The Right Scoop
I get really irritated at my "Conservative" U.S. Representative, for voting to approve adding/extending all these usurpations of power into the hands of BS-Barry and Gang-Green. It seems to not matter whether the DemonicRATs, or the Republicants hold the reins, WE get screwed.
My U.S.Representative even told me that Obama's "eligibility is settled" (as have several GOP cultists), and she voted to extend the Patriot Act and other POtuS friendly crap, further burdening the poor Obama Administration with protecting us, but not protecting us from the Obama Administration.
My confusion about my "Conservative Congresswoman of the Year" refusing to admit that Obama is a danger to America, should be understandable... but nooooooo.
Last week, the Republicants in Congress were talking about remove and replace of "Obamacare", when We the People have the right to tell them to F-OFF! (sorry, I don't usually cuss)
So now, we're supposed to fight to rid Congress and the cesspool (White House) of the evil gang of turd-blossoms, so that the OTHER gang can tell us what to do?
Since Roberts said the "Commerce Clause" is not an available avenue AND that the "law" does not meet the criteria of a Constitutional tax, thus making way for complaints to be made prior to the paying of an "insurance premium" (pre-2014). So the IRS cannot collect, or jail you, if you say "no" to paying. You can take them to court FIRST... correct? (seems to me, but I'm stupid)
Then Roberts said the "law" IS a "tax"... he didn't say what country, or planet would be the home of such a "tax", just that it is a "tax". (a.k.a. monies extorted from the Peoples, by government.)
Now, if we (in large numbers) refuse to pay, and file a class-action suit, because an unconstitutional tax is being levied against us, what will the FERAL (sp!) govt do?
Since the "tax" is a tax, but not a Constitutional tax (by any Constitutional enumeration), by what authority can the IRS collect the tax?
"BUT BUT BUT, the Congress will re-write the law, to make it a self-supporting, non-tax, non-Commerce Clause thingy that will get us the votes."
Yeah, right! Good luck with that one... pbpbpbpbpbpbpbpb!
I don't play chess, but it seems Justice Roberts is sitting back tonight, saying to himself "checkmate in two moves, you stupid Proggys. Barack, you best get your Grampers on."
For now, that's my hope for change.
There was a man who lived long ago, in a tiny mountain village. The man was old and still had no son. The other villagers would come to him and say "it is so sad that you have no son." The old man would only reply "Maybe yes, maybe no."
Finally, the old man's wife gave birth to a health son. The other villagers came to him and said "it is so wonderful that you now have a fine son!" The old man would only reply "Maybe yes, maybe no."
One day, the old man's herd of horses got out of the corral and ran off. The other villagers came to him and said "it is so sad that your horses are gone!" The old man would only reply "Maybe yes, maybe no."
By this time, the old man's son had grown into a strong young man and the son went off to gather the horses. The other villagers came to him and said "it is a great thing that your son can go gather your horses!" The old man would only reply "Maybe yes, maybe no."
After the old man's son had returned all the horses to the corral, the son fell off a horse and broke his leg. The other villagers came to him and said "it is so sad that your son is injured and might become lame!" The old man would only reply "Maybe yes, maybe no."
A few days later, a king's army came through the village, taking all the healthy young men off to war. The other villagers came to him and said "it is a good thing that your son is injured, so that the king's army left him here. He will not die in the war."
The old man would only reply "Maybe yes, maybe no."
I don't understand the insanity of poly-ticks (the many bloodsuckers.) Will it be a good thing in the end, or not?
"Maybe yes, maybe no."
BUT ARE WE A NATION OF PESSIMISTS, OR OPTIMISTS?
Reality: Now that Roberts either saved, or screwed America, what is our next step? Shall we fix it, or lament over it? (that question is NOT a call for "Maybe yes, maybe no." answers!)
Between Levin and Savage I feel they are both intelligent and listen to the voice of the people, and give US the support we need.
Rshill7 has guts. And an open mind. He presents an article for our information, an article that shows a different perspective on a very complicated issue and he gets his head handed to him. Consider some of the points here. Obamacare is shot down by whatever reasoning, eventually it would be resurrected and morphed into a different form and will be brought up again. But because of the rulings as outlined by Roberts, it can never be presented under the cloak of lies, deception and misrepresentation again.
It is a tax. If it was presented as such Obamacare wouldn't have gotten to first base. Roberts takes away the use of the commerce clause, which was the vehicle this terrible law was using, he takes away the Federal Governments use of blackmail and financial threats towards States, which is a form of enforcement, he tells the American people, who overwhelmingly don't like or want this law that it is up to us, the voters to be more careful who we choose to represent us and also lets us know that the overturning of this law is in our hands.
The government has always had the right to tax us. The way to control them is through the political process, this is why conservatives and liberals are always at odds with each other, among other reasons.
Killing the law at this point might have been only a temporary fix, and the beast will arise again sometime in the future (they have been trying to do this for a hundred years). What Roberts might be saying is you do your job and put your houses in order and repeal this law and I've done my job. Making sure it wont ever return.
Now we should all take a lesson from Rshill7 and not be afraid to see all sides of an argument.
