Tag: John Roberts

Most Influential Bloggers?

Ed and I have been named as two of the most influential bloggers around. The Lonely Conservative, Mind Numbed Robot, Matt at Conservative Hideout and William Teach have all been influenced by us in one way or another. So, now I have to answer some questions, nominate some other bloggers, and post this. The rules

According to whoever came up with this little exercise, there is no actual voting, it’s just a fun way to bring recognition to other blogs and bloggers that are out there.

Here are the rules:

1. Display the award logo on your blog.

2. Link back to the person who nominated you

3. Answer 7 questions decided up by your nominator

4. Nominate ( no limit of nominations ) other bloggers for this award and link back to them.

5. Notify those bloggers of the award requirements.

Post THIS spiffy award!

MIB

Now for the questions I am asking of the bloggers I nominate

1. Why did you start a political blog, and when?

2. Who is the one person still living that you would most like to meet and chat with?

3. Which historical figures do you most admire? Name the top 5

4. Would you replace Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Roberts if given the opportunity, and if so why and replace with whom?

5. If you were governor of your state, what would be your first action?

6. Who are your biggest crushes in the blogosphere/media/sports media?

7. If you could go back and change history, would you?

Now, the questions asked of me.

1. Why did you start a political blog and when?

I started this blog in June 2008. I had been writing op-ed columns for some internet sites and local papers since 1996 and I was burned out on that, too much structure. I needed something different, and I started reading Michelle Malkin’s Hot Air, which was a lot better when Michelle ran it by the way. She inspired me to  start blogging, which is why I refer to her as my  blogging role model. I wanted to do the blog with somebody, and one name popped into my head, Edward Daley. We had known each other since around 2000, and I knew how talented and passionate Ed is. He was my first choice.

2. Who is the one person still living that you would most like to meet and chat with?

Several names come to mind. Michelle Malkin obviously, also Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and Mark Steyn. But the one person would be Dennis Prager I think. Fascinating, and wise man.

3. Would you replace Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Roberts if given the opportunity, and if so why and replace with whom?

Hell yes, he is a traitor in my view. He knew what was right, and went the political route. There is no American I loathe more than him, he is a disgrace. My replacement pick would be Clarence Thomas.

4. If you could visit one nation you have never visited before, what nation would that be?

Scotland

5. What is something you would collectively change about humanity?

I would want people to care about character, depth and substance rather than style and image.

6. If you could stand up in front of the elected GOP leadership, what would you tell them?

I would assert to them that they must BELIEVE in Conservative principles, and stop trying to make the media and Democrats like them. The Democrats are NOT our friends. I would also tell them to look at the political candidates the media and Democrats attack, those are the candidates they fear the most. Also I would try not to curse but it would be hard, as stupidity really agitates me.

7. If you could change any law or practice in the USA, what would it be and why?

So many to change, so little time. I would try to end all laws that attempt to supplant personal responsibility and choice with governmental rules.

Now on to the blogs I find influential. 

Pirates Cove

The Lonely Conservative

Camp of the Saints

The Other McCain

Wyblog

Protein Wisdom

American Power

Conservative Hideout

I Own the World

Maggies Notbook

I’m a Man I’m 41

Moonbattery

Motor City Times

Nice Deb

Zion’s Trumpet

Reaganite Republican Resistance

Proof Positive

Theo Spark

Randys Roundtable

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
And now, Ed injects his own thoughts into the mix.

1. Why did you start a political blog and when?
I’ve created several political blogs since around 2002, but none of them really took off due to my complete unwillingness to market them or even share their content with anyone other than my cat. Basically, my personal sites were just depositories for links to other websites that I liked, and I would occasionally post my own op-eds on them along with whatever other weird crap I’d created… pictures, parody song clips, videos, etc.

Then one day several years back I was chatting with Gator Doug on a political forum he was running, and he asked if I’d like to be a contributor to his new blog. For some strange reason he had already decided to include my last name in its title, so I figured I’d post a few things on it in order to seem a little less like the ungrateful jackass that I usually am.

