Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius?

[Reason]

Interesting theory... Sounds convincing... Wishful thinking?

http://www.imcitizen.net/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius (http://www.imcitizen.net/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/)

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

[TheTexan]

The lengths people go... to alleviate their cognitive dissonance, is nothing short of astounding

[tfurrh]

I'm sick of hearing this.

[asurfaholic]

If he really had big balls, he would have questioned under what constitutional authority is the government trying to manage health care anyways. The whole bloody mess is unconstitutional, but what the hell do I know..

[jmdrake]

The lengths people go... to alleviate their cognitive dissonance, is nothing short of astounding

+rep. This last part was truly laughable.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

:rolleyes: Very stupid argument. Overturning Obamacare would not have sparked a civil war. And if it would have....then we need one.

[TheTexan]

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature —

It's cool guys, he's got a plan

[cajuncocoa]

The lengths people go... to alleviate their cognitive dissonance, is nothing short of astoundingThat was my thought as well.

[Kluge]

The claim is that the Fed gov can't rip funding out of something else for not complying with Obamacare?

Uhhh...the Fed gov has been doing this for decades, and suddenly it's going to stop? Seems likely.

[Root]

The claim is that the Fed gov can't rip funding out of something else for not complying with Obamacare?

Uhhh...the Fed gov has been doing this for decades, and suddenly it's going to stop? Seems likely.

If the feds can't rip other funding for not complying with Obamacare, does that mean they also can't rip other funding for not complying with the other programs like the war on drugs?

[Reason]

The claim is that the Fed gov can't rip funding out of something else for not complying with Obamacare?

Uhhh...the Fed gov has been doing this for decades, and suddenly it's going to stop? Seems (un)likely.

That was my first thought...

[Brian4Liberty]

Wishful thinking by a bunch of status quo, big government, GOP, false left/right, operatives.

If it was such a "brilliant" plan to "get back" at Obama and the Democrats, then why did the four conservative Justices not go along with it?!

[Kluge]

If the feds can't rip other funding for not complying with Obamacare, does that mean they also can't rip other funding for not complying with the other programs like the war on drugs?

lol---hell no. That'd be nifty though.


That was my first thought...

Yeah, the "likely" was sarcastic.

[jmdrake]

Ya know, I can't help thinking how eerily similar the arguments defending Roberts voting to uphold Obamacare is to the arguments for Rand endorsing Robamaney. "He's really a genius. He's playing chess. It's all part of the plan." I'm still sticking with Rand, but this makes me wonder.

[TheTexan]

There are many on these forums who believe that the core of the Republican party really do want limited government and to follow the constitution, but are "held back" for whatever reason.

To those people, consider this:
1) Their rallying cry during debates and plastered all over Fox was "Got to take out Obama and repeal Obamacare!" x1000
2) One of "their" justices decided to rule it constitutional
3) "It's cool guys, he did it so we can beat Obama!"

That's all they care about. Is beating Obama. Repealing Obama care? Limited government? The constitution? They don't care about any of that.

It's all just a social club. Nothing more.

[Kluge]

Ya know, I can't help thinking how eerily similar the arguments defending Roberts voting to uphold Obamacare is to the arguments for Rand endorsing Robamaney. "He's really a genius. He's playing chess. It's all part of the plan." I'm still sticking with Rand, but this makes me wonder.

Same argument that the left still uses for Obama, his drones, the Patriot Act, NDAA, etc. He's "keeping us safe" and he's "playing chess" while all the other dummy politicians are playing checkers.

Yeah...it's creepy.

[Weston White]

One thing I am not understanding, is say whatever number of states do not go along with the PPACA, as it now stands, how exactly is that going to protect the people thereof from the IRS "taxing" them if they also do not go along with it (including the state's own employees)?

Aside from that no state (i.e., "official") is likely ever going to dare challenge the limitless de facto powers of the IRS.

[economics102]

Actually, while the writer of that piece is full of crap, he may unintentionally have a point.

A situation is now arising where conservative governors (and we have a few who seem potentially willing to push the envelope) may now push to not comply with Obamacare.

