Roberts the Coward

If he wanted to demonstrate the Supreme Court was apolitical, he shouldn't have bowed to political pressure. Right?

Last Friday on NPR, liberal columnist E.J. Dionne said something very revealing about why Chief Justice John Roberts decided to affirm the constitutionality of ObamaCare. The remarks proved even more enlightening when we learned for a certainty from peerless Supreme Court reporter Jan Crawford that Roberts did indeed change his mind a month after voting it down with the conservative bloc.

“I think Justice Roberts in this case saw . . . the attacks that [the high court] was facing from lots of people — including me, I should say — were just going to escalate,” Dionne said. This was a problem for Roberts, the pundit surmised, because Dionne & Co. were raising doubts about “the legitimacy of the court, which has already been called into question by decisions from Bush v. Gore through Citizens United.”

This rhetorical assault against the court “was going to escalate further,” Dionne said. “And I think he was trying to avoid that.”

And Crawford's report at CBS suggest that's exactly what happened. After first voting to strike down the mandate...

“[O]ver the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow.”

This mattered, says Crawford, because “Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public. There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court — and to Roberts’ reputation — if the court were to strike down the mandate.”

And so, sources told Crawford, Roberts got “wobbly.”

Posted by: Ace at 01:08 PM



Comments

1 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at July 03, 2012 01:09 PM (Xb3hu)

2 Yes.The verdict of history will be that he was a coward.

Posted by: steevy at July 03, 2012 01:09 PM (Xb3hu)

3 As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the
court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the
public.


Fuck him.

Posted by: Dorothy Parker at July 03, 2012 01:10 PM (QKKT0)

4 Enjoy the adulation of the left Mr.Roberts,your legacy as a jurist is shit.

Posted by: steevy at July 03, 2012 01:10 PM (Xb3hu)

5


But damn, what a smile, if GW said he was ok, that's durn near good enough for me.

Duh.

Posted by: Rev. Dr. E. Buzz. Bunnies. Trump. at July 03, 2012 01:10 PM (tcSZb)

6 PILE ON!!!!

Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 03, 2012 01:10 PM (UZQM8)

7 Push Andy down like a fat kid on the playground.

Posted by: toby928© at July 03, 2012 01:10 PM (QupBk)

8 And he has forever damaged the legitimacy of the Supreme Court.

Posted by: steve walsh at July 03, 2012 01:11 PM (gB9nl)

9 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 01:11 PM (8y9MW)

10 John Roberts is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable coward.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 01:11 PM (8y9MW)

11 E. J. Dionne is a lying douchebag of epic proportions.

And Crawford didn't exactly say it was media pressure. I thought her take was the other justices and severability.

Posted by: Vic at July 03, 2012 01:11 PM (YdQQY)

12 Maybe now that Ginsburg bitch will stop yanking up his shorts in the hall.

Posted by: Cicero at July 03, 2012 01:11 PM (QKKT0)

13 He is a part of the Liberal Alliance, and a traitor.... Take him away!!!!

Posted by: Darth Vader, from that scene at the begging, you know, from the good star wars... at July 03, 2012 01:12 PM (UZQM8)

14 I suspect Meghan McCain would have more integrity as a Chief Justice than Roberts now does.

Posted by: Kensington at July 03, 2012 01:12 PM (/AHDz)

15 Maaaaaaatlocccck!

Posted by: Abe Simpson at July 03, 2012 01:12 PM (/kI1Q)

16 Besides, I really don't give a shit "why" he did it. He sold us out like we were $2 whores and he was the chief pimp of the world.

Posted by: Vic at July 03, 2012 01:12 PM (YdQQY)

17 Benedict Arnold
Vidkun Quisling
John Roberts

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 01:12 PM (8y9MW)

18
There is nothing more despicable than a traitor.

Posted by: Reactionary at July 03, 2012 01:13 PM (xUM1Q)

19 Awesome. So the court makes decisions depending on how many people in the MFM will be mad at them. Fuck the Constitution, right guys? Fuck the American people. Fuck the founding fathers. Fuck everything this nation was founded on because OMG EJ Dionne may write bad things about us!

Posted by: DangerGirl at July 03, 2012 01:13 PM (4+PCd)

20 Bowing to political pressure will certainly help the courts standing.

Posted by: Dr Spank at July 03, 2012 01:13 PM (4cRnj)

21
He's lost everybody. The left will never trust him, since he's proven to be a traitor; and we'll never trust him, because he's proven to be a traitor.
Way to go, Johnny!

Posted by: Jeff Weimer at July 03, 2012 01:13 PM (tuOLO)

22 Roberts legacy after obamacare decisison

SCOTUS = Political cover for liberal policies

Rule of Law < Rule of man

Roberts personal side-note in history = man of weak character and coward in the face of adversity when challenged to make the correct choice.

Nice legacy you got their, good luck removing that historical stain.

Posted by: Fire with Fire at July 03, 2012 01:14 PM (lcwvr)

23 Abandoning one's principles is the highest principle of all.

Posted by: toby928© at July 03, 2012 01:14 PM (QupBk)

24 Backing down from fear of EJ Dionne?

That's like backing down in a fistfight with Woody Allen

Posted by: kbdabear at July 03, 2012 01:14 PM (Y+DPZ)

25
A new thingy! what happens if I do this?

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at July 03, 2012 01:14 PM (rktaC)

26 Besides, I really don't give a shit "why" he did it. He sold us out like
we were $2 whores and he was the chief pimp of the world.


Yep. "Why" doesn't matter so much when faced with the "What" of the Chief Justice deciding we can all be slaves.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 01:14 PM (8y9MW)

27
Congrats Roberts, your court will for ever be known as one that comes to decisions based on media pressure instead of the constitution.

dickweeb.

Posted by: robtr at July 03, 2012 01:14 PM (MtwBb)

28 So, Justice Roberts, why not end the Court and go with a direct democracy, then?

Posted by: nickless at July 03, 2012 01:14 PM (MMC8r)

29 I'd like to hear from Roberts himself before I brand him a coward.

Posted by: The Guy Who Always Wants To Go Directly To The Source at July 03, 2012 01:14 PM (NersQ)

30 Frankly, I like the guy. I've moved up a notch.

Posted by: Hon. Roger Taney at July 03, 2012 01:15 PM (QKKT0)

31 So, the great and wise Roberts, man of mystical magisterial thinking, actually switched his vote over politics. I used to think that politicizing the court was a bad thing, before I learned from the liberals that politicizing the court to help liberals destroy the very fabric of our constitution is actually a super-secret method of becoming a wise jurist.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 03, 2012 01:15 PM (XCxgL)

32 At least I stood for what I believed.

Even if I was a shitty racist.

Posted by: Chief Justice Taney at July 03, 2012 01:15 PM (kSaUf)

33 If Roberts wanted to maintain the integrity of the court, he's doing it wrong.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 01:15 PM (T0NGe)

34 I'd like to hear from Roberts himself before I brand him a coward.

Maybe when he comes back from effin MALTA!

Posted by: toby928© at July 03, 2012 01:15 PM (QupBk)

35 17
Benedict Arnold
Vidkun Quisling
John Roberts


Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 01:12 PM (8y9MW)Judas
John Roberts
Benedict Arnold
Vidkun Quisling

Put in proper order and added one more.

Posted by: Fire with Fire at July 03, 2012 01:15 PM (lcwvr)

36 Our memory is longer than the left, it would only take one 'conservative' majority opinion from him to put a great many people in the mood to do something historic, the impeachment and conviction of a chief justice.

Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at July 03, 2012 01:15 PM (SDkq3)

37 or was it The Fortress of Solitude?

Either or

Posted by: toby928© at July 03, 2012 01:16 PM (QupBk)

38 Roberts thought the Constitution was less important than his own views of the political situation facing the court. Papa knows best. Unbelievably arrogant little SOB.

Posted by: Icarus at July 03, 2012 01:16 PM (B5y+v)

39 So, Justice Roberts, why not end the Court and go with a direct democracy, then?>>

Is there an app for that?

Posted by: Buzzsaw at July 03, 2012 01:16 PM (tf9Ne)

40
We were mccained.

Posted by: Soothsayer at July 03, 2012 01:16 PM (G/zuv)

41 Dionne, Crawford, and sources...
Then it must be accurate? Right?

Posted by: RioBravo at July 03, 2012 01:16 PM (eEfYn)

42 I've said before that on the day that the first large newspaper goes out of business, there will be some hope for our country as we know it

Posted by: kbdabear at July 03, 2012 01:16 PM (Y+DPZ)

43 Fuckin' judicial integrity, how does it work???

Posted by: John Roberts at July 03, 2012 01:17 PM (QKKT0)

44 I'm so glad to know he was sensitive to the pressures from the media coverage.....but didn't give a flying fuck that this bitch of a bill has been in serious disapproval of the American people since its unholy passage. Good to know...

Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 01:17 PM (vOMX+)

45 I think Romney's position is the correct one on this. A tax that is triggered by inactivity is not a tax; it's a penalty. A SCOTUS decision isn't the last word--is abortion now and forever Constitutional?

Apart from the fact that Romney has always viewed a mandate-with-penalty as not a tax, doing so gives him the largest number of clubs to use in the campaign, even if being able to cry IT'S A TAX! may have an immediate emotional charm.

Posted by: @ParisParamus at July 03, 2012 01:17 PM (GFX++)

46 Remember how panicked we got when Roberts had that seizure in the summer of 2007?

Not so much now

Posted by: kbdabear at July 03, 2012 01:17 PM (Y+DPZ)

47 And at least my decisions had the effect of limiting the power of the federal government, not giving them unlimited power to do whatever it wanted.


Posted by: Chief Justice Taney at July 03, 2012 01:17 PM (kSaUf)

48 In some ways, I love this whole "Roberts was swayed by the media"
thing. It doesn't matter if it's true, everybody believes it to be
true. Which makes it true. Which means the court, in general, and Roberts, in particular, is susceptible to persuasion.

Which undermines the whole court and the mythology we place on the court. Good. It's about time we tear down our elite overlords.


If the judiciary has no regard or respect from the American people,
so much the better. I'm tired of black-robed masters who think they
are philosopher kings.



Roberts' opinion was so stupid, he would have been better off sticking with "emanations" and "penumbras".



It's part of the reason I don't worry about this case from a precedent
angle. It's such a mess, no judge could unravel the meaning of this for
a future case.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 01:17 PM (T0NGe)

49 Remember when we thought Obama's Rose Garden speech threatening the Court was a bad move?He must have gotten a heads up that it was a good idea.

Posted by: steevy at July 03, 2012 01:18 PM (Xb3hu)

50 Bush left us Obama and Roberts. Somehow, a face palm doesn't seem like enough here.

Posted by: MTF at July 03, 2012 01:18 PM (B5y+v)

51 I am de law. I am de law. I am de law.

I am de LAAWWW

I'm ready for my close up now.

Posted by: Judge Dredd Roberts at July 03, 2012 01:18 PM (Qxdfp)

52 "As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the
court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the
public."





Leadership role, huh?


I do not think this means what he thinks it means.

Posted by: Tami at July 03, 2012 01:19 PM (X6akg)

53 And I wasn't a chickenshit who thought my place was to re-write the laws I ruled upon to fit my rulings.

I, at least, had the modesty to recognize my place was to interpret the law as written--not as I thought it should be.

Posted by: Chief Justice Taney at July 03, 2012 01:19 PM (kSaUf)

54 Piss off, Joe.

Posted by: toby928© at July 03, 2012 01:19 PM (QupBk)

55 He will be forever known as the Neville Chamberlain of the High Court.

Posted by: Filly at July 03, 2012 01:19 PM (xiJmL)

56 Next SC session will be interesting. I imagine that Thomas, Alito, Scalia and even Kennedy will hold this anger over damaging the court and the constitution for a long, long time. I would expect that they won't even speak to him unless absolutely necessary.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 03, 2012 01:19 PM (XCxgL)

57 The reason you don't negotiate with terrorists is that you get more terrorism. The reason you don't bow to political pressure is that it will never end, you're seen as malleable and able to be influenced.

Posted by: Dr Spank at July 03, 2012 01:19 PM (4cRnj)

58 Anybody here, seen my old friend Johnny, can you tell me where he's gone .....

Posted by: EJ Dionne and the Belmonts at July 03, 2012 01:20 PM (Y+DPZ)

59 I'm ready for my close up now.

Are you saying it was the Constitution that got small?

Posted by: toby928© at July 03, 2012 01:20 PM (QupBk)

60 Hey, is the election still on?The Woncould probably get something worked out with Roberts on that...

Posted by: MTF at July 03, 2012 01:20 PM (B5y+v)

61
Roberts, like so many Republicans in Washington, has yet to realize that print media is a dinosaur on its last breath.

And the whores in TV media are irrelevant.

Posted by: Soothsayer at July 03, 2012 01:20 PM (G/zuv)

62
Gutless bastard Roberts assured that the legimacy of the court would be called into question. He confirmed that it is political, after all. Fucking fool just burned his crediblilty like a piece of asswipe.

Posted by: maddogg at July 03, 2012 01:20 PM (OlN4e)

63
If he's best buddies with Ginzberg and now deceased hubby its a tell that he's not what you think he is. You can look for more of his future 'opinions' to be favoring the not so conservative side of the court.

When a judge decides that he wants to be liked rather than make a decision based on the law then he's terminally corrupted.

Posted by: Gmac at July 03, 2012 01:20 PM (uZSl0)

64 It's funny (maybe not so funny) how the Right fears the Left.

Posted by: Paul Revere at July 03, 2012 01:21 PM (iqtXM)

65 For serious... he could have stopped something truly awful from happening.

But didn't.

Posted by: Filly at July 03, 2012 01:21 PM (xiJmL)

66 I hate to say it but it is the elephant in the room.Roberts would have struck it down if it was an accomplishment of a run of the mill white President.

Posted by: steevy at July 03, 2012 01:22 PM (Xb3hu)

67 It's funny (maybe not so funny) how the Right fears the Left.

I have a healthy concern about those who would send me to the camps if they could, yes.

Posted by: toby928© at July 03, 2012 01:22 PM (QupBk)

68 Relaxing in Malta in the hot sun,
I fought the law and I won.
I fought the law and I won.

Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at July 03, 2012 01:22 PM (Hx5uv)

69 If you define politics as Clausewitz does--

almost everything is "political".


Politics is simply trying to persuade people of your opinion--or to do something--short of force.

War is just politics at its extreme.

The myth of apolitical is like believing in--

The Easter Bunny.

Interestingly enough--I was just reading this section in Justice Roberts decision--


*****************
[Justice Roberts]

To an economist, perhaps, there is no difference between
activity and inactivity; both have measurable economic effects on commerce. But the distinction between doing something and doing nothing would not have been lost on the Framers, who were “practical statesmen,” not meta- physical philosophers. Industrial Union Dept., AFL–CIO v. American Petroleum Institute, 448 U. S. 607, 673 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., concurring in judgment). As we have ex- plained, “the framers of the Constitution were not mere visionaries, toying with speculations or theories, but practical men, dealing with the facts of political life as they understood them, putting into form the government they were creating, and prescribing in language clear and intelligible the powers that government was to take.” South Carolina v. United States, 199 U. S. 437, 449 (1905). The Framers gave Congress the power to regulate com- merce, not to compel it, and for over 200 years both our decisions and Congress’s actions have reflected this un- derstanding. There is no reason to depart from that un- derstanding now.

Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 01:22 PM (r2PLg)

70 I don't like the "traitor" angle. If Obamacare were crafted constitutionally (biggest.hypothetical.evah), then he owes nothing to us to overturn it. The coward angle is the true one.

It is clear by his opinion that he knew this was a horrible decision, that it was wrong in every sense, but he is so sensitive to the notion that the court is political that he decided not to overturn an unconstitutional law, thereby making the court even more political.

The integrity of an institution is the result of its integrity, not its fear of entering other arenas. If it's unconstitutional, then it is, let the chips fall where they may.

So, Justice Roberts, why not end the Court and go with a direct democracy, then?

I have a member post about this on Ricochet. The posters there think it's a bad idea, but I argued that it could be no worse.

Also, we could get a third of our government out of the hands of an unresponsive guild.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 01:22 PM (T0NGe)

71 Everybody is beating this Roberts horse to death. What really would be nice: a thread about "Ober Sturmbandführer" Charlie Rangle and the shenanigans going on counting ballots in his district. When ever I look, the only mentions I can find are at CNN

Posted by: Ma Bell at July 03, 2012 01:22 PM (uVuwp)

72 44 I'm so glad to know he was sensitive to the pressures from the media
coverage.....but didn't give a flying fuck that this bitch of a bill has
been in serious disapproval of the American people since its unholy
passage. Good to know...


Being swayed by our opinions is just as bad as being swayed by liberal intimidation tactics*, if not worse.

*If that is completely his reason for making this decision.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 01:23 PM (d6QMz)

73 I have a healthy concern about those who would send me to the camps if they could, yes.

Concern, yes.

Fear, no.

Posted by: EC at July 03, 2012 01:23 PM (GQ8sn)

74 So not confuse fear with burning hate, Paul.

Posted by: maddogg at July 03, 2012 01:23 PM (OlN4e)

75 As we all know the mark of true conservatism is not to rock the boat in the face of Fabian, I mean Burkean change. God bless John Roberts.

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan at July 03, 2012 01:23 PM (60GaT)

76 I think Justice Roberts in this case saw . . . the attacks that [the high court] was facing from lots of people — including me, I should say — were just going to escalate,” Dionne said. This was a problem for Roberts, the pundit surmised, because Dionne Co. were raising doubts about “the legitimacy of the court

because the only 'legitimate court 'is one where progressive boots are licked with fervor.

