Who paid off Judge Roberts?

[christundivided]

He was the only one to argue that the mandate was in actuality a "tax". He's decision was opposed to the other 8 judges. The 4 left leaning judges saw the mandate as a exercise of the commerce clause.

How can we honestly believe that Roberts was intellectually honest to read a "tax" into the law?

Seems like someone was influenced by outsides sources to me.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

He was the only one to argue that the mandate was in actuality a "tax". He's decision was opposed to the other 8 judges. The 4 left leaning judges saw the mandate as a exercise of the commerce clause.

How can we honestly believe that Roberts was intellectually honest to read a "tax" into the law?

Seems like someone was influenced by outsides sources to me.

You can't refuse to pay taxes, but evidently you can choose to lie and call it something else in order to get it passed, rob people of their Contstitutional rights, and then get the blessings of the Supreme Court for your "ingenuity."  Our whole system of checks and balances is no more. There are no real men anywhere anymore that will stand up for right.  This is the final death blow to the Constitution.

 

[christundivided]

I will say in the end.... it might be one of the deciding factors in the race for President.

 

[Castor Muscular]

He was the only one to argue that the mandate was in actuality a "tax". He's decision was opposed to the other 8 judges. The 4 left leaning judges saw the mandate as a exercise of the commerce clause.

How can we honestly believe that Roberts was intellectually honest to read a "tax" into the law?

Seems like someone was influenced by outsides sources to me.

I haven't made up my mind how I feel about his decision.  It is REALLY odd that he'd declare the mandate a tax, when that isn't how Obama or Congress presented it.  I don't like the fact that he literally changed the law with his decision -- I don't think he's supposed to do that.  But I'm not convinced this is a bad thing.  It might backfire big time on Obama.

 

[Anchor]

What Roberts basically stated is that what a law does defines what a law is, even if the wording of the law does not reflect such.  As such, the ObamaCare law is, basically, one of the largest tax increases in the history of America, and certainly the largest targeted tax increase.  By his own statement, if it is not a tax it is unconstitutional. 

I can't argue with his reasoning--I think his honesty drove him to it.  However, that doesn't make it an easier pill to swallow.  Without congressional repeal we all will be forced to support through our tax dollars abominable practices loathsome in the nostrils of God or face stiff consequences.  The time for "saving America" is past.  Conservative Christians need to refocus on the Gospel and forget politics as a possible remedy for anything remotely spiritual. 

 

[Izdaari]

What Roberts basically stated is that what a law does defines what a law is, even if the wording of the law does not reflect such.  As such, the ObamaCare law is, basically, one of the largest tax increases in the history of America, and certainly the largest targeted tax increase.  By his own statement, if it is not a tax it is unconstitutional.

As Rush Limbaugh pointed out, George Stephanopoulos called it a tax increase back in 2009, when he was interviewing Obama... and Obama fiercely denied it. But Stephanopoulos was right all along.

I can't argue with his reasoning--I think his honesty drove him to it.  However, that doesn't make it an easier pill to swallow.  Without congressional repeal we all will be forced to support through our tax dollars abominable practices loathsome in the nostrils of God or face stiff consequences.  The time for "saving America" is past.  Conservative Christians need to refocus on the Gospel and forget politics as a possible remedy for anything remotely spiritual.

Congressional repeal is very possible. "Good Lord willin' an' the crick don't rise", we'll have the votes for that, and a president who will sign it. So don't forget to vote!

But you're right that politics is not the remedy for spiritual maladies. It never has been. Politics is the remedy for political ills. If you want people to behave like Christians, the way to accomplish that is to make Christians of them. By preaching the Gospel, not by legislating Christian-like behavior from non-Christians. That approach was always doomed.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Izdaari]But you're right that politics is not the remedy for spiritual maladies. It never has been. Politics is the remedy for political ills. If you want people to behave like Christians, the way to accomplish that is to make Christians of them. By preaching the Gospel, not by legislating Christian-like behavior from non-Christians. That approach was always doomed.[/quote]

Amen.

(Provided you aren't opposed to Christians acting as ambassadors of Christ and ministers of reconciliation in the political arena. The idea of a complete separation of church and state is, frankly, ludicrous. And, I'll admit, I don't have any idea what this looks like.)

 

[AresMan]

But you're right that politics is not the remedy for spiritual maladies. It never has been. Politics is the remedy for political ills. If you want people to behave like Christians, the way to accomplish that is to make Christians of them. By preaching the Gospel, not by legislating Christian-like behavior from non-Christians. That approach was always doomed.

Yay! Someone understands.

 

[jimmudcatgrant]

This statement right here is how Christians have given up any right to the political arena with today's generation:

"But you're right that politics is not the remedy for spiritual maladies. It never has been. Politics is the remedy for political ills. If you want people to behave like Christians, the way to accomplish that is to make Christians of them. By preaching the Gospel, not by legislating Christian-like behavior from non-Christians. That approach was always doomed."