In other words, Roberts may have turned what was a case of federal power vs the individual citizens into a states' right fight. That could in theory be a more important victory if that effort is successful. That would mean all of the following occur:

1. Obamacare nullified
2. We already got a limited scope definition of the Commerce Clause from the SCOTUS
3. States finally standing up to the federal government and reigning back in their power
4. More people gaining an appreciation for why states' rights are important and not just the "tool of racists" :rolleyes:

Still, the ends don't justify the means. Roberts should have voted to overturn Obamacare.

[cajuncocoa]

Ya know, I can't help thinking how eerily similar the arguments defending Roberts voting to uphold Obamacare is to the arguments for Rand endorsing Robamaney. "He's really a genius. He's playing chess. It's all part of the plan." I'm still sticking with Rand, but this makes me wonder.WE HAVE A WINNER! (+1 rep)

[Weston White]

Is anybody aware if this is now a valid argument against the PPACA that it did not originate in the House or had it (being that is it is now a “tax” and all)?

U.S. Constitution A.I,S.7,C.1: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”

[CaptainAmerica]

The damage is done :
mandates now =taxation (according to the supreme court)

[GunnyFreedom]

Is anybody aware if this is now a valid argument against the PPACA that it did not originate in the House or had it (being that is it is now a “tax” and all)?

U.S. Constitution A.I,S.7,C.1: “All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”

Yes, it is a valid argument, and if Roberts gave a damn about the Constitution that would have occurred to him in the first place.

[matt0611]

I applaud Roberts for recognizing that the Federal government cannot do this under the commerce clause and/or the necessary and proper clause and that the federal government cannot just by fiat force us to participate in commerce.

Where he failed though IMO was his views on the federal governments power of taxation. The power to tax is the power to destroy and the federal government does not have the power to compel us to do something. Excise taxes and import duties yes, income taxes yes. But NOT a tax for NOT doing something, especially something where the federal government has no business regulating (individuality healthcare).

So while I give Roberts some credit in affirming the limited powers of the fed government's power to regulate the economy, he ultimately failed us.

FU John Roberts for putting the final nail in the coffin. And FU to GWB for nominating him.

[Feeding the Abscess]

I applaud Roberts for recognizing that the Federal government cannot do this under the commerce clause and/or the necessary and proper clause and that the federal government cannot just by fiat force us to participate in commerce.

Where he failed though IMO was his views on the federal governments power of taxation. The power to tax is the power to destroy and the federal government does not have the power to compel us to do something. Excise taxes and import duties yes, income taxes yes. But NOT a tax for NOT doing something, especially something where the federal government has no business regulating (individuality healthcare).

So while I give Roberts some credit in affirming the limited powers of the fed government's power to regulate the economy, he ultimately failed us.

FU John Roberts for putting the final nail in the coffin. And FU to GWB for nominating him.

He didn't affirm the limited powers of the federal government at all. He just farted from his mouth about how government can't do certain things while voting to give them the authority to regulate the economy.

[Liberty74]

OMFG you people are stupid. The freaking damage is done. It's over.

Romney isn't going to eliminate dick his first day either despite what he claims so he can take advantage of the ignorant Right to rake in the donations.

The only thing that can save you from this monster is a state to actually stand up and secede. Well maybe another 1776 but too many people are now indoctrinated into the BS coming out of D.C. Keep drinking your fluoride. Watch those sports on TV. Everything is just fine. :rolleyes:

[Pericles]

+rep. This last part was truly laughable.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

:rolleyes: Very stupid argument. Overturning Obamacare would not have sparked a civil war. And if it would have....then we need one.

Now possible: We did not ban guns, we just imposed a 100% tax on income and property on those who choose to store their guns somewhere other than the local police station.

[Spoa]

Not trying to make any excuses for the Chief Justice, but why is everyone blaming him for everything??? There were four other justices: Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer who also sided with Obamacare. They should be getting a lot of heat as well!

Just a little thought.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Interesting theory... Sounds convincing... Wishful thinking?

http://www.imcitizen.net/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius (http://www.imcitizen.net/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/)

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

Brilliant or not, once this hog starts wallowing, you won't ever get rid of it. I watched a video of a bear on a hog trying to bring it down, getting vicious, growling and clawing as only a bear can do, and that hog seemed to be going along with it. It was like it was snorting, "Eat me, bear!" But that bear couldn't do anything to that hog. It finally just gave up. If this thing isn't killed quickly, it's going to wallow away in the mud forever.

