Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius? Your thoughts?

[Steelharp]

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national†health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

[Guest drv2fst]

very interesting perspective.

I am disappointed that in this country our leaders have to go to such lengths to do what cannot be done in a more straightforward manner.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

The only thing Roberts did, after siding with the

liberals for Obamacare, was to expose the penalty

as a tax. He can't strike anything down by himself.

It was his opinion only that the commerce clause

cannot be used. Look at how his brief is worded.

It takes a majority to agree or dissent. There may

be more to it than that, but Roberts had the

opportunity to side with four other judges and

agree to make the whole thing void, but that's

not what he did.

There are a lot of pundits saying he did those

things, but it's not the case. The commerce

clause is still able to be used until another day

when something else reaches the court.

He did hand the Republicans a platform of

broken promises concerning taxes from

Obama. It's still all up to the voter to get

this law repealed and he could have done

that if he chose.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Mark@Sea]

I'm more inclined to think the chicago boys got to him. It is now clear he changed his vote.

[Guest Sooner]

Whether Roberts was intimidated or changed his vote due to pressure, he did force the court to call Oholecare what we all knew it to be all along--a tax. If this doesn't get voters motivated to remove the poseur in the White House, we have a much bigger problem than Ozero--we have an electorate comprised of irresponsiible takers. Just my $0.02.

[Guest bkelm18]

True... He did help expose it as a tax. Or... If he had just sided with the conservative justices he could've just struck down the entire thing. No, he decided to play the flip-flop game. There were no ulterior intentions.

[mcurrier]

[Caster]

Well, he's actually put himself in a good position. If "O" wins, he'll be accepted and taken care of. If "O" loses he can claim it was a tactical maneuver incite rage and anger against "O" in an effort to rally votes against him. If he'd voted it down, he would polarized himself but as it is, he can play either side that suits him.

Foul and loathsome but smart.

[gjohnsoniv]

I have always been under the impression no one is smart enough, or dumb enough to pull something like that off. I'm going to side more with he failed as a judge.

[timcalhoun]

It is one thing to tax to fund a program, it is an entirely different thing to tax to control behavior. This is a huge loss for liberty no matter how you spin it. To allow the fed to tax you for not doing something is a huge deal folks.

We need to repeal this and then have a constitutional ammendment that restrains the fed from taxing behavior.

[mcurrier]

[G27]

Sounds to me the repubs are desperately looking for SOMETHING to claim as a victory after the ruling.

[Hozzie]

If this doesn't get voters motivated to remove the poseur in the White House, we have a much bigger problem than Ozero--we have an electorate comprised of irresponsiible takers. Just my $0.02.

Too late. It's not IF, we do have an electorate comprised of irresponsible takers. This is just one of many programs that people will also abuse. It's hard to tax those that don't pay tax to begin with. I am not republican or democrat, but I find it somewhat amusing that we all act like experts in this area. All you hear is either the Republican talking points or the Democrat talking points. As with everything, the truth is somewhere in the middle and I for one am willing to admit I don't know or think any of us know what this will ultimately do to the healthcare system. For every expert on one side, there is an expert on the other. As with everything politics, we only listen to what we would like to believe.

I realize I am against what most may believe here, but a simple question. If you already have healthcare via a job or medicare, you won't be "taxed". If you decide to be responsible if you don't have healthcare and purchase it yourself, you won't be "taxed". If you can't afford it or just decide not to pay it, you will be taxed to help cover a portion of your expenses. I am not sure I see the big problem with the "tax".

Sure, there are other issues like access, options, etc, but I don't get the hangup with the "tax" other than it's an excuse to play politics. If you think this is the reason they will then be able to tax anything else and force you to have something, I am of the opinion that has already happened. The politicians do whatever they want anyway.

The issue isn't the tax, it's simply that we spend more than we have and people don't take responsibility for anything. It's a give me world and unfortunately, those of us that give are outnumbered by those that take.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Hozzie

[E4 No More]

Since he's in a lifetime appointment I fail to see how anyone would think that he's been gotten to, or that he's taken care of, or that he's a genius. Could it be that he voted according to how he saw the law?