Posted by: willow at July 03, 2012 01:23 PM (TomZ9)

77 Roberts put this nation in a horrible position. Where true usurpations of freedom may not be able to gain relief in the courts. If a political solution fails Roberts, what do we do then? How do we get our freedom back then? You've put the Republic on the knifes edge, and put our national stability in jeopardy. Because you we're concerned about your reputation. This was one thing I got off my arse to write about. As should everyone. You've given the federal government the power to coerce without limmit, if we who will not pass into bondage cannot hold a perpetual controlling majority over the government and reverse this, and prevent other usurpations, what is going to happen when we say "no, I won't do it, and I won't pay it", what will the federal government do then Roberts to further coerce us into living our lives in an approved manner, what will happen Roberts? But just think, lefties will like you and your court for a few weeks, and say nice things.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 01:23 PM (0q2P7)

78 Google Shopping Censors All Gun, Ammo Accessories Results

As highlighted on our new policy page http://www.google.com/appserve/mkt/ApI7UWRj6OCZpd, in order to comply with the Google Shopping policies you need to comply first with the AdWords policies http://www.google.com/appserve/mkt/StQ08jAzM4fVtG. We do not allow the promotion or sale of weapons and any related products such as ammunitions or accessory kits on Google Shopping. In order to comply with our new policies, please remove any weapon-related products from your data feed and then re-submit your feed in the Merchant Center. For more information on this policy please visit http://www.google.com/appserve/mkt/GbBNIGHOribLzf.

Posted by: Dr. Evil at July 03, 2012 01:23 PM (e8kgV)

79 Pretty much confirms that we are cursed with the least talented but most arrogant political class since the European parliaments of 1914


Posted by: kbdabear at July 03, 2012 01:23 PM (Y+DPZ)

80 Instead of issuing a ruling making all Americans slaves to the federal government, I gave my slaves their freedom and gave them old-age pensions.




Posted by: Chief Justice Taney at July 03, 2012 01:23 PM (kSaUf)

81 Put in proper order and added one more.

Fair. I was just pointing out what august company he'd joined.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 01:24 PM (8y9MW)

82 Remember when we thought Obama's Rose Garden speech threatening the
Court was a bad move?He must have gotten a heads up that it was a good
idea.


Roberts is going to find out the hard way why you don't negotiate with terrorists.

Frankly, after what Obama did at SOTU, if I were a justice, I'd be inclined to declare everything he did unconstitutional, down to declaring national dog-lovers month.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 01:24 PM (T0NGe)

83 Plus Ace we know Justice Roberts gets worse threats than bloggers--so there is that.

Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 01:24 PM (r2PLg)

84 Being swayed by our opinions is just as bad as being swayed by liberal intimidation tactics*, if not worse. *If that is completely his reason for making this decision.
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 01:23 PM (d6QMz)

yes.

Posted by: willow at July 03, 2012 01:24 PM (TomZ9)

85 Roberts got “wobbly.”

You know...when I see pictures of Helen Thomas, my dick gets wobbly. But I don't turn gay, I just look at pictures of Kate Upton and soon all is right in the world.

"Wobbly" my ass. Roberts is a stealth liberal.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 03, 2012 01:24 PM (nEUpB)

86 82 They got the word that he was a pussy.

Posted by: steevy at July 03, 2012 01:24 PM (Xb3hu)

87 All of you folks beating the Taney/Dred Scott decision should keep in mind that that was a 7-2 decision.

Posted by: Vic at July 03, 2012 01:25 PM (YdQQY)

88
Roberts is two nuts shy of a pair.

Posted by: maddogg at July 03, 2012 01:25 PM (OlN4e)

89 Not only a politically craven act, but a foolish one as well. If he wanted to punt, he could have gone with his tax angle, and used the injuntion act to postpone a final decision on the overall law. This decision is so monumentally stupid, it is beyond comprehension. What he did was to permanently alter the role of government in commerce, while at the same time fatally damaging the very law he was trying to save, by removing the federal hammer over medicaid enhancement.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 03, 2012 01:25 PM (XCxgL)

90 In order to comply with our new policies, please remove any weapon-related products from your data feed and then re-submit your feed in the Merchant Center.

Cha-ching.

Posted by: Bing at July 03, 2012 01:25 PM (QupBk)

91 A disgraceful piece of shit.
His "ruling" was an embarrassment to all free people.

Posted by: Mr. Wonderful at July 03, 2012 01:25 PM (iBGQ2)

92 Don't be Google.

Posted by: Satan at July 03, 2012 01:25 PM (Qxdfp)

93 Well, now that everyone knows it works, no one'll never do <i>that</i> again, will they John?

Expect it hard and heavy from both sides now, no respite ever. Currency established.


Posted by: Mr. Obvious at July 03, 2012 01:25 PM (UxKxm)

94 I'm not at the point where I'm giving E. J. Dionne (with or without the Belmonts) any credibility whatsoever, especially when he preens about his vast influence on the polity. The man's a legend in his own mind.

That said, John Roberts laid down on the damn job. Slacker.

Posted by: Sort-of-Mad Max at July 03, 2012 01:25 PM (VMcoS)

95 And there is one thing we do know--

Liberals are insane.

Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 01:26 PM (r2PLg)

96 When SCOTUS issues an activist decision that pleases the left: "Oh wise art thou, SCOTUS. Thank you for your glorious enlightened wisdom and everlasting precedent."

When SCOTUS actually adheres to the text and intent of the Constitution: "The Supreme Courts is playing politics!!! How dare they! We need to question their legitimacy!!!"

Thanks for confirming that the political left- who doesn't give two shits about what's actually written in the US Constitution- gets to decide how legitimate the Supreme Court is, Justice Roberts.

By the way, there are topical ointments that can help with the vaginal infection.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 03, 2012 01:26 PM (SY2Kh)

97
John Roberts is only 57yo and probably figures it would be easier to just get in league with the bullies rather than endure 30 years of hatred.

The man's a bitch.

Posted by: Soothsayer at July 03, 2012 01:26 PM (G/zuv)

98 I wouldn't compare McCain with Roberts. We have known for a very long time that McCain loves the taste of liberal cock. Roberts behavior more closely resembles Charles Johnson.

Posted by: SpongeBob Saget at July 03, 2012 01:26 PM (SDkq3)

99 The thing that really, really chapped my ass were his comments that (paraphrasing) elections have consequences and I suppose, now we are having to live with what we elected. It completely astonishes me that, nowhere in his reasoning that, regardless of elections, there are certain limits to the federal government's power over the individual. Are we to extrapolate that whomever gets elected can pass whatever the fuck they want to, regardless, and it's a-okay because we elected them? That's his reasoning! It's...it's....so warped. Worse, he abdicates(ed) his sole responsibility as CJ to protect the people.

I'm going to sue Zippy and his administration for the insomnia they've caused me over the past 4 years. {spit}

Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 01:26 PM (vOMX+)

100 58 Anybody here, seen my old friend Johnny, can you tell me where he's gone .....

You guys crack me up!

Posted by: Jinx the Cat at July 03, 2012 01:26 PM (l3vZN)

101 Historic achievment(virtually only achievement) of the historic first black President.That was why he rolled over.

Posted by: steevy at July 03, 2012 01:26 PM (Xb3hu)

102 What will if feel like being chief justice over men you know are superior to yourself, Roberts? Men of courage and conviction and fortitude? Assets you have only a passing aquaintance with?

Posted by: maddogg at July 03, 2012 01:26 PM (OlN4e)

103 Not only a politically craven act, but a foolish one as well. If he wanted to punt, he could have gone with his tax angle, and used the injuntion act to postpone a final decision on the overall law.

*********

Yep.

Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 01:27 PM (r2PLg)

104 Anybody got a body tampon?

Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts GOD at July 03, 2012 01:27 PM (Qxdfp)

105 Next supreme court appointee: Richard Epstein.

Posted by: sexypig at July 03, 2012 01:27 PM (wWV5q)

106 I don't equate Roberts to Judas or a traitor.

More like Neville Chamberlain.

Let's just hope the results are not the same.

Posted by: BlackOrchid-TeamDagny at July 03, 2012 01:27 PM (J6kXj)

107 29 I'd like to hear from Roberts himself before I brand him a coward.
Posted by: The Guy Who Always Wants To Go Directly To The Source at July 03, 2012 01:14 PM (NersQ)
Sorry, he's crying in the ladies room.

Posted by: Mr. Wonderful at July 03, 2012 01:27 PM (iBGQ2)

108 Pretty much confirms that we are cursed with the least talented but most
arrogant political class since the European parliaments of 1914


Thank you law schools!

Even in Europe today, they don't let their elites graduate from the easiest possible graduate program. Three years, no math, no dissertation, no competition from foreign students -- it's like public junior high school.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 01:28 PM (T0NGe)

109 Border Patrol agent shot in South Texas early this morning.

Posted by: Pecos at July 03, 2012 01:28 PM (2Gb0y)

110 >>>It's funny (maybe not so funny) how the Right fears the Left.

If you don't fear them, those in the cavalier crowd. You forget what they are capable of. What they will do if they ever gain the power they seek.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 01:28 PM (0q2P7)

111 hey when do i get the NYT's attention for being the new Scalia right-wing lackey?? i want to be loved/hated too!!!

Posted by: Anthony Kennedy at July 03, 2012 01:28 PM (60GaT)

112 To think I have lived to see the SCOTUS turn into a rubber stamp for Obama and the democrats. SAD!

Posted by: Fire with Fire at July 03, 2012 01:28 PM (lcwvr)

113 "More on the Supreme Court Leak"
http://bit.ly/LVThDa

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 01:28 PM (d6QMz)

114 Lady in Black-

That's here:


Our permissive reading of these powers is explained in part by a general reticence to invalidate the acts of the Nation’s elected leaders. “Proper respect for a co-ordinate branch of the government” requires that we strike down an Act of Congress only if “the lack of constitutional authority to pass [the] act in question is clearly demon- strated.” United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629, 635 (1883). Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of
their political choices.

Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 01:28 PM (r2PLg)

115 The Media must be destroyed. That is what must happen.

Posted by: Beckoningchasm at July 03, 2012 01:29 PM (P7hip)

116 "But you have sex with just ONE goat..."

Posted by: Drumwaster at July 03, 2012 01:29 PM (Nxs01)

117 Soon

Posted by: April 12, 1861 at July 03, 2012 01:29 PM (IVoJS)

118 Man, quoting EJ Dionne and the Washington Post. Unamed sources. (sigh)

So, was everyone in the Romney camp betting that the SC would overturn the ruling?

I wasn't happy with the ruling either. Like everyone else on this site, when the first report stated that Obamacare was repealed, I jumped out of my chair with joy.

What's done is done. Yelling and screaming at Roberts isn't going to change things. Only the conservative nominee running against Obama can do that.

Now what?

Posted by: mrp at July 03, 2012 01:29 PM (HjPtV)

119 remember guys, this is The Most Right-Wing Court in History.

Posted by: NYT Editorial Board at July 03, 2012 01:29 PM (60GaT)

120 I tell you what we --the electorate--did let the evil Triumvirate of--

Obama, Reid and Pelosi happen.

Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 01:29 PM (r2PLg)

121 To George Bush: George, thanks for plucking Janice Rogers Brown from the CA Supreme Court and putting her on the D.C. circuit where she will languish forever. Thanks, jackass, for not nominating this brilliant and solid conservative black woman to the U.S. Supremes. Thanks also for David Souter's 2nd cousin twice removed. May the United States of America never be blessed with another President Bush.

Posted by: SFGoth at July 03, 2012 01:29 PM (dZ756)

122 How my ass taste?

Posted by: John Roberts, in meme mode at July 03, 2012 01:30 PM (YmPwQ)

123 John Roberts pays attention to the mainstream media, which is heavily controlled and leftist. Not to blogs, not to talk radio, and not to any information source for right wing opinions or facts the right considers relevant. And not to any information source that's off the political map.

The Matrix has him.

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 01:30 PM (NJpun)

124 Also, we could get a third of our government out of the hands of an unresponsive guild.
Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 01:22 PM (T0NGe)

A third of the government that was never supposed to have final say on the Constitutionality of a given law. That was to be left to the Congress and President.

Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 01:30 PM (x7g7t)

125 Roberts needs to resign and take a job down at the gloryhole where he can suck dick on a more personal basis.

Posted by: maddogg at July 03, 2012 01:31 PM (OlN4e)

126 Maybe Kennedy's so pissed about this that he'll vote more conservatively in the future...? (Fingers crossed)

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 03, 2012 01:31 PM (Y5I9o)

127 I like the cut of that Chief Justice's jib.

Posted by: FDR at July 03, 2012 01:31 PM (MMC8r)

128 Man, y'all keep f*cking this chicken.

Posted by: rockmom at July 03, 2012 01:31 PM (NYnoe)

129 How my ass taste?

Posted by: John Roberts, in meme mode at July 03, 2012 01:30 PM


I'm just guessing here, but probably like Obama's dick.

Posted by: huerfano at July 03, 2012 01:31 PM (bAGA/)

130 We liberals hate the politicization of the Supreme Court...unless a political decision is for the Greater Good of course!

Posted by: Ends justify the means at July 03, 2012 01:32 PM (60GaT)

131 There are too many "I thinks" and "report at CBS suggests" to take this seriously. Think about it, has anyone in the entire history of humanity bowed to pressure from E.J. Dionne? Jesus, "Dionne Co. were raising doubts" oh shit! A lisping fucktard opinion writer at a shitty newspaper is raising doubts!

There can be no question that this must have forced the Chief Justice to completely reverse his position on the most important decision of his career. The logic of this was confirmed by E.J Dionne himself on NPR, so it's pretty much lock-solid info.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at July 03, 2012 01:32 PM (+lsX1)

132 Well, I checked back o see if we were going to keep talking about Andy Griffith, and now I see that e are going back to another thread of calling Roberts names.

Exactly what good will this do? None.

Meanwhile, everyone is ignoring the fact that Obama might be sandbagging us on the amount of money he will raise, that he has already started implementing amnesty, that there is an oil strike off of Israel, and many other things, including that we should be concentrating on our real enemy, Obama.

I get it. Roberts is weak, a turncoat, a wesel, a traitor, whatever. NOTHING ANYONE SAYS IS GOING TO CHANGE THE DECISION.

Get over it and move forward. What if Washington had spent all of his time sending out pamhlets explaining what an asshole Benedict Arnold was? We would still be paying taxes to the crown.

Stop it! All it is doing is making everyone lose focus!!

Posted by: Miss Marple at July 03, 2012 01:32 PM (GoIUi)

133
It all goes back to the SOTU when Obama, the piece of shit, ridiculed the Court over Citizens United while the Justices sat in the audience.

Alito was pissed off. But if you remember Roberts just sat there like a little pussy. He was scared and hurt. Obama got to him, that day.

And who knows what Obama said to Roberts in private. Roberts doesn't like being scolded.

Posted by: Soothsayer at July 03, 2012 01:32 PM (G/zuv)

134 Roberts, like so many Republicans in Washington, has yet to realize that print media is a dinosaur on its last breath.

And the whores in TV media are irrelevant.


Posted by: Soothsayer at July 03, 2012 01:20 PM

They still don't get that if the MBM had been honest and impartial, Fox News and Rush Limbaugh never would have become as big as they are now, and blogs would be talking about recipes, movies, and kittehs

Posted by: kbdabear at July 03, 2012 01:32 PM (Y+DPZ)

135 We now have a Supreme Media Court of the United States.

Posted by: Marmo at July 03, 2012 01:32 PM (QW+AD)

136 I'm not at the point where I'm giving E. J. Dionne (with or without the
Belmonts) any credibility whatsoever, especially when he preens about
his vast influence on the polity. The man's a legend in his own mind.

----

Less influential than Dionne Warwick although I don't know whether she scares Roberts or not.

Posted by: WalrusRex at July 03, 2012 01:33 PM (Hx5uv)

137 >>>hey when do i get the NYT's attention for being the new Scalia right-wing lackey?? i want to be loved/hated too!!!

Kenendy, we've disagreed from time to time. But on the biggest cases that have come down the pike, you've stood up to consistently limit government power, both on the second amendment, and, here.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 01:33 PM (0q2P7)

138 If you've never received a wedgie from E.J. Dionne than how can you judge me?

Posted by: John Roberts at July 03, 2012 01:33 PM (4cRnj)

139 Silver lining : most of us probably took Ace's advice not to start washing each other's conchs on that dreadful eve. Saved on soap!

Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 01:34 PM (vOMX+)

140 Not only a politically craven act, but a foolish one as well. If he
wanted to punt, he could have gone with his tax angle, and used the
injuntion act to postpone a final decision on the overall law.


Agreed. It would have been so easy to do that. Kill the mandate, have several hundred pages on why the rest of it might be OK as a tax, but say that it's moot because the administration said the bill was not severable.

Tell them to try again.

Historic achievment(virtually only achievement) of the historic first black President.That was why he rolled over.

Sadly, I think that may be the case as well.

The racism of paternalistic condescension.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 01:34 PM (T0NGe)

141 Get over it and move forward. What if Washington had
spent all of his time sending out pamhlets explaining what an asshole
Benedict Arnold was? We would still be paying taxes to the crown.

Stop it! All it is doing is making everyone lose focus!!


Posted by: Miss Marple at July 03, 2012 01:32 PM

Haven't you heard? Yelling at the TV changes the world!