[Brian4Liberty]

Not trying to make any excuses for the Chief Justice, but why is everyone blaming him for everything??? There were four other justices: Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer who also sided with Obamacare. They should be getting a lot of heat as well!

Just a little thought.

Because we already knew exactly how they would vote? As to why they vote the way they do, you give me yet another chance to reuse this:


Here's what they do believe in: they believe in a vast legal system, where all laws are open to debate and litigation. A system where any position can be defended or attacked on a "legal" basis. A system where the most powerful generally get their way, regardless of the letter or intent of the law. A system where anything can be justified. A system which enables power to reside with those with the most knowledge of the law, and how to use and manipulate it. A system where maximum employment is enjoyed for all those who desire to support, sustain and profit from the legal system.

They believe in no law at all, expertly disguised as a society fully enveloped in law.

The Constitution is the worst sort of law for them. It's far too clear, simple and supreme. The best law in their eyes is ambiguous, convoluted, complex and with no priorities at all.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Not trying to make any excuses for the Chief Justice, but why is everyone blaming him for everything??? There were four other justices: Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer who also sided with Obamacare. They should be getting a lot of heat as well!

Just a little thought.

These people need a wake up call. I started a thread about the Canary Islands, about one particular volcano on one of the islands, and, more specifically, about a 200 foot tall tsunami that is expected to be generated and how it is expected to wipe out the eastern coast of the United States if the volcano does indeed slide off into four miles of deep water.
Yet, these people still feel the need to stick their noses in everyone else's business around the world.
Do they even have an emergency plan to get forty million people out of harms way? As their leaders are out and about committing all kinds of mysterious promescuity, how will forty million people be able to evacuate in eight hours? We are talking the total destruction of Boston, New York City, and the rendering of Washington D.C. as totally useless.

[coastie]

These people need a wake up call. I started a thread about the Canary Islands, about one particular volcano on one of the islands, and, more specifically, about a 200 foot tall tsunami that is expected to be generated and how it is expected to wipe out the eastern coast of the United States if the volcano does indeed slide off into four miles of deep water.
Yet, these people still feel the need to stick their noses in everyone else's business around the world.
Do they even have an emergency plan to get forty million people out of harms way? As their leaders are out and about committing all kinds of mysterious promescuity, how will forty million people be able to evacuate in eight hours? We are talking the total destruction of Boston, New York City, and the rendering of Washington D.C. as totally useless.

Minus all the death and destruction stuff, that last part sounds amazing.

Looks like a piece of that tsunami will slingshot off the coast of Cuba, then wipe out the northern gulf coast of Florida. Frikin great, I'm definitely close enough to be effected by that.

[angelatc]

Not trying to make any excuses for the Chief Justice, but why is everyone blaming him for everything??? There were four other justices: Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer who also sided with Obamacare. They should be getting a lot of heat as well!

Just a little thought.

Roberts has been portrayed as a conservative. We knew the liberals would grab that cash.

[LibertyEagle]

Ya know, I can't help thinking how eerily similar the arguments defending Roberts voting to uphold Obamacare is to the arguments for Rand endorsing Robamaney. "He's really a genius. He's playing chess. It's all part of the plan." I'm still sticking with Rand, but this makes me wonder.

Huge difference. Kennedy's vote was the deciding vote on this law. If Rand had done same, I for one would have not only thrown him under the bus, I would have driven it over him. Metaphorically-speaking, of course.

[matt0611]

He didn't affirm the limited powers of the federal government at all. He just farted from his mouth about how government can't do certain things while voting to give them the authority to regulate the economy.

Yes he did. He affirmed the limiting powers of the commerce and necessary proper clauses to allow the fed government to force people to take action.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Minus all the death and destruction stuff, that last part sounds amazing.

Looks like a piece of that tsunami will slingshot off the coast of Cuba, then wipe out the northern gulf coast of Florida. Frikin great, I'm definitely close enough to be effected by that.

