John Roberts

[Mike]

:lol:

I see you thought that comment was hilarious as well. Wonder how he dreams up all this ridiculous chit? :lol: :lol:

progressives dream up all kinds of sheet. It gets funny when reality hits them square across the face, and they have to make excuses for their past explanations and actions.

Just wait until the unintended consequences of this decision hit them, and they all claim "Roberts the Conservative" was the deciding factor in "restricting their Constitutional rights"

Hope those "Progressives" realize that Roberts & Co.just slapped the hell out of the "Commerce Clause". They will want & need it one day and won't be able to use it. :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[hopalong]

Chief Justice Roberts is said by friends to have wanted most to enhance the "reputation" of the court by avoiding a "partisan" 5-4 decision overturning Obamacare. But he would write a passage to restrain Congress from doing bad things in future in the name of the Commerce Clause. He could have put his restraint of the Commerce Clause into a decision overturning Obamacare — the four conservatives on the court were eager to do it — but that would have meant no applause from the left. So the rest of us are stuck with Obamacare, the elites console themselves with a moral victory, and Chief Justice Roberts has established the reputation of the court as a lap dog for every Congress from now on, "moving forward" in cheerful disregard of enumerated powers.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/3/pruden-the-seduction-of-chief-justice-roberts/

It also says
His friends say that criticism in the newspapers and on television gets easily under his skin, that he has been for so long the golden boy — Harvard Law, top-of-the-line Washington law firm (Hogan & Hartson), a clerkship for a chief justice (William Rehnquist) — that he imagines he was put where he is now to bask, and buff and burnish the reputation of the court — all the better to reflect a shine and sheen on his own image.

Sounds a lot like our resident judge oppps I meant J.P.


:wink: :wink: :wink: :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

So now that Chief Justice Roberts is considered the Pariah and Judas to the conservative movement---Besides the Health Care bill- what did you think of the rest of Roberts courts decisions?

I agreed 100% with the court on the Arizona decision because since day one- and right in the Constitution- immigration, citizenship, border, international issues have been in the hands of/the duty of the Federal Government explicitly...Which is exactly what the court said- throwing out the new Arizona law-- and saying the State/Local authorities only had the power to detain and release to the Federal authorities which historically has been the standard for years...
This was a 5-3 and 6-2 decision... Newly appointed presumed liberal Justice Elena Kagan did not take part...Chief Justice Roberts agreed with the majority...


I semi agreed with their decision throwing out the law making it illegal to lie about receiving military medals- "Stolen Valor Act"... I liked the law and believe military heros should be put on a pedestal - but agreed the law as written was too broad, and could be an abuse to someones free speech...This was another 6-3 decision with Roberts voting with the majority to throw out the law...So far the Roberts court is taking a broad view of allowing free speech...

The only ruling I totally disagreed with is their throwing out of Montanas 100 year old Corrupt Practices Act that did not allow Corporates to make an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party... This was a 1912 voter referendum passed law that was brought in for the reason of State government history of corruption by wealthy corporate entities- like the Copper Kings and corporations like the Anaconda Company..
This also was not only a voter initiated law- but one supported by many of both parties and Independents- not wanting to give out of state, foreign multinational corporate conglomerates more power in our state and local elections...

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the same "Citizens United" ruling applied in this case as well... This again was a 5-4 decision with Roberts voting with the majority saying that corporations have the same rights as individual citizens...
I disagree with their ruling because I don't think corporate entities have the same rights as individuals under the Constitution-- and in this case, this affects a long historic precedent of law that Montana and 22 other states have had-- and should be allowed under States rights..Again this follows the courts appearance that they are going to allow wide latitude with free speech....

But legal scholars have long recognized Justice Roberts and the Roberts Court as one of the most pro corporate, pro big business courts in modern court history...

Since the Healthcare law was supported by so many differing types of big business - this could be another reason the court/Roberts ruled as it did on that issue too..

 

[hopalong]

If what you say is true oldtimer,, why are those in the REAL know feel he rolled over!!!!!! :wink: :wink: :wink: caved to political pressure!!!!! :roll:
We all know that you have little credibility and anything you say just adds to the fire that he rolled over... Keep up the good work, you help the cause to have it over turned....

 

[okfarmer]

Can someone please show me the precedent for taxing a citizen based solely on something they elect not to purchase or use and not tax the individuals using the service?


I have yet to see the justification of it being a tax. I'm sure the judicial scholars on here that understand this can help me out.

 

[Anonymous]

Can someone please show me the precedent for taxing a citizen based solely on something they elect not to purchase or use and not tax the individuals using the service?


I have yet to see the justification of it being a tax. I'm sure the judicial scholars on here that understand this can help me out.

