Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius? Your thoughts?

[Hozzie]

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.

You make my point exactly. Unfortunately, there are as many, if not more on the other side who think the same thing about you, that your beliefs and ideals are wrong. Bad news for you is that there are more of them than you I am afraid. I actually think there are more middle of the road people now, but as with anything the extremists on both sides get the sound bite. It sells better.

I guess getting nothing you want is better than trying to improve some things, even if that means its a detriment to your own life? I just don't get how anyone thinks no compromise is better for the country. We will just have to agree to disagree. That's the great part about this country, we can do that.

[gjohnsoniv]

Read the Wall Street Journal's article on the ruling in the Opinion/Review and Outlook section, very good read.

[mcurrier]

I guess getting nothing you want is better than trying to improve some things, even if that means its a detriment to your own life? I just don't get how anyone thinks no compromise is better for the country. We will just have to agree to disagree. That's the great part about this country, we can do that.

There is a well known saying by conservatives about present day politics -

If liberals win elections, they expect conservatives to 'compromise', meaning, "sit down and shut up!"

If conservatives win elections, liberals expect them to compromise, meaning, "give us at least 50% say in what goes on".

Liberals want their cake, your cake and my cake and eat it too.

I can't compromise with that.

And I don't disagree with you as much as you may think I do.

I am for America, and for Americans. And I am for anyone else who is for the same.

[gjohnsoniv]

It has become my opinion recently that Liberals are the people who read the headlines and think they know everything, and the "best" way to solve them.

[Oh Shoot]

I remain 50/50 on Robert's decision.

With all the reading and commentary I've taken in, still can't honestly can't say exactly how I feel about it, what overall short term (as in coming election) or long term effects (congressional limitations) it will have, etc.

Of course, I was immediately disheartened by it, but perhaps the jury will really be out for some time, and it could indeed turn out to be a most fortuitous interpretational precedent. Of course on one hand, it suggests that there is nothing the government can't tax; on the other hand, it does indeed have to BE a tax and not a simple mandate allowed by "commerce". Enacting taxes with their names attached to them is one of the few things that the bastards on The Hill are actually loath to do.

I keep wondering about the depth of the comments to the effect that "while everyone else is playing checkers or poker, Roberts is playing chess."

Just another most interesting commentary here:

http://www.macon.com/2012/06/29/2077859/john-roberts-chess-game.html

- OS

[Hozzie]

There is a well known saying by conservatives about present day politics -

If liberals win elections, they expect conservatives to 'compromise', meaning, "sit down and shut up!"

If conservatives win elections, liberals expect them to compromise, meaning, "give us at least 50% say in what goes on".

Liberals want their cake, your cake and my cake and eat it too.

I also think we (you and I) aren't that far apart, but swap liberal for conservative and vice versa in your statement and I guarantee that 99% of liberals feel the same way. It goes back to my statement early on about we believe what we want to believe, not always what is the truth.

Edited July 2, 2012 by Hozzie

[gjohnsoniv]

I remain 50/50 on Robert's decision.

With all the reading and commentary I've taken in, still can't honestly can't say exactly how I feel about it, what overall short term (as in coming election) or long term effects (congressional limitations) it will have, etc.

Of course, I was immediately disheartened by it, but perhaps the jury will really be out for some time, and it could indeed turn out to be a most fortuitous interpretational precedent. Of course on one hand, it suggests that there is nothing the government can't tax; on the other hand, it does indeed have to BE a tax and not a simple mandate allowed by "commerce". Enacting taxes with their names attached to them is one of the few things that the bastards on The Hill are actually loath to do.

I keep wondering about the depth of the comments to the effect that "while everyone else is playing checkers or poker, Roberts is playing chess."

Just another most interesting commentary here:

http://www.macon.com...chess-game.html

- OS

After reading the Wall Street journal article on this I can see where that one is going but I don't feel that is the intent. There were other ways to do that but I still don't feel that he is actually that smart.