Posted by: kbdabear at July 03, 2012 01:34 PM (Y+DPZ)

142
Posted by: Miss Marple at July 03, 2012 01:32 PM (GoIUi) <<<<<<




What good will it do? Well, it sure as hell worked for the liftards, didn't it? The yellow bastard upheld, rather rewrote so he could uphold Zerocare, didn't it? Answer?

Posted by: maddogg at July 03, 2012 01:34 PM (OlN4e)

143 It's funny (maybe not so funny) how the Right fears the Left.

Not really. They'll kill you. They'll threaten your family. They don't want civilization.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 01:34 PM (T0NGe)

144 128 Man, y'all keep f*cking this chicken.
Posted by: rockmom at July 03, 2012 01:31 PM (NYnoe)

So we should just move along and accept whatever they say? No point in discussing it to make sure we are better informed and we can better inform people. SCOTUS said it so it must be true.

You wouldn't even have a 1st Amendment to protect a statement like that if it weren't for people who wouldn't stop 'fucking this chicken'

Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 01:35 PM (x7g7t)

145 85 You know...when I see pictures of Helen Thomas, my dick gets wobbly. But I don't turn gay, I just look at pictures of Kate Upton and soon all is right in the world.
---
I don't get what's the big deal about Kate Upton. Without the breasts she's just kind of meh...

Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 03, 2012 01:35 PM (Y5I9o)

146 In the last couple of days have had two libs say to me "wow, wasn't he the guy who swore the president in? and wasn't he the guy the president attacked at the state of the union address? and then he goes along with the pres and kicks the conservatives and republicans to the curb? Wow sucks to be them" They know I read a conservative blog and that I'm an independent but they still push just a little. Like it's a giant mind game. The intimation if you look at their eyes is that the joke is on me as he's been in BO's court all along and the call out was for effect, so that the effect of the decision would be shocking and devastating. Otherwise why else point all this out?

Posted by: stare decisis at July 03, 2012 01:35 PM (oZfic)

147
Think about it. If Citizens United went the other way, Obama would coast to victory in '12.

No wonder Obama was pissed. Roberts' Court cost him an easy reelection.

If you were a megalomaniac like Obama, what would you do? You'd make reigning in the Court your top priority. Obama did just that.

Posted by: Soothsayer at July 03, 2012 01:35 PM (G/zuv)

148 Okay, Miss Marple, you're right.

One more thing tho - his decision SUCKED on the AZ case as well.

Can he lose the Chief Justice-ship yet stay on the court?

Posted by: BlackOrchid-TeamDagny at July 03, 2012 01:35 PM (J6kXj)

149 Keep f*ckin' that Constitution!

Posted by: John "Chicken" Roberts at July 03, 2012 01:36 PM (Y5I9o)

150 in before the coward of the county jokes?

Posted by: garrett at July 03, 2012 01:36 PM (V9GJx)

151 9th Circle of Hell seems about right to me. Move over Judas Brutus.

Posted by: Dante at July 03, 2012 01:36 PM (w+4Xb)

152 I thought he was a Catholic. The thing about the nuns back when I went to school, they pounded in the anti-Communist message all the time. The advancement of communism is the death of religion. I guess he had different nuns than I did.

Posted by: hmmmm at July 03, 2012 01:36 PM (e9LVX)

153 "Without the breasts she's just kind of meh..."

that comment is unconstitutional

Posted by: John Roberts at July 03, 2012 01:36 PM (60GaT)

154 85 "Wobbly" my ass. Roberts is a stealth liberal.

Has he ever acted in this way before last week? If not-- and if he truly is a liberal-- then why not? The fact that some of his acquaintances and former co-workers are honestly surprised would also indicate that he is a conservative. No, it seems more likely that he either "went wobbly" and/or that he reluctantly believes what he wrote regarding tax versus penalty.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 01:36 PM (d6QMz)

155 The fix is in. We are overthrown.

Posted by: Your Inner Voice at July 03, 2012 01:37 PM (a1oOO)

156 Next up on Dancing With The Court, John Roberts.

Posted by: nickless at July 03, 2012 01:37 PM (MMC8r)

157 We may take some comfort from this. Everybody who has lowered themselves to appease Obama has gotten just what they deserved. So will it be with Roberts.

Posted by: WalrusRex at July 03, 2012 01:37 PM (Hx5uv)

158 I understand the indignation against Roberts, but it doesn't really matter what the conservatives think of him. He doesn't care...and 5 years from now it isn't go to matter to most of the populace, unless everything in this poorly crafted clusterbomb of a law manifests.

This is the best, smart blog around but the staunch conservative Tea Party folks are the only ones who care. Maybe a growing group, but of no consequence to the beltway folks.

If Obama is still ahead in various polls, regardless of sample, there is little hope for this republic. I'm arming up, finding some ranchland and getting ready if this clown gets re-elected.

Posted by: GW McLintock at July 03, 2012 01:37 PM (791az)

159 There are too many "I thinks" and "report at CBS suggests" to take this
seriously. Think about it, has anyone in the entire history of humanity
bowed to pressure from E.J. Dionne? Jesus, "Dionne Co. were raising
doubts" oh shit! A lisping fucktard opinion writer at a shitty newspaper
is raising doubts!


Doesn't matter. Everybody believes it's true.

So it's true. Perception IS reality.

Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 01:37 PM (T0NGe)

160 Posted by: AmishDude at July 03, 2012 01:34 PM (T0NGe)

What a vile thought.

This country has gone through hell because of race. That these people will continue to dredge up the past for political expediency makes me want to spit in their faces.



Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 03, 2012 01:37 PM (nEUpB)

161 >>>Stop it! All it is doing is making everyone lose focus!!

Yes and no. Roberts is a symptom of a much larger problem. The election is like a surgical cancer extraction, except thanks to Roberts, it metricized first. No we can get rid of Obama, and God willing reverse ObamaTaxandDie. But even if we do all of that, we are still miles away from restricting government in the way it needs to be thanks to Roberts.

He has pretty much said, want to live in a free country, you have to repeal the income tax. That's a tall tall order. And coming to grips with that is going to take a while.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 01:37 PM (0q2P7)

162 Not only a politically craven act, but a foolish one as well. If he wanted to punt, he could have gone with his tax angle, and used the injunction act to postpone a final decision on the overall law.

********

Ugh maybe that is more proof that he switched.

Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 01:38 PM (r2PLg)

163 @131 Thank you!!! I am amazed at how many conservative bloggers are suddenly rushing to proclaim as gospel the bullshit coming from people like EJ Dionne and SeeBS News and the New York Times. Since when did conservatives believe anything these communists had to say?

Talk about your epistemic closure.

Posted by: rockmom at July 03, 2012 01:38 PM (NYnoe)

164 Can he lose the Chief Justice-ship yet stay on the court?
Posted by: BlackOrchid-TeamDagny at July 03, 2012 01:35 PM (J6kXj)

I *suppose* he could resign CJ and remain a Justice - although why woudl he?

There is no 'external' process to remove a CJ yet let him remain a Justice. The only way Justices are removed is by death, resignation, or impeachment.

Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 01:38 PM (x7g7t)

165

Can a president “demote” a Chief Justice to an Associate
Justice and appoint someone else?

Posted by: jwest at July 03, 2012 01:38 PM (ZDsRL)

166 109
Border Patrol agent shot in South Texas early this morning.


Posted by: Pecos at July 03, 2012 01:28 PM

Oh swell, I suppose they're going to expect me to know his name

Posted by: King Barry the Blameless at July 03, 2012 01:38 PM (Y+DPZ)

167 FUCK THIS!

Posted by: DaveA at July 03, 2012 01:39 PM (864A5)

168
Alito was pissed off. But if you remember Roberts just sat there like a little pussy. He was scared and hurt. Obama got to him, that day.
Posted by: Soothsayer at July 03, 2012 01:32 PM (G/zuv)

--------------------------------


I just can't understand that kind of gutlessness. I would RELISH the power that Roberts has, if only he would use it. I'd flaunt my power with the expressed intent of making the libtards cry. It would be glorious. It would be epic. It would allow the fullfillment of a life-long dream of shitting in leftist corn flakes on a national scale.



Only a worm gives away his power. It is sickening.

Posted by: Reactionary at July 03, 2012 01:39 PM (xUM1Q)

169 I guess I should try to catch up before writing a question.

Posted by: jwest at July 03, 2012 01:40 PM (ZDsRL)

170 what reason is there to suspect CBS is lying about this? what do they gain from it. if anything it just pisses off and rallies conservatives more

Posted by: JDP at July 03, 2012 01:40 PM (60GaT)

171 Moderation in the defense of liberty is no virtue.

Posted by: Leonard Pinth-Garnell at July 03, 2012 01:40 PM (LO5eB)

172 Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 01:36 PM (d6QMz)

Is he a liberal with conservative tendencies? Sure. But this was a huge case with profound implications for the freedom of future generations. He had the opportunity to push the country back toward the rule of law and respect for the strictures placed on the federal government by some very intelligent men.

Instead, he chose to pander to the most base, anti-intellectual crap that was being flung by the left.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 03, 2012 01:40 PM (nEUpB)

173 #142 Yelling isn't going to get the thing changed back, is it? You got a court case coming up the pike?

You all better start praying that the Catholics have more clout and better lawyers. Maybe we should have Cardinal Dolan give him a call.

Meanwhile, this is all venting to no purpose. What good does it do to go over and over this?

And while I am on the subject, who in the HELL thinks that CBS News and E.J. Dionne are reliable?

Doesn't anyone understand that this is how they play us? Every time they see an opening, they "leak" stories about how the target was "worried about media criticism" or "softened his hard-right stand due to influences from constituents" and we, suckers that we are, immediately go off the rails.

Dammit! This is how they divided the conservatives on Bush. You guys are not understanding what they do. For God's sake, wise up!

And do not start down that "Bush was not a conservative" line. He was all we had, and instead of propping him up and encouraging him, you all undercut him due to MEDIA PRESSURE from radio talk show hosts!

Wise up!

Posted by: Miss Marple at July 03, 2012 01:40 PM (GoIUi)

174 Frankly, after what Obama did at SOTU, if I were a justice, I'd be
inclined to declare everything he did unconstitutional, down to
declaring national dog-lovers month.


This is the sticking point for me. What Obama did in that speech to SCOTUS should have been the start of sticking any appeal right up POTUS' well used orifices.

Posted by: GW McLintock at July 03, 2012 01:40 PM (791az)

175
Hugh Hewitt ‏@hughhewitt

If the CJ believed the taxing power reached Obamacare, would you want him to set aside that belief just to win? #tcot #hewitt





Why, yes -- yes I would.

You immense git.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at July 03, 2012 01:41 PM (kdS6q)

176 I'll never get why people trade long-term principled relationships for temporary liberal adulation.

Conservatives and Republicans will generally stick with a person who abides by common, consistent decisions on the basis of principle. Even if we don't agree, if the decisions at least possess plausible or arguable elements of originalist constitutional doctrine that relationship endures.

Yet, with liberals it is always inventive, fact-less and unsupported by almost all intellectual thought processes.

And still, people like Roberts yield- casting all principle and intellectual thought processes aside and scorning those they once called friends.

Your only as good as your last decision with liberals. Which means to keep the accolades coming, Roberts must now be their life-long sock puppet.

Coward does not even go far enough.

Posted by: Exile at July 03, 2012 01:41 PM (O0lVq)

177
I do NOT understand whyin the CJ's eyesitis so much more important for the leftist fishwrapsand elitesto be impressed with him than the American people.
But then I'm not an elitist.

Posted by: Marybeth at July 03, 2012 01:41 PM (Ks0w4)

178
Roberts is a coward. Holder is a fugitive.

And there's nothing we can do about it. There is nothing else to focus on. Our entire judicial system has run amok.

If we're lucky, we still have one more free and (mostly) fair election.

Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines at July 03, 2012 01:41 PM (G/zuv)

179


EJ Dionne just wants free healthcare that will fix that bizarre lisping thing he does with his mouth.

Posted by: Rev. Dr. E. Buzz. Bunnies. Trump. at July 03, 2012 01:41 PM (tcSZb)

180 JUST LOVE ME, PLEEAAASSSEEE!!!!

Posted by: The Clingy Justice John Roberts at July 03, 2012 01:41 PM (MMC8r)

181 115--- "The Media must be destroyed. That is what must happen."

THIS.
But how?

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at July 03, 2012 01:42 PM (C8mVl)

182 He's the cowardly lion, the brainless scarecrow and the soulless, heartless tin man all rolled into one....

Posted by: Sam Adams at July 03, 2012 01:42 PM (KZBl/)

183 Somebody needs to go back in time and talk to his thirteen year old self.

Posted by: fluffy at July 03, 2012 01:42 PM (z9HTb)

184 You wingnuts are all that stands between us and a perfect society. Think about that.

Posted by: The Left at July 03, 2012 01:42 PM (QKKT0)

185 >>>and used the injunction act to postpone a final decision on the overall law.

No he couldn't. He was only one judge. It would have been 4-4 and 1 punt which means no ruling, lower courts rulings (all of them even if contradictory) are upheld.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 01:42 PM (0q2P7)

186 Fuck you, John Roberts, and fuck the boundless tyranny you've foisted on all of us.

Posted by: Sam Adams at July 03, 2012 01:43 PM (KZBl/)

187 Stop beating me, I've had enough

Posted by: Dead Horse at July 03, 2012 01:43 PM (2cfUo)

188 176 I'll never get why people trade long-term principled relationships for temporary liberal adulation.

Get love from a bunch of dirtbags. Why would a man care about them? He is not a man.

Posted by: hmmmm at July 03, 2012 01:43 PM (e9LVX)

189 Ace of Spades and the rest of you morons are going to eat your words in the coming months and years as his genius becomes apparent. Roberts will be revered for his cunning and long-term view in this very pro-Conservative decision.

1. Romney could not beat Obama without the energy of ObamaCare.
2. Roberts has cleared the way for entitlement reform by declaring ObamaCare and therefore Social Security and Medicare as TAXES.
3. We can now rescind the ObamaCare TAX - because Roberts declared it a TAX.
4. It IS a TAX, dammit. Just because Obama is a lying weasel and says it isn't - Roberts correctly ruled that it is.
5. The Commerce clause has been severely limited. A huge win for our side - which is personal Liberty.

Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 01:43 PM (cVYiZ)

190 @161:He has pretty much said, want to live in a free country, you have to repeal the income tax. That's a tall tall order. And coming to grips with that is going to take a while.
---
Amen! (And I think you meant, 'metastasized')

Posted by: John at July 03, 2012 01:43 PM (Y5I9o)

191 Posted by: JeremiadBullfrog at July 03, 2012 01:35 PM (Y5I9o)

http://is.gd/rU0Y7h [NSFW]

Not another word or turn in your man card.

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo (NJConservative) at July 03, 2012 01:44 PM (nEUpB)

192 Yes we know -- the left was prepared to go nuts on a 5-4 decision to smack down ObamaCare as political activism, but on a 5-4 to uphold? On real shaky grounds and in the face of the political pressure they applied? Well, that's something to celebrate! The problem is not so much Roberts as it is the Left and the Mob Media. Here they are, baldly ADMITTING they were threatening the Supreme Court with bad press and GLEEFUL that they (and you) think it worked. This is a gift. Use it!

Posted by: starboardhelm at July 03, 2012 01:44 PM (hHgxI)

193 Roberts is a devout Catholic. He also voted in the affirmative in the Heller v DC decision. He isn't a Commie or a liberal, for in that case, he would have voted in lockstep with the libs in Citizens United.

In time, we will have a better understanding of his decision. Now we need a clear message from leading Republicans and conservatives on how to employ the Obamacare issue in the fall campaign.

A coherent strategy would be a good start.

Posted by: mrp at July 03, 2012 01:44 PM (HjPtV)

194
That the highest court in the land can have someone so easily swayed means he should not be in said position. Period.
He has essentially re-written the law to show favor to outside forces and IS therefore a pussy--kowtowing to others just like the President has done. EPIC FAIL.

Posted by: DefendUSA at July 03, 2012 01:44 PM (S0aj8)

195 Americans despise cowards.

Posted by: George S. Patton at July 03, 2012 01:44 PM (qwK3S)

196 >>>If the CJ believed the taxing power reached Obamacare

I'd like him to explain in detail which taxing power, so I know what part of the Constitution needs ammendin' to be free.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 01:45 PM (0q2P7)

197 I resent the claim that I bowed or wobbled to pressure. That is completely untrue. I folded!

Posted by: CJ John Origami Roberts at July 03, 2012 01:45 PM (+56Bh)

198
173
Shit! It doesn't matter how good a lawyers the Catholics have. Zero's lawyers had nada. All the Zero needs is for his MFM to start talking shit. Then Viola, the chicken turd squirts left.

Posted by: maddogg at July 03, 2012 01:45 PM (OlN4e)

199 I still remember when this bill was DOA on the hill.

Good times...

Posted by: Darth Vader, from that scene at the begging, you know, from the good star wars... at July 03, 2012 01:45 PM (UZQM8)

200 So we should just move along and accept whatever they say? No point in discussing it to make sure we are better informed and we can better inform people. SCOTUS said it so it must be true.
You wouldn't even have a 1st Amendment to protect a statement like that if it weren't for people who wouldn't stop 'fucking this chicken'

Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 01:35 PM (x7g7t)

I'm fine with 'discussing' this decision. But you're not 'discussing it.' You've already made up your minds what happened, and seem to get your rocks off by throwing around as many insults and pejoratives at John Roberts as you can. You're so desperate for evidence that you're right, that now you're believing E.J. Dionne and SeeBS News. That's the 'chicken' you keep f8cking.