Romney breaks with GOP, says mandate is a penalty, not a tax

By Jonathan Easley - 07/02/12 02:47 PM ET
Mitt Romney's presidential campaign broke with congressional Republicans on Monday by arguing that the individual mandate upheld by the Supreme Court last week is a penalty, not a tax.

The majority in the court's decision ruled it constitutional because it was a tax, and Republicans in Congress since that decision have hit the White House hard for raising taxes through the new law.


But a spokesman for Romney on Monday said the former Massachusetts governor agrees with Obama that the individual mandate is a penalty or a fine, rather than a tax.

----------



Both the healthcare ruling and the conflicting statements highlight the trouble Romney has in going after the president on healthcare. As governor of Massachusetts, Romney instituted a healthcare law that includes an individual mandate, and at the time, he too portrayed it as a penalty or a fine, rather than a tax.

In fact, Fehrnstrom pointed out in his interview that Romney "has consistently described the mandate in Massachusetts as a penalty."

Personally I agree with Romney and Obama that it is a penalty or a fine...If you don't follow the law of mandatory health insurance- you pay the fine or penalty...
Just like Donald Trump or Bill Gates are mandated to have liability insurance on their vehicles for the economic protection of everyone- and if caught without such insurance have to pay a penalty or fine..

Many agree that the mandate fits a penalty/fine definition much better than a tax....

Completely undercutting the Republican message since the Supreme Court ruling on the ACA, Mitt Romney has now said that the penalty for not buying insurance is just a penalty, not a tax. He probably took this position because Romneycare has the same penalty as Obamacare and if it is tax, Democrats can say that he raised taxes when governor of Massachusetts. What's a tax anyway? Some definitions:

•Dictionary.com: a sum of money demanded by a government for its support ...
•Merriam-Webster: a charge usually of money imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes
•Oxford dictionaries: a compulsory contribution to state revenue

The general theme of most definitions is that its primary purpose is raising revenue. That really wasn't the case with the ACA penalty, so using the normal definition of tax, Obama and Romney are right and the Supreme Court came up with a new definition of tax. While linguists may fret over a bunch of lawyers redefining a very old word, the main problem here is Romney taking down the Republicans' message that the ACA is a massive tax hike.

And altho the justices didn't go that way in their ruling- federal mandates have precedence and history going back to day one, including ones involving health insurance and were signed into law by Presidents Washington and Adams...

Congressional Mandates Go Back over 200 Years


Although it is almost 3 months old now, an article by a Harvard Law professor, Einer Elhauge, about early congressional mandates may be of interest to people who missed it. In 1790, the first Congress mandated that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. (The idea was revived by Richard Nixon in the form of a general employer mandate to provide health insurance for employees, but it didn't pass.) Then in 1792, Congress, with 17 framers of the Constitution as members, passed a mandate requiring that all able-bodied men buy a gun. President Washington signed the bill. In 1798, Congress realized that its 1790 employer mandate didn't cover hospital stays, so it mandated that individual seamen buy their own hospital insurance. The bill was signed by President John Adams.

If Congress can order seamen to buy hospital insurance, can it not order teachers or short-order cooks or undertakers to do so? Arguments that the framers of the Constitution were against individual mandates are clearly untrue: some of them actually voted for one or more and specifically for a health insurance mandate. Furthermore, Presidents Washington and Adams signed bills with mandates that they could have vetoed. It is surprising that although independent authorities have verified Elhauge's story, it has gotten so little publicity although it was mentioned on the Smithsonian Institution's Website last week.

 

[okfarmer]

Liability insurance is not mandated to control the cost of insurance for all. first, driving is not a right but a privledge. Second, those not driving are not required to purchase. Third, it is mandatory to protect the personal propeerty of someone at your fault you collide with or cause to be injured. Fourth, you are not mandated to purchase coverage to cover any lose of your own. It is your right to take that risk.

My phone is dying so ill finish later

 

[Mike]

Congress did not actually mandate that ship owners provide health insurance. They imposed a 20 cent per month tax on seamen's wages. That revenue was used to fund medical care for seamen. No one was required to buy anything. Congress had the power to impose taxes, not to compel purchases.
Besides, seamen were transporters of Commerce and could arguably fall under the Commerce Clause.

 

[Tam]

Oldtimer again you are saying the "TAX" is a "PENALTY" and the court said a penalty is unconstitutional as if you can fine a person for not buying something then you could fine them for not buying a Government Motors car or maybe fine them for not buying a government health board quota of Broccilli.

Al West said he believed it Personal protection so he wants to force everyone to buy a handgun and if they don't he thinks the GOVERNMENT SHOULD TAX THEM INTO IT. Just how much could the US raise in taxes to pay the cops that have to go out and protect those that refuse to protect themselves.

