• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

What message did Chief Justice Roberts send the country in his majority opinion?

Μολὼν λαβέ

Si vis pacem, para bellum
DP Veteran
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
6,914
Reaction score
3,673
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions…Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

—-Chief Justice John Roberts, in the introduction to his majority opinion in the case of National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius, which upheld the Affordable Care Act on the grounds that the so-called “individual mandate” was a tax, not government-mandated commercial conduct.
Ethics Quote of the Month: Chief Justice John Roberts | Ethics Alarms

So is the Chief Justice saying, "You made your bed, now lie in it; don't come crying to me if it all goes wrong."

Is he also suggesting a way to repeal Obamacare by "throwing the elected leaders who passed this bill out of office" in November?
 
I think he was merely addressing the complaints of some that the SCOTUS legislates from the bench. With the far reaching implications of this decision I think he wanted to do an end run around critics, many of which (as we see on this site) thinks this augurs the end of the republic as we know it.


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?p5xj0g
Sent from my homing pigeon using Crapatalk.
 
the crafty chief judge may have really stuck it to Obama who spent a lot of time and energy telling his minions and those who might not want Obamacare that it is NOT A TAX
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1060638686 said:
Ethics Quote of the Month: Chief Justice John Roberts | Ethics Alarms

So is the Chief Justice saying, "You made your bed, now lie in it; don't come crying to me if it all goes wrong."

Is he also suggesting a way to repeal Obamacare by "throwing the elected leaders who passed this bill out of office" in November?

The message was pretty clear. The Act is not unconstituitonal.
 
the crafty chief judge may have really stuck it to Obama who spent a lot of time and energy telling his minions and those who might not want Obamacare that it is NOT A TAX

I'm guessing Obama hopes the Court continues to stick it to him in this way. After gutting the Arizona Immigration Law they uphold his Health Care Plan. Not a bad week.
 
the crafty chief judge may have really stuck it to Obama who spent a lot of time and energy telling his minions and those who might not want Obamacare that it is NOT A TAX

Roberts took it upon himself to re-write the legislation. The president and congress were very clear that they did not mean this as a tax. In order to curry favor with the president and the press Roberts has changed the court into a serf of the president. Not sure there is a turning back. he might be brilliant but is morally weak and thus a very bad final arbiter of the law.

Years later we will really understand the consequences of this action.
 
The message Chief Justice Roberts sent out is pretty clear to many folks on my side. Epilepsy medication causes cognitive decline. Cognitive decline in a lawyer means that it is time to retire.
 
SCOTUS gets its power only from perceived legitimacy. Reason its approval rating has gone down is after crap like the 2000 election and Citizens United, it's been seen as being hopelessly partial, above the legislative process, and not concerned with interpreting and upholding the Constitution. This ruling makes their opponents come across as nuts when they say things like they won't confirm ANY nominee in the future, when look what a W appointee just did. The court depends on unpredictability and impartiality. Another split along party lines in such a huge case would have been very bad for the court.
 
The Supreme Court gets it's legitimacy from the same place Congress and the President does-

The Constitution

This isn't the first court who's opinions caused butt hurt. One really should study the Court before making sweeping pronouncements.

The Chief Justice doesn't need to curry anyone's favor- not the Presidents, Congress, the Public's, Breitbart, Hannity, Beck, or even his highness Oxxcy Rush. he doesn't stand election, which is something the right wing points out repeatedly when they want a law to be upheld even if it doesn't pass a series of Appeal Court decisions to the contrary.

Such nonsense, unsane logic of true partisans be they left or right wing.

His message was a simple lesson on how the system works in his Chief Justice opinion. trying to bend it to some 'hidden message' seems stupid, but stupid is as stupid does...

Do you like Shrimp?
 
the crafty chief judge may have really stuck it to Obama who spent a lot of time and energy telling his minions and those who might not want Obamacare that it is NOT A TAX

Nor will it be on 99% of the public if the experience of Massachusetts hold true.
 