For the first year or so I only dropped by the site maybe two or three times a week and posted articles on it even less often. Over time, however, I began to realize that The Daley Gator really didn’t suck as much as I’d first suspected, and if I just started getting into the habit of posting regular articles on it, it might end up sucking even less.

Not long after that day I figured out that you can actually get OTHER people to read your blog if you take a few minutes to tell them that it does, in fact, exist. Then I figured out that things like facebook and twitter could be used as tools to spread the site’s content around the web, thereby driving even more traffic to it.

Anyway, I think that answers the question… or, perhaps not, still it does answer a few questions that were never even asked, so I feel satisfied.

2. Who is the one person still living that you would most like to meet and chat with?
Hmmm… Well, I supposed that would have to be Newt Gingrich, or “The Newtster“, as I like to call him. I’d love to sit down with him and ask one or two questions which have haunted my mind for a while now, questions like: how the hell does an obviously brilliant man like you end up co-starring in a global warming PSA with Nancy freakin’ Pelosi?! Did you have a minor stroke or something during the last decade that escaped my notice? Oh, and why is it that every single RINO idiot who’s ever run for president has had a better campaign organization than you did in 2012?

3. Would you replace Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court John Roberts if given the opportunity, and if so why and replace with whom?
It depends. Do I also get to throw his sorry ass off the court completely along with every other smarmy, activistic douchebag currently infesting it? If so, then yes… yes I would.

As for whom I’d replace him with, only one name immediately comes to mind… Mark R. Levin Esq.!

4. If you could visit one nation you have never visited before, what nation would that be?
My first choice would have to be Ireland, because – a.) I have an Irish name. b.) I like Guinness Stout. c.) In Ireland they speak a language which is not entirely dissimilar to English. And d.) I’ve always heard that Irish chicks put out.

5. What is something you would collectively change about humanity?
The inexplicable need most folks seem to have for asking me silly questions.

6. If you could stand up in front of the elected GOP leadership, what would you tell them?
To quote the famed, American real estate magnate, Donald Trump, “You’re fired!”

7. If you could change any law or practice in the USA, what would it be and why?
Just one? Holy crap! Uh… okay, so I guess I’d change the law that bans me from swatting people I disapprove of over the head with a rolled-up newspaper whenever I see fit. I mean, sometimes ya just gotta blow off steam, right? Am I right?!

.
——————————————————————————————————————————–

.
Okay then, I guess this is the part of the excercize where I post my nominees for the 2013 “Most Influential Blogger” award. Oh sure, I could compile an extensive list of websites that fit the bill, but frankly, I’m much too lazy to do that, so instead I’ve decided to limit my selections to only two.

They are:

Pat Dollard, because nothing gets by this patriotic American.

And…

Weasel Zippers, because with a name like Weasel Zippers, it has to be good.

.

The real price of Obamacare equals the stupidity of “gimme” voters

We are sinking as a nation, and one big reason is Americans who, as I say vote with their hands out. Call the gimme voters, or what will the government do for me voters, or low info voters, or just simply morons, whatever you prefer. As Matt explains, these people are stuck in the pit of  entitlements, and they are taking us down with them.

It’s a shame that so many Obama voter are suffering the consequences of their vote.  But, then again, being a “low information voter” is a choice.  The information was out there, freely available.  People could  have looked up the facts and known that they were in for it if the voted Democrat.  But, too many listened to the MSM, or their union boss, and now, they are paying the price-literally and figuratively.  FOX News has the latest example, the Regal Entertainment Group,

The nation’s largest movie theater chain has cut the hours of thousands of employees, saying in a company memo that ObamaCare requirements are to blame.

Regal Entertainment Group, which operates more than 500 theaters in 38 states, last month rolled back shifts for non-salaried workers to 30 hours per week, putting them under the threshold at which employers are required to provide health insurance. The Nashville-based company said in a letter to managers that the move was a direct result of ObamaCare.