TAXING a person just because they MIGHT USE the healthcare system should be unconstitutional. And Roberts sided with the Conservatives until Obama and the left Bias Media turned up the heat. He should be ashamed of himself and I hope he can't sleep at night due to his saddleing the US with something that even he believed was Unconstitutional AS WRITTEN.

 

[Anonymous]

And Roberts sided with the Conservatives until Obama and the left Bias Media turned up the heat. He should be ashamed of himself and I hope he can't sleep at night due to his saddleing the US with something that even he believed was Unconstitutional AS WRITTEN.

Poor Tammy... Just think- Roberts is one of the younger Chief Justices appointed and at age 57 could easily be a big vote on the SCOTUS for 20-30 years..... And if you are right in your condemnation of him as pure evil - follow in the footsteps of the last young conservative Chief Justice appointee- Earl Warren- who served 16 years and changed the face of the country with his courts liberal rulings...

Tam-You better get yourself a good sedative prescription and stock up on the Depends :wink: :lol:

 

[Tam]

And Roberts sided with the Conservatives until Obama and the left Bias Media turned up the heat. He should be ashamed of himself and I hope he can't sleep at night due to his saddleing the US with something that even he believed was Unconstitutional AS WRITTEN.

Poor Tammy... Just think- Roberts is one of the younger Chief Justices appointed and at age 57 could easily be a big vote on the SCOTUS for 20-30 years..... And if you are right in your condemnation of him as pure evil - follow in the footsteps of the last young conservative Chief Justice appointee- Earl Warren- who served 16 years and changed the face of the country with his courts liberal rulings...

Tam-You better get yourself a good sedative prescription and stock up on the Depends :wink: :lol:

Typical Oldtimer :roll:

But Glad you brought that up Oldtimer maybe it is time the US starts thinking about term limits for more than just the President. Congressmen seem to get elected and think they have a life long career in politics which turns them into career CROOKS to protect their cushy lives.
The Supreme Court should also have to have term limits to clean out the dead wood that think they can rule any old way they want and get away with it as they never have to face judgement on the job they are doing. Roberts is a JUDGE and it is not his job to RE-WRITE laws that are presented to him to be JUDGED. If the bills are to be rewritten to be CONSTITUTIONAL then he should have passed it back to the Congress as many times as it takes for THEM to get it right. :roll:

 

[TexasBred]

And Roberts sided with the Conservatives until Obama and the left Bias Media turned up the heat. He should be ashamed of himself and I hope he can't sleep at night due to his saddleing the US with something that even he believed was Unconstitutional AS WRITTEN.

Poor Tammy... Just think- Roberts is one of the younger Chief Justices appointed and at age 57 could easily be a big vote on the SCOTUS for 20-30 years..... And if you are right in your condemnation of him as pure evil - follow in the footsteps of the last young conservative Chief Justice appointee- Earl Warren- who served 16 years and changed the face of the country with his courts liberal rulings...

Tam-You better get yourself a good sedative prescription and stock up on the Depends :wink: :lol:

It doesn't matter what Romney, Obama or Oldtimer think about it. -...The Supreme Court has ruled it IS a tax....thus it IS a tax !!!! If not a tax then the whole thing is unconstitutional. Get use to it. You WILL be paying a new tax.

 

[Steve]

The Supreme Court has ruled it IS a tax....thus it IS a tax !!!! If not a tax then the whole thing is unconstitutional. Get use to it. You WILL be paying a new tax.

since throwing out the whole thing may be impossible right now.. I would encourage all who are against this unfair unreasonable TAX to contact their representatives and have the TAX portion thrown out...

as a single issue it would get bipartisan support from moderate democrats, and may even pass the senate...

only for Obama to veto it... :twisted:

 

[okfarmer]

And Roberts sided with the Conservatives until Obama and the left Bias Media turned up the heat. He should be ashamed of himself and I hope he can't sleep at night due to his saddleing the US with something that even he believed was Unconstitutional AS WRITTEN.

Poor Tammy... Just think- Roberts is one of the younger Chief Justices appointed and at age 57 could easily be a big vote on the SCOTUS for 20-30 years..... And if you are right in your condemnation of him as pure evil - follow in the footsteps of the last young conservative Chief Justice appointee- Earl Warren- who served 16 years and changed the face of the country with his courts liberal rulings...

Tam-You better get yourself a good sedative prescription and stock up on the Depends :wink: :lol:

It doesn't matter what Romney, Obama or Oldtimer think about it. -...The Supreme Court has ruled it IS a tax....thus it IS a tax !!!! If not a tax then the whole thing is unconstitutional. Get use to it. You WILL be paying a new tax.

TB, I don't care if the Supreme Court rules that yellow is now blue, it is wrong. It is an over reach of the government to take away my liberty and property, and it is wrong.

