I wouldn't be so quick to jump on Roberts. There are a lot of people who are smarter about this stuff than me who are pointing out that there are some less-obvious but very good reasons why he might have opined the way he did. See SCOTUSBlog, Althouse, Volokh, and the link below. I think it's going to take some time before we see what the real impact of this ruling will be. http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/what-was-roberts-thinking/
I guess you guys are smarter than me - I don't see the method to his madness. It sounds like Roberts just wanted to preserve his job/legacy. So he now gets to rule on more stuff meanwhile we have no country left. Isn't that like curing the disease by killing the patient?
Ya know when I was in High School I did some crazy stuff to impress a girl. Well Justice Ruth Ginsburg is recently widowed. So my theory is that Chief Justice Roberts did this mainly to bed Ruth. Basically John is gonna to her what he just did to us. Mazel Tov you crazy kids :)
The real cowards are the ones who nominated Roberts and not someone who is actually is concerned about the Constitution. Face it, we are the frogs that just realized the water is boiling. It's going to be a long process to fix the mess we are in but it can and must be done. Just remember this at every single election from now until you die. Vote for leaders that will support and defend the Constitution.
Well, Roberts DID honcho the SCOTUS decison delcaring that municipalities can use eminemt domain to take your property - not just for highways and such, but for shopping malls, office towers, etc - effectively bringing a de facto end to "private property". So, given that, while I was surprised at the the Obamacare ruling, it didn't exactly shock me. Mr Roberts seems to have a warped vew of the owrld - and the constitution: i.e., it would be unconstitutional were it simply a mandate, but since it's "Obviously" a tax (something which Obama's administration AND attorneys steadfastly maintained it ABSOLUTELY was NOT), it MUST be upheld.
What a novel idea.. constitutionally condoning a tax on americans for not doing something... excuse my ignorance, but i am having a problem viewing this as a stelth benefit to the cause.. A stake through the heart of this travesty was in our hands.. kennedy was with us big time, and the sure thing conservative chief justice.... he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory for us by some ivroy tower fuzzy head reasoning. There is no other framing of it.. we were sold out for the insane wims of a single insane intelectual. This new prodidious sequence of taxes (or penelties, or investments), plus the expiration of the bush tax cuts.. all after the king is re-elected, will crash the economy as foretold by claward-piven.. only eleven years after 911, another fuzzy headed intelectual with the middle name hussain will finish the job.
Thank the Lord that we have the Pittman-Robertson tax for us gun owners ! I am sure that Barry won't abuse that. I mean come on now. Those wonderful NSSF guys say we need that to support the ducks and geese. And now the NSSF wants to use it for more gun ranges ! No one in Washington would mess with that. Really. They wouldn't raise the tax or nothin. You can trust them. PR is a great idea. No one would think of raising it say, to pay for freaking INSURANCE for GUN OWNERS. Like in a FREAKING MANDATORY PLAY TO LIMIT MORE FOLKS FROM AFFORDING GUNS. Like in pricing us out of the market.
Seriously, I trust politicians to use my money wisely. They've NEVER SCREWED US BEFORE. Heck I would give them ALL MY PAYCHECK. I just know that my 11% is well used.
And remember to keep voting for the establishment Republican candidate too. Because we know that any supreme court justice appointed by a Republican would never screw us on the constitution, let alone the second amendment.
I think the dems had something on him - either he had a girlfriend, boyfriend, liked farm animals or whatever. The inconsistency of his behavior and the speed with which this got to the SC (I think the regime could have slowed it down - they seemed all too eager to have it go) makes me smell a (different kind of) rat...
I honestly wonder if he was bought off, or he or his family threatened. Either way, the end of America as we know it has begun.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be so quick to jump on Roberts. There are a lot of people who are smarter about this stuff than me who are pointing out that there are some less-obvious but very good reasons why he might have opined the way he did. See SCOTUSBlog, Althouse, Volokh, and the link below. I think it's going to take some time before we see what the real impact of this ruling will be.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cato-at-liberty.org/what-was-roberts-thinking/
I guess you guys are smarter than me - I don't see the method to his madness. It sounds like Roberts just wanted to preserve his job/legacy. So he now gets to rule on more stuff meanwhile we have no country left. Isn't that like curing the disease by killing the patient?