So, that “free” health care is going to cost these workers in two ways. First, their paychecks are going to shrink. Secondly, they are STILL obligated to buy health care. Remember that individual mandate? And, with health insurance premiums rising………….well figure out who will be hit the very hardest? Yep! The little guy. Of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention that John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, massive pile of dung that he is, also bares tremendous blame. I do not not know which is worse, a fool who votes out of greed without considering the consequences, or a fool who knows what is right, and screws the Constitution and America anyway.

 

 

Who am I most upset with this morning?

Well, it is quite a list to be sure. Let’s see here

Gary Johnson voters, yep, throwing away their votes instead of backing the candidate that could unseat Obama.

The GOP establishment for, once again, playing it safe.

The Romney campaign for going on cruise control after the first debate.

The media? Hell yes, for NOT covering Benghazi, NOT covering Fast and Furious like they should have, and for making Obama look like a hero after Sandy, and for painting Romney as some rich, out of touch, greedy man with no compassion

Chris Christie? Yes, we get it Chris you met the Boss, but you bromance act with Obama? Not what we needed there jelly boy

The voters who are  too lazy to actually do any research, or are just voting for free stuff, or who are naive enough to buy into the Democratic tactic of fear mongering or voting because of skin color? Good grief!

Yes, upset with all those people, but, oddly enough, the first name that crossed my mind when the results started looking bad was Chief Justice John Roberts. Because of that spineless bastard playing politics rather than doing his duty, we will be shackled with ObamaCare now. There is no escaping that albatross around our necks, even if the 2014 midterms were to give both houses to the Republicans, it is too late. Oddly enough, it will be ObamaCare that will finally wake up many Americans to the horrors we are in for. But, tragically, that wake up call will be too late.

One more question, about turnout. Obama got 10 million FEWER votes than in 2008, yet, Romney got two million less than McCain? What about all the polls that showed GOP enthusiasm up? Why would fewer Republicans go vote? I get lots of Obama voters from 2008 not voting, but Republicans? This does not make any sense.

Finally, one apology is in order here, no, make that three apologies. To the Founders, we let you down, we failed. Too many of us fell for the lies of Leftism. Too many of us have been seduced by the false promises of Marxism. Yes, Mr. Franklin, you gave us a Constitutional Republic, no, we could not keep it.

To our military, who have defended us for 250 years, who gave all so we could be free. Sadly, we took their sacrifice and embraced not liberty, but rather, a slow march to Statism.

Finally to God, who blessed us with natural rights, and with men who founded this nation, and gave us our constitution. Too many of us failed to weigh what a blessing those natural rights are, and have increasingly rejected those liberties for things we think we are somehow entitled to.

Why we MUST stand up to ideological bullies

I ran across this piece about the power of Liberal intimidation by one of the greatest thinkers in America, Dennis Prager. Before I give you a taste of Prager’s column allow me to specify that Liberal, I might call it Leftist intimidation, is not new, nor does it come in only one form. Stacy McCain and others have been dealing with Leftist thugs like Neal Rauhauser and Brett Kimberlin, and their supporters for weeks now. The vile tactics of these miscreants have been well documented by this blog, and by many others. Their tactics might differ, but the aim is the same as the aim of many other Leftists who engage in character assassination by accusing anyone who disagrees with their Leftist ideals of racism, or sexism, or Homophobia, or a host of other “isms” and “phobias”. The end goal is to silence any Conservative who speaks up.

Sadly, too many “Conservatives” are cowed by these bullies. These folks who cave are cowards and fools. Their weakness in the knees does not buy them any slack from the Left of course. The next time they speak up, they will be vilified again, most likely in even harsher terms. And their cowardice makes easier targets of all of us. This is why we all, every one of us, every Conservative mus vow NEVER to cave in to these Neo-Marxist thugs. They do not seek reconciliation with us. They do not seek common ground, they seek our silence, period! 

We MUST stand up to them! WE MUST fight them. We MUST NEVER allow them to silence us. We MUST see them as they see us. And that is as the enemy! We might not see political differences and debate as war, or as a winner-take-all game, but the Left does! And the price of losing this “game”? Our very liberty!

Now that I have flapped my gums, allow Dennis Prager to lay out the case as only he can.