"Congress has the power to tax".

that's the message.

Anyone, Anytime, Anywhere, and for any made up reason.

Deja Vu 238 years ago. Its a scary time to be around.
 
The message Chief Justice Roberts sent out is pretty clear to many folks on my side. Epilepsy medication causes cognitive decline. Cognitive decline in a lawyer means that it is time to retire.

We've been saying that about Scalia since day one.
 
"Congress has the power to tax".

that's the message.

But congress has the power to tax BASED on what? What is CALLED a federal "income tax" is, in fact, not taxation of income, it is taxation of an entire personal or business "budget", it has FAR more lines of tax law pertaining to the EXPENDATURES of that income, than to the actual INCOME received. As soon as you base "income taxation" on what that income was spent on, rather than simply the income itself, then you have veered far afield from "income taxation", and are now into social engineering (never mentioned in the 16th amendment), rather than simply raising revenue, the stated constitutional purpose of the 16th amendment. The SCOTUS, IMHO, must step back and look at the actual INTENT of the constitution and its many amendments. Allowing taxation of "income" to be based ONLY on how that income was LATER spent should be struck down, as not complying with "equal protection" under the law (the 14th amendment). Once two citizens, working side by side for the same wages, at the same job, for the same employer, get different "income" taxation rates, that ALONE should have triggered SCOTUS constitutional objections.

The 16th amendment: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several states, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

Note that NO mention of "exceptions for how that income was spent" were ever mentioned, yet 95% of our tax code now adresses that alone.

The 14th amendment (section 1): "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Equal protection SHOULD apply to INCOME alone not how (or upon whom) that income was spent AFTER it was eaned. Income taxation applies only to income FROM all sources, as NO mention of how it was later spent is included in the 16th amendment.
 
Last edited:
Seems to me that his message might have been "Public health is too important to leave it up to partisan hacks."
 
My history book said the fight was over taxation without representation.

The next fight will be over representaion without taxation, as we are fast approching having more voters than FIT payers.
 
The next fight will be over representaion without taxation, as we are fast approching having more voters than FIT payers.

Then why not support public programs that will help poor families escape poverty and be secure enough financially to be able to pay federal income taxes? The net result of supply side economics was that the demand class shrank substantially. You want more taxpayers? Then keep the jobs here in the US, and support the public education systems so that more people will be qualified for those jobs. Support public health so that fewer people will be out of work from injury or illness.

Right wing fiscal policy has exacerbated the problems of poverty, which keeps people from having enough income to qualify for the tax.
 
We've been saying that about Scalia since day one.

If that is what you believe then you must recognize the Court's opinion in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United as illegitimate. Is that the way you feel?
 
Then why not support public programs that will help poor families escape poverty and be secure enough financially to be able to pay federal income taxes? The net result of supply side economics was that the demand class shrank substantially. You want more taxpayers? Then keep the jobs here in the US, and support the public education systems so that more people will be qualified for those jobs. Support public health so that fewer people will be out of work from injury or illness.

Right wing fiscal policy has exacerbated the problems of poverty, which keeps people from having enough income to qualify for the tax.

I'm in a federal state government program for vocational rehabilitation for the disabled. For every dollar they spend four dollars are generated in tax revenue
 
Maybe his message was:

"Unlike these partisan peckerheads I work with, I have an opinion of my own and that opinion is that this can be constitutional."
 
Maybe his message was:

"Unlike these partisan peckerheads I work with, I have an opinion of my own and that opinion is that this can be constitutional."

So that's what you infer from these comments? :rofl

“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions…Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

—-Chief Justice John Roberts, in the introduction to his majority opinion in the case of National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius, which upheld the Affordable Care Act on the grounds that the so-called “individual mandate” was a tax, not government-mandated commercial conduct.
 
The next fight will be over representaion without taxation, as we are fast approching having more voters than FIT payers.

that's what the dems want-a majority of the voters sucking on the public tit
 
Back
Top Bottom