Posted by: rockmom at July 03, 2012 01:45 PM (NYnoe)

201 Maybe this has been mentioned before and I've missed it, but...

How come the Bush v. Gore case keeps getting lumped in to show the extreme right-wingedness of *this* SCOTUS?

It was a completely different court than the one that gave us Citizens United. Roberts and Alito weren't involved since they didn't get appointed to the bench until Bushitler became Pres.

And wasn't the saintly Sandra Day O'Connor among the majority, in Bush v. Gore. How did she suddenly become an evil Tea Party type? I thought she was always the swing vote that everyone always coveted? So now the MFM, etc. are claiming she was instrumental in SCOTUS' lurch to the right?

These people are so fucking dumb.

Posted by: not understanding at July 03, 2012 01:46 PM (c98sL)

202 189

Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 01:43 PM (cVYiZ)


Drugs, motherfucker! Do you take them?

Posted by: fluffy at July 03, 2012 01:46 PM (z9HTb)

203 What 189 said. In spades.

Posted by: starboardhelm at July 03, 2012 01:46 PM (hHgxI)

204 Roberts is queer and Obama was going to out him. His boyfriends would have been brought forward to tell on Roberts.

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 01:46 PM (bBBdT)

205 The idea that Roberts caved into the Liberal wimp E.j. Dionne is fantasy from fellow "journalists" who like to believe they still have some real power.

Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 01:46 PM (cVYiZ)

206
We need a new party. We need a TEA Party. Republicans are too gutless to fight, and backstab us at every turn. It is time for the Second Declaration of Independence, and a second American Revolution.

Posted by: Sam Adams at July 03, 2012 01:46 PM (KZBl/)

207 @189osted by: sympleton
--

I certainly hope you're right, but the recent noises coming from Mitch "Obamacare will be hard to overturn" McConnell and the Romney camp have caused me to lose a lot of my initial optimism. I still think it's possible, if we win big in November, which we're well-placed to do if the GOP doesn't mess it up.

So yeah, this isn't over yet...but I think this really is the hill to die on, after which, well...you're dead.

Posted by: John at July 03, 2012 01:46 PM (Y5I9o)

208 what reason is there to suspect CBS is lying about this? what do they
gain from it. if anything it just pisses off and rallies conservatives
more


Well, that's kind of the problem with using unnamed sources isn't it? CBS probably isn't lying about what the unnamed sources are saying. Are the unnamed sources lying? How would you know?

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at July 03, 2012 01:46 PM (+lsX1)

209
Some of you still won't accept the fact that Roberts is lost to us. We can no longer count on him for anything.

At best, in future cases he'll be on the fence like Kennedy.

At worst...

Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines at July 03, 2012 01:46 PM (G/zuv)

210 Shorter Brent. " I approve of the murder of Border Patrol Agent Brian
Terry by sending thousands of untraceable guns to Mexican Drug Cartels
by the Obama administration. I approve of the lies in Feb-April of 2011
of the programs existence. I approve of the continued cover up by Holder
and Obama." "One less Republican voter is fine with me."

Brent Budowsky

Posted by: Dr. Evil at July 03, 2012 01:47 PM (e8kgV)

211 "I don't like the "traitor" angle. If Obamacare were crafted
constitutionally (biggest.hypothetical.evah), then he owes nothing to us
to overturn it. The coward angle is the true one."

Agreed. I also enjoyed being scolded in his "elections have consequences" opinion as if this whole thing were my fault even though I am doing all in my power to resist.

The more I think about it, the more liberal his opinion was: "Not *my* fault. Your fault." He refused to face up to the responsibility of his position, and therefore the responsibility of his decision. It is disgusting.

It kind of reminds me of "1776," when James Wilson was portrayed as only voting to approve the Declaration in order to avoid "being the man who prevented American independence." 'Course, that particular incident turned out slightly better.

Posted by: Filly at July 03, 2012 01:47 PM (xiJmL)

212

This all just makes me nauseous.

Way to torch the Constitution.

Way to lose your spine, Roberts.

And, way to take the prima donna role. You fit right in with the liberal kardashian media.

Posted by: puke at July 03, 2012 01:47 PM (HOOye)

213 Also, some have said that members of the 111th Congress never called the
mandate a tax. While what ultimately matters (in my view) is
what the final version of the bill says, some prominent Ds did, in fact,
refer to it as a tax back in 2009.



http://bit.ly/LMATqj

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 01:47 PM (d6QMz)

214 Yes. Fluffy. When I can get 'em.

Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 01:47 PM (cVYiZ)

215 185 >>>and used the injunction act to postpone a final decision on the overall law.

No he couldn't. He was only one judge. It would have been 4-4 and 1 punt which means no ruling, lower courts rulings (all of them even if contradictory) are upheld.
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012

******

Yeah...I was about to say--I'm reconsidering that.


We really have no idea how the internal deliberations went--no matter what the leaker is saying to CBS.

Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 01:47 PM (r2PLg)

216 A coherent strategy would be a good start.
Posted by: mrp at July 03, 2012 01:44 PM (HjPtV)


Mitch the turtle is already talking about not repealing it. His candy ass wants all the power of Senate Majority Leader but none of the responsibility. I am already ready to watch the Pubs implode on themselves for being the weak RINOs they always play out to be. This time the entire country is going to go beserk on them though.

Should be fun...

Posted by: Darth Vader, from that scene at the begging, you know, from the good star wars... at July 03, 2012 01:47 PM (UZQM8)

217 I would RELISH the power that Roberts has, if only he would use it

He did use it. He used it to put the Tea party in its place. Look at his comments.

Posted by: GMan at July 03, 2012 01:47 PM (sxq57)

218 Ace of Spades and the rest of you morons are going to eat your words in
the coming months and years as his genius becomes apparent.


Here we go again with the eleven-dimensional chess game.

Posted by: Cicero at July 03, 2012 01:48 PM (QKKT0)

219 "If the CJ believed the taxing power reached Obamacare, would you want him to set aside that belief just to win? #tcot #hewitt"
=====

See, the shock has worn off and now I've got to put you nutters in your place so I can get back to where I really need to be...on my knees in front of Mitt Romney.

Right, Duane?

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at July 03, 2012 01:48 PM (/AHDz)

220 I am amused. Those who in 2005 held Roberts up as the paragon of conservative judicial nominees are now scourging him for being the same John Roberts he has always been- a DC political insider.

The Constitution is silent on the requirements to be a Supreme Court
Justice. So how did we end up with an entire Court that attended either
Harvard or Yale and who then spent most of their careers on campus or inside the Boston to DC corridor political culture? With at least one
from each victim group?

It wasn't Bush who gave us Roberts. His first choice was a relative outsider who had spent much of her career outside Washington as a private sector lawyer and was the graduate of a regional law school. It was immense pressure from the right wing pundit class upset that the nominee wasn't an Ivy League graduate with a long history of schmoozing the political class hat gave us John Roberts. Now that same pundit class has the the nerve to be appalled. What exactly did they expect?


Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at July 03, 2012 01:48 PM (VGgPb)

221 "Here we go again with the eleven-dimensional chess game."
=====

John Roberts is playing "Halo" on Legendary mode.

Posted by: Kensington at July 03, 2012 01:49 PM (/AHDz)

222 177

I do NOT understand whyin the CJ's eyesitis so much more important
for the leftist fishwrapsand elitesto be impressed with him than the
American people.
But then I'm not an elitist.

Posted by: Marybeth at July 03, 2012 01:41 PM (Ks0w4)
ACe's post yesterday about the 13 year old conservative was the perfect illustration of what may have been going on with Roberts.As the kid got older he faced the pressure of HS, his liberal teachers and his classmates. He had to change, he'd have no friends as he'd already come out of the closet as a conservative.
Washington DC metro area is truly a bubble. They socialize, they have play dates with one another's kids, their kids attend the same schools, they all go to the best parties. Obviously, Robert's knows this. It's possible that there was even pressure at home from the folks who like having friends and going to parties. Besides, if you see the republicans/conservatives as weak, if you believe the tea party has died, if you see the world only from the beltway then you might not want to stand on a principle if you think it wouldn't matter anyway.

Posted by: stare decisis at July 03, 2012 01:49 PM (oZfic)

223


Something has bothered me for a bit...why in the world did the IRS and HHS start these ObamaCare processes while this wasn't settled?

Did they know the fix was in, as it would be?

It's just odd...but as I know how govt works, these leeches are always looking to clamp on as soon as possible with their fucking budgets.

But it is odd...and now Turtle Face McConnell comes out and says we can't do nuthin about it.

Yeah, if you already resigned your country to letting it happen, you asshole.

No matter what, the left wins, they get the encroachment they sought, no going back now...it's full speed ahead. turtle face is going to get his ass kicked by the Communists, boehner might as wlel go get drunk, the shiftless asshole.

So depressing.

Posted by: Rev. Dr. E. Buzz. Bunnies. Trump. at July 03, 2012 01:49 PM (tcSZb)

224 Drugs, motherfucker! Do you take them?
Posted by: fluffy at July 03, 2012 01:46 PM (z9HTb)Everyday or else I would go nuts

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at July 03, 2012 01:49 PM (mFxQX)

225 At best, in future cases he'll be on the fence like Kennedy.

--

Out: 5-4
In: 3-2-4

Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 01:49 PM (vOMX+)

226 Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 01:47 PM (cVYiZ)

Your Pointless Heart pic needs a cup of pudding at the bottom of it...

Posted by: Darth Vader, from that scene at the begging, you know, from the good star wars... at July 03, 2012 01:49 PM (UZQM8)

227 It IS a TAX, dammit. Just because Obama is a lying weasel and says it isn't - Roberts correctly ruled that it is.

If it is a tax. Answer the damn question Roberts wouldn't which damn one?
Is it an income tax, though it is not in any way linked to income?
Is it a direct tax? If so is it evenly applied and distributed amongst the states according to the census?

Which F*KING TAX IS IT?!!! BECAUSE WHICHEVER IT IS NEEDS TO F*KING GO!!

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 01:49 PM (0q2P7)

228 Brilliance? Of this decision? Huh?

Posted by: phoenixgirl, team dagny at July 03, 2012 01:50 PM (Kf54I)

229 John Roberts is playing "Halo" on Legendary mode.

Playing single-player Minecraft more like it.

Posted by: EC at July 03, 2012 01:50 PM (GQ8sn)

230
One year ago during the battle over the debt ceiling increase this exact same thing happened.

Obama and Democrats and their media kept saying to the Republicans better not do it, better not do it, you'll pay dearly if you allow a default and a shutdown.

What did the Republicans do at the 11th hour? Same thing Roberts did. They folded.

Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines at July 03, 2012 01:50 PM (G/zuv)

231 Agreed, John. This is the final hill.
But if we can't demolish Obama given that he just passed the largest tax increase on the middle class in history, along with all the other BS we have against Obama (horrible economy, horrible employment, etc) - maybe we don't deserve to live as free people any more - and it wouldn't matter either way.

Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 01:51 PM (cVYiZ)

232 93
Well, now that everyone knows it works, no one'll never do <i>that</i> again, will they John?

Expect it hard and heavy from both sides now, no respite ever. Currency established.




Posted by: Mr. Obvious at July 03, 2012 01:25 PM (UxKxm)
-
The problem is, he'll only hear one side, the side that's heavily represented in the mainstream media.
This is the cost of nominating and appointing "stealth conservatives" who only say, do and as far as we can tell think what is commonly "received" in "mainstream" sources. If those sources are leftist (and we know they have been for a very long time), then your hot-house "stealth conservative" is someone who drinks deep of leftist propaganda daily, and has nothing real or even incorrect but unconventional and thought-provoking to compare it to. He or she lives in the mental bubble that the big money leftist mass media machine strives to create and maintain.
If those sources say that the Chief Justice needs to "grow in office," betray the right and exalt the left, why that's just common sense. And if those sources say that the reputation of the court is in danger and it's time to panic, that is to act decisively in an unusual way to move the court away from the danger of being partisan, so be it.

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 01:51 PM (NJpun)

233 I built my own house, is anyone calling me a house builder?

I played golf once, is anyone calling me a golfer?

But you suck on one dick, they call you a cocksucker!

Posted by: John Roberts at July 03, 2012 01:51 PM (Y+DPZ)

234 Soothsayer, of the Wolverines


AVENGE ME!!!!

Posted by: EC at July 03, 2012 01:51 PM (GQ8sn)

235 #204 That is the scond time you have posted that allegation. I saw it on the morning news thread, too.

This is crap and sounds like left-wing propaganda.

Knock it off.

Posted by: Miss Marple at July 03, 2012 01:51 PM (GoIUi)

236 >>>Ace of Spades and the rest of you morons are going to eat your words

You're going to eat yours when the next dem imposes an obesity tax, a failure to have a gym membership tax, a failure to belong to a union tax. . .

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 01:51 PM (0q2P7)

237 201

O'Connor and Kennedy are evil rightwingers with guilty consciences that sometimes compels them to vote left. don't you read the New York Timezzzzzz

Posted by: JDP at July 03, 2012 01:52 PM (60GaT)

238 213 Also, some have said that members of the 111th Congress never called the
mandate a tax. While what ultimately matters (in my view) is
what the final version of the bill says, some prominent Ds did, in fact,
refer to it as a tax back in 2009.



http://bit.ly/LMATqj
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 01:47 PM (d6QMz)

**********

During oral arguments Verrilli used the point that--

Max Baucus called it a tax during debate on the Senate floor as support for the "it's a tax" route.


*************

GENERAL VERRILLI: I don't think that that's a fair characterization of the actions of Congress here, Justice Kagan. On the — December 23rd, a point of constitutional order was called to, in fact, with respect to this law. The floor sponsor, Senator Baucus, defended it as an exercise of the taxing power. In his response to the point of order, the Senate voted 60 to39 on that proposition.

The legislative history is replete with members of Congress explaining that this law is constitutional as an exercise of the taxing power. It was attacked as a tax by its opponents. So I don't think this is a situation where you can say that

Congress was avoiding any mention of the tax power.

It would be one thing if Congress explicitly disavowed an exercise of the tax power. But given that it hasn't done so, it seems to me that it's — not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this Court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.

***********

Damn thing is we know how the Democrats did this by Reconciliation to limit debate.

So I doubt the Republicans got any significant chance to attack the Baucus reasoning.

Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 01:52 PM (r2PLg)

239 Well, I see the "this is not the hill to die upon" brigade has chimed in.

"Let's not be angry about this guys, we got more important things to worry about."

Bullshit.

Read up on those who are considering the limits of this new power--there are none!!!

This is the final piece the JEF and his running dogs needed to completely overwhelm the states and make us all subjects to the federal government--effectively a mob democracy with the Democrats and utterly corrupt patrons and royalty as the large strongholds of the Democrats, the cities, will now run everything.

I just don't get it: There is no silver lining. We may win the (temporary) political victory and get a repeal. But we have lost our Constitution. Where before, we were (nominally) free men, and only those rights we granted to the federal government were they allowed, today? Today, the only rights we have are to do or not do as the federal government sees fit.

Or, as the piss-yellow coward put it: We are free to exercise our rights, we are not free, however, to refuse to pay the tax if the federal government decides to tax our rights.

Posted by: RoyalOil at July 03, 2012 01:52 PM (kSaUf)

240 I am back from Brazil, Chile and Panama. This is an alternative world I came back too. Roberts sides with the Left. Great legacy Bush got there.

Posted by: Shockwave at July 03, 2012 01:53 PM (udRDY)

241 Yes. Fluffy. When I can get 'em.


Don't take them before posting. You just posted a bunch of gibberish.

Posted by: fluffy at July 03, 2012 01:53 PM (z9HTb)

242 @211:I also enjoyed being scolded in his "elections have consequences" opinion as if this whole thing were my fault even though I am doing all in my power to resist.
---
The alternate reading of that is that he was scolding the Obamacare-supporting public...

I mean, as opposed to n-dimensional chess, it could be as simple as fulfilling Ancient Chinese Curse: "May you obtain everything you wish for".

Of course...that sucks for everyone who doesn't wish for it...

Posted by: John at July 03, 2012 01:53 PM (Y5I9o)

243 Roberts is a devout Catholic.

Hey, me too!

Posted by: Nanzi P. at July 03, 2012 01:53 PM (MMC8r)

244
AVENGE ME!!!!

After my break, 'kay?

Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines Local 103 at July 03, 2012 01:53 PM (G/zuv)

245 You guys are bitching on a board when you could be being productive. Don't make me tax you

Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at July 03, 2012 01:53 PM (60GaT)

246 Isn't Malta where James Bond villains hang out?

Posted by: RushBabe at July 03, 2012 01:53 PM (qxsyW)

247
Cana presidents E.O.'s be subject to appeal?

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at July 03, 2012 01:54 PM (mFxQX)

248 You misunderstand. I was not playing 11th dimensional chess. I was playing 11 dimensional folds.

Posted by: CJ John Origami Roberts at July 03, 2012 01:54 PM (+56Bh)

249 @Vader - "Your Pointless Heart pic needs a cup of pudding at the bottom of it..."

Splendid analysis!

Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 01:54 PM (cVYiZ)

250 "We can now rescind the ObamaCare TAX - because Roberts declared it a TAX."
=====

Dear Lord, for the millionth time...:

WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO "RESCIND" THE DAMN TAX IF ROBERTS HAD DONE HIS JOB AND STRUCK THE DAMN LAW DOWN!

