republicans and democrats by voting for outrageous clauses of Obamacare. I think Chief Justice John Roberts merely gave you all what you wanted: Republicans got their Patriot Act II and MEHPA, and Democrats get their Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act.

I think the Supremes have become political, also.

Steadily since 2000. Roberts' decision surprised me forcefully. Having read his arguments, I am of the belief that we have a court that will make legislation comport with the Constitution through SCOTUS re-writing when necessary.

 

[regent]

Forever, this court will be known as the Robert's Court and Roberts may want this court, his court, to go down in history as a famous, honest, judicial court, one that finds for the American people and not a political party. If so, perhaps Roberts has decided to follow a judicial route rather than political one. At least America can hope so, but I doubt it. I'll wait for the other shoe.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, we have Citizens, and now we have ACA. It is clear Roberts is a progressive right wing statist.

 

[code1211]

Forever, this court will be known as the Robert's Court and Roberts may want this court, his court, to go down in history as a famous, honest, judicial court, one that finds for the American people and not a political party. If so, perhaps Roberts has decided to follow a judicial route rather than political one. At least America can hope so, but I doubt it. I'll wait for the other shoe.

I know that Roberts does not want to rectify the idiocy and cowardice of the Legislatures from the Bench.

Obamacare qualifies as idiocy.

That said, the notion that the Mandate is a tax is not supported by the arguments of the litigants and I'm not sure that this ruling is a good one on that basis.

Lawyers in the crowd: I know that a judge can do whatever he like on the bench, but is this a justified conclusion on the part of the Justice Roberts? Shouldn't the thing upon which he decides the fate of legislation which will end the Republic be constructed by the legal team arguing for it?

This seems a little contrived to me.

 

[code1211]

Well, we have Citizens, and now we have ACA. It is clear Roberts is a progressive right wing statist.

I thought that Citizens was a strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

I'm not at all sure what this is.

The Reps need to start pounding on what this is going to cost every individual.

If you don't have healthcare because you can't afford it, hang on because soon you will afford it or we will take all of your money from you.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Well, we have Citizens, and now we have ACA. It is clear Roberts is a progressive right wing statist.

I thought that Citizens was a strict interpretation of the 1st Amendment.

I'm not at all sure what this is.

The Reps need to start pounding on what this is going to cost every individual.

If you don't have healthcare because you can't afford it, hang on because soon you will afford it or we will take all of your money from you.

No, it is not strict interp; show me were the Constitution says corporations are citizens.

 

[jillian]

Forever, this court will be known as the Robert's Court and Roberts may want this court, his court, to go down in history as a famous, honest, judicial court, one that finds for the American people and not a political party. If so, perhaps Roberts has decided to follow a judicial route rather than political one. At least America can hope so, but I doubt it. I'll wait for the other shoe.

I know that Roberts does not want to rectify the idiocy and cowardice of the Legislatures from the Bench.

Obamacare qualifies as idiocy.

That said, the notion that the Mandate is a tax is not supported by the arguments of the litigants and I'm not sure that this ruling is a good one on that basis.

Lawyers in the crowd: I know that a judge can do whatever he like on the bench, but is this a justified conclusion on the part of the Justice Roberts? Shouldn't the thing upon which he decides the fate of legislation which will end the Republic be constructed by the legal team arguing for it?

This seems a little contrived to me.

i agree that the tax finding was stretching it. it should have been sustained on the basis of the commerce clause, imo. either way it was sustainable.

judges have an absolute right to substitute their own reasoning for that of the attorneys litigating. often, the judge wants a certain result, but not for the reasons offered to him or her.

 

[LAfrique]

Once upon a time, republicans passed the Patriot Act II and MEHPA, both of which deprived the American people of their basic civil rights. Anyone who failed to support some act with the word “patriot” was considered un-American by republicans. Few years later, Obamacare (propped by both Patriot Act II and MEHPA) was introduced.

Of course, all of the above are unlawful amendments of 42 USC section 1983 and other US laws guaranteeing individual freedom to the people. But since both republicans and democrats have decided to deprive the people of their basic civil rights, and with the support of the unsuspecting public, who is John Roberts to say otherwise? Although I, John Roberts, know what is cooking, I will however let the people lie on the very beds that they made.

Thus, Chief Justice John Roberts, hours ago, confounded both republicans and democrats by voting for outrageous clauses of Obamacare. I think Chief Justice John Roberts merely gave you all what you wanted: Republicans got their Patriot Act II and MEHPA, and Democrats get their Obamacare aka Affordable Care Act.

I think the Supremes have become political, also.

Steadily since 2000. Roberts' decision surprised me forcefully. Having read his arguments, I am of the belief that we have a court that will make legislation comport with the Constitution through SCOTUS re-writing when necessary.

Glad to know you see exactly when it all became customary for government to rewrite Constitution. 2000, and especially with Patriot Act II!