Comments on: The Constitution as fodder for Roberts’ Obamacare ransom note

By: eddiethegeek

eddiethegeek — Thu, 05 Jul 2012 16:49:51 +0000

That’s the ONLY sane rationale I can come up with to justify the Chief Justice’s decision to destroy his own reputation for all time.

A special prosecutor should be appointed.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 16:27:30 +0000

intease

By: David123

David123 — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:19:21 +0000

It narrowly squeaked through Congress after a Democratic wave election with the help of tricks, the Louisiana Purchase, etc. Oh, and the President who signed it into law had campaigned AGAINST a mandate and raising taxes on anyone who makes less than $2500,000/year.

By: Melody Warbington (rwm52)

Melody Warbington (rwm52) — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 05:15:13 +0000

to have his name linked with ~~ObamaCare~~ ObamaTax for all time rather than with men of courage and conviction. He has written his legacy. Now let him live with it. Surely the American people won't.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Wed, 04 Jul 2012 03:50:23 +0000

super-majorities in Congress voted for. He was wrong to so worry about what liberal historians would write rather than follow the law. It was cowardice, which vice once again shows how vital is the virtue of courage in the life of a nation. After all, One man with it can make a majority!

By: Flagstaff

Flagstaff — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 19:56:07 +0000

Roberts got it wrong. It infuriates conservatives because it is so transparently wrong, which raises the question of “Why?” After all, had Roberts just agreed with the libs on the court and said the Commerce Clause governs favorably, the result would have been the same but we’d only be saying, “Wow, how could he think that? I thought he would see it didn’t allow it.”

As it is now, we are saying, “Wow, does he have early onset Alzheimer’s? Was his life or family threatened? Did George Soros pay him off?” As you point out, NONE of the other eight agreed with his reasoning about the tax, nor do We, the People. NONE of the after-decision commentary refers to possible ways that his logic could be right, it only refers to possible reasons why he would make such an obviously wrong decision, ALWAYS with the explicit or implied consideration that he did it for some other reason than that he thought it was good legal reasoning.

That it is bad reasoning is easy to show by analogy:

By his logic, if a law ordered us to donate $100 per person per year to the Catholic Church under threat of being assessed a tax, it would be a constitutional law.

Even those of us whose only connection to law school is a high score on the LSAT and a family relationship to a lawyer can see that the above example could never be considered constitutional. Which takes us back to the question, “Why did he choose to ignore the constitution and affirm an unconstitutional law via a transparently twisted application of a non-applicable legalism, when he might have done the same thing in a simpler way?”

EVERY reasonable answer to all these questions involves Roberts having an intended result in mind and finding some way to reach it, while not affirming the expansion of the Commerce Clause.

By: 6eorge Jetson

6eorge Jetson — Tue, 03 Jul 2012 02:39:16 +0000

with exemptions granted to those that engage in the desired behavior. That’s so preferable to regulation under the Commerce Clause.

By: Mike gamecock DeVine

Mike gamecock DeVine — Sun, 01 Jul 2012 12:43:43 +0000

later – in tee

By: Freedoms Truth

Freedoms Truth — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 18:02:26 +0000

only 4 Justices voted to do that in the Obamacare case.
And they flubbed the Arizona case.