Topic: SCOTUS 2012: The Grand Finale

[Pandora]

Krauthammer can stick it.  For all he believes Roberts was saying "your job, not mine", he did Congress' job when he essentially rewrote the mandate as a tax, not a penalty, and he didn't do his own which is protecting and upholding the Constitution.

I hit a lot of places on the web yesterday to evaluate reactions and, for the most part, from the comments, it seems many people are flabbergasted and shocked.  One thing I read, though, further shocked and angered me.  From J. Christian Adams:

Courts have an obligation to presume statutes are constitutional. Roberts particularly hails from that jurisprudential pedigree, as opposed to someone like Justice Thomas or Scalia.

They do?  The Courts have an obligation to presume the laws Congress is passing are Constitutional?  Since the hell when?  And judging from what Roberts did yesterday, I suppose the presumption is also that if the statute ISN'T Constitutional, it is the Court's job to MAKE it so?

It's obvious Adams has no access to the backstory on Roberts' history, as I posted in another thread, or he might have had second thoughts about his jurisprudential "pedigree".

[warpmine]

So the Republic ends not with the bang of a gun but with the bang of a gavel.  Wonderful.

I have felt ill since yesterday and I really can't afford the stress.

Oh well, I guess I'll imbibe those sea breezes I didn't consume yesterday.

They assume that the new Senate rules have to be the same as the old ones but our side can play the bullsh*t game as well by installing the simple majority rule for passing committee out onto the floor. Why play by our rules when theirs will do just fine. Just be sure to exclaim
"living constitution" so that the left can feel betrayed as we have.

[Glock32]

I hit a lot of places on the web yesterday to evaluate reactions and, for the most part, from the comments, it seems many people are flabbergasted and shocked.  One thing I read, though, further shocked and angered me.  From J. Christian Adams:

Courts have an obligation to presume statutes are constitutional. Roberts particularly hails from that jurisprudential pedigree, as opposed to someone like Justice Thomas or Scalia.

They do?  The Courts have an obligation to presume the laws Congress is passing are Constitutional?  Since the hell when?  And judging from what Roberts did yesterday, I suppose the presumption is also that if the statute ISN'T Constitutional, it is the Court's job to MAKE it so?

It's obvious Adams has no access to the backstory on Roberts' history, as I posted in another thread, or he might have had second thoughts about his jurisprudential "pedigree".

I saw that exact same thing and it pissed me off too.  So many of our problems stem from this idea that we have a certain decorum we must adhere to, meanwhile the Left can barely contain their laughter as they run roughshod over such idiotic notions time and time again.  The courts have an obligation to assume constitutionality?  Really?  Well isn't the whole reason they are even reviewing a law because someone somewhere has complained of unconstitutionality?  This is pure bullsh*t.  Continuing to adhere to these fanciful ideas that politics in this day and age are some gentlemanly parlor game with both sides showing deference to tradition is one of the major reasons we're getting our asses handed to us by the Left.  The Left recognizes a battlefield when they see one, they have always known this is a war and always prosecuted it as such.

[warpmine]

Krauthammer can stick it.  For all he believes Roberts was saying "your job, not mine", he did Congress' job when he essentially rewrote the mandate as a tax, not a penalty, and he didn't do his own which is protecting and upholding the Constitution.

I hit a lot of places on the web yesterday to evaluate reactions and, for the most part, from the comments, it seems many people are flabbergasted and shocked.  One thing I read, though, further shocked and angered me.  From J. Christian Adams:

Courts have an obligation to presume statutes are constitutional. Roberts particularly hails from that jurisprudential pedigree, as opposed to someone like Justice Thomas or Scalia.

They do?  The Courts have an obligation to presume the laws Congress is passing are Constitutional?  Since the hell when?  And judging from what Roberts did yesterday, I suppose the presumption is also that if the statute ISN'T Constitutional, it is the Court's job to MAKE it so?

It's obvious Adams has no access to the backstory on Roberts' history, as I posted in another thread, or he might have had second thoughts about his jurisprudential "pedigree".

That's what angered me so much. Since when is it that the job of judicial branch to rewrite laws that Congress writes. Many times the SCOTUS has reached out to Congress telling them why it was unconstitutional but since when do they rewrite the laws?

Dangerous times we live with enemies abroad and now certifiable enemies here interlaced in the government at all levels and branches. The time is now to declare for the abolition  of this oppressive government.