Given how many more Americans define themselves as conservative rather than as liberal, let alone than as left, how does one explain the success of left-wing policies?

One answer is the appeal of entitlements and a desire to be taken care of. It takes a strong-willed citizen to vote against receiving free benefits. But an even greater explanation is the saturation of Western society by left-wing hate directed at the right. The left’s demonization, personal vilification, and mockery of its opponents have been the most powerful tools in the left-wing arsenal for a century.

Since Stalin labeled Leon Trotsky — the man who was the father of Russian Bolshevism! — a “fascist,” the Left has labeled its ideological opponents evil. And when you control nearly all of the news media and schools, that labeling works.

The liberal media even succeeded in blaming the right wing for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy even though his assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, was a pro-Soviet, pro-Castro communist. Similarly, just one day after a deranged man, Jared Loughner, attempted to kill Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and murdered six people in the process, The New York Times columnist Paul Krugman wrote that it was right-wing hate that had provoked Loughner: “It’s the saturation of our political discourse — and especially our airwaves — with eliminationist rhetoric that lies behind the rising tide of violence. Where’s that toxic rhetoric coming from? Let’s not make a false pretense of balance: it’s coming, overwhelmingly, from the right. . . .”

Krugman made it all up. But what matters to most of those who speak for the left is not truth. It is destroying the good name of its opponents. That is the modus operandi of the left.

It works.

Go read it all. Prager lays this intimidation at the feet of Chief Justice John Roberts’ cowardly ruling on Obamacare, as he should. As I said, and as Prager opines, these people are bullies, and all I need to know about bullies I learned in 7th grade. A bully picked on me, tried to pick fights with me. I wanted no part of fighting, I just wanted to go to school and be left alone. Yet, my peaceful demeanor failed to impress this kid. Then, one day, my temper, which was much longer at the age of 12 than it is today, snapped. He pushed me, and I beat the snot out of him. leaving him crying, and with a bloody nose and  split lips. Want to take a guess how many times he picked on me after that? Yep! ZERO! Now, I am not suggesting resorting to fists to best the Leftist bullies. But I am suggesting we never give an inch to them, EVER!

The ugly truth about Justice Roberts is that he sold out his principles

Via The Blaze

CBS News’ Jan Crawford is reporting that Chief Justice John Roberts originally sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of Obama’s health care reform law, often referred to as “Obamacare,” but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

CBS continues (all subsequent emphasis added):

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.

 So what got to Roberts? What made him change the vote? Apparently, he simply lost track of his principles

CBS explains a possible reason for the change of heart:

[Unlike some other justices] 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.

It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.

So, basically, he was worried about PR rather than the Constitution? What a gutless wonder! The report also says Roberts tried to convince the other justices to switch votes, to make the court appear more  “united”. Also it seems that Justice Kennedy was trying to get Roberts to come back until the very last-minute. Here is part of Kennedy’s dissent, the words are, to me, chilling.

“The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty in peril…Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead our judgment today has disregarded it.”

Indeed sir, indeed! 

Linked at I’m a Man thanks! BC adds this

This is a prime example of why the liberals keep winning. 

Conservatives fear being labeled  ideological  or ignorant, so they let the left  dictate what is appropriate for debate. Some are even willing compromise their good sense or integrity to stay in the elitist crowd.

Yes, Liberals are NEVER afraid of what they will be called no matter what they say. Some Conservatives forget this. They also seem to forget that Liberals will say whatever they want about Conservatives, no matter what the Conservative says or does. To the Left is is all about winning, anything is acceptable to them if it leads to a victory for them.

Justice Roberts Judicial Contortionist

Paul Ryan nails Justice Roberts for “contorting the law”

ABC reported:

“I’m very disappointed in the ruling. I think the chief justice had to contort logic and reason to come up with this ruling,” he said. “So one man decided against the dissenting opinion, against what I, you know, thought were his — his principles and judicial jurisprudence, he decided to leave this up to the American people. So now the stakes of this election could not be higher.”

