Beck Pretty upset about Supreme Court Ruling Worth a Look

[JG55]

http://web.gbtv.com/media/video.jsp?content_id=22661309&topic_id=24584158

[Raoul]

Curiously I'm seeing some chatter about Roberts decision allowing a review of some existing legislation. In particular past rulings that relied on the commerce clause.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The way Chuck Shumer relied on the commerce clause to justify everything Dems passed for years, I wouldn't

doubt it.

[leroy]

All:________________

I've resisted (...just a little bit...) saying much about the moaning thats goin on over the Nobamacare thing.

I wuz a bit suprised when i heard it yesterday; along with being a bit puzzled why this happened. I did a bit of diggin and reading, and here is some of what ive concluded (...with the help of several other opiners...). We have no way of knowin exactly what went on here, but consider this:

Lets suppose that the court was hopelessly deadlocked 4 to 4 on this with Roberts lookin on. He see's that this is a partizan issue (...it is...) and he thinks a bit. He thinks back a few years and sees where the supreme court has been dragged around and used as an excuse and whipping boy for fixing unpopular legislation (...and it has...). It dawns on him that he can save his legacy and the supreme court's name (...either good or bad, depending on your point of view...) by saying (...and being right...) that the legislative branch of government has, indeed, the power to tax.

He joins the liberal justices and gives a 5/4 majority on the tax issue. The liberals take it because it appears to "save their political associates and their great god nobama." He ALSO GETS TO WRITE THE OPINION (...this is very important...). He says that nobamacare can stand as a tax and chides the politicos reminding them that "elections have consequences"; and further states that the ruling is based on the power of congress to tax; not the wisdom or validity of the reasons for passage of such a law.

He then writes that the law WILL NOT PASS THE COMMERCE MUSTER (...which is very important to us...). This effectively says that there is a limit on the power of congress to pass laws based on the "commerce clause" to compel citizens to do and buy things. This is important, because it is the lynchpin of every demorat social program that has been crammed down everyones throats since FDR. This is a huge thing. You can be certain that had a liberal justice wrote this opinion; that they would have never said that; but Roberts did; saving us all from a continuation of "mandates" thru the commerce clause.

Further, in talking about the Medicade funding issue, he put a stop to the heinous and punitive practice of the federal government bullying states who dont comply with something the fed wants to do by witholding tax dollars that are, in fact, due the states. In the past, the fed withheld money when there was a tiff with the state. Roberts put an end to that. Now, all the fed can do to get a state do do what they want to do is to bribe them with more money, not withhold dollars due them as punishment.

Whats the fallout from all this stuff ive talked about above:

- For Roberts (...not necessarily for us...) his legacy and the supreme court has been spared any charges of being paritzan by striking down a law that was duly passed by congress; e.g. duly deliberated on and voted on legislation; taking away the arguement that the court is "usurping the power of the people" -- HEHEHE. I think this is important to them, not necessarily to us. It also calls nobamacare what it is, a tax, not a "mandate" or a "right to healthcare".

- For the first time ever; Roberts puts a limit on what congress can do via the "commerce clause". This is a big deal. FDR packed the supreme court to get his way and used the commerce clause to implement the hoard of "new deal" socialist policies that remain and burden this country to this day. This may effectively kill the "unfunded mandate" thing. This is a great victory for all citizens.

- He stopped the heinous practice of the federal government from withholding dollars from the states in order to get their way. He said the fed could bribe; not coerce the states to do their will. He made coersion illegal. Another huge win for the states rights thing.

- In one fell swoop he put the onus back on the legislative branch to fix the "tax" thing.

Remember, nobama said this wasnt a tax. It now is a tax. The largest one ever levied on the american people.

- Nobama said that this specifically was not a tax. Roberts said it was. The demorats now have to convince everybody that a tax aint a tax.

- I think he handed the election to Mitt Romney and the republicans yesterday. Now everybody is mad about this stuff, because its suddenly a tax.

- All the "sweetheart deals" and exemptions passed out to nobama's buddies are suddenly thrown out the window. The "tax" is a "tax". There cant be any exceptions. HEHEHE.

- Drudge reported the Romney campaign raised a ton of money yeaterday. Romney took the hint. He said "...its up to us to repeal nobamacare. To repeal it, you need to get rid of nobama. Elect me and a republican senate and that's exactly what we will do.

