1. Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum

Did Chief Justice Roberts' change of heart come at the last minute?

Discussion in 'U.S. Politics' started by Little-Acorn, Jun 29, 2012.

  1. Little-Acorn

    Little-Acorn Well-Known Member

    Jan 23, 2009
    Likes Received:
    San Diego, CA
    In the overall scheme of things, this doesn't really matter. The decision is taken. It doesn't really matter how they got there.

    But it adds an interesting twist to Chief Justice John Souter Roberts' inexplicable abandonment of the idea that the Federal government's powers are enumerated and limited.



    Did Chief Justice John Roberts decide to join the court's liberal wing and uphold the individual mandate at the very last minute?

    by Liz Goodwin
    June 28, 2012

    That's the theory floated by Paul Campos, a law professor at the University of Boulder, and Brad DeLong, a Berkeley economics professor and former Treasury Department official under President Clinton. Campos wrote Thursday in Salon that the dissent had a triumphant tone, as if it were written as a majority opinion, and that the four conservative justices incorrectly refer to Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion as a "dissent."

    "No less than 15 times in the space of the next few pages, the dissent refers to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's concurring opinion as 'Justice Ginsburg's dissent,'" Campos wrote.

    DeLong pointed out on his popular blog that in Justice Clarence Thomas two-page note on the dissent, he refers to the conservatives' dissent as the "joint opinion" instead of the "joint dissent."
    Campos hypothesized that the conservative justices may have intentionally left these typos as a way of signaling to the outside world that Chief Justice Roberts abandoned them at the last moment.

    Lyle Denniston, the long-term courtwatcher who writes for SCOTUSblog, tells Yahoo News that he "can't account for the wording of the Thomas opinion."

    (Full text of the arrticle can be read at the above URL)
  2. steveox

    steveox Well-Known Member

    Jun 13, 2007
    Likes Received:
    Way Down South
    What will people feel about George Bush now? Will the secret service still investigate if you make threats on the former president?
  3. cashmcall

    cashmcall Well-Known Member

    Jan 23, 2012
    Likes Received:
    There is lot of trouble with it being a "tax", this just paves the way for any tax of any kind. But this is not a Federal tax it is a Federally mandated State tax.

    This is the kind of tax liberals hate. It is regressive. Though it would seem to me that it might discriminate on the basis of age. Older and sicker people paying more tax. That may not be lawful.

    But the more interesting part is that it is going to stick the 99% with the most tax and their student loans
    all gathered in one Federal place likely enforced by IRS. On that level I like it because you haven't heard any howling as you will from the liberal punks drinking the Obama Kool-aide when they are late on a loan payment and late on a healthcare payment and IRS comes a knocking with their usual penalties and threats of criminal prosecutions.

    That will shed a whole new light onto the liberal cheers for this think. These punks this universal health care is free care. Its only free for illegals and those that can prove they are poor. Otherwise they pay the fine.

    As for small businesses
    , they just got smaller. Nobody is going to put a business together in this environment. So unemployment will stay high and large corps are already moving most manufacturing offshore and some are leaving forever.

    Moreover with IRS in everyone's face, this is really a tax collection scheme. They will be auditing income. So some guy that does flat work doesn't pay tax; he will now.

    Wait until this group of young losers learns what IRS is all about. The thrill of liberalism will be gone... Plus they will never amass any wealth.

    Think about it. They have $200 a month in student
    loans. Then add $400 a month in health insurance or no health insurance and just pay the penalty of $50 a month. They are out between $250 a month and $600 a month with nothing to show for it and they haven't even paid their rent yet. If they are married than somebody has to pay for health insurance for their liberal brat and liberal wife. They are going nowhere. The employer is only going to buy insurance if larger than 50 employees or not exempt. That doesn't cover wife or brat.

    Meanwhile service industries are going to look for independent contractors so they don't have to pay the insurance. The games haven't even begun to be invented.

    And if these young adults think student loans terms are harsh, wait until they deal with IRS. A fun time will be had by all.

    just ranting..
  4. cashmcall

    cashmcall Well-Known Member

    Jan 23, 2012
    Likes Received:
    IMHO... if that was a tax, then show me in the enumerated Tax options in the Constitution where and what kind of tax this is.

    Let's see how this tax operates. You buy health insurance
    OR ELSE you get TAXED. Oh, I get it... that's the "OR ELSE" Tax... stupid me, I thought that was a penalty. The Constitution limits tax to the following. 1) per capita, 2) excise 3) income. If it is not income it must be apportioned to the services received by the state.

    IMO John Roberts doesn't know tax law and I think he made a horsesazz out of himself with this stupid opinion. He reduced the Constitution to meaningless paper. He was trying to be cleaver by knocking down the commerce clause argument but in doing so, to placate the liberals, two of which are too stupid to be on any bench, he invented a tax type which does not exist as the enumerated limited tax types expressly stated in the Constitution.

    Further if it is now a tax, ONLY the House of Representatives can write a tax bill. That too is in the Constitution. This Obamacare "Tax" was written in the Senate. So the House can now vote to rescind the tax.

    England Doesn't have a Constitution and now neither do we.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice