-1 vote

John Roberts reasoning, in my opinion

It's a brilliant decision by Roberts, politically. He channeled Marbury v. Madison. He narrowed the scope of the commerce clause which has existed since the New Deal, made the mandate a tax which Obama has said he wouldn't do, provided a legislative out for the GOP (see Ben Swann's reality check) and might actually make this election close rather than an Obama blowout. All the while he did it by appearing to be non-partisan. In my opinion, if Roberts just overturned it, he knows we have Obama for another four years.



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Aside from narrowing the

Aside from narrowing the scope of the commerce clause I have to disagree with everything else. Sure the Republicans can run and say "Odumber is raising taxes!!!", but at the same time what if nothing comes of it? I can't afford higher taxes.

Ok your idea is sprinkled with horse shyt.

How can you say that it was a "brilliant" move for Roberts as if you admire what he did. He could have struck this legislation down and we would be done with it. But you think it is good that he kept it alive so Romney can have a better chance and give the GOP a "legislative out". A legislative out for what, to get rid of Obamacare? He could have killed it but he didn't. End of story.

Youre missing the point. If

Youre missing the point. If its overturned Obama is elected for four more years. He made it so Obama doesn't win in a landslide AND the bill can still be overturned.

So what if he is reelected?

With Romney as the alternative then what does it matter? The legislation could be dead right now and we would be rejoicing. Obama would have been slapped down as he needed to be. And since the Democrats don't have a monopoly anymore then there is no way that Obama could get this passed again in a second term.

But now because of Roberts betrayal it is absolute law and Romney and the GOP will never overturn it even if they themselves were to get a monopoly on both houses. Roberts screwed us and because of his betrayal now we are stuck with Obamacare and now it DOES matter that Obama may be reelected with and emboldened attitude and more treachery to perform.

Even elementary students know that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line. Why would you praise such a crooked and hopeless path?

fireant's picture

That ain't his job, is the point

.

Undo what Wilson did

You're right. That is not

You're right. That is not his job. But that wasnt my point. My point was to show his reasoning for his decision. The point is that whether you like it or not, different individuals have different perceptions of the constitution and what it means. People of good faith can have differing opinions, as we have seen even within the liberty community. He limited the scope of the commerce clause. He allowed this as a tax, government always taxes us, precedent allows them to. They tax us for working, it's certainly not ok, it's the way it is.

hmmmmm......

The lawyer for ObamaCare made the argument...in the strongest terms that this was not a tax...and that the commerce clause would permit this law. Therefore, Roberts should have shot the whole thing down and told Obama that they must rework it and try to pass it into law as a tax. I don't see the victory. precedent has been set.

It doesn't matter what

It doesn't matter what Obama's lawyers said. The point is, in my opinion, Roberts called it a tax to give the GOP an out because, as a tax, this bill was not passed properly.

Flip-flopping on a Supreme Court decision

is NOT the same thing as flip-flopping on some empty campaign promise.

Roberts just created legal precedent, at the Supreme Court level, that the federal gov't may tax everyone's behavior or "non-behavior", down to the most minute molecular level, forever.

They can tax us if we breathe, and if we don't breathe, eat or don't eat, live or don't live, work or don't work, etc, etc.

It's limitless.

There is no possible way to equate this with a simple flip-flop.
This has magnitude that is infinite in impact and scope, in a VERY oppressive way.

.

.

"If you want something you've never had before, you have to do something you've never done before." Debra Medina

fireant's picture

Yep. He opened up a worm hole to get around both the commerce

clause and the direct tax clauses.
He should be impeached for disregarding constitutional intent.

Undo what Wilson did

SteveMT's picture

flip-flop = lying to the People, subverting the Constitution

Let's reduce this to its lowest common denominator.

SteveMT's picture

Roberts flip-floppped, like Romney

There is an odd anomaly found in Justice Scalia’s dissenting opinion in today’s Obamacare decision.

When referencing the opinion of Justice Ginsburg—who wrote the opinion on behalf of herself and the remaining three liberals on the Court—Scalia refers to Ginsburg’s opinion as the ‘dissent’. This raises the specter that, at the time Scalia wrote his opinion, Justice Ginsburg may have actually been in the minority rather than a part of the ultimate majority which upheld the law.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2012/06/28/did-justice...