Think about all this a bit. We may need to start a TGO fund to erect a statue of John Roberts. He may have very well saved a bunch of things that we hold dear. He could just be the first supreme court justice in a long time that actually read and followed the constitution in his opinion.

Food for thought.

leroy

[RobertNashville]

I believe we now have absolute proof that this Supreme Court of the United States cannot be relied upon to follow the Constitution...I find that more sad than surprising.

I can only hope now that this November, we elect a President and enough conservative House and Senate members that this horrible law can be overturned and the country can at least begin to be put on a course heading heading away from socialism and heading back toward fiscal responsibility, personal liberty, and personal responsibility - I know it's a lot to hope for but what else is left.

What scares me most about the prospects in November is that there are many self-identified conservatives who aren't even registered to vote!

[MattCary]

Interesting, Leroy.

I hope you're right, that there is some hidden silver lining in what happened yesterday.

Because otherwise, I'm afraid we are lost.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I, after I calmed down, yesterday, thought about all

the hijinxes the Dems have used the commerce

clause for to strip our lives away from us, and came

to pretty much the same conclusion as you, Leroy.

You put it together better than I could have. Thanks,

very thoughtful summary of yesterday's event.

I just hope the ground swell turns out to vote this

commie out of the White House.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mike.357]

I believe we now have absolute proof that this Supreme Court of the United States cannot be relied upon to follow the Constitution...I find that more sad than surprising.

hahahahaha

So the Supreme Court cannot be relied on to follow the constitution? What, your interpretation of the constitution?

I dunno but I am pretty sure they decide what it all means.

[Smith]

Leroy, I hope that is in fact the case and Roberts is actually smarter than he appeared yesterday. I fully see all that you stated, but I have a dark side of me that says the nuances as you stated will not be interpreted that way by future courts and legislative bodies. Either Roberts outsmarted Obama, congress, America, and his own court or he is another conservative that got taken in by the DC disease.

[Defender]

I echo MattCary's comment. Leroy's writings are very interesting indeed. I wondered yesterday if Roberts had caved or was crazy, or maybe crazy like a fox. I have a keen sense of what I believe to be right or wrong, and an understanding of sorts of our Constitution, but I will admit that it is sometimes confusing, and I DO know that there are way smarter people in this country than I am. I'm really hoping that Roberts is one of those, and that this isnt exactly how it is being perceived by most of us, and that Justice Roberts, looking at the big picture, is doing a greater service to our country in the long run by this ruling.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I have a feeling Roberts caved, but was also trying to protect the integrity of the Supreme Court,

for future cases. Just a feeling. His position didn't diminish the use of the Commerce Clause, but

it did expose it for what it is, and he did expose Obamacare for what it is, too. It would have been

simpler to just decide on the constitutionality of Obamacare and take it out completely, but not

knowing what was in his mind at the last minute, all I think he did was awaken a sleeping giant.

I hope that's what he was hoping to accomplish because, otherwise, I'm baffled.

The four dissenters were right.

[Blitzen]

"This is a great victory for all citizens."

I think we are less free after the ruling which is not good for individual Americans. A bogus law was rewritten by the Supreme Court. A law which was passed without the consent of the governed using backroom deals and bribes whn most Americans were asleep. Now our only hope is to beat Obama in Nov and boot out enough Senators to take the Senate. Hold the House then hope that the politicians we have elected will do the right thing and repeal Obama care. This is some big if's. We did not ask for this law. We should have had a Supreme Court ruling based on constitutionality, not consequences of an election. That is where I totally disagree with Chief Justice Roberts. I have heard a quote before but can not remember who's it is. "Every President since George Washington has left us less free" Yes elections have consequences but that does give the Supreme Court a red light to legislate from the bench.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

All that ruling means is that we had better get our collective asses together and fight tyranny. Otherwise, we

deserve what we got by allowing Obama and all those commies to come to power.

Ever heard of a call to arms?

[RobertNashville]

hahahahaha

So the Supreme Court cannot be relied on to follow the constitution? What, your interpretation of the constitution?

I dunno but I am pretty sure they decide what it all means.

Interpretation is not really the issue; all one really has to do is read it.

The Constitution is not that difficult to understand (of course, if one is product of our public schools they need some remedial English classes).