[Weisshaupt]

Empty the bank accounts. Cash out the IRAs ( and pay the  damned 10% penalty) 

At least until we go all cashless.
Brush up on bartering skills

Yep. Cashless means pay the bills and take what is left and put it into automatic purchases of silver and gold. You can always barter that or sell it back ( note the IRS wants 30% of any increase in value on this "collectible" - so watch when and where you sell)  Of course as this spirals fdown other commodities like toothpaste, tampons and toilet paper as well as the usual Ammo will  probably also work

[IronDioPriest]

...Since when is it that the job of judicial branch to rewrite laws that Congress writes....

That's the thing that's really pissing me off with this decision. Blatant activism run amok. All the posturing about long-game victory, restraint, reputation of the court, blah-blah-f***ing blah...

The legislature SPECIFICALLY AVOIDED new taxes in funding ObamaCare. The mandate was overtly used to compensate for the fact that new taxes would not be implemented to fund this monstrosity. The mandate in lieu of new taxes was a KEY FEATURE. The bill that was crammed through and signed specifically and conspicuously featured the individual mandate and equally specifically and conspicuously DID NOT include a tax increase. The constitutional power to tax originates in the HOUSE, and the HOUSE - under Nancy f***ing Pelosi - did NOT include new taxes in this bill.

Roberts rewrote the bill. Roberts implemented a new tax where the House did not. Not only did he implement a new tax, but he redefined taxation. Now, government can compel citizens to engage in commerce, and the refusal to do so can be taxed. I wonder how our liberal "friends" feel about government compelling people to engage in commerce with the evil 1% - in essence saying that insurance companies are now in the position of compelling taxation? The paradox puts their entire ideology to the lie.

John Roberts is a stealth Leftist activist. There can be no other answer. His installment into the role of Chief Justice was meant for this moment - for him to make this ruling, at this time. Roberts is the blade of the Left's coup de grace.

Which, I admit, raises implications about the entirety of the George W. Bush presidency. I'm willing to suffer ridicule for making the accusation. But in looking back at what the Bush presidency accomplished for the Left, and the groundwork that was laid by Bush with stimulus, bailouts, war, and Chief Justice Roberts, I think George W. Bush was a stealth leftist as well.

[LadyVirginia]

Krauthammer can stick it. 

yep.

I'm sick of hearing these people describing the "silver lining".

Kind of like your spouse saying I'm leaving for your own good.  Doesn't make it any better.

[Glock32]

What Roberts has done is put defenders of liberty in the position of having to prove a negative.  That is now the basis of taxation.  It's essentially a new Not-Sales Tax.  We have sales tax, and now we have not-sales tax too.  You can be taxed when you purchase something, and well golly gee now you can be taxed for not purchasing something too!

I mean, might as well say if you don't install the 1.21 gigawatt flux capacitor in your DeLorean, gotta pay the tax.  And kids?  Let me tell you about the new Imaginary Friend tax.  You may want to meet with your financial planner and try to whittle your list of imaginary friends down to a manageable number.  There is literally no end to what they can use as a basis for taxation, because you in essence are trying to prove a negative.

[Weisshaupt]

Which, I admit, raises implications about the entirety of the George W. Bush presidency. I'm willing to suffer ridicule for making the accusation. But in looking back at what the Bush presidency accomplished for the Left, and the groundwork that was laid by Bush with stimulus, bailouts, war, and Chief Justice Roberts, I think George W. Bush was a stealth leftist as well.

The whole NWO thing is looking a bit more likely now, isn't it? It sure stinks of conspiracy. Both sides, pushing for the same thing. ..But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.....

and we now have a Government that has declared that "Everything not forbidden is compulsory."

[IronDioPriest]

I'm sick of hearing these people describing the "silver lining".

I don't mind absorbing the arguments as part of the total picture. But I take silver linings in the intended purpose of the metaphor. They are the positive gleanings from an otherwise negative situation - in this instance, a dismal one. Just as I would never look at the silver lining to the exclusion of the cloud, I would ever look at the cloud to the exclusion of the silver lining. I'll look at the whole cloud, and form my opinions.

In this case, I'm hearing what they're saying, but I mostly reject it. Our hope now lies in the American people. Do we or do we not as a people have what it takes to force the hands of politicians to do our will? I tire of the "most important election of our lifetimes" BS. But it is, and I'll give it one more shot for posterity and hope.

[Libertas]

I agree, the new Not-Sales-Tax is the vehicle through which so much more statist sh*t is going to have trucks driven through it which will crush every last vestige of the old republic into dust.

PS-Rick - the new avatar is so spot on!

PPS-IDP - I might vote...if I am around and an election is still on...but I have little hope the Rubicon can be recrossed without still triggering the reset button.