…Ryan said this morning that he believes that a House vote to repeal President Obama’s health care reform law will take place later this month

I like the prospect of Paul Ryan as the VP more every day. He is a bright guy who has the ability to convey the Conservative message like few others.

More bloggers roast Roberts

Bob Belvedere lays it on Roberts, who KNEW better

John Roberts, however, is not a Leftist drone, yet he obviously has acted in a way that brands him as a Useful Idiot and Dupe of the Left. He may think he pulled a fast one or that he’s preserving the integrity of the SCOTUS, but the Left is laughing at him behind his robed back and celebrating their capture of another Right Wing Dupe. This decision will not restore the image of The Court. In fact, it sends a message that the Chief Justice is willing to sacrifice The Constitution for the sake of a facade — the political image of SCOTUS in the public’s mind — and this will, perhaps fatally, damage the reputation of the SCOTUS in the eyes of the Right — the only group that respects The Court and it’s place in The American Experiment. If, however, Roberts believes what he wrote, then one cannot be blamed if he questions the mental health of the Chief Justice.

By stating that the Congress has an unlimited power to tax, Chief Justice Roberts and the Leftist Justices have declared that The Constitution does not mean what it says and that the Congress need not concern itself with enumerated powers when it comes to using the taxing power, which, as many wise men have pointed out over the centuries, is the power to destroy.

BC has some great comments Rush made today

Donald Douglas has two posts up, one trying to salvage some credibility for Roberts, sorry I am not buying it, not at all, but it is worth the read. The other raises the question. Did Roberts change his votes due to some type of pressure?

Gateway Pundit notes that Romney donations went ballistic after Roberts rewrote Obamacare to save it and has a great cartoon as well 

Governor Romney raised over $4 million in twenty hours following the Obamacaretax ruling yesterday by the Supreme Court.
The Hill reported, via Free Republic:

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign has raised $4.2 million since the Supreme Court ruled President Obama’s healthcare law is constitutional.

Romney started raising funds immediately after the decision, and in a post on Twitter his campaign spokeswoman said he had raised $4.2 million from 42,000 donations.

“Fundraising update for #FullRepeal: 42k+ donations, $4.2 million raised online for @MittRomney since #scotus decision,” tweeted spokeswoman Andrea Saul.

Romney responded to the ruling by renewing his pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act known as “Obamacare.”

He wrote in a fundraising email to supporters on Thursday: “Today, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. But regardless of what the Court said about the constitutionality of the law, Obamacare is bad medicine, it is bad policy, and when I’m president, the bad news of Obamacare will be over.”

One thing can be said of this, that fire in the American people’s hearts against big government is hotter than ever! NOW, this election is about the economy AND Obamacare, AND high taxes, and all of those added together equals a very bad November for Democrats!

Obamacare individual mandate upheld by John Roberts and his four Left Wing buddies, the bloggers react!

I am what you might call angry, and so are many others. and here are some of their reactions.

Zion’s Trumpet links Ed’s post, and offers his own take

Also keep in mind that all this happened back when the GOP still had a shot at getting Obama’s health care monstrosity overruled by our nation’s highest court. Since that option is no longer on the table, we the people have no alternative but to rid our federal government of every parasitic leftist we possibly can, even if that means replacing some of them with – shall we say – less than hard-right Republicans. To do otherwise is to commit national suicide, and even some Ron Paul supporters are now beginning to recognize that fact.

Mitt – if I may be so bold as to address you by your nickname – all you have to do to win the White House at this point is refrain from saying anything truly stupid or offensive to conservatives, stick to the topics of the economy and ObamaCare, and try to pick a running mate who isn’t as big a RINO as you are. Might I suggest Marco Rubio… or Allen West?

As for you, Barack, you’re political death warrant has just been signed, sealed and delivered by five smarmy, activist lawyers in black robes, and the genuinely comical thing is that you’re too dumb to realize it. While I’m sure the Jurassic press will join you in declaring victory today, I’m equally as certain that the real victors in all this will be the people of this country once they throw your sorry butt out of office and begin the process of retaking their liberties from a degenerate and dictatorial federal government.