[mcurrier]

I also think we (you and I) aren't that far apart, but swap liberal for conservative and vice versa in your statement and I guarantee that 99% of liberals feel the same way. It goes back to my statement early on about we believe what we want to believe, not always what is the truth.

More often than not (that would also read "most of the time"), conservatives are able to back up their position with facts, while liberals are not. Liberals typically use emotion, yelling, and arguing the same point over and over to wear their opponent out with theory rather than referring to empirical data as conservatives do.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

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.

It's about to be work or starve because if something can't be afforded, it can't remain. It will be reality.

Meeting in the middle always corrupts, it never produces. The wrong pathway.

When you assume everything has to be compromised to achieve results, you always give up on parts of the goal.

Goals must be attainable to be achieved, even with governments. They end up going in the wrong direction and

for one to be pure it has to remain a good goal. Obamacare is evil. It is not about healthcare, to begin with. We

have the best healthcare system in the world. Why compromise the best system with altruism? Or giving something

away for nothing? This is a value based society. Welfare redistribution is just another way to squander resources

to cause a destruction of the country. In the end, there will be nothing left, and there will be a vacuum of government

left to be filled.

When one compromises between good and evil, evil always wins.

I am forced to pay into a system that tells me, because of my age, not because of my ability to afford, that I will

be kept from certain types of care that was previously available to me in the market based system, tells me all I

need to know, and it should tell you the same. Someone is getting something for nothing and it's because he's

getting it off my back. Now, tell me what's wrong with that picture.

If you accept it as reality, you have compromised. not very good.

" All you hear is either the Republican talking points or the Democrat talking points." Really?

Edited July 3, 2012 by 6.8 AR

[subsonic]

He acted as a politician and not as a jurist. He was more concerned with the image of SCOTUS as a consequence of the ruling and failed miserably. The can of worms he has opened will plague this country for ages.

[Oh Shoot]

He acted as a politician and not as a jurist. He was more concerned with the image of SCOTUS as a consequence of the ruling and failed miserably. The can of worms he has opened will plague this country for ages.

Maybe.

SCOTUS opened the door for states to basically reject any expansion of Medicaid roles without losing existing funding. Lack of that expansion, as I understand it, would prevent the "exchanges" being set up, allowing that state in effect to just opt of the whole mess.

That's what Florida gov has already vowed to do. And with 26 states in the original lawsuits, surely they will not be alone. This even before the promised "whole state exemptions" promised to be offered by Mitt immediately if he wins.

And again, the last thing a pol ever wants is to hang his name on a new tax, so that may over time be the most effective way to limit government overreach, since the commerce clause whipping boy is gonna be tougher to claim.

- OS

Edited July 3, 2012 by OhShoot

[mcurrier]

Here are a few pro Roberts is a genius articles from this morning -

http://visiontoamerica.org/10704/did-roberts-make-a-conservative-trojan-horse/

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/

I will wait until this garbage is quickly repealed in its entirety before I go proclaiming him a genius. I hope he is, but I'm not seeing it just yet.

[mcurrier]

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.â€

― Benjamin Franklin

[QuietDan]

I don't mind taking care of the truly poor, the proverbial widows and orphans. There are however, too many strap-hangers and lay-abouts that make a mess of charity.

I don't mind feeding the birds, but I draw the line at squirrels. There are all together too many squirrels in the birdfeeders . . .

The big trick is how to keep the squirrels out of the birdfeeders.

[Guest adamoxtwo]

I remain 50/50 on Robert's decision.

With all the reading and commentary I've taken in, still can't honestly can't say exactly how I feel about it, what overall short term (as in coming election) or long term effects (congressional limitations) it will have, etc.

Of course, I was immediately disheartened by it, but perhaps the jury will really be out for some time, and it could indeed turn out to be a most fortuitous interpretational precedent. Of course on one hand, it suggests that there is nothing the government can't tax; on the other hand, it does indeed have to BE a tax and not a simple mandate allowed by "commerce". Enacting taxes with their names attached to them is one of the few things that the bastards on The Hill are actually loath to do.