[Pandora]

What Roberts has done is put defenders of liberty in the position of having to prove a negative.  That is now the basis of taxation.  It's essentially a new Not-Sales Tax.  We have sales tax, and now we have not-sales tax too.  You can be taxed when you purchase something, and well golly gee now you can be taxed for not purchasing something too!

I mean, might as well say if you don't install the 1.21 gigawatt flux capacitor in your DeLorean, gotta pay the tax.  And kids?  Let me tell you about the new Imaginary Friend tax.  You may want to meet with your financial planner and try to whittle your list of imaginary friends down to a manageable number.  There is literally no end to what they can use as a basis for taxation, because you in essence are trying to prove a negative.

The EPA is already doing this sort of thing:

New York Times reporter Matthew L. Wald provided further proof of EPA’s disconnect from reality earlier this week. The agency plans to penalize U.S. fuel suppliers to the tune of $6.8 million for “failing to do the impossible.”

In 2007, Congress passed a law mandating refiners use a nonexistent product: cellulosic ethanol. Four years later, scientific advances still have yet to create a commercially viable fuel from cellulose. But EPA regulators aren’t letting the fact that the fuel is not available stop them from punishing refiners for not using it. (Next they’ll be fining delivery companies for not switching half their fleet to hover boards.)

http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/01/12/epa-to-fine-u-s-gas-producers-6-8-million-for-not-using-nonexistant-fuel/

Okay, so it's not called a tax, it's called a "penalty".  Nevertheless .........

[Libertas]

Contestant - "I'll take 'nonexistent' for $400 Alex.

Alex - "Just like 'cellulosic ethanol', this parchment residing in the National Archives is also 'nonexistent'!"

Contestant - "What is the Constitution?"

Alex - "Correct!"

 

[LadyVirginia]

Okay, so it's not called a tax, it's called a "penalty".  Nevertheless .........

And "they" have been doing that for years to all of us in one form or another!  Fines, fees, etc etc.  No one ever made it an issue.  And why would they?  People rather pay the extra $10 or 20 and be done with it than stand up and argue about it.  I lived in a town once that charged a permit fee to have a garage sale!

[Glock32]

It's almost Pythonesque really.  I am imagining a Python sketch about taxes levied on the taxes you pay.  "Have you paid your tax tax yet?"  "What?! You haven't paid your tax tax? You do know there's a late payment penalty for that don't you?"

[Sectionhand]

I don't know why but I began feeling uneasy about this Wednesday night and couldn't shake it even up to the point that the decision was announced . I wasn't as shocked as most but just as angry . If Roberts made his decison based on public opinion of the court rather than the constitutionality of the issue in question , then he doesn't belong on the court . If the mandate didn't pass muster under the Commerce Clause then it should have been struck down . Essentially , Roberts re-wrote the law .

[warpmine]

Seriously, the only upside to what Roberts declared is this "Making the mandate a tax has at least one other effect. It makes repeal easier. Now that the mandate has been deemed taxation, it can likely be jettisoned through use of the reconciliation process — meaning the Senate will need to muster only a bare majority for repeal, not 60 votes."

by Joshua Hawley is a former law clerk to Chief Justice Roberts and an associate professor of law at the University of Missouri.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/john-roberts-surprising-decision/#ixzz1zCx6gMUY

This will in effect drive the left into cranial unlimited expansion(exploding head) providing that Mitch isn't afraid to use it as what it is, a gift. McConnell as we know isn't quite as bright as we conservatives would prefer so we may have to ditch him or spell it out for him in political terms as English isn't his cup of TEA party.

[LadyVirginia]

I knew the Court wouldn't save us.  We have to save ourselves.

[Weisshaupt]

PPS-IDP - I might vote...if I am around and an election is still on...but I have little hope the Rubicon can be recrossed without still triggering the reset button.

If you are around? Are you leaving the country? Or just expect a confrontation sooner rather than later?  Since Obama was still talking about being able to be more flexible after the election, I would surmise that he expected there to be one. Or perhaps it was code for "after I declare martial law".

[IronDioPriest]

I knew the Court wouldn't save us.  We have to save ourselves.

Or, trust our sovereign heavenly Father to do what He will do, and allow what He wall allow. He judges nations, after all.

I am getting weary enough of the fight that I'm feeling ready to turn it over completely to Him. Not meaning lay down and die, but meaning fight on, with no earthly chance of success - asking for the God-given courage of Gideon, and the complete trust of Joshua at Jericho  - relying not on my own power or skill, but His will alone.

I'm thinking we just cannot save this nation without God, and that it may even be His will that this nation should perish in its current form. There is, after all, supposed to be strife, persecution, and tribulation before the return of Jesus Christ. I think anyone who believes in Him better start thinking about how to be at peace with that, and preparing for however it might look.