It saddens me that politics are involved at all in the interpretation of the law.

[timcalhoun]

Too late. It's not IF, we do have an electorate comprised of irresponsible takers. This is just one of many programs that people will also abuse. It's hard to tax those that don't pay tax to begin with. I am not republican or democrat, but I find it somewhat amusing that we all act like experts in this area. All you hear is either the Republican talking points or the Democrat talking points. As with everything, the truth is somewhere in the middle and I for one am willing to admit I don't know or think any of us know what this will ultimately do to the healthcare system. For every expert on one side, there is an expert on the other. As with everything politics, we only listen to what we would like to believe.

I realize I am against what most may believe here, but a simple question. If you already have healthcare via a job or medicare, you won't be "taxed". If you decide to be responsible if you don't have healthcare and purchase it yourself, you won't be "taxed". If you can't afford it or just decide not to pay it, you will be taxed to help cover a portion of your expenses. I am not sure I see the big problem with the "tax".

Sure, there are other issues like access, options, etc, but I don't get the hangup with the "tax" other than it's an excuse to play politics. If you think this is the reason they will then be able to tax anything else and force you to have something, I am of the opinion that has already happened.

The issue isn't the tax, it's simply that we spend more than we have and people don't take responsibility for anything. It's a give me world and unfortunately, those of us that give are outnumbered.

We don't know what it will be like.......maybe. However. I can not think of one government program that is not a giant broken mess. I think their track record is glaringly clear.

[Hozzie]

We don't know what it will be like.......maybe. However. I can not think of one government program that is not a giant broken mess. I think their track record is glaringly clear.

I will agree with that. The government is not good at managing any program, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the program is bad. As with anything, I do believe there are parts that will need to be changed, but I get tired of the constant black and white bickering (no pun intended). No one wants to work together anymore. Everything is too ideological and that will be our demise.

[timcalhoun]

Since he's in a lifetime appointment I fail to see how anyone would think that he's been gotten to, or that he's taken care of, or that he's a genius. Could it be that he voted according to how he saw the law?

It saddens me that politics are involved at all in the interpretation of the law.

You might want to research how we got social security after the scotus unanimously ruled it unconstitutional. FDR certainly got to that court.

[timcalhoun]

I will agree with that. The government is not good at managing any program, but it doesn't necessarily mean that the program is bad. As with anything, I do believe there are parts that will need to be changed, but I get tired of the constant black and white bickering (no pun intended). No one wants to work together anymore. Everything is too ideological and that will be our demise.

You can be the best architect on the planet and come up with the best designed homes ever, but if your builder totally screws it up, it doesn't really matter how great the plans were. Problem is, after this builder has screwed the last 10 homes, we are going to hire him yet again to build a giant apt complex. How f'ing stupid is that.

[mcurrier]

[Hozzie]

You can be the best architect on the planet and come up with the best designed homes ever, but if your builder totally screws it up, it doesn't really matter how great the plans were. Problem is, after this builder has screwed the last 10 homes, we are going to hire him yet again to build a giant apt complex. How f'ing stupid is that.

I won't disagree with you on that either. However, find me one other government who has done it right and where you would want to live? The fact is, a government will never be run like a household no matter how much we think it should be (meaning that if you don't have the money to pay for something, you just don't get it or it gets taken away). It unfortunate, but money AND power makes everyone stupid.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Hozzie

[mcurrier]

I won't disagree with you on that either. However, find me one other government who has done it right and where you would want to live? The fact is, a government will never be run like a household no matter how much we think it should be.