Posted by: Kensington at July 03, 2012 01:54 PM (/AHDz)

251 For the life of me, I do NOT understand the preoccupation with "legitimacy of the court" and "media pressure"...dammit, it's a LIFETIME appointment. Justices are tasked with doing what's Constitutionally correct. That's their job. For LIFE. It's not like they have to maintain a rapport with the MSM so they can snag a job as an analyst at MSNBC when they retire.
So, basically, now the Supreme Court can be bullied. Great.

Posted by: antisocialist at July 03, 2012 01:54 PM (j/nZn)

252 Roberts is queer and Obama was going to out him. His boyfriends would have been brought forward to tell on Roberts.


Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 01:46 PM (bBBdT
Doesn't the Westboro Baptist Church have their own blog?

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at July 03, 2012 01:54 PM (+lsX1)

253 Well, enough eyeorism, doom, and pessimism for me for now

I think I'll go read the comments on NY Jets blogs to cheer up

Posted by: kbdabear at July 03, 2012 01:54 PM (Y+DPZ)

254 Devout Catholic? What does that mean? It means whatever you want it to mean.

Posted by: maddogg at July 03, 2012 01:55 PM (OlN4e)

255 After my break, 'kay?


Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines Local 103




Awww shit, even our freedom fighters are organized now! Does your contract require you only to carry your weapon and not shoot it? Someone else load the rounds into magazines? Someone else cleans the weapons?

Posted by: EC at July 03, 2012 01:55 PM (GQ8sn)

256 No he couldn't. He was only one judge. It would have been 4-4 and 1 punt which means no ruling, lower courts rulings (all of them even if contradictory) are upheld. Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 --
It was still up in the air then. I could see where Kennedy, Thomas, Alito and Scalia would take that punt over what we ended up with, if it had been a negotiating point, as long as the commerce clause was unconstitutional. Their main concern was the damage to the constitution. I don't know why that wasn't an option.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 03, 2012 01:55 PM (XCxgL)

257
re: Roberts' remark about not the Court's duty to overturn the laws passed by elected legislators

Besides being completely wrong and stupid, why did Roberts overturn the perfectly Constitutional law passed by AZ's elected legislators?

Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines Local 103 at July 03, 2012 01:55 PM (G/zuv)

258 56
Next SC session will be interesting. I imagine that Thomas, Alito,
Scalia and even Kennedy will hold this anger over damaging the court and
the constitution for a long, long time. I would expect that they won't
even speak to him unless absolutely necessary.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 03, 2012 01:19 PM (XCxgL)
-
Nah, they have to deal with him. Not respect him; that won't be possible any more. But deal with him. The Supreme Court is a small world.

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 01:56 PM (NJpun)

259 ok, i have a question, re It's a Tax?
how can it be dealt with as a Tax, diferently than a penalty?

does the writing of the bill make it easier or harder to fight as a Tax bill situation?

Posted by: willow at July 03, 2012 01:56 PM (TomZ9)

260 #220 You are absolutely right. Who can forget Laura Ingraham making fun of her eye makeup, or Ann Coulter calling her the cleaning lady. And David Frum was involved with that as well, as well as Jon Pdhoretz from the New York Post.

Thanks for the reminder!

Posted by: Miss Marple at July 03, 2012 01:56 PM (GoIUi)

261 220- NC Mountain Girl

Excellent, provocative comment.
Food for thought.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at July 03, 2012 01:56 PM (C8mVl)

262 Rush is right in that we are dancing to the Dem-dem's tunes if we continue to argue over the nature of the beast.

Just fucking kill it with fire already

Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 03, 2012 01:56 PM (famk3)

263 Here is my hope going forward -- he comes back after this ass-kicking in the press and goes on a conservative tear. Fuck, need to stop daydreaming.

Posted by: Jean at July 03, 2012 01:56 PM (WkuV6)

264 It is not political when they do it.

Posted by: wte9 at July 03, 2012 01:56 PM (ZL7LA)

265 Today, the
only rights we have are to do or not do as the federal government sees
fit.


You can do whatever you want. But you have to pay. So, if you mention extortion again, I'll have your legs broken.

Posted by: Carmine DePasto at July 03, 2012 01:56 PM (QKKT0)

266 Just because Obama is a lying weasel and says it isn't - Roberts correctly ruled that it is.

If it's a tax, why didn't the Congress call it a tax? Hmmm? I don't care how SCOAMT characterizes it, I care what the bill says- and the bill calls it a penalty, not a tax.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 01:56 PM (8y9MW)

267 Roberts' opinion is so brilliant it removes any overreach via the Commerce Clause and moves it safely under the power of taxation. Yippee.

Posted by: nickless at July 03, 2012 01:56 PM (MMC8r)

268 #235 Not crap - just the truth. You are so naive to think shit like this doesn't happen? Explain the insanity of Roberts decision? There is no explanation. Will you rely on the Republicans to repeal this assault on the Constitution? Dream on. Roberts should have killed it and now it is the law of the land. No silver lining. Plus Congress can now tax you for anything you do or don't do. How about a carbon tax for the SUV you drive that makes it so expensive you have to buy a volt. Asshole Romeny and the leaders are arguing about whether or not it is a tax instead of talking about the abomination of Obamacare.

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 01:57 PM (bBBdT)

269 Honestly I enjoy saying bad things about John Roberts. I see no problem with hurling all sort of vile names at him. I want him to see all that when he Googles himself. I want him to know how he is a craven, and many people think he's a soft-minded self-centered wuss.

He deserves no better, and I hope THAT gets to him at some level.

Posted by: BlackOrchid-TeamDagny at July 03, 2012 01:57 PM (J6kXj)

270 "You're going to eat yours when the next dem imposes an obesity tax, a
failure to have a gym membership tax, a failure to belong to a union
tax. ."

=====

Sounds okay to me!

Posted by: Chief Justice John Roberts at July 03, 2012 01:57 PM (/AHDz)

271 175 Hugh Hewitt ţ@hughhewittIf the CJ believed the taxing power reached Obamacare, would you want him to set aside that belief just to win? #tcot #hewitt
The awesome cluelessness of Hewitt on display.
The traitorous, tongue-swallowing CJ obviously dazzled Hugh with his freedom-loving brilliance.

Posted by: Mr. Wonderful at July 03, 2012 01:57 PM (iBGQ2)

272 @Mike Moose - "You're going to eat yours when the next dem imposes an obesity tax, a failure to have a gym membership tax, a failure to belong to a union tax. . ."

They can already do that. We have something called "excise taxes" that Dems use to modify human behavior (liquor, cigs, gasoline). ObamaCare tax is yet another excise tax.

Congress can pass any tax they want. The idea is - if we don't like it we can vote them out every 2 years.

Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 01:57 PM (cVYiZ)

273
Anybody want a peanut?

Posted by: Fezzik at July 03, 2012 01:57 PM (V9GJx)

274 as they said in the old Bugs Bunny cartoon, Dog Pile on the Roberts!

I dunno. stinks all the way around. Roberts went wobbly? So did my schlong after I saw rosie o'donnell,

Posted by: mallfly at July 03, 2012 01:58 PM (bJm7W)

275 @201 Not only that, but the really important part of Bush v. Gore was decided 702, that the selective recounts in Florida were violations of equal protection. The 5-4 decision was that the clock had run out and there was not enough time for Florida to go back and do a statewide hand recount before they had to certify their electoral votes. But Democrats never wanted a staewide recount because they knew they would lose it. So it was the 7-2 decision that actually "decided the election." It's irritating as hell that they keep whinging and spinning about this.

Posted by: rockmom at July 03, 2012 01:58 PM (NYnoe)

276 I actually don't have an issue with the whole "hey you idiots are the ones who voted for this make the legislature fix it" position. That's Scalia's point in Lawrence v. Texas, it's not the Supremes job to decide whether or not a law is a good idea, just if it's Constitutional.

Having said that, Roberts screwed the pooch in applying that proposition here.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 03, 2012 01:58 PM (VtjlW)

277 You guys are bitching on a board when you could be being productive. Don't make me tax you
Posted by: Chief Justice Roberts at July 03, 2012 01:53 PM (60GaT)


You mean productive like Bertha Lewis? She thanks Beck and Limbaugh for reinvigorating ACORN. Maybe we could ask her if she has some of that resoluteness that she could loan to Mitt. Yes, kids, it's the new-and-improved voter fraud strategery for 2012! But if Obonehead already has everything he wanted from the presiduncy (well, besides us in camps), what does it matter?

http://wapo.st/MtmmWe

Posted by: RushBabe at July 03, 2012 01:58 PM (qxsyW)

278 Which F*KING TAX IS IT?!!! BECAUSE WHICHEVER IT IS NEEDS TO F*KING GO!!
Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 01:49 PM (0q2P7)


That's the beauty of it Mike, it's a Tax that isn't a Tax so they can't get rid of it, as a Tax.

---Chief Tax-Us Roberts

Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 03, 2012 01:58 PM (UZQM8)

279 Maybe there was something to that "Scalia is pissy" tea leaf after all....

Posted by: Filly at July 03, 2012 01:59 PM (xiJmL)

280 #252 - Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 01:59 PM (bBBdT)

281 Kennedy will let it slide. How many times has he f-ed over conservatives by siding with the libs.

Posted by: ejo at July 03, 2012 01:59 PM (HzC9j)

282 Second look at Harriet Myers!

Posted by: Mr. Wonderful at July 03, 2012 01:59 PM (iBGQ2)

283 I drove my elderly neighbor to the doctor in march. On the way home he told me that doctor now had a computer in the examining room and showed him all his records on the computer. He told the doctor he didn't want his records on the computer. The doctor told him that he was required to do this by law and the deadline to have it done was fast approaching and if he didn't do it, he would be fined. He told the doctor he wanted his records taken off the computer and kept on paper. The doctor essentially told him he had no say.

So the guy goes to have his high blood pressure checked and what he hears in the doctor's office nearly gives him a stroke. I spent the next two hours calming him down. He was angry, really angry and he kept repeating "what do you mean I have no say, this is America not soviet russia" Now this guy fought in the war, I"m not sure which one though. He doesn't have a computer, he gets his news from the NY slimes and the msm and he was furious with his doctor for not telling him about this. He kept asking me if he missed a breakdown of these new health laws in the paper. He can't be the only one reacting like this.

Posted by: stare decisis at July 03, 2012 01:59 PM (oZfic)

284 Remember, the Robert's decision could easily be re-written as: The Government can't stop you from owning firearms, but they can tax you if you do; or the Government can't quarter soldiers in your home, but they can tax those who choose not to.

Posted by: Jean at July 03, 2012 02:00 PM (WkuV6)

285 @AllenG - "If it's a tax, why didn't the Congress call it a tax? Hmmm? I don't care how SCOAMT characterizes it, I care what the bill says- and the bill calls it a penalty, not a tax."

Do we even have to ask that? Just watch Pelosi try and squirm around this tax vs penalty question. THEY WERE LYING. Just like they did with SS... "not a tax... it's an investment"

Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 02:00 PM (cVYiZ)

286 Here is my hope going forward -- he comes back after this ass-kicking in the press and goes on a conservative tear.

Doesn't work that way.

Posted by: Jonathan Krohn at July 03, 2012 02:00 PM (qxsyW)

287
John Roberts, you saved the Court's reputation by trashing the Constitution. What are you going to do next?

Roberts: I'm going to Malta World!!

Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines Local 103 at July 03, 2012 02:00 PM (G/zuv)

288 I think I'll go read the comments on NY Jets blogs to cheer up

Posted by: kbdabear at July 03, 2012 01:54 PM (Y+DPZ)


You dirtly little Masochist you...

Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 03, 2012 02:00 PM (UZQM8)

289 can't a man joke about Roberts being a queer in peace

Posted by: JDP at July 03, 2012 02:01 PM (60GaT)

290 122 How my ass taste?
Posted by: John Roberts, in meme mode at July 03, 2012 01:30 PM (YmPwQ)

Pretty damn good!

Posted by: Anderson Poofter at July 03, 2012 02:01 PM (wAQA5)

291 They won't let us win in November, you know; they know what's at stake. Unless we win by LARGE margins in the states we take, they will 'find' votes. (I live in WA state, I know of what I speak).

We need to really engage with people on moderate lib leaning blogs and let people know what kind of absolute trash this law is.Demotivate the zombie youth, and motivate the independents to kick Obama out. It's the Republic's only hope.

Posted by: Linlithgow at July 03, 2012 02:01 PM (Gim9y)

292 Can't we all just get a cheese-log?

Posted by: Meghan McCain at July 03, 2012 02:01 PM (V9GJx)

293 Foreign policy question:
Can Iran's missiles reach Malta?

Posted by: Mr. Wonderful at July 03, 2012 02:02 PM (iBGQ2)

294 They can already do that. We have something called "excise taxes" that
Dems use to modify human behavior (liquor, cigs, gasoline). ObamaCare
tax is yet another excise tax.

--------

Only this time, it's a tax for forcing the purchase of a product. Don't want the tax? Don't purchase the product. That's now blown out of the water. The federal government now tells you to jump....and you can only say, "how high?"

Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 02:02 PM (vOMX+)

295 They can already do that. We have something called "excise taxes" that Dems use to modify human behavior (liquor, cigs, gasoline). ObamaCare tax is yet another excise tax.Posted by: sympleton

Wrong again.

Excise taxes are based on transfers. Where's the transfer in NOT purchasing hcare insurance?

Excise taxes are ad valorem; Obakacare is not. Obakacare is based on income, not an item or service's value.

You really need to work on these contrarian piles of phlegm you keep coughing up.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 03, 2012 02:03 PM (famk3)

296 My intent in ruling that way was to bring the masses of the American public into the Marxian-Socialist fold.

Posted by: CJ John Origami Roberts at July 03, 2012 02:03 PM (+56Bh)

297 #235 I think it more likely that if there was blackmail, it was concerning his adopted children.

It would be real easy for Obama to set up some sort of fake documents that made it look like Roberts got those kids overseas through fraud. maybe even kidnapping. With the State Department, a cooperative overseas government and a pathetic eastern European woman crying on TV, they could pretty much force him to resign.

It is not necessary to bring in a spurious gay charge in order to explain this. And you have NO evidence, so MY theory is as good as yours.

Posted by: Miss Marple at July 03, 2012 02:03 PM (GoIUi)

298

They won't let us win in November...

It definitely has me worried. The Left does not want to give up power and they'll go to any lengths to keep it.

Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines Local 103 at July 03, 2012 02:04 PM (G/zuv)

299 293 Foreign policy question:
Can Iran's missiles reach Malta?
Posted by: Mr. Wonderful at July 03, 2012 02:02 PM (iBGQ2)

I laughed at that more than I should, and yes, I believe they can...

Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 03, 2012 02:04 PM (UZQM8)

300 @Kensington - "WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO "RESCIND" THE DAMN TAX IF ROBERTS HAD DONE HIS JOB AND STRUCK THE DAMN LAW DOWN!"

True - but then we wouldn't have ObamaCare to use to win the presidency and the Senate. ObamaCare would be small potatoes by the time Obama finished his 2nd term. This way we get rid of Obama AND ObamaCare. Roberts understood this.

Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 02:04 PM (cVYiZ)

301 And again
FUCK THIS.

Any proof of any of it?

Even if it's true SO FUCKING WHAT.

Nowhere in his JobDesc. does it say get in front of the Commie Cannibal army because the old GOP is gutless.

and to be called a coward by one of that armies dog-whistlers.

And YOU got no business using the word ever dood. You blog anon. and get the vapors over being noticed by one of the CCA's extra-psycho leiutenants. sp?

Aren't you always going off about self-awareness?


Posted by: DaveA at July 03, 2012 02:04 PM (864A5)

302 Gotta give it to the lefties, they don't care what anyone thinks of them. They have their goal, and they stick to it.

Of course, the entire media establishment is on their side, so it makes that part easier for them. But they really don't care what we think.

Posted by: Jay in Ames at July 03, 2012 02:05 PM (UEEex)

303 steevy @66 sez:
"I hate to say it but it is the elephant in the room.Roberts would have struck it down if it was an accomplishment of a run of the mill white President."

But it WASN'T Obama's accomplishment. It was Nancy Pelosi's and Harry Reid's accomplishment. All Obama did was bully and bribe some people, as the Chicago Mafia thug that he is, and then take the credit for the whole thing.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at July 03, 2012 02:05 PM (F0o5k)

304 They can already do that. We have something called "excise taxes" that
Dems use to modify human behavior (liquor, cigs, gasoline). ObamaCare
tax is yet another excise tax.


Exactly how stupid are you?

Excise taxes are on activities- specifically purchases, most often (I suppose the tanning tax counts as an "excise tax."

Simply being fat? Not a taxable activity - until this decision.
Choosing not to purchase something? Not a taxable activity - until this decision.

Do you just not get that the Government has now usurped a power it did not have: that is, to force you into behaviors against your will? Never before has there been a tax on not doing or not purchasing something.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 02:05 PM (8y9MW)

305 Roberts should ask McCain how much the Liberals love him?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 03, 2012 02:05 PM (05RcU)

306 *holds thumb and forefinger an inch apart*

We were this close to killing the whole thing plus reigning in the commerce clause. But, alas, that would have been a conservative decision, so it could not be.

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at July 03, 2012 02:05 PM (EtuU3)

307 172 Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 01:36 PM (d6QMz)

Is
he a liberal with conservative tendencies? Sure. But this was a huge
case with profound implications for the freedom of future generations.
He had the opportunity to push the country back toward the rule of law
and respect for the strictures placed on the federal government by some
very intelligent men.