ReplyDeleteHe definitely has a legacy now...coward.
ReplyDeletemb
Ya know when I was in High School I did some crazy stuff to impress a girl. Well Justice Ruth Ginsburg is recently widowed. So my theory is that Chief Justice Roberts did this mainly to bed Ruth. Basically John is gonna to her what he just did to us. Mazel Tov you crazy kids :)
ReplyDeleteThe real cowards are the ones who nominated Roberts and not someone who is actually is concerned about the Constitution. Face it, we are the frogs that just realized the water is boiling. It's going to be a long process to fix the mess we are in but it can and must be done. Just remember this at every single election from now until you die. Vote for leaders that will support and defend the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteWell, Roberts and the big O finally burned the Constitution.
ReplyDeleteCoward, yes, incompetent yes
Welp ... I guess we can tax people for not doing things now.
ReplyDeleteHow to tax hippies ....
Tax not owning a carry permit.
Tax not driving a car
Tax not eating red meat once a week
Tax not eating bacon
I wonder what else we can tax hippies for not doing?
Well, Roberts DID honcho the SCOTUS decison delcaring that municipalities can use eminemt domain to take your property - not just for highways and such, but for shopping malls, office towers, etc - effectively bringing a de facto end to "private property". So, given that, while I was surprised at the the Obamacare ruling, it didn't exactly shock me. Mr Roberts seems to have a warped vew of the owrld - and the constitution: i.e., it would be unconstitutional were it simply a mandate, but since it's "Obviously" a tax (something which Obama's administration AND attorneys steadfastly maintained it ABSOLUTELY was NOT), it MUST be upheld.
ReplyDeleteGo figure.
Cowardly, yes. A move so brilliant none of us cas see it? Doubtul.
ReplyDeleteAnd gunman42782, the end of America as we know it began a long, long time ago.
Just sayin . . .
We have taken another (large) step towards communism.
ReplyDeleteTwo options left. Ballot box or ammo box. Our first revolution was fought over the issue of taxation.
ReplyDeleteWhat a novel idea.. constitutionally condoning a tax on americans for not doing something... excuse my ignorance, but i am having a problem viewing this as a stelth benefit to the cause.. A stake through the heart of this travesty was in our hands.. kennedy was with us big time, and the sure thing conservative chief justice.... he snatched defeat from the jaws of victory for us by some ivroy tower fuzzy head reasoning. There is no other framing of it.. we were sold out for the insane wims of a single insane intelectual. This new prodidious sequence of taxes (or penelties, or investments), plus the expiration of the bush tax cuts.. all after the king is re-elected, will crash the economy as foretold by claward-piven.. only eleven years after 911, another fuzzy headed intelectual with the middle name hussain will finish the job.
ReplyDeleteNow, can we count on Roberts to enforce the Second Amendment to the Constitution?
ReplyDeleteLife Member
Thank the Lord that we have the Pittman-Robertson tax for us gun owners ! I am sure that Barry won't abuse that. I mean come on now. Those wonderful NSSF guys say we need that to support the ducks and geese. And now the NSSF wants to use it for more gun ranges ! No one in Washington would mess with that. Really. They wouldn't raise the tax or nothin. You can trust them. PR is a great idea. No one would think of raising it say, to pay for freaking INSURANCE for GUN OWNERS. Like in a FREAKING MANDATORY PLAY TO LIMIT MORE FOLKS FROM AFFORDING GUNS. Like in pricing us out of the market.
ReplyDeleteSeriously, I trust politicians to use my money wisely. They've NEVER SCREWED US BEFORE. Heck I would give them ALL MY PAYCHECK. I just know that my 11% is well used.
And remember to keep voting for the establishment Republican candidate too. Because we know that any supreme court justice appointed by a Republican would never screw us on the constitution, let alone the second amendment.
ReplyDeleteI think the dems had something on him - either he had a girlfriend, boyfriend, liked farm animals or whatever. The inconsistency of his behavior and the speed with which this got to the SC (I think the regime could have slowed it down - they seemed all too eager to have it go) makes me smell a (different kind of) rat...
ReplyDelete