I keep wondering about the depth of the comments to the effect that "while everyone else is playing checkers or poker, Roberts is playing chess."

Just another most interesting commentary here:

http://www.macon.com...chess-game.html

- OS

I have to side with you. The fact that it is now a Tax means brings up a question if the bill is now legal. The reason is where the bill originated. I had to look it up to get it correct and here is the best explanation I could find.

"The Senate and the House of Representatives are considered equal when it comes to legislative functions and powers with a few key exceptions. One of the most important exceptions is that, under the Constitution at Article 1, section 7.1, only the House of Representatives may originate revenue and tax bills."

Therefore I have to do more research into his rulings and do the homework. I admittedly know that I don't know enough. However, it seems that he may have played this right into the hands of the Republicans. If the Republican party win the Presidency and maintain the house they can end the bill January 22 forever legally, by holding a special session of congress and voting the bill out. Is it likely? I have no idea, but makes the elections even more important this year.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

Thank your lucky stars that we had a good republican like G. W. Bush to nominate strict originalists such as Roberts. Had Gore or Kerry been president then either of those democrat fools may have nominated a revisionist Chief Justice crazy enough to uphold Obamacare! Then where would we be? It was truly fortunate that a good republican like G. W. Bush was president at the right time and the right place. Pray that Romney is our next president-- A staid reliable republican president-- A president even-more-republicaner than Bush to save the republic by nominating jurists even-more-originalister than Roberts.

[seez52]

First off, compromise is highly over rated!!

Second, when did we roll over and put the fox in charge of the hen house?

The constitution is a piece of paper espousing laws, limitations etc., that's all it is— a piece of paper.

Down at the local courthouse there are shelves of laws and limitations. And that's all they are, books of paper.

And when you break one of those laws down at the courthouse, say speeding for example, there is a mechanism in place to insure that law is properly enforced. It's called a cop. It's not a judge that can opine whether you were speeding or not, it's an enforcer of the law, not an interpreter of the law. Yes, you were speeding, you can't do that, here's a ticket pay your fine. Where the judge comes in is setting the fine, and delivering justice according to the law.

But we seemed to have forgotten, or for some reason allowed, the supreme court to take the place of this cop when it comes to enforcing the constitution. This is where the fox running the chicken house comes in. How is it possible that a court can rule on itself? Can the government rule on the government? We would never let this stand for lower court rulings. A judge cannot judge himself, but we let the SCOTUS do just that.

The founders intended for the sovereign states themselves to be the "cops" insuring that the federal government stays within it's constitutionally limited scope. Our system works on a series of checks and balances with the states themselves being the final authority on what is constitutional and what is not. Jefferson and Madison both explained this in 1798 when they penned the Ky. resolves.

Until we wake up and rediscover the sovereign states' ability, their duty, their absolute charge to hold reign over the federal government, the federal government will continue to expand, grant itself powers and privileges all the while diminishing our freedoms and liberty.

The constitution is just a piece of paper. The founders were well aware of this. They knew an unchecked federal government could grant itself whatever it wished. They put cops in place to keep it in check. When are we going to put the "cops" "back on the beat?" States rights and state sovereignty is our only hope. How can we re-discover it?

Edited July 4, 2012 by seez52

[mcurrier]

[mcurrier]

Chief Justice Roberts and Economic Fascism

http://www.garynorth.com/public/9722.cfm

Condensed versions at -

http://visiontoamerica.com/10721/chief-justice-roberts-and-economic-fascism/

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/07/03/chief-justice-roberts-and-economic-fascism/

[greenego]

Roberts may be the smartest SOB ever to serve on the Supreme Court. That being said did he do his job? He swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. I don't think he did. As for the Chicago boys having something on him, if they do it will come out.

Edited July 4, 2012 by greenego