Indeed. Read the thread I posted about it. I tried my best to explain the physics involved. I also point out how a terrorist act of blowing up nuclear missles along the crest of this area could trigger an even greater event. The coast of Florida would be wiped out. Shoot, it would be hit by a tsunami wave 150 to 200 feet high. Imagine the hydraulics of a wave that would continue to pour in for some fifteen minultes while reaching a height of 200 foot? Even the coast of South America is going to be devestated.

[angelatc]

Indeed. Read the thread I posted about it. I tried my best to explain the physics involved. I also point out how a terrorist act of blowing up nuclear missles along the crest of this area could trigger an even greater event. The coast of Florida would be wiped out. Shoot, it would be hit by a tsunami wave 150 to 200 feet high. Imagine the hydraulics of a wave that would continue to pour in for some fifteen minultes while reaching a height of 200 foot? Even the coast of South America is going to be devestated.

Can't happen soon enough.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Can't happen soon enough.

Well, it would be a solution to out of control big government. You know, it isn't like we have any control over this. The best we can do is hope.

[Pericles]

Unlike in September 1814, looks like the British Army will not be available to burn the place down and run the Congress, SCOTUS, and President out of town.

[Uncle Emanuel Watkins]

Indeed. Read the thread I posted about it. I tried my best to explain the physics involved. I also point out how a terrorist act of blowing up nuclear missles along the crest of this area could trigger an even greater event. The coast of Florida would be wiped out. Shoot, it would be hit by a tsunami wave 150 to 200 feet high. Imagine the hydraulics of a wave that would continue to pour in for some fifteen minultes while reaching a height of 200 foot? Even the coast of South America is going to be devestated.

Tsunamis don't sling shot. They aren't created from side to side forces. Or, think about it this way. When the U.S. government destroyed Bikini Island with a hydrogen bomb, it created a wave one mile high because the water was pushed to the side. As that wave expanded outwardly exponentially, the size of the wave decreased. In contrast, when an earthquake happens causing huge amounts of water to either lift up or to fall, because water is incompressible, this will create small waves that move laterally many hundreds of miles per hour. As these waves approach the shore, the front part of it slows causing the faster water behind it to run up and over it. This works to dam up the fast moving wave converting it into a slower moving tsunami. But the whole wave of a tsunami can take fifteen minutes to thirty minutes to come into shore from bottom to top to bottom of the crest, so to speak.
So, when the tsunami hits something, it is pushing side to side while its destructive force was created from an up to down locomotion.
Oops!

[Weston White]

Yes he did. He affirmed the limiting powers of the commerce and necessary proper clauses to allow the fed government to force people to take action.

Yes, while with his other hand, he substantiated virtually limitless methods for national taxation. And why even bother arguing with a tiger over commerce clauses when you can just paint its tail with tax clauses?

Moreover, will this decision not pave the way for carbon-taxes, national sales taxes, VAT, etc., while further eroding the last remaining vestiges of safety supposedly to be provided by direct taxation?

[anaconda]

WE HAVE A WINNER! (+1 rep)

Rand busts his ass for liberty on a daily basis.

[anaconda]

I'm not clear on how states can opt out (implied in the article). Isn't this federal law?

[Anti Federalist]

Now possible: We did not ban guns, we just imposed a 100% tax on income and property on those who choose to store their guns somewhere other than the local police station.

Also possible:

We are not mandating that you buy a BailOut sedan from Government Motors, but we'll get the the states, by withholding highway funds, to impose a 100 percent tax on any other vehicle.

Would you like your Trabant in black Comrade?

I hope so, because that is the only approved color.

[Kregisen]

Also possible:

We are not mandating that you buy a BailOut sedan from Government Motors, but we'll get the the states, by withholding highway funds, to impose a 100 percent tax on any other vehicle.

Would you like your Trabant in black Comrade?

I hope so, because that is the only approved color.

Exactly. Also possible is: "We are not mandating that you buy locally, but we'll impose a 100 percent tax on any foreign products" - something you actually used to admit to support, AF. :) You were quite the liberal back in the day. ;)

[Weston White]

Exactly. Also possible is: "We are not mandating that you buy locally, but we'll impose a 100 percent tax on any foreign products" - something you actually used to admit to support, AF. :) You were quite the liberal back in the day. ;)

Do you mean, like, tariffs? If so, now that would be within the Congress' taxing power.