The problem is that it shouldn't be. Govt. should be very detached from the people's daily lives. Govt. primarily exists to provide for "the common defense", then came infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges). All else falls to the individual, and to the smaller groups of individuals in their common geographical area (e.g. town, city, state). Centralized federal government has grown to a monstrosity, a behemoth that it was never intended to be. All else beyond the common defense and national infrastructure falls to the individual and the individual being self-reliant and responsible for themselves. That is the fundamental basis of existence, and will be again when the behemoth collapses. Individual responsibility and self-reliance are the backbone of any strong and successful society. Centralized federal government can not regulate individual responsibility and self-reliance, no matter how well intentioned it may be. Those who are lacking in the area of self responsibility (both the individual and businesses) must be allowed to fail and suffer the consequences of their actions. That is the only way to insure the unhindered progress of all the others who did it the right way. Those who fail may be assisted, first by their family/relatives, by the charity of the church or by the free-will charity of the individual. But for the most part, work or don't eat. The settlers at Jamestown tried out socialism the first year. It didn't work out very well. They soon learned that if they didn't work, they didn't eat. And if they wanted more, they had to work harder. Govt. needs to butt out of people's lives, it has become too intrusive and an obstacle to success. It can solve nothing these days, only making matters worse. Get it out of the way!

[Hozzie]

The problem is that it shouldn't be. Govt. should be very detached from the people's daily lives. Govt. primarily exists to provide for "the common defense", then came infrastructure (e.g. roads, bridges). All else falls to the individual, and to the smaller groups of individuals in their common geographical area (e.g. town, city, state). Centralized federal government has grown to a monstrosity, a behemoth that it was never intended to be. All else beyond the common defense and national infrastructure falls to the individual and the individual being self-reliant and responsible for themselves. That is the fundamental basis of existence, and will be again when the behemoth collapses. Individual responsibility and self-reliance are the backbone of any strong and successful society. Centralized federal government can not regulate individual responsibility and self-reliance, no matter how well intentioned it may be. Those who are lacking in the area of self responsibility (both the individual and businesses) must be allowed to fail and suffer the consequences of their actions. That is the only way to insure the unhindered progress of all the others who did it the right way. Those who fail may be assisted, first by their family/relatives, by the charity of the church or by the free-will charity of the individual. But for the most part, work or don't eat. The settlers at Jamestown tried out socialism the first year. It didn't work out very well. They soon learned that if they didn't work, they didn't eat. And if they wanted more, they had to work harder. Govt. needs to butt out of people's lives, it has become too intrusive and an obstacle to success. It can solve nothing these days, only making matters worse. Get it out of the way!

This goes back to my Ideology statement. I actually 100% agree with you. Work or starve. BUT, that's not reality. We can think that is the way it should be all we want, but for every one of us, there are two who think the government should provide everything. The only way we make progress is to meet somewhere in the middle, but no one wants to do that. Instead, we would all like to bitch about the other and let things spiral down so far we can't fix it.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Hozzie

[gjohnsoniv]

The problem is that the government has become a business and they want their share of everyone else's.

[RobertNashville]

Roberts' is no genius or some great strategist; he simply caved to pressure to protect how the general public perceive him and the court.

Ultimately, his actions may help propel Romney and a significant number of Republicans into office as people who hate Obummacare realize that doing so is their only hope of getting rid of it but in my humble opinion, Roberts did this for his own selfish reasons.

[mcurrier]

The problem is that the government has become a business and they want their share of everyone else's.

This. And the answer is no. Hell no!

This goes back to my Ideology statement. I actually 100% agree with you. Work or starve. BUT, that's not reality. We can think that is the way it should be all we want, but for every one of us, there are two who think the government should provide everything. The only way we make progress is to meet somewhere in the middle, but no one wants to do that. Instead, we would all like to bitch about the other and let things spiral down so far we can't fix it.

One side is correct, the other is wrong. I will not say "why should the correct side compromise with the incorrect side?", I will say that the correct side CAN'T compromise with the incorrect side. That's not how you hold on to positions of high values and ethics.

Once you let in a little bad stuff, the rest of it is soon to follow. Then you wish you could get rid of it, but you can't. Then you wish that you never compromised, but it's too late. Then all you have left is memories of the good 'ol days before things went down the tubes. People don't like confrontation. They don't like tough decisions. They don't like rolling up their sleeves and taking out the trash now, they'd rather wait until later. Unfortunately 'later' is too late. Evil, wrong, incorrect, bad...they must all be confronted now. You can't wait, can't compromise, can't fix it later.