Instead, he chose to pander to the most base, anti-intellectual crap that was being flung by the left.


That still does not answer the question. If he is merely a liberal with conservative tendencies, then why has he not shown his "true colors" before now? One can be a conservative and still occasionally violate one's principles. On the other hand, if this becomes a habit, then it shows he has become nothing but a careerist. As for breaking one's oath, if Roberts has, in fact, done that, he ought to resign.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 02:06 PM (d6QMz)

308 I love a good chocolate Maltan.

Posted by: Anderson Cooper at July 03, 2012 02:06 PM (V9GJx)

309 99
The thing that really, really chapped my ass were his comments that
(paraphrasing) elections have consequences and I suppose, now we are
having to live with what we elected. It completely astonishes me
that, nowhere in his reasoning that, regardless of elections, there are
certain limits to the federal government's power over the individual.
Are we to extrapolate that whomever gets elected can pass whatever the
fuck they want to, regardless, and it's a-okay because we elected them?


Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 01:26 PM (vOMX+)
-
Heck no. He was in the majority in the decision that smashed flat Arizona SB 1070, the bill that other states were using as a model. That means he has zero deference to the consequences of elections and the popular acts of the people's representatives.

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 02:06 PM (NJpun)

310 Dammit! This is how they divided the conservatives on Bush. You guys are
not understanding what they do. For God's sake, wise up!

And do
not start down that "Bush was not a conservative" line. He was all we
had, and instead of propping him up and encouraging him, you all
undercut him due to MEDIA PRESSURE from radio talk show hosts!

Wise up!
--Miss Marple



Someguy? Are you going to start screaming about not punching down?

Posted by: Klawnet at July 03, 2012 02:06 PM (a/VXa)

311 and the horde comes drooling full tilt.

No, wonder your bitchy asses get beat by the Ds.

Posted by: DaveA at July 03, 2012 02:06 PM (864A5)

312 #297 Also a possibility. He was 41 when he married - such a handsome and intelligent man with money. He would have had every hot cunt running after him for 20 years. What man can resist hot cunt for that long? Take a look at that smuck smiling face of his. Gay websites talk fondly of the people(males) he is photoed with.

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:06 PM (bBBdT)

313 Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 02:04 PM (cVYiZ)

Based of your reasoning, the Pubs needing OTax to beat Obama does not inspire confidence in me at all that the Repubs are the solution to this problem.

And please, put an abstract pudding cup on the bottom of this and I'll buy it...

http://sympleton.com/#131

Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 03, 2012 02:07 PM (UZQM8)

314
Report: Radioactive poison may have killed Arafat
Eight years after Palestinian leader's death, Al-Jazeera unveils report suggesting he was poisoned with polonium


maybe the Israelis impregnated his boyfriends dildo with polonium?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 03, 2012 02:07 PM (05RcU)

315 Off Off Topic: The only good news I've had in a long time. The cops finally caught the bastards who robbed my mom's house last Thanksgiving. I called the lock up just to make sure. I am happy for right now.

Posted by: mpfs at July 03, 2012 02:07 PM (iYbLN)

316 Okay, some of you need to work on comprehensibility. We aren't the voices in your head, we don't know what you're necessarily talking about.

Posted by: nickless at July 03, 2012 02:07 PM (MMC8r)

317 @268 - I can easily explain Roberts' decision. It's very close to exactly what I predicted he would do, and not becasue I think he is a coward or a closet liberal, because he respects Congress' superior role as the elected body which is repsonsible to the people. When I first read his opinion I thought the tax argument was a bit of a stretch, but Roberts wanted to be as deferential to Congress as possible because that is what he believes. He cited an 1895 Court ruling that whenever the Court can find some way to read a law to make it Constitutional, that is what it must do. I don't think the 1895 Supreme Court was filled with liberal judicial activists.

I was surprised and disappointed with the Arizona ruling, but not surprised at all by this one.

Posted by: rockmom at July 03, 2012 02:08 PM (NYnoe)

318 I've seen some comments on regular news blogs of people saying the court might revisit citizen's united.

I've been thinking about Roberts coming out and saying no one is recusing themselves.

You start to line up all the cues and realize you came to the wrong conclusion cause you read it, saw it the way you wanted to read, see it, and not necessarily how it actually was. It's demoralizing.

Posted by: stare decisis at July 03, 2012 02:08 PM (oZfic)

319 If the Supreme Court had declared the ObamaCare Mandate unconstitutional, the left was preparing to 'escalate' their charges of the Supreme Court being run by radical right wing extremist political activists. And Obama was preparing to run against the evil judges, and on restoring Your Right to His Health Care Plan. They would have had the momentum, and they would have had the press in their pocket, and it's very likely Obama would succeed in getting reelected.

Even before Roberts made his awful decision, the only way to truly kill Obamacare, the only silver bullet, the only stake through the heart, is if we elect people who will then repeal it.

Roberts decision actually makes our job easier. We now have the momentum and passion. We need to get our arguments for real healthcare reform in front of people, and focus on the high costs and flaws in Obamacare. Then elect people who will do something about it. We did it in 2010.



Posted by: starboardhelm at July 03, 2012 02:08 PM (hHgxI)

320 >>>ObamaCare tax is yet another excise tax.

You can't have an excise on inaction. Try again.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 03, 2012 02:08 PM (0q2P7)

321 maybe the Israelis impregnated his boyfriends dildo with polonium?
Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 03, 2012 02:07 PM (05RcU)
Uh-oh.

Posted by: John Roberts in Malta at July 03, 2012 02:08 PM (iBGQ2)

322
That means he has zero deference to the consequences of elections and the popular acts of the people's representatives.

It's possible he evolved.
...after I threatened him with a lifetiome of being branded a racist!

Posted by: Barakhenaten I at July 03, 2012 02:08 PM (V9GJx)

323 North Carolina Democrat Larry Kissell represents the state’s 8th Congressional district, one of the more closely-watched swing districts. He was one of 17 Democrats who voted to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in criminal contempt of Congress. And now, according to the Charlotte Observer, Kissell will join Republicans in voting to repeal Obamacare.
“I’ve heard from hundreds and hundreds of people from my district about their opposition to the health care law,” Kissell told the newpaper. “I voted against it originally and I will vote to repeal it.”
According to the Observer, Kissell “also said he doesn’t plan to endorse Obama for re-election and isn’t sure he’ll attend his party’s national convention in Charlotte.”

Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 03, 2012 02:08 PM (05RcU)

324 Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 01:22 PM (r2PLg)

But then he wrote his decision to allow the law under the tax code and COMPEL people to buy a product from a private company or pony up a tax. So he's a liar.

Posted by: Linlithgow at July 03, 2012 02:09 PM (Gim9y)

325 Now what?


Posted by: mrp at July 03, 2012 01:29 PM (HjPtV)
-Now: changing the way right-wingers, conservatives and Republicans do business. No more "stealth conservatives"!

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 02:09 PM (NJpun)

326 #317 Was the Supreme Court deferential to Congress on abortion?

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:09 PM (bBBdT)

327 AllenG - "Never before has there been a tax on not doing or not purchasing something."

Is that so? How about Social Security? Isn't that basically just an excise tax on - not investing? If not, what is it?

Roberts has pinned the tail on this donkey by calling it a TAX. Now, we can coherently argue against SS as a tax as well.

Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 02:09 PM (cVYiZ)

328 315 Off Off Topic: The only good news I've had in a long time. The cops finally caught the bastards who robbed my mom's house last Thanksgiving. I called the lock up just to make sure. I am happy for right now.
Posted by: mpfs at July 03, 2012 02:07 PM (iYbLN)
Well, three less Obama voters..

Posted by: John Roberts in Malta at July 03, 2012 02:09 PM (iBGQ2)

329 At long last, the groundwork is set for my Health Republic of Newyorkistan! Mwahahaha -- you're gettin' taxed if you don't eat your string beans bitch!

Posted by: Evil Genius Bloomberg at July 03, 2012 02:09 PM (60GaT)

330 Can anyone reach Volokh.com?

Looks like it's down.

Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 02:10 PM (r2PLg)

331
Has anyone else noticed that some of the comments calling for calm are the most unhinged and personally insulting comments in all these threads?


Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines Local 103 at July 03, 2012 02:10 PM (G/zuv)

332 #323 A vote for Kissell is a vote for Obama.

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:10 PM (bBBdT)

333 It definitely has me worried. The Left does not want to give up power and they'll go to any lengths to keep it.

-----

I am very worried as well. These marxist/communists have waited a long, long, long time to get where they are now. Thanks to them, the republic is dying and they are on the precipice of instituting an entirely different governmental system. They. will. not. let. go. Ends justifies the means and they will cheat like nothing else to retain their control and finish our republic off. Yep, very worried about it.

Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 02:10 PM (vOMX+)

334 Just so much bullshit; the Supreme Court is supposed to be above such nonsense. I guess now that they know how thin-skinned Roberts is, they will be able to pull his strings and make him vote however they want him to. Can someone please explain to me how important it is to elect Republicans "because of judicial appointments" again?

Posted by: DaveinNC at July 03, 2012 02:10 PM (boNGU)

335

"Those
decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out
of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the
people from the consequences of their political choices."



"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments
long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and
accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to
which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations,
pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under
absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government,
and to provide new guards for their future security."



Posted by: The Poster Formerly Known as Mr. Barky at July 03, 2012 02:10 PM (qwK3S)

336 We're sitting here re-hashing the traiterous act of Roberts, when we should be focusing on that shit-weazel McConnell.

I don't know. So many signs point to the horror that the train has already left the station.

Posted by: Soona at July 03, 2012 02:11 PM (Qvc8d)

337 @Moose - "You can't have an excise on inaction. Try again."

Where is this written? What about Social Security?

Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 02:11 PM (cVYiZ)

338
265 You can do whatever you want. But you have to pay. So, if you mention extortion again, I'll have your legs broken.
Posted by: Carmine DePasto at July 03, 2012 01:56 PM (QKKT0)


I'm sure i can arrange a nice horarium from the student fund.

Posted by: Vernon Wormer at July 03, 2012 02:11 PM (jts1f)

339 Where in the Constitution does Congress have the power to tax and give the money to a private company?

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:11 PM (bBBdT)

340 I have lost all respect for Roberts, the fuck. Yo Bob, you don't have to run for fucking re-election. Did you forget sixth grade civics when you put on that black robe?

Too early to drink, too early to drink . . .

Posted by: logprof at July 03, 2012 02:11 PM (ValRz)

341
There's venting and sussing out what transpired.

And then there's this rational response: ARE YOU PEOPLE STUPID? CALM DOWN, EVERYONE. JUST SHUT UP ABOUT THIS, ALREADY. AAAAAARRRGGHHHHHH!

Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines Local 103 at July 03, 2012 02:11 PM (G/zuv)

342 Is that so? How about Social Security? Isn't that basically just an excise tax on - not investing? If not, what is it?

---

Uh, we have NO CHOICE but to participate in SS. I'd rather invest my own money and give jack shit to the government. They won't let me.

Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 02:12 PM (vOMX+)

343 He told the doctor he wanted his records taken off the computer and kept on paper. The doctor essentially told him he had no say.

From my experience? The only one who has no control over his/her records is the patient. The HIPAA privacy regs were promoted as giving the patient the final say in who would get what medical records. This was, how to put it politely, an utter fucking lie from the get go. I remember when the regs first went into effect that patients were being told that they could not have copies of their own medical records. I got into more than one screaming match with doctor's offices where I tried to get through their heads that if a patient was standing in front of them saying "copy my entire file" they had to copy the entire file and that, yes, a non-psych patient had every right to a copy of his/her records. My personal favorite was calling a hospital to ask for the mailing address for the hospital to send an authorization directly to the pharmacy department and being told that this information could not be given to me due to HIPAA. My eye still twitches whenI think of that.

I had a doctor show memy electronic records, all proud of how high tech them were. I cocked an eyebrow, pulled out my netbook, got into their "encrypted" wifi (the password was a default password),got on their networkand showed him my medical records on my netbook. He stared and I suggested that maybe, just maybe, they needed to have a chat with their IT people about security.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 03, 2012 02:12 PM (VtjlW)

344 It's great here on the beach, suckas!

Posted by: John Roberts in Malta at July 03, 2012 02:12 PM (iBGQ2)

345 Do you just not get that the Government has now usurped a power it did not have: that is, to force you into behaviors against your will? Never before has there been a tax on not doing or not purchasing something.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 02:05 PM (8y9MW)

So Roberts really did pull some judicial ninjitsu... straight into the taxpayers' nut sack. This is why the Repubs won't get rid of it either... this new found power to tax inactivity has got them wetting their pants.

Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 03, 2012 02:12 PM (UZQM8)

346 Roberts has pinned the tail on this donkey by calling it a TAX. Now, we can coherently argue against SS as a tax as well.
Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 02:09 PM (cVYiZ)

******

I do like the embarrassment of the Democrats having to essentially say--

"We Won It's a Tax even though we LIED about it!!"

Thing is Dems are incapable of shame and the media covers for them.

Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 02:12 PM (r2PLg)

347 You can take your thumb outta my ass any time, Carmine.

Posted by: Marion Wormer, the dean's wife at July 03, 2012 02:12 PM (G/zuv)

348 Ok, I'm bitching......for those of you answering a comment that was 25- 50-100 comments ago, could you at least copy SOME of the comment. It's tedious going back to the comment to see what you're referring to.



/bitch off....


Posted by: Tami at July 03, 2012 02:12 PM (X6akg)

349 Too early to drink, too early to drink . . .
Posted by: logprof at July 03, 2012 02:11 PM (ValRz)
Speaking of drinking, when are you all going to be here in El Paso?

Posted by: TexasJew at July 03, 2012 02:13 PM (iBGQ2)

350 It really doesn't matter what the "punishment" is, be it a tax or a penalty. The key is here is the law orders us to buy a product some people do not want and do not need. That is blatant tyranny and it is unconstitutional.


And even that is in addition to the fact that Art 1, sect 8 does not authorize congress to legislate on healthcare in any fashion.


That is where the ruling should have been place. Piss on Roberts. Taney who looked out for the States would not have ruled this way and he was, in fact, a better judge.

Posted by: Vic at July 03, 2012 02:13 PM (YdQQY)

351 Is that so? How about Social Security? Isn't that basically just an excise tax on - not investing? If not, what is it?

It's an income tax, you freaking skidmark. Don't make an income? You don't pay social security taxes.

Even if you want to torture logic and call it an "excise tax" you're still taxing activity (work) and not inactivity. Your investment or lack thereof does not impact your social security taxes in any way.

If it were an "an exicise tax on - not investing" you wouldn't have to pay SS taxes if you had a 401(k) or private investment account. However, even having those things does not protect you from SS taxes.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 02:13 PM (8y9MW)

352
If the Supreme Court had declared the ObamaCare Mandate
unconstitutional, the left was preparing to 'escalate' their charges of
the Supreme Court being run by radical right wing extremist political
activists. And Obama was preparing to run against the evil judges, and
on restoring Your Right to His Health Care Plan. They would have had the
momentum, and they would have had the press in their pocket, and it's
very likely Obama would succeed in getting reelectedPosted by: starboardhelm


BS.

41% of the voters don't know whether or not SCOTUS has ruled on the case.

Out of those 41% how many do you suppose even know what O-care is? Say nothing of the definition of a mandate outside of Anderson Cooper's favorite hobby.

If Roberts killed it, what would change for the average voter? Nothing except saving a few companies from dumping employee coverage.

OOoooh scarrry!!!!!

Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 03, 2012 02:14 PM (famk3)

353 He's more like Pilate who refused to free an innocent man in the face of an angry mob. Didn't Roberts say in words or effect that "it's your problem now?" Pilate tried to obsolve himself with his infamous question: What is the truth? Roberts basically did the same thing when creating a tax out of whole cloth. He washed his hands of the contoversy in the sea of meaninless linguistic drivel.

Posted by: ObjectionSustained at July 03, 2012 02:14 PM (i5LDG)

354 I am very worried as well. These marxist/communists have waited a long, long, long time to get where they are now. Thanks to them, the republic is dying and they are on the precipice of instituting an entirely different governmental system. They. will. not. let. go. Ends justifies the means and they will cheat like nothing else to retain their control and finish our republic off. Yep, very worried about it.
Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 02:10 PM (vOMX+)


-----------------------------------------------


My question: Why do they need to cheat when they have the peckers of Roberts, McConnell, and Boehner in their pocket?

Posted by: Soona at July 03, 2012 02:14 PM (Qvc8d)

355 @Black Lady - "Uh, we have NO CHOICE but to participate in SS. I'd rather invest my own money and give jack shit to the government. They won't let me."

Won't you say the exact same thing about ObamaCare? That you can get your own Dr. They wont let you?

Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 02:15 PM (cVYiZ)

356 "Roberts decision actually makes our job easier"

so not striking down Obamacare helps to strike down Obamacare. stop already with the Leninist "worse is better" crap. i get the BACKLASH point but that doesn't change the facts

Posted by: JDP at July 03, 2012 02:15 PM (60GaT)

357 http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/07/22/132687/-Is-John-Roberts-Gay-jujitsu

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:15 PM (bBBdT)

358 Maintaining the integrity of the court. Um, yer doin' it wrong.

Posted by: bubba at July 03, 2012 02:15 PM (4x8W0)

359 331
Has anyone else noticed that some of the comments calling for calm are the most unhinged and personally insulting comments in all these threads?

Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines Local 103 at July 03, 2012 02:10 PM (G/zuv)

ALLLLLLL ISSSS WEEELLLLLLL!!!!!!!

Heh

Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 03, 2012 02:16 PM (UZQM8)

360 An Oregon town has reportedly canceled its annual fireworks show out of
concern the Fourth of July pyrotechnics will scare sea birds roosting
nearby.

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:16 PM (bBBdT)

361 42
I've said before that on the day that the first large newspaper goes out
of business, there will be some hope for our country as we know it



Posted by: kbdabear at July 03, 2012 01:16 PM (Y+DPZ)

--One reason I never click on NYT links from here or anywhere.

Posted by: logprof at July 03, 2012 02:16 PM (ValRz)

362 starboardhelm, your're listing to port. We don't want activist judges considering the political impacts of their rulings. We have enough leftists on the Court.

This could have been a simple ruling: it fails on the Commerce Clause, it is a Tax, due to the Anit-Injunction Act you'll need to come back later. That way the Commerce Clause arguments are in the main opinion, Obama still has to carry the albatross, and the Court isn't being activist.

Then, if for some reason - like say a couple of squishy northeastern Republican Senators - repeal dies in the Senate. We could come back and attack all of the wacky tax provisions.

Posted by: Jean at July 03, 2012 02:16 PM (WkuV6)

363 I think Alans4 has a bit of a big gay crush on Johnny Roberts.

Posted by: nickless at July 03, 2012 02:16 PM (MMC8r)

364 Our daily allotment of Roberts bashing is over, new thread.

Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 03, 2012 02:17 PM (UZQM8)

365
It really doesn't matter what the "punishment" is, be it a tax or a penalty.

No, it doesn't!

Romney, Obama, Roberts, and Pelosi can call it whatever they want, it's still being being stuck up our asses.

We're blowing this opportunity to make Obama and the Democrats own this punishment, as Vic calls it. This game of semantics is stupid and we've been sucked into it.

Posted by: Soothsayer, of the Wolverines at July 03, 2012 02:17 PM (G/zuv)

366 New thread up on this

Posted by: Vic at July 03, 2012 02:17 PM (YdQQY)

367 @AllenG - "It's an income tax, you freaking skidmark. Don't make an income? You don't pay social security taxes."

Are you under the delusion that ObamaCare tax will be different from this? You think Obama's people are going to have to pay the ObamaCare tax?

How long do you think it will be before you see the "ACA" item appear on your W2 alongside FICA?

Posted by: sympleton at July 03, 2012 02:18 PM (cVYiZ)

368 Where is this written? What about Social Security?

Already at skidmark and approaching retarded paramecium territory.

Definition of Excise Tax: A Federal or state tax imposed on the manufacture and distribution of certain non-essential consumer goods.

It specifically refers to goods not crossing borders, it's also known as an "inland duty tax." Taxes on the same kinds of things which do cross borders are known as "customs duties" or "border taxes."

In both cases, they are "indirect taxes." That is, the tax is applied to the seller (or, in the case of services, the vendor) and expected to be recouped by them from the buyer or client.

So tell me, where does SS fall in "manufacture and distribution of certain non-essential consumer goods?" Hmmm?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 03, 2012 02:18 PM (8y9MW)

369 I'm coming around to agreeing that the mandate is a tax (because it's related to a legal activity, namely NOT buying health insurance). But that doesn't mean ACA is constitutional/American.

The last non-kinetic bastion of liberty is the courts because they can rule something "a bridge too far."

Yes, the federal gov't has some power under the CC, but that doesn't mean they can say: food is interstate therefore we'll nationalize all food-related activity. Nope. That's a bridge too far. We, The People, have a vested liberty interest in this concept called 'life'.

Yes, the federal gov't has some power under the taxation language, but that doesn't
mean they can say: the clothing market involves money therefore we'll put a tax on non-behavior and add 20,000 pages of regulations on the market and individual. Nope. That type of fascism is a bridge too far. We, The People,
have a vested liberty interest in this concept called 'life'.

Can the government change the tax rates to 100%? CJ Roberts, is that a bridge too far?

This is the point Roberts missed. Liberty.

Posted by: Tonic Dog at July 03, 2012 02:18 PM (X/+QT)

370 Thinking more about this abomination: The decision also changes an important dynamic. The states can no longer be compelled by withholding of federal funds if they choose not to participate in federal programs, but private citizens are now at the mercy of the federal government tax power if they choose not to participate in federally-sanctioned private activities.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 03, 2012 02:18 PM (XCxgL)

371 We can't make them own anything.

It's the media--it's 97% LiBeral.

Think the Libs have to watch the Conservative version of Shep Smith on CNN,MSNBC, or CBS?

Or read them in the NYT, Newsweek?

Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 02:20 PM (r2PLg)

372 Won't you say the exact same thing about ObamaCare? That you can get your own Dr. They wont let you?

----

I have no idea what you're saying here. I will be able to get my own doctor up until such time as a) my doctor retires to get out of the oncoming hellcare freight train (my gyno has already taken early retirement because of it) or b) my employer-based insurance floats to the top of the water, belly up, and I'm thrown into my gov't issued policy, complete with assigned doctor. So no, in the end, I will not get my "own doctor" when it's all said and done. Not one of my choosing.

Posted by: Lady in Black at July 03, 2012 02:20 PM (vOMX+)

373 *holds thumb and forefinger an inch apart*
We were this close to killing the whole thing plus reigning in the commerce clause. But, alas, that would have been a conservative decision, so it could not be.
Posted by: Guy Mohawk at July 03, 2012 02:05 PM (EtuU3)

I don't think we were ever close to throwing out the whole law. We were *this* close to getting rid of the mandate, but Roberts decided he could live with the mandate but could not live with throwing out the entire 2000 pages of law over it in a 5-4 decision. That decision is certainly subject to legitimate criticism, but I thought all along that people were dreaming that we had a chance of getting the whole law thrown out. I knew Roberts wouldn't go there, and I thought Kennedy wouldn't either.

My prediction here the night before the ruling was that it would be 5-4 or 6-3 to strike the mandate (I was foolish to hope that Sotomayor might go along with it) and 6-3 to uphold the rest of the law. I said that Roberts would rule that the mandate COULD be constitutional as a tax, but Congress didn't write it as a tax and he would instruct Congress to rewrite it. It isn't far from what happened; Roberts just found that regardless of the words Congress used, they did enact a tax and that is constitutional. He didn't "rewrite the law," he said that if it walks like a tax and quacks like a tax, it's a tax even though Congress didn't want to call it a tax because taxes are unpopular.

Posted by: rockmom at July 03, 2012 02:21 PM (NYnoe)

374 284
Remember, the Robert's decision could easily be re-written as: The
Government can't stop you from owning firearms, but they can tax you if
you do; or the Government can't quarter soldiers in your home, but they
can tax those who choose not to.

Posted by: Jean at July 03, 2012 02:00 PM (WkuV6)
===============
That's what I keep trying to say: Roberts just said there is one part of the Constitution that trumps ALL of the rest of the Constitution. I mean, he specifically went out of his way to say that the mandate was unconstitutional under _every_other_ constitutional power EXCEPT the power to tax.
Nothing--nothing--is now free from their power to tax. Because, as the piss-yellow coward said, "You are free to exercise your rights, you are not free, however, to refuse to pay the tax for exercising your rights."

When you realize you can formulate every leftist control in that manner--we will not be free as long as this decision stands.

Posted by: RoyalOil at July 03, 2012 02:23 PM (kSaUf)

375 370 Thinking more about this abomination: The decision also changes an important dynamic. The states can no longer be compelled by withholding of federal funds if they choose not to participate in federal programs, but private citizens are now at the mercy of the federal government tax power if they choose not to participate in federally-sanctioned private activities.
Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 03, 2012 02:18 PM (XCxgL)

**********

There's a fine limit.

In Robert's opinion--he says a citizen can still choose not to do something they just have to pay a tax to preserve that choice.

And as long as it--the tax--is not punitive than it is constitutional.

The only problem is--who decides what amount is --punitive?

Where's that line? What's the number--or percentage?

Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 02:23 PM (r2PLg)

376 *then* it is constitutional.

Posted by: tasker at July 03, 2012 02:23 PM (r2PLg)

377 Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:15 PM (bBBdT)

Kilgore Trout. Alive and well.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 03, 2012 02:23 PM (famk3)

378 238 Damn thing is we know how the Democrats did this by Reconciliation to limit debate.



So I doubt the Republicans got any significant chance to attack the Baucus reasoning.


The Democrats will always argue whichever position will be most helpful to them at any given time. So one day, it is a tax; the next day, a penalty; and the day after that, a tax penalty.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 02:23 PM (d6QMz)

379 47 And at least my decisions had the effectof limiting the power of the federal government, not giving them unlimited power to do whatever it wanted.

Posted by: Chief Justice Taney at July 03, 2012 01:17 PM (kSaUf)


I have always been curious about this. His decision is grounded in what was, unfortunately, a shameful stain in an otherwise brilliantly conceived document. It' s not like his opinion was outside of reasonable legal foundation. The citizenship question not so much. That being said, when minorities hear the term "State's Rights" it has a very negative connotation.

Ironically, the states lost their authority because they insisted on enslaving Blacks. The federal government is on the same path to illigitemacy should it continue in the cause of imposing servanthood on its citizens.

Posted by: ObjectionSustained at July 03, 2012 02:28 PM (i5LDG)

380 I know, Ace, about your policy/thoughts on anger, and agree for the most part. I'm not going to vent. Not productive at this point. But have to say, I'm angrier over this whole thing than Iever remember being regarding politics.

Posted by: RM at July 03, 2012 02:30 PM (TRsME)

381 Roe v Wade is already toast.

The entire argument within Roe is that it is a private matter and the
government has no interest, so they should stay out. Well, that isn’t
the case any more with ObamaCare. The government is in there every step
of the way.

Abortion is now a social-conservative President and an EO away from extinction.

Posted by: Dr. Evil at July 03, 2012 02:32 PM (e8kgV)

382 A coward dies a thousand deaths. The valiant never taste of death but once.

~ Stuff Shakespeare Really Said, Vol. III

I hope Roberts likes seeing a great big pussy in the mirror.

Posted by: Andy at July 03, 2012 02:33 PM (74T7W)

383 Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

Thanks for the advice Rev. Phelps. Have fun protesting the Andy Griffith funeral!

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at July 03, 2012 02:38 PM (+lsX1)

384
Dionne, Crawford, and sources...
Then it must be accurate? Right?

---------

Yes. Coupled with reading the opinions it's plainly obvious he switched his vote late in the game, and when you read his reasoning it's really hard to believe he flipped it based on the merits, because he choose the shittiest of all arguments.

Posted by: Rich at July 03, 2012 02:39 PM (g4AHb)

385 #363 Just trying to logically explain why he changed his vote. If you think Obama didn't know that the original vote was 5-4 overturning the law then you need to have your head examined. Obama then had to force 1 justice to change his vote. He used the info on Roberts to blackmail him.

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:39 PM (bBBdT)

386 <i>Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:09 PM (bBBdT) <i/>
congress never passed a law making abortion illegal.

Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 02:40 PM (TKF1Y)

387 If CJ Roberts decision was influenced by the wish to avoid a firestorm from the left, how could he not realize that he would set off an enormousshitstorm of negative reaction from the Right?

Posted by: TANSTAAFL at July 03, 2012 02:40 PM (iaOP0)

388 President Obama will celebrate July 4 tomorrow at the White House with a naturalization ceremony, the White House announced today. The president will be joined by Department of Homeland Security secretary Janet Napolitano.


"On July 4, President Obama will deliver remarks at a naturalization ceremony for active duty service members in the East Room. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services Director Alejandro Mayorkas will present the countries of the candidates for naturalization and Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano will deliver the oath of allegiance," a White House press release reads.

Can this prick pander any lower. And when will he stop using the Military for political purposes? G-D I hate this cock sucker

Posted by: Nevergiveup at July 03, 2012 02:41 PM (05RcU)

389 #383 You miss the point. Democrats bring guns - Republicans bring small knives. Obama would have done anything to insure his law was held up. Wise up.

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:41 PM (bBBdT)

390 I don't think Roberts thought this through. Now that everybody knows that he is a weak pathetic crying little girl, the pressure will be much worse next time. And every time. Guess he missed the part about liberals being vicious nasty a$$holes.

Plus, nobody on the court, one either side, will ever trust him again. He has lost control and will never be able to get it back.

He is done as an effective chief justice.

Posted by: GaryS at July 03, 2012 02:41 PM (dcfiw)

391 #386 SCOTUS wrote the law for them. Using Roberts logic they should have told Congress to write an abortion law.

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:42 PM (bBBdT)

392 And I can tell you now, I'd make a better Chief Justice than the Chief Justice.

Posted by: Obama at July 03, 2012 02:42 PM (60GaT)

393 Roberts thought it through. Thought about how he has no balls and can't handle the disapproval of the likes of EJ Dionne.

Posted by: deepelemblues at July 03, 2012 02:43 PM (gF1dk)

394 Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:42 PM (bBBdT)

your an uninformed idiot.

Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 02:44 PM (TKF1Y)

395 Washington state: Michael Baumgartner (R), currently in the state senate, is running against Maria Cantwell (D).

Michael Baumgartner was born and raised in Washington State. (Marie Cantwell was born and raised in Indiana, moving to WA in 1983 to help Alan Cranston lose the 1984 Democratic Presidential nomination.)

Michael Baumgartner is married, one child and one on the way. (Maria
Cantwell has never been married, no long term relationships at all in
fact, and no children. Maria Cantwell has affairs with married men
though, soundpolitics.com/archives/007001.html
minx.cc/?post=299120, so she's not gay. Maria Cantwell has also had
aides who were pedophiles, so it's a good thing she has no children.)

From the wiki: Michael Baumgartner taught classes at Harvard. He also gave social support to underprivileged children and mentally-ill adults in Mozambique, Africa. He volunteered as a researcher on environmental science teams with the US Forest Service. During the Iraq War, he served as the Economics Officer in the Office of Joint Strategic Planning Assessment (JSPA) at the United States Embassy in Baghdad, helping the Iraqi government as part of the Baghdad Security Plan, receiving accolades from then General David Petraeus as well as Ambassador Ryan Crocker. In 2008, he spent 7 months working as a civilian contractor in the Helmand Province of Afghanistan. That same year, the Boston Globe referred to Baumgartner as the "Architect of Hope" in the Middle East.

Maria Cantwell has been in politics since she was 28, with a short stint with RealNetWorks (after she failed an election and vowed to give up politics). This her only private sector job, which she got through a political ally, Rob Glaser. And which made her rich enough to buy a senate seat, so she went back into politics, and has gotten even richer.

So. Vote Michael Baumgartner.

Posted by: starboardhelm at July 03, 2012 02:44 PM (hHgxI)

396
starboardhelm, your're listing to port. We don't want activist judges considering the political impacts of their rulings. We have enough leftists on the Court.

This could have been a simple ruling: it fails on the Commerce Clause, it is a Tax, due to the Anit-Injunction Act you'll need to come back later. That way the Commerce Clause arguments are in the main opinion, Obama still has to carry the albatross, and the Court isn't being activist.

Then, if for some reason - like say a couple of squishy northeastern Republican Senators - repeal dies in the Senate. We could come back and attack all of the wacky tax provisions.

----------

This wasn't a realisitc option. If the court decided that it was a tax subject to the AIA, then the merits of the case wouldn't have been decided because the challengers would have been deemed to lack standing.

Posted by: Rich at July 03, 2012 02:44 PM (g4AHb)

397 Nothing--nothing--is now free from their power to tax. Because, as the piss-yellow coward said, "You are free to exercise your rights, you are not free, however, to refuse to pay the tax for exercising your rights."

Posted by: RoyalOil at July 03, 2012 02:23 PM (kSaUf)


In other words, you're free to exercise your rights, but exercising your rights isn't free.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 03, 2012 02:44 PM (bxiXv)

398 Boy its a good thing Barak SCOTUS have the MFM to keep things on the up-n-up.
**
**spit**

Posted by: dananjcon at July 03, 2012 02:45 PM (eavT+)

399 #394 Explain what part of the Constitution describes the kind of "TAX" mandated by the ACA - oh brilliant one.

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:46 PM (bBBdT)

400 i never said the constitution allows for any of that.

Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 02:47 PM (TKF1Y)

401 # 400 So Roberts made it up out of thin air(which he did). He did it because Obama blackmailed him.

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:48 PM (bBBdT)

402 what the fuck are you talking about?

Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 02:50 PM (TKF1Y)

403 Jokes on you: "

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joked that he’ll spend
some time on an “impregnable island fortress” now that the court has
ended a session that featured him casting the decisive vote to uphold
President Barack Obama’s health care law.

Responding to a question about his summer break, Roberts said he
planned to teach a class for two weeks in Malta, the Mediterranean
island nation.

“Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress. It seemed
like a good idea,” Roberts said, drawing laughter from about 300 judges,
attorneys and others attending a four-day conference Friday at a posh
southwestern Pennsylvania resort."
Did his wife go along?

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:50 PM (bBBdT)

404 #402 How fucking stupid are you?

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:51 PM (bBBdT)

405 In other words, you're free to exercise your rights, but exercising your rights isn't free.

In the future, "free speech" will be taxed $0.25/word, with a $5 excise tax on every period, commas, colon and semicolon. Umlauts will be taxed at $10 each.

Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at July 03, 2012 02:51 PM (LEI4C)

406

1. Romney could not beat Obama without the energy of ObamaCare.
2. Roberts has cleared the way for entitlement reform by declaring ObamaCare and therefore Social Security and Medicare as TAXES.
3. We can now rescind the ObamaCare TAX - because Roberts declared it a TAX.
4. It IS a TAX, dammit. Just because Obama is a lying weasel and says it isn't - Roberts correctly ruled that it is.
5. The Commerce clause has been severely limited. A huge win for our side - which is personal Liberty.

--------

Incoherent. Pretty sure we, and everyone else in the country, has been calling the methods used to pay for SS and Medicare taxes for decades. It's common knowledge these are taxes. Don't pretend that John Roberts somehow opened a new door to the world of unicorns and rainbows by calling this a tax. It doesn't change a thing.

How is it a tax? It was written as a penalty. It was called a penalty. It acts like a penalty. And yet, you tell us it is a tax? Based on what? The fact that IRS collects it? So this is all that is needed now to change a clear penalty to a tax? Great.

And for 90th time, who the fuck cares abou the COmmerce Clause being limited when everything they could do through that clause can now be done through the taxing clause? And, as also has been pointed out, the Commerce Clause was merely stopped from pushing us over the cliff. It's still just as expansive as it was before Obamacare. His opinion did NOTHING to cast doubt on the expansive CC rulings such as Raisch and Wickurd. They were, yet again, affirmed.

Posted by: Rich at July 03, 2012 02:52 PM (g4AHb)

407 #404 yeah, im real stupid because i'm not buying into your crackpot conspiracy!!

Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 02:53 PM (TKF1Y)

408 @387: If CJ Roberts decision was influenced by the wish to avoid a firestorm from the left, how could he not realize that he would set off an enormous shitstorm of negative reaction from the Right?

1. He reads and believes the MSM;

2. He's got Potomac fever and wants to go to the best Georgetownsoirees;

3. He doesn't give a honey badger's fuck about the Right.

Any questions?

Posted by: Mary Poppins' Practically Perfect Piercing at July 03, 2012 02:53 PM (zF6Iw)

409 Posted by: rockmom at July 03, 2012 02:08 PM (NYnoe)

And you peddled this, "No, Roberts has STANDARDS!" at HotAir last week as well, rockmom. I think you said something to the effect that, 'maybe he decided this way because he couldn't in good conscience do anything else.'

If he thought it was just dandy under tax law, he should have remanded it to Congress for rewrite, *not* legislate and change the law from the bench. It was not written as a tax law, and the libs get off scott free because they don't HAVE to change the verbiage in the law. So they can technically get away with saying it's a fine or penalty because there was nothing for them to do. Roberts won't change his decision if they continue to just call it a penalty, so they get their cake and eat it too. The MSM will just refer to it as a penalty and that will be that.

The Scalia decision was written as if from a majority perspective; they never changed it. Roberts, for whatever reason, changed his mind, ergo he is a traitor to the Constitution and the Republic because he just helped invent out of whole cloth a new way to affect behaviour, as other people have pointed out. The whole 'CC is restricted' line is just BS; I've heard/read several lawyers who say it's not the repudiation and defenestration of the CC as we would like it to be.

So as the sense of betrayal grows, so does the need to vent. Let's face it, Boehner is milquetoast; he needs to tack the repeal onto a bill to run a chance of it getting passed and he doesn't. They could add language to another bill saying that any tax needs to be specifically called a tax in legislation and make it retroactive. I don't know Congressional etiquette but if I was an elected Rep it would be my raison d'etre to get that pile of shit repealed, and I would try it every day in every way I could conceive. They're not doing it, because they are almost as big invertebrates as Roberts.

Posted by: Linlithgow at July 03, 2012 02:53 PM (Gim9y)

410 So Roberts made it up out of thin air(which he did). He did it because Obama blackmailed him.

Pics of someone getting ass drilled by barnyard animals could be pretty potent juice to get them to reshape their thinking... I'm just saying. If it was blackmail, it had to be something very very potent.

Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at July 03, 2012 02:53 PM (LEI4C)

411 Glad to see we're polishing EJ's knob when he confirms our bias.

Posted by: Immolate at July 03, 2012 02:57 PM (gMyCa)

412 #407 No other member of the court agreed with Roberts that it was a TAX. The 4 bloodsuckers signed on to get the law upheld. I am as pissed about it as you are. I was sick for 2 days last week. Two people that I respect in these matters - Mark Levine and Rush - are able to make any sense out of Roberts decision. Listen to Mark Levin - he is livid about the decision. He backs up all of his arguments with facts and blows major holes in the Roberts opinion. There has to be something that made him switch. There is nothing Obama wouldn't have done to keep this law alive - including blackmail.

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:58 PM (bBBdT)

413 People are talking as though the government can now tax any activity or inactivity. That's not true. Constitutionally, abortion is a specially protected activity. Taxation cannot substantially burden the right to abort.

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 03:00 PM (NJpun)

414 # 413 The Constitution doesn't matter. SCOTUS makes it up as they decide the case.

Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 03:02 PM (bBBdT)

415 Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:58 PM (bBBdT)

so mark levin thinks obama blackmailed roberts?

Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 03:05 PM (TKF1Y)

416 We hold these truths to be esoteric. That some men are granted rights by the privileged few for the sake of the privileged few for the benefit of all...as we see fit....

Posted by: John God Roberts at July 03, 2012 03:05 PM (soZKf)

417 Sorry Tami, you're correct about it being difficult to track someone responding to a comment. I'll post a quote next time.

Posted by: Linlithgow at July 03, 2012 03:06 PM (Gim9y)

418 That's not true. Constitutionally, abortion is a specially protected
activity. Taxation cannot substantially burden the right to abort.


Except you don't tax "Abortions". You tax, "Not carrying the child to full term".

Sure it screws couples/women that have miscarriages, but it effectively "taxes" abortions.

Posted by: GMan at July 03, 2012 03:23 PM (sxq57)

419 Posted by: GMan at July 03, 2012 03:23 PM (sxq57)

exceptions could be added that would cover miscarriages, just have to write them narrowly

Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 03:27 PM (TKF1Y)

420 You're so desperate for evidence that you're right, that now you're believing E.J. Dionne and SeeBS News. That's the 'chicken' you keep f8cking.
Posted by: rockmom at July 03, 2012 01:45 PM (NYnoe)

I'm not 'believing' EJ Dionne, there is a body of evidence that points to a vote change by Roberts - not just from CBS but from Court Watchers, including conservatives like Levin.

Nor am I 'fucking that chicken'. His reasons for abrogating his responsibility and engaging in wholesale judicial activism by literally rewriting a law and granting new powers to the government do not concern me, other than possibly an interesting sidenote.

It's illustrative that no one in government is to be trusted.

Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 03:32 PM (x7g7t)

421 Anyone ever consider that A. Kennedy, a moderate Justice also known for paying attention to the media may have voted the way he did because ObamaCare is so unpopular, and that if it had 90% approval among the people he might have voted to uphold it?

I mean as long as we're obsessed w/ calling Roberts a media whore it might be worth considering that the polls and the media may have provided a vote for the dissenters as well (total disclosure: I can't stand Kennedy for his "wisdom of solomon" style judicial philosophy and his vote to not strike down Roe v Wade is so, so much less defensible than this Roberts thing IMO).



Posted by: trickamsterdam at July 03, 2012 03:34 PM (uTBHY)

422 A Court source tells Salon the chief justice wrote the majority opinion and much of the dissent in the ACA case

http://bit.ly/M3YtzO

"My source insists that 'most of the material in the first three quarters of the joint dissent was drafted in Chief Justice Roberts’ chambers in April and May.' Only the last portion of what eventually became the joint dissent was drafted without any participation by the chief justice."

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 03, 2012 03:36 PM (d6QMz)

423 It isn't far from what happened; Roberts just found that regardless of the words Congress used, they did enact a tax and that is constitutional. He didn't "rewrite the law," he said that if it walks like a tax and quacks like a tax, it's a tax even though Congress didn't want to call it a tax because taxes are unpopular.
Posted by: rockmom at July 03, 2012 02:21 PM (NYnoe)

Which flies in the face of Roberts deferring to Congress as the law making body.

Look you can't have it both ways:

I'll defer to congress as the law making body but then I'll modify the law they wrote and say it means what they explicitly said it does not mean.

What kind of 'tax' does Roberts say this 'tax' is?

Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 03:40 PM (x7g7t)

424 415 Posted by: alans4 at July 03, 2012 02:58 PM (bBBdT)

so mark levin thinks obama blackmailed roberts?
Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 03:05 PM (TKF1Y)

No...that isn't what alans4 said, and neither has Levin.

Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 03:43 PM (x7g7t)

425 381
Roe v Wade is already toast.


The entire argument within Roe is that it is a private matter and the

government has no interest, so they should stay out. Well, that isn’t

the case any more with ObamaCare. The government is in there every step

of the way.


Abortion is now a social-conservative President and an EO away from extinction.



I was asking about this the other day. Couldn't get an answer. Everyone too busy being afraid.


Posted by: baldilocks at July 03, 2012 03:45 PM (6kWFm)

426 The whole 'CC is restricted' line is just BS; I've heard/read several lawyers who say it's not the repudiation and defenestration of the CC as we would like it to be.

Posted by: Linlithgow at July 03, 2012 02:53 PM (Gim9y)

Indeed - how could it be a repudiation of the CC - the only repudiation is that the CC can't be used to compel activity - something NO ONE ever tried to or pass laws on based on this case.

The CC still has the same limits it had prior to this case, which is very nearly unlimited.

Additionally, it doesn't mean shit if we ever see a liberal majority on the court and in Congress. They'll pass whatever the hell they like and uphold it in court, law be damned. They did it in Wickard v. Filburn.

There was no 'win' here.

Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 03:47 PM (x7g7t)

427 Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 03:43 PM (x7g7t)

I know levin didnt say that, he isnt that crazyass stupid, but alan did, check post #385.

Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 04:04 PM (TKF1Y)

428 220 "It wasn't Bush who gave us Roberts. His first choice was a relative outsider who had spent much of her career outside Washington as a private sector lawyer and was the graduate of a regional law school. It was immense pressure from the right wing pundit class upset that the nominee wasn't an Ivy League graduate with a long history of schmoozing the political class hat gave us John Roberts. Now that same pundit class has the the nerve to be appalled. What exactly did they expect? "

Still trying to salvage an edible potato peel from the Bush compost heap. Look up "George W. Bush Supreme Court Nominations" on Wikipedia - this wasn't that long ago. Roberts was first nominated to replace O'Connor. Then Rehnquist died, and Bush switched Roberts to be HIS replacement. Then he decided to pull a fast one and nominated Myers to replace the still-vacant O'Connor seat. When that failed, he nominated Alito. The controversy over Miers gave us Alito, not Roberts. Roberts was confirmed by the Senate on Sept. 29, 2005; Miers was nominated on October 3. They're not connected. Bush owns Roberts entirely, and considering how he turned out, I can only guess what a pig Miers would have been. (Her favourite SC justic was "Warren", remember?) But he got too cute and had to back down. And I don't recall that it was only the "right wing pundit class" who protested; everyone thoughther nominationwas idiotic and stank of cozy insider backscratching. When left to his own devices, Bush managed to cock up a SC appointment; when the Right managed to yank the bit hard enough, they ended up with a decent conservative.

Posted by: Dr. Mabuse at July 03, 2012 04:10 PM (KOHFD)

429 Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 04:04 PM (TKF1Y)

Why indeed he (alans4). That's total conspiracy. I won't call it whacko though - I have no doubt that JEF would try something like blackmail if necessary and he thought he could get away with it.

Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 04:13 PM (x7g7t)

430 421
Anyone ever consider that A. Kennedy, a moderate Justice also known for
paying attention to the media may have voted the way he did because
ObamaCare is so unpopular, and that if it had 90% approval among the
people he might have voted to uphold it?



Posted by: trickamsterdam at July 03, 2012 03:34 PM (uTBHY)

-

Right wingers, conservatives and Republicans need to change how they do business so that there are no more Republican appointments like Warren, Brennan, Blackmun, Stevens, O'Connor, Kennedy, Souter and Roberts.

I'm not seeing any conflict between that and thinking that Kennedy may have looked at the polls too.

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 04:15 PM (NJpun)

431 The Supreme Court will be remembered for Dred Scott and Justice Roberts.

Posted by: burt at July 03, 2012 04:17 PM (OzqQM)

432 Arizona SB 1070 demolished: Kennedy J. delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C.J., and Ginsberg, Breyer and Sotomayor J.J. joined. (Kagan had recused herself.)

It should be unacceptable for Republicans to appoint judges like those in that group. Roberts and Kennedy are both had.

The Supreme Court currently has four lefties, three righties and two flippers.

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 04:26 PM (NJpun)

433 Posted by: blindside at July 03, 2012 04:13 PM (x7g7t)

it is very whacko to go around asserting that is what happened when there is no supporting evidence.

Posted by: chas at July 03, 2012 04:30 PM (TKF1Y)

434 He should now be referred to as The Dread Justice Roberts... thank you.

Sincerely,

Wesley Buttercup

Posted by: Tightie Rightie at July 03, 2012 04:38 PM (OfDMM)

435
I approve of abortions. Justconsider my Obamacare opinion.

Posted by: Baracka Roberts at July 03, 2012 04:43 PM (HTtsu)

436 TraitorCrats will ALWAYS make shit up and call the court a 'reichwing' court, etc, etc.. TraitorCrats always agitate. Thats all they know. They cannot see farther ahead than 1 month in terms of logical consequences to their childish politics. These are not smart people by and large, and they use agitation style politics not because they believe it, but because they hope it will hide their underlying mental problems. "He's very passionate about politics" really means "This guy is fucking crazy"

As far as Roberts goes, he is painfully naive. I remember now a big red flag that should have had us all on edge.. I watched his swearing in with Bush, and his family was dressed in 80's vintage clothes and had a strange cardboard look about them. The kind of people who don't get out much. His knowledge of how crazy democrats are is lacking, and now he's given them the precedent to destroy this country. And they want to.. as they hope it will somehow cure their mental neurosis.. we all know its true.

Posted by: Can of Raid at July 03, 2012 04:47 PM (mLZe7)

437 The people John Roberts chose to kowtow to are also the people who plotted how to get Roberts' kids' adoption records opened.

What an awful, selfish man.

Posted by: jont at July 03, 2012 06:24 PM (u3N3z)

438 There's an affirmative action case on the docket for next term. Any bets where Justice Noodle goes?

Posted by: jont at July 03, 2012 06:25 PM (u3N3z)

439 Roberts is a worthless coward and traitor.

Posted by: ray at July 03, 2012 07:54 PM (wl2vr)

440 Here's a thought. Given that Roberts's decision was a political one and given that no one can deny that Roberts is a smart man, he had to consider that there would be repercussions from either side whichever decision he made.

Therefore, he must have feared those repercussions from the left more than those he calculated he would receive from the right.

Conclusion: We're doing it wrong.

Posted by: Jay at July 03, 2012 08:20 PM (PXywa)

441 So we sez to Roberts: "Nice Court you got there. Sure would be a cryin' shame if something happened to it."
That Roberts. A moron he ain't.

Posted by: #OccupyResoluteDesk at July 03, 2012 08:21 PM (7QU6R)

442 John Robetrts = Earl Warren the 2nd

Posted by: harp1034 at July 04, 2012 12:26 AM (gNBKE)

443 440
Here's a thought. Given that Roberts's decision was a political one and
given that no one can deny that Roberts is a smart man, he had to
consider that there would be repercussions from either side whichever
decision he made.



Therefore, he must have feared those repercussions from the left more than those he calculated he would receive from the right.



Conclusion: We're doing it wrong.

Posted by: Jay at July 03, 2012 08:20 PM (PXywa)

-
Your conclusion is correct.

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 04, 2012 01:42 AM (mQFjY)

444 "This rhetorical assault against the court 'was going to escalate
further,' Dionne said. 'And I think he was trying to avoid that.'”

And he's an asshole for doing it.

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at July 04, 2012 04:38 AM (4s7w4)

445 Ace and all,

I agree and think Roberts punted. However, how about mocking some of the liberal justices as well. Seriously, I would like to see some liberal legal minds explain some Ginsburg's reasoning, like the "self-insurance" footnote.

"In an attempt to recast the individual mandate as a regulation of commercial activity, JUSTICE GINSBURG suggests that “[a]n individual who opts not to purchase insurance from a private insurer can be seen as actively selecting another form of insurance: self-insurance.” Post, at
26. But “self-insurance” is, in this context, nothing more than a description of the failure to purchase insurance. Individuals are no more “activ[e] in the self-insurance market” when they fail to purchase insurance, ibid., than they are active in the “rest” market when doing nothing."

Are you shitting me? This is unintentional comedy. There needs to be an amendment to the Constitution where as a Justice you can't remain faithful to it, then you can be removed. She can take her South African Constitution loving ass home.

Posted by: pwr at July 04, 2012 05:52 AM (5EwaB)

446 I love the self insurance line. They've already stretched the interstate commerce clause to include the intra-state insurance market. This just takes it one more step to be intra-person.

Posted by: Jeff at July 04, 2012 02:26 PM (OsAig)

447
So, Roberts confused the media with popular opinion. That makes him a fool as well as a coward.

Posted by: Brown Line at July 04, 2012 03:57 PM (PkHR8)






Processing 0.08, elapsed 0.0811 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0273 seconds, 455 records returned.
Page size 245 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat