It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Judiciary, Crime, & Courts => Topic started by: IronDioPriest on December 21, 2017, 11:25:45 AM
-
Follow me here... The GOP tax legislation drives a stake through the heart of HusseinCare by eliminating the penalty for not having insurance... without that penalty, people are free to go uninsured if they so choose, completely undercutting the foundation of HusseinCare...The tax legislation was passed via "reconciliation", which allows for a simple majority vote in the Senate...Reconciliation can only be applied to legislation concerning taxation...As twisted as Chief Justice Roberts's logic was that ended up "saving" HusseinCare, it was his determination that the "penalty" was instead a "tax" that laid the foundation for the repeal of HusseinCare via reconciliation of this tax legislation.
Question: Did Roberts do this on purpose? I ask, because in hindsight, it appears to me that this outcome was baked right into the cake. It's almost too perfect to be an accident. Is this just a result of twisted extra-legal unintended consequences? Or did Roberts plant a bomb? He did say at the time, something to the effect of, (paraphrased), "If the people want it repealed, they wll do so through their elected officials," or some such comment.
Idunno. Just thinking out loud.
-
I am pretty sure I don't extend that much end-game deep thinking to Roberts...and it doesn't make the suffering of the intervening years under that abomination...wise, fair or noble! It's an interesting question...I just have a hard time seeing that.
If true it would be very Machiavellian! Again, not a praiseworthy act...when it could have been aborted at birth!!!
-
I am pretty sure I don't extend that much end-game deep thinking to Roberts...and it doesn't make the suffering of the intervening years under that abomination...wise, fair or noble! It's an interesting question...I just have a hard time seeing that.
If true it would be very Machiavellian! Again, not a praiseworthy act...when it could have been aborted at birth!!!
Yes, it could have been aborted at birth... But if it had been, perhaps the groundswell of Republican dominance - particularly at the state and local level - would likely never have occurred...
::thinking::
-
I won't extend Roberts much credit but I will remind readers that he said (paraphrasing) you shouldn't expect SCOTUS to fix what needed to be repaired in congress. I agreed with him (on that aspect of his logic) and see that congress - with Trump pushing - did in fact fix their mistake.
Of course there wouldn't have been a problem that needed SCOTUS to fix if dhimmicrats were honorable people. But they aren't and all this pain, misery, and expense has been the result.
-
I dunno. Just thinking out loud.
Hmm. The original Bill was passed via reconciliation, wasn't it? Maybe:
- Roberts labeled it a "tax", to ward off the screams that it violated the Constitution (Article 2 / 10th Amendment) by forcing us to purchase a product, so as to justify their use of reconciliation in the passage of it.
- But then, once labeled a "tax", the groundwork was setup for it to be also undone via reconciliation
Maybe?
-
I dunno. Just thinking out loud.
Hmm. The original Bill was passed via reconciliation, wasn't it? Maybe:
- Roberts labeled it a "tax", to ward off the screams that it violated the Constitution (Article 2 / 10th Amendment) by forcing us to purchase a product, so as to justify their use of reconciliation in the passage of it.
- But then, once labeled a "tax", the groundwork was setup for it to be also undone via reconciliation
Maybe?
That’s where my head is going, for good or ill.
If he hadn’t done it, the country would have been spared HusseinCare. But the Dems would have demagogued health care, for which there was and is a legitimate “crisis”, and they would have demagogued the courts, saying that the conservative scotus denied health care to millions.
Without the issue in 2010 and 2014 and again in 2016, the Republican gains - particularly the massive gains at the state and local level that has all but shut out Democrats in a majority of states - would never have materialized.
Which leads me back to asking why Roberts came to such a twisted, logically unsupportable decision, when it was predictable that the foundation of HusseinCare could be undone by the very mechanism he used to justify it.
-
Does this mean people can buy insurance that does not comply with Obamacare?
-
Which leads me back to asking why Roberts came to such a twisted, logically unsupportable decision, when it was predictable that the foundation of HusseinCare could be undone by the very mechanism he used to justify it.
Anybody's guess; BUT:
A. He looks like he's backing/supporting Obama (avoiding the deaths threats I'm sure he got), and...
B. He gets the issue off his plate & waits to see what happens (what does he care - he's a got a Cadillac plan?)
Edit: AND...back then nobody, but nobody saw Donald Trump coming down the pike. They thought Hillary'd be next & by then, the issue cemented into place.
(I just LOVE it when a plan comes together...uhm, comes crashing to the ground!)
-
I won't extend Roberts much credit but I will remind readers that he said (paraphrasing) you shouldn't expect SCOTUS to fix what needed to be repaired in congress. I agreed with him (on that aspect of his logic) and see that congress - with Trump pushing - did in fact fix their mistake.
Of course there wouldn't have been a problem that needed SCOTUS to fix if dhimmicrats were honorable people. But they aren't and all this pain, misery, and expense has been the result.
He said that the Supreme Court shouldn't fix congress's mistakes, but then determined the word "penatly" really meant tax.
And th text of the ACA originated in the Senate, so it was already illegal by the count if it is a tax - which it isn't because te bill says "penalty" and a non-action is being taxed - not income. The federal government does not have the legal authority to tax an in action.
Roberts is a lasing traitorous asshole whos eyes should be plucked out in the name of blind justice. . Period.
-
Roberts is a lasing traitorous asshole whos eyes should be plucked out in the name of blind justice. . Period.
I would be OK with that...
-
Ditto.
The three branches of government are supposed to be the checks on one another and his lame "reasoning": 'you shouldn't expect SCOTUS to fix what needed to be repaired in congress' was SCOTUS/Roberts not doing the job.
-
I won't extend Roberts much credit but I will remind readers that he said (paraphrasing) you shouldn't expect SCOTUS to fix what needed to be repaired in congress. I agreed with him (on that aspect of his logic) and see that congress - with Trump pushing - did in fact fix their mistake.
Of course there wouldn't have been a problem that needed SCOTUS to fix if dhimmicrats were honorable people. But they aren't and all this pain, misery, and expense has been the result.
He said that the Supreme Court shouldn't fix congress's mistakes, but then determined the word "penatly" really meant tax.
And th text of the ACA originated in the Senate, so it was already illegal by the count if it is a tax - which it isn't because te bill says "penalty" and a non-action is being taxed - not income. The federal government does not have the legal authority to tax an in action.
Roberts is a lasing traitorous asshole whos eyes should be plucked out in the name of blind justice. . Period.
A-Fricken-Men my friend!
He acted like a Progressive and MADE LEGISLATION FROM THE BENCH, something even lily-livered Pubbies of yesteryear delineated as verboten once upon a time...and regardless if one thinks Roberts did this Machiavellian act on purpose for this very end result...it still SET THE PRECEDENT that citizens can be COMPELLED to purchase something that should be voluntary and free of government interference as well as inflicting the financial, regulatory, industry and personal suffering of the intervening years!
Even if this was his intended result...it does nothing but reinforce my opinion of him as a cowardly, despicable loathsome traitor!