So I guess we just say to the ungodly out there, have at it.  The elections is yours.  Who cares what you stand for.  Put whatever laws you want into place (all laws legislate someone's morality, btw), because we have no right as Christians to stand up for what we believe in.  Sheesh, I have never seen such a bunch of spineless Christians in my life.  Men and women fought, bled and died for the Constitution of this great nation, built upon laws from the bible in a large part, I might add, and we are just supposed to forget all that and give up?  I don't get this apathetic attitude that prevails in these times. 

BTW, just what do you mean by political ills?  Look, I understand we are not going to have a theocracy, and no one wants one until Christ comes, and then we will have the perfect theocracy.  That isn't the point.  But we don't throw out the baby with the bath water either. 

 

[Izdaari]

This statement right here is how Christians have given up any right to the political arena with today's generation:

"But you're right that politics is not the remedy for spiritual maladies. It never has been. Politics is the remedy for political ills. If you want people to behave like Christians, the way to accomplish that is to make Christians of them. By preaching the Gospel, not by legislating Christian-like behavior from non-Christians. That approach was always doomed."

So I guess we just say to the ungodly out there, have at it.  The elections is yours.  Who cares what you stand for.  Put whatever laws you want into place (all laws legislate someone's morality, btw), because we have no right as Christians to stand up for what we believe in.  Sheesh, I have never seen such a bunch of spineless Christians in my life.  Men and women fought, bled and died for the Constitution of this great nation, built upon laws from the bible in a large part, I might add, and we are just supposed to forget all that and give up?  I don't get this apathetic attitude that prevails in these times. 

BTW, just what do you mean by political ills?  Look, I understand we are not going to have a theocracy, and no one wants one until Christ comes, and then we will have the perfect theocracy.  That isn't the point.  But we don't throw out the baby with the bath water either.

Jim, I am as far from spineless as they come in politics. I am a fiercely principled Christian libertarian. My principles don't include coercing people into acting like Christians even though they aren't. Making laws to make people behave in ways you approve of is just what liberal Democrats do. You just approve of different behavior than they do. But whichever behaviors you approve of, coercion is the wrong path, and not one that Jesus ever advocated. First, make them Christians by effective evangelism. Then talk to them about proper Christian behavior. They won't listen to the latter until you first do the former.

One example of a political ill that we can fix at the ballot box, though the Supremes apparently couldn't, is Obamacare. Roberts hinted as much.

 

[FSSL]

Since the IRS will be monitoring and penalizing those who do not comply with ObamaCare, it is absurd to argue that it is not a tax.

 

[Izdaari]

Since the IRS will be monitoring and penalizing those who do not comply with ObamaCare, it is absurd to argue that it is not a tax.

Very true. And yet, Obama did just that.

 

[jeri fletcher]

I admit, initially I wondered...paid off, or threatened his family?  Now, I'm leaning to medication + a weakening of resolve.

 

[Izdaari]

I admit, initially I wondered...paid off, or threatened his family?  Now, I'm leaning to medication + a weakening of resolve.

It could be any of those. It might be that he thinks ruling it unconstitutional, though correct, is politically unrealistic and the ballot box is the better solution. I don't think he would take a payoff. But threatening his family is not something I would put past those Chicago boys. I'm not saying it happened, I have no evidence that it did. I'm just saying it wouldn't be out of character for them.

 

[The Glory Land]

He was the only one to argue that the mandate was in actuality a "tax". He's decision was opposed to the other 8 judges. The 4 left leaning judges saw the mandate as a exercise of the commerce clause.

How can we honestly believe that Roberts was intellectually honest to read a "tax" into the law?

Seems like someone was influenced by outsides sources to me.

Roberts, is a smart man. He knows what he's doing. They are setting Obama up, don't tell anyone.....

 

[redgreen5]

A lot of confusion and bad guessing from the rightwingers going on here.

First, the administration positioned this as not being a tax, but being an extension of the Commerce Clause. In reality, that is what it is - and under a less rightwing Court, that is exactly what it would have been decided.

Second, the attorneys for the administration had three points of constitutionality they wanted to argue.  The third point was that even if it were a tax - as its detractors claim - then it is still constitutional.  That is the point that SC Justice Roberts agreed on.  Basically, the administration did a bit of jiu jitsu with the Court:  "let's assume you're right about it being a tax. So what? We have the power to tax."

Third, it is not the "largest tax increase in history".  People who repeat that are either stupid, or too lazy to look it up -- probably both. The largest tax increase in history using inflation-adjusted dollars, was Reagan's tax increase in 1982. More info here as Politifact shoots down this tired, ragged rightwing urban legend:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jun/28/rush-limbaugh/health-care-law-not-largest-tax-increase-us-histor/

Fourth, in this society, if you are hurt or sick and present yourself for care at a hospital, there is a legal requirement that you receive treatment.  But people who don't pay for that treatment are abusing the system.  The costs they incur are paid for by the rest of us - in terms of increased healthcare premiums, tax dollars used to pay for their care, etc.  To make it worse, people in that situation usually wait until their condition is very far gone and very expensive to fix. They do this, because they are trying to avoid bills they cannot pay.  But this is more expensive, instead of dealing with the problem in the early stages when treatment would be far cheaper.

Fifth, this is not a penalty for not doing something, because such people *ARE* doing something. They are acting as free riders in our society, and especially on our healthcare system. That's a deliberate act on their part. And it's a decision that imposes costs on others, in the form of increased taxes and higher insurance premiums, since free riders will receive the benefits but without paying the cost. It's a form of theft, actually. And it's no different from someone who decides not to pay the renewal fees for the license tabs for their car or truck. Both situations involve a decision *not* to pay for something which equates to a willful decision to become a free rider on some publicly provided service. This is a tax on free riders for their deliberate decision, their deliberate act, to be a free rider in our healthcare system. And I have no problem calling it a tax. Or a ticket.

 

[Izdaari]

First, the administration positioned this as not being a tax, but being an extension of the Commerce Clause. In reality, that is what it is - and under a less rightwing Court, that is exactly what it would have been decided.

Yes, that's what they wanted to do, to stretch the Commerce Clause beyond all recognition, effectively removing all limits from government's power to do anything at all. I am thankful at least that Roberts and the four dissenting justices didn't go along with that. IMHO, the Founders would be spinning in their graves at the uses the Commerce Clause has been and is being put to.

 

[redgreen5]

First, the administration positioned this as not being a tax, but being an extension of the Commerce Clause. In reality, that is what it is - and under a less rightwing Court, that is exactly what it would have been decided.

Yes, that's what they wanted to do, to stretch the Commerce Clause beyond all recognition, effectively removing all limits from government's power to do anything at all.

The Commerce Clause was not stretched.  Healthcare accounts for 18% of the national economy. Anything with such broad economic and commercial impact clearly falls under the Commerce Clause. 

However, in other cases such as Lopez v. United States. 514 U.S. 549 (1995) I would agree that the law was trying to invoke the Commerce Clause in what was clearly not a commercial issue (i.e., guns near a school zone).  Same conclusion for Morrison v. United States (2000); Commerce Clause was invoked in what ws not an economic issue (violence against women). 

And please note that the Supreme Court has already put significant restrictions on the Commerce Clause, via both Lopez and Morrison. So it's quite untrue to characterize it as "effectively removing all limits from government's power to do anything at all".

IMHO, the Founders would be spinning in their graves at the uses the Commerce Clause has been and is being put to.

Legal scholars had concluded that the Court was too far to the right to expect them to respect precedent anyhow:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-22/law-experts-say-health-measure-legal-as-some-doubt-court-agrees.html

Obama Health Law Seen Valid, Scholars Expect Rejection
By Bob Drummond - Jun 22, 2012

The U.S. Supreme Court should uphold a law requiring most Americans to have health insurance if the justices follow legal precedent, according to 19 of 21 constitutional law professors who ventured an opinion on the most-anticipated ruling in years.

Only eight of them predicted the court would do so.

 

[rsc2a]

First, the administration positioned this as not being a tax, but being an extension of the Commerce Clause. In reality, that is what it is - and under a less rightwing Court, that is exactly what it would have been decided.

Yes, that's what they wanted to do, to stretch the Commerce Clause beyond all recognition, effectively removing all limits from government's power to do anything at all.

The Commerce Clause was not stretched.  Healthcare accounts for 18% of the national economy. Anything with such broad economic and commercial impact clearly falls under the Commerce Clause. 

That actually makes perfect sense. In fact, using the same reasoning, we should mandate that everyone buy a home, and those that don't, we tax fine tax them. A boost for the economy and eliminating homelessness all in one fell swoop.

[quote author=redgreen5]However, in other cases such as Lopez v. United States. 514 U.S. 549 (1995) I would agree that the law was trying to invoke the Commerce Clause in what was clearly not a commercial issue (i.e., guns near a school zone).  Same conclusion for Morrison v. United States (2000); Commerce Clause was invoked in what ws not an economic issue (violence against women). 

And please note that the Supreme Court has already put significant restrictions on the Commerce Clause, via both Lopez and Morrison. So it's quite untrue to characterize it as "effectively removing all limits from government's power to do anything at all".[/quote]

LOL! Like Wickard v. Filburn?

 

[redgreen5]

That actually makes perfect sense. In fact, using the same reasoning, we should mandate that everyone buy a home, and those that don't, we tax fine tax them. A boost for the economy and eliminating homelessness all in one fell swoop.

Except that we don't have a national consensus - nor do we have a legal precedent - that everyone who wants a place to live gets one. On the other hand:

1. we *DO* have a national consensus - as well as legal precedent - that people who present themselves for medical care will receive it; and
2. we have the plain financial fact that taxpayer money as well as individual citizens will bear the costs, in case the sick person cannot pay the bill.

Neither of these two things is true with your attempted analogy about housing.
Hence, your attempt at satirical analogy falls flat on its face, because you didn't check your analogy closely enough, to see whether it was tangent on the critical points.

LOL! Like Wickard v. Filburn?

That's 1942. Hate to be the one to break the news to you, but more recent decisions carry more weight and have reined in the scope of Wickard v. Filburn:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

United States v. Lopez (1995) was the first decision in six decades to invalidate a federal statute on the grounds that it exceeded the power of the Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The opinion described Wickard v. Filburn as "perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate commerce." Lopez held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.[2]