Comments on: Roberts switched views to uphold health care law
Add a Comment
- I heard the reason Roberts caved was because he was being targeted so negative by the Democrats and the left that he came up with the riducules tax argument that does not hold water and to toss the left a freebie.
The other Justices who knew the mandate was unConstitutional were furious with him and could not get the wimp to change his mind.
He cared more about being left alone from the leftwing nuts than to do the right thing.
Now he has to live with himself and he knows he did wrong. - Reply to this comment
- So, in essence had the conservatives judges been willing to bend just a hair he might have voted in their favor. Also I find it interesting that the 4 judges (fellow comrades) that were against him shunned him.. But again had they be willing to just ease up a little the vote might have been in their favor. Well first off I commend Judge Roberts for being strong enough to stand for what he believes in and not be bias in his vote. Ever since the Tea Party moved into congress they have had that we wont move attitude. Now for the other 4 (fellow comrades) that shunned Judge Roberts (how juvenile). I do hope everyone has begun to put the big picture together to see how lobbyist have infiltrated and begun to take over congress, the courts. Interesting!
- Reply to this comment
- So, people who refuse to join a labor union can now be taxed for their refusal?
That seems absurd.
But wait, in California such a tax (nicknamed "agency fee") is already in place.
How about taxing all those who have taxable income but stubbornly refuse to contribute 10% of it to the Democratic Party?
That would simplify the "agency fee" that is a complicated scheme: first, the agency fee is credited to the labor union, and then the labor union contributes to the Democratic Party. The simplification would make the "fee" collected from a paycheck delivered directly to the Democratic Party. This would save a lot of unnecessary overhead.
It would also help to render obstructionist Republicans irrelevant. It is very important to doing so. For instance, in California, the Republican Party, although a minority in both houses and holding 0 state offices is responsible for all budget deficit, deterioration of education, services, and infrastructure, falling wages, rising unemployment, nosediving economy, and other misery that the Republicans (however small minority in California power structure) keep bringing on California people.
Remember, the general welfare of the U.S. will not be achieved just by the Democrats having majorities in the legislature and holding on to the presidency. As long as there is one pocket of Republican resistance, or FoxNews on TV, or one Conservative radio station criticizing the Democratic Party (whose benevolence and generosity we all know), there cannot be true freedom and prosperity in America.
Fortunately, Justice Roberts showed us how we can accomplish it by means of taxation of undesirable right-wing behavior and thoughts. - Reply to this comment
- What will prevent the congress from passing an "excess weight" tax now? Once physicians reach a consensus that the "ideal healthy weight" for a 5'10 male is 156 lbs, the government can then levy a tax on his excess weight. Would such a law be inconsistent with the current SCOTUS ruling on the Affordable Healtcare Act?
- Reply to this comment
- I think the change of vote and other parts of the ruling are interesting.
If the 'penalty' is due and payable on a 1040 and goes to the IRS, then it must be a tax. (If it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck ...)
Another part of the decision said the feds can't withhold funds even if the states don't expand Medicaid. Does that also mean the feds can't withhold funding for other programs if states don't fully go along with other federal programs?
55 MPH speed limits in the 70s?
Seatbelt laws?
Cell phone laws?
Interesting situation, I think.
Also, did this new supreme court ruled tax originate in the House as all tax laws must? - Reply to this comment
- How can this stuff be taken seriously? Robert's was on one side of the issue and then he was on the other? What principles are at play here? Sounds like NONE. WaPo: 67% of Americans want the mandate thrown out. ABC: As Health Care Law's Trial Approaches, Two-Thirds Say Ditch Individual Mandate. Gallup: 72 percent of Americans believe the individual mandate — the government's requirement for Americans to purchase health insurance — is unconstitutional. TownHall: Poll: Super-Majority Opposes Obamacare's Individual Mandate. And so on and son on. Remember how you learned in school that public opinion was a factor in SCOTUS decisions? Also remember how cases were decided based on lofty constitutional issues and such? And now you can be on one side of the opinion and then the other and ignore public opinion? Remember how we learned about representative government and all that too?? People are only beginning to learn the extent you can forget all that because there is a new paradigm.
- Reply to this comment
- Roberts' motives are not pure. 1. He's sensitive about the usual 5/4 split proving the activist nature of his court. 2. He knows the outspoken opponents of healthcare will be energized to support Romney and that Romney and cohorts will destroy healthcare if they can. 3. He still got to pander to the right in his comments.
- Reply to this comment
- Thank you all so much for making my point so quickly and purely. Will call again if I need any more assistance.
- Reply to this comment
- Why do you presume all conservative support the Patriot Act... or its consistent abuse by the federal government, including abuse by your Democratic hero who currently runs Guantanamo Bay and has sought countless warrant-less wiretaps.
You're blinded by your hatred of conservatives. We should be fighting these issues on common ground. Liberty is at stake. Both parties supposedly support the concept. Why would you ignore this incursion simply because it was passed by your party? - Reply to this comment
- Thank you all so much for making my point so quickly and purely. Will call again if I need any more assistance.
- Reply to this comment