Chris at Wyblog warns that we better start saving up for that mandate, oh, sorry Mr. Roberts TAX that makes us buy a Volt!

The government is our master. We The People are powerless before it.

The Constitution means nothing. Limited government? Fuggedaboudit.

Someone needs to dig up Thomas Jefferson and have him beat Chief Justice Roberts over the head with the Declaration of Independence. Repeatedly.

Not that it would do any good. The damage is done.

The Obamacare abomination survives. Every American is compelled by the force of law to purchase health insurance. Because the individual mandate is in actuality a tax.

Welcome to the United States of Greece. Where our Socialist Overlords have big plans for us serfs. It’s been said that the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Liberty was destroyed today. We’ll probably never get it back.

UPDATE 28 Jun 2012 11:39:
The more I think about it, the madder I get.

Even if Obamacare gets repealed a terrible precedent has been set. Congress can tax our behavior. Get too fat? Pay the Obesity Tax. Don’t buy that Chevy Volt? Pay the Fossil Fuel Waster Tax. Homeschool your kids? Pay the Support Your Local Teachers Union Tax.

Nanny-state busybodies like Mike Bloomberg are having an orgasm right now.

Milton Wolf warned us yesterday that, in the end, we would have to kill this beast legislatively, he was right

Weasel Zippers reminds us that Romney lists job one as “Repeal Obamacare”

Charles Krauthammer offers his view on why Roberts did it

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.

Go read it all, I think Krauthammer is exactly right, but I disagree on one point. Roberts has, in my view, discredited ANY standing he had as a constitutional conservative. He placed his principles and his duty on the back burner to help the “image” of the Court? If so, then he has forgotten what duty is, and is a disgrace!

The Right Scoop has Rush’s take

The Other McCain has Michelle Bachman’s response 

Jill has a great post up including this

The bottom line from the dissent:

Scalia/Kennedy/Thomas/Alito dissent calls decision “a vast judicial overreaching.”

John Hayward comments via Twitter (older tweets at bottom):

You are now the property of the State, which can levy a special tax against you, if you don’t spend your money as ordered.

Remember, Obama didn’t just lie about ObamaCare being a tax. He LAUGHED at the idea, on national TV.

Prognostication winners: those who said the ruling would be both a win and loss for Obama. His tax hike on the poor survived the Court.

Shouldn’t a law be judged on what it actually says – i.e. “mandate” – rather than being rewritten by justices to keep it alive?

So the Court just changed a law nobody read to tell the authors what they really meant.

Hey, Obama voters! Your boy just hit poor and middle class Americans with the biggest TAX in history!

So statists can claim anything isn’t a tax, to get it past voters, then the Court will change it to a tax later.

So basically, the Court rewrote a clearly unconstitutional law, in direct opposition to the statements of its authors, to keep it alive.

Yeah, pretty much what I thought. Goodbye, Constitution, it was nice knowing you.

So Obama lied, said O-care’s not a tax, but SCOTUS says it is. Thanks for voting for this guy, chumps.

Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom has this nugget

Thus, behold:

The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.

I won’t have to unpack that for longtime readers of this site, but do allow me to unpack it — as I’ve done with similar linguistically incoherent statements in the past — for those who will spend today bemoaning a ruling that, when viewed from their own intepretative perspective (rather than their policy desires), they can’t honestly fault.

To wit:  “Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”

Fine.  How is this the case?  Because, per Roberts,  the mandate looks something like a tax might look and could look — much in the way a cloud formation may look like a randy sheep three way, if you’re inclined to see it that way.  But unless you believe God or Nature intended to paint a sheep orgy in the gas and water vapor floating above Peoria, the clouds aren’t actually a sheep orgy save your intent to see it as such.

Intentionalism just is.

But, you argue, it clearly wasn’t intended as a tax (or if it was, there’s no way of ever knowing that, given that it was presented as a penalty and not a tax) — because the President publicly denied that it was a tax, and it was passed expressly as a penalty.  Therefore, it was signified into being — at the point of passage — as a penalty.  And a penalty is not a tax.