I was instructed by the foundation of the country to not accept this type of government. I won't accept this.

If that is the best argument, that it was ruled a tax by the Supreme Court, there is no argument. We were founded on certain truths and adherence to those truths. Where is your supporting arguments?

So far no one has shown me how there has been a precedent for this type of self insurance previously. Mostly because it hasn't happened.

If your not ticked enough to do something about this, then you belong in the Obama regime.

That just lay down and take it sentiment isn't what made this country. If it is deemed that the American Citizens can obtain no relief from an immoral and corrupt government, it is our duty to remove that corruption.

And that unfortunately is where we are at.

 

[okfarmer]

Congress did not actually mandate that ship owners provide health insurance. They imposed a 20 cent per month tax on seamen's wages. That revenue was used to fund medical care for seamen. No one was required to buy anything. Congress had the power to impose taxes, not to compel purchases.
Besides, seamen were transporters of Commerce and could arguably fall under the Commerce Clause.

When all are taxed. That is a tax.

To penalize someone for not purchasing something, is not a tax.

 

[Anonymous]

And Roberts sided with the Conservatives until Obama and the left Bias Media turned up the heat. He should be ashamed of himself and I hope he can't sleep at night due to his saddleing the US with something that even he believed was Unconstitutional AS WRITTEN.

Poor Tammy... Just think- Roberts is one of the younger Chief Justices appointed and at age 57 could easily be a big vote on the SCOTUS for 20-30 years..... And if you are right in your condemnation of him as pure evil - follow in the footsteps of the last young conservative Chief Justice appointee- Earl Warren- who served 16 years and changed the face of the country with his courts liberal rulings...

Tam-You better get yourself a good sedative prescription and stock up on the Depends :wink: :lol:

It doesn't matter what Romney, Obama or Oldtimer think about it. -...The Supreme Court has ruled it IS a tax....thus it IS a tax !!!! If not a tax then the whole thing is unconstitutional. Get use to it. You WILL be paying a new tax.

So does a $500 tax cost more than a $500 fine or $500 penalty... Or a $500 fee...
The good thing is as a responsible American, who has always had health care insurance coverage, I will not have to pay this tax... This tax will only be imposed upon the irresponsible folks that can afford but refuse to get insurance coverage- often time pawning their bills/costs off on me and the other responsible folks...

 

[backhoeboogie]

The good thing is as a responsible American, who has always had health care insurance coverage, I will not have to pay this tax...

Let me guess, Bush's fault????

 

[ranch hand]

That is why his wife works so he can have health insurance. Right OT?

 

[ranch hand]

Ot... We paid for their medical for those uninsured and now we pay for their insurance....either way we PAY

 

[okfarmer]

Poor Tammy... Just think- Roberts is one of the younger Chief Justices appointed and at age 57 could easily be a big vote on the SCOTUS for 20-30 years..... And if you are right in your condemnation of him as pure evil - follow in the footsteps of the last young conservative Chief Justice appointee- Earl Warren- who served 16 years and changed the face of the country with his courts liberal rulings...

Tam-You better get yourself a good sedative prescription and stock up on the Depends :wink: :lol:

It doesn't matter what Romney, Obama or Oldtimer think about it. -...The Supreme Court has ruled it IS a tax....thus it IS a tax !!!! If not a tax then the whole thing is unconstitutional. Get use to it. You WILL be paying a new tax.

So does a $500 tax cost more than a $500 fine or $500 penalty... Or a $500 fee...
The good thing is as a responsible American, who has always had health care insurance coverage, I will not have to pay this tax... This tax will only be imposed upon the irresponsible folks that can afford but refuse to get insurance coverage- often time pawning their bills/costs off on me and the other responsible folks...

You know there would be a way to reward those being responsible and not force them to pay for others. Of course it would require common sense.

All that would be needed is to not require hospitals to provide free care.

Those that could afford insurance would get it. Those that could not and were eligible for medicare and medicaid would get it. Those in between would have medical costs closer to the actual worth of the services provided.

And then if you put a lid on the lawyers, a lot of the unnecessary, cover your behind, stuff could be stopped along with outrageous malpractice insurance.

And folks, if you aren't comfortable putting a limit on the lawyers now, what do you think is going to happen when the government begins to dictate your care. You think you are going to win a law suit at that time?


When I was young, my dad showed me the house where he was born. I asked him why he wasn't born in a hospital. He said, because that would have taken money. And we didn't have it back then.


Kinda like they didn't have a big house, or a fancy car, or a cell phone for every member of the family, or how every person in every third world country doesn't have free health care. It's not a right.

You want to vaccinate for small poxs because it will protect the population, fine.

You want to provide individualized health care- it isn't for the protection of the country. No dice and I don't owe it to anyone.