[SpicyTurkey]

I think he's a fucking idiot.

[Feeding the Abscess]

Do you mean, like, tariffs? If so, now that would be within the Congress' taxing power.

If the government can tax activity from a foreign entity, what's to stop that government from taxing you for your activity? If said government can tax your activity, what is to stop them from taxing your inactivity?

[Anti Federalist]

Exactly. Also possible is: "We are not mandating that you buy locally, but we'll impose a 100 percent tax on any foreign products" - something you actually used to admit to support, AF. :) You were quite the liberal back in the day. ;)


You got me.

[Pericles]

If the government can tax activity from a foreign entity, what's to stop that government from taxing you for your activity? If said government can tax your activity, what is to stop them from taxing your inactivity?

The point of a tariff is that the "foreign entity", meaning goods, are not taxed until entry into the US. Don't lose sight of the difference here - the SCOTUS has now ruled that you can be taxed on failure to engage in economic activity. Previously, you had to perform an act to incur a tax liability.

There was one exception in the militia laws, but that slid by under the Constitutional authority of Congress "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "

[GunnyFreedom]

Can't happen soon enough.

Fortunately, I live 446 feet above sea level, so I probably won't die in Y'alls dream conflagration, but tens of millions will. And of those, scores of thousands of Ron Paulers. There has to be a better way to re-fill the swamp that is DC.

[Aratus]

the end result is a confusing lack of a full victory for either side...

[jj-]

If it was such a "brilliant" plan to "get back" at Obama and the Democrats, then why did the four conservative Justices not go along with it?!

Because the plan was to make the victory weak. The tax argument was made up by Roberts. That was enough to uphold the mandate and make it repealable with 51 votes. There was no need to strengthen his argument, otherwise people would take it seriously. The tax argument will not be taken seriously in the future, and would not arise anymore anyway because Congress now knows that it needs to call penalties taxes.

My take in detail. (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?382083-Assessment-of-Some-Implications-of-the-Supreme-Court-Mandate-Decision)

[PaulConventionWV]

Ya know, I can't help thinking how eerily similar the arguments defending Roberts voting to uphold Obamacare is to the arguments for Rand endorsing Robamaney. "He's really a genius. He's playing chess. It's all part of the plan." I'm still sticking with Rand, but this makes me wonder.

Terrible analogy man, just terrible. Rand is not a SC justice and he did not vote to "Constitutionalize" anything that is clearly unconstitutional.

[cheapseats]

Ya know, I can't help thinking how eerily similar the arguments defending Roberts voting to uphold Obamacare is to the arguments for Rand endorsing Robamaney. "He's really a genius. He's playing chess. It's all part of the plan." I'm still sticking with Rand, but this makes me wonder.



Terrible analogy man, just terrible. Rand is not a SC justice and he did not vote to "Constitutionalize" anything that is clearly unconstitutional.


It is NOT an analogy. It is DIRECT COMPARISON of the mental gymnastics that "underpin" Rationalization.

[PaulConventionWV]

It is NOT an analogy. It is DIRECT COMPARISON of the mental gymnastics that "underpin" Rationalization.

No, it's not. Rand is not a Supreme Court Justice, and he's not voting to make anything Constitutional that isn't. There is a very clear difference between the role of a Supreme Court Justice, and that of a senator, especially when that senator is not actually endorsing a certain political action, but a person. Therefore, there can be no direct comparison. They are two totally different situations. You're the one doing mental gymnastics.

[Lucille]

Wishful thinking by a bunch of status quo, big government, GOP, false left/right, operatives.

If it was such a "brilliant" plan to "get back" at Obama and the Democrats, then why did the four conservative Justices not go along with it?!

Interesting piece here (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=contentMain;contentBody):



Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
[...]
Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the Court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.

But 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. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.

It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, "wobbly," the sources said.

And this is what he gets for listening to Statist stenographers:

Supreme Court Update
Approval Ratings for Supreme Court Slip Following Health Care Ruling (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/supreme_court_update)


A week ago, 36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week.