Or is it?

Intentionalism just is.

According to the CJ, a penalty is indeed a tax when it can be viewed as a tax for purposes of a ruling.  Meaning, a penalty is a tax when a Justice decides to rewrite the law to turn a penalty into a tax.  Which he justifies because the way the penalty looks to him suggests that “reasonable”  people (or philosopher kings) can, if they squint — and if they ignore the intent that turned the law into law in the first place, and turned a set of marks into a set of signs, into language — see a tax.  How that is “reasonable” is anyone’s guess:   we know in no uncertain terms that Obama and the Dems who passed the law didn’t devise the mandate as a tax (despite what they later argued); for one to conclude that it is reasonably possible to “read” a penalty as a tax,  therefore, what c0mes to count as “reasonable” must be redefined as “ignoring what we know to be true”.  And that seems antithetical to “reason.”

Erick Erickson throws his back out, trying to defend Roberts

Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points.

First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

Good Freaking Grief! Tell me Erickson is not this stupid. If Roberts was swayed by public opinion, or by what he perceived MIGHT be a negative spin the certain people, then he is unfit for the highest court! He is there to rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of laws, not make his decisions to impress anyone!

Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue.

Oh, so the constitutionality of a law is “political” now, and not legal? Good Lord who is this buffoon posing as Erickson? I am with BC on this

What is sad is that a conservative republican blogger is dumb enough put this stupidity out for review — and think he making an intelligent point.

The reality is that John Roberts have just given his stamp of approval on the biggest governmental encroachment on American liberty in our country’s history. This is not just about the individual mandate.

The supreme court has just set a legal precedent saying that it is okay for the federal government to force you to buy a service and penalize you if you don’t.

Now, thanks to John Roberts, if they decide it is in your best interest to buy a workout machine, a house alarm system, a book,  a Communist government indoctrination video — or anything else for that matter — they can do it and it will be simple labeled as a tax.

Someone needs to tell this fat bastard to think, or to shut up!

Dear Erick, your head called, it is stuck in your ass, sorry, but I am done having patience for these “thoughtful” Republicans who excuse cowards like Roberts!

Nancy Pelosi credits a former fat, drunk disgrace for this, and Doug Powers skewers her!

Gag.

Mary Jo Kopechne unavailable for comment.

“Ted can now rest. He’s finally f*#%ed everybody in the country.”

Actually, stamping Ted Kennedy’s name on what will eventually amount to a massive tax increase for increasing numbers of Americans as companies dump out of insuring their employees privately isn’t entirely inappropriate.

Maybe Ted’s been reincarnated. If John Roberts is spotted drinking Chivas tonight and chasing tail at Au Bar it’ll be confirmed.

I might be updating later, so please check back. I do hope this fires everyone up, and keeps them that way. REMEMBER in NOVEMBER!

Chief Justice John Roberts Wields the Knife of Judicial Activism

I am uploading my podcast about Roberts and his indefensible vote today. Some have suggested he was interested in judicial restraint, or that he is concerned that the SCOTUS not look extreme, or partisan to America. Me? I think he had a job to do, and he failed. Some might say he is still a ” strict constructionist” sorry, I do not see how anyone believes that. What he did was to change, or re-write the Obamacare bill, changing the mandate, which even he said was not covered under the Commerce Clause into a tax, which is within the power of Congress. Is there a clearer case of judicial activism than that? 

While Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas voted with the constitution, Roberts voted against it! Sorry, again there is no other way to put it. These justices have one job to do, to uphold, or strike down laws, or portions of laws, as those laws are written. Roberts went well beyond his duties here. He actually chose to re-write the law, so he could uphold it it would seem. Now, a precedent has been set. Congress may now make us buy anything, as long as they call it a tax, and not a mandate! More here in my podcast, click the pic to listen

Look at me! I am Mr. Judicial Restraint!

 

Malkin: Ginsburg Coached Pro-Obamacare Lawyer

How very interesting, via Breitbart

Vodpod videos no longer available.