As one blogger on Breitbart asked, 'Now that it is officially a tax, will all the exemptions still hold up?...Will SEIU members still be exempt?'
Well, Mr. Roberts?
Of course the muslims cannot be exempt from taxes, as their "religion" teaches piracy as a means of taxing the infidels.
Unions cannot be exempt from taxes, as they are NOT non-profit organizations.
The Amish... hmmm. They might be outta luck too.
We the People are ALL IN THIS SINKING SHIP TOGETHER - some on the deck and some are below, but no matter who you are, the water is not FINE.
Good point! What about all those Obama-Waivers? Or will a whole new tome of tax policy be published to cover Obama's friends and hangers on.
Tax bills must originate in the House. This bill did not. If it is a tax, the whole thing should be invalid, on that basis alone.
@NHConservative0221 I don't think you should be so smug. They are dueling opinions.
It can be argued that previous Supreme court rulings involving the Senate substitution of one revenue-raising bill for another. It is undisputed that H.R. 3590 bill, that was used, was NOT originally a bill for raising revenue, unlike prior cases that the supreme court ruled on, the Senate’s gut-and-amend procedure made H.R. 3590 for the first time into a bill for raising revenue.
An opinion? It's a fact that they took a preexisting bill from the House, gutted it and put the "tax" into it.
How's your hangover after celebrating our huge victory from yesterday??
Again? You haven't proved anything, either last night or here. These are merely dueling opinions.
Roberts is on drugs. ...No, really.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/01/health/01seizure.html?_r=1
Mark should be on the Supreme Court, he knows the Constitution. I would miss his show too much though. I alternate between Mark and Rush as my favorites.
I don't want my kids to have to grow up in the country that Obama is manufacturing. I fear for their futures.
The obvious and yet apparently irrelevant problem is that it was voted on as not a tax and the SCOTUS calls it a tax and gives it a pass... How is that?
Why are you so slow to get that Kennedy went with the right decision and only Roberts was need? Are you that daft?
Everyone, just because John Roberts is now a rogue Justice, and has decided to follow the left, and act outside the Constitution, doesn't mean we have to follow.
What next? Nullify!
“The states simply need to follow Thomas Jefferson’s prescription and nullify the entire act. They should just refuse to implement this monstrosity. Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker has already indicated he will refuse, and other states should follow his lead.”
The Governor of VA, said his state will not comply either. I expect Texas will do the same.
Obama is lawless, the Democrats are lawless, and Justice John Roberts is lawless. We do not need to comply with lawlessness.
http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/06/28/what-next-nullify/#more-12960
I appreciate you seeing a silver lining in this tragedy and hopefully it'll work - the Tea Party is way fired up now.
But to say Levin is a disgrace doesn't make sense. He's been one of the few sane and logical voices out there. I'm stunned by your attitude and characterization of him.
After reading some of your other attacks and responses in this chain, you might still be emotionally compromised from this horrible ruling today. Go ahead and attack Mark if it helps you sleep at night.
:)
You said what I actually wanted to say. However, he seemed agitated and I didn't want him to flood my inbox with vitriol. I was simply trying to defuse the sniper on the roof. I won't pull my punches anymore.
I agree with you 100%. I consider Mark one of my Top 5 or so best sources for opinion, truth, and information. I take offense at someone bad-mouthing him.
No don't attack The Great One.
To do so is clearly barking up the wrong tree and will only make one look foolish.
I don't care if it's his coping mechanism or not. I'm pretty $%#$# upset myself and the last thing I need is someone trying to argue that this is actually a good thing!
You've lost all credibility.
Levin is a disgrace for not realizing how brilliant it is NOT to strike down Obamacare now to be able to strike it down later IF we can take over the Senate, Presidency... or something!
Yeah, well said.
Exactly, when you have a chance to repeal this monstrosity, you DO IT!!! You don't play games and hope to make an "easier" repeal in the future!
WTF!!
Roberts also explicitly set in stone that the part of the clause that limits taxation to being fair and equal is of no consequence constitutionally.
I'm not wrong, neither is Levin, neither are those who common sense.
Even for the best case scenario with a full repeal of obamacare, Roberts still set the precedent giving the gov't the power to tax us for any reason, which you have yet to address.
You are literally stupid. Roberts could have voted the right way and overturn! Hello, that's exactly what the talking heads and Mitt said would happen or are you saying that they weren't saying that?
I will say that I was wrong of course. Will you, if I and he who I linked to, waaaaaaay up top, is right? I agree with him. If you do not, that's fine. Keep your tar and your feathers. You may need them for self-administration.
Why are you still ignoring the dangerous precedent that Roberts just set today? That the gov't can now fine anyone for inactivity. So they can fine us for not buying an electric car, for not going to the gym, for not buying solar panels, not eating our broccoli, etc. Does that really not concern you?
Also, you're making it sound like it'll be a cake-walk to keep the House, take the Senate, take the Presidency. Nothing is a given. The presidential race is neck and neck. I'm very nervous that it's so close, just like I was with the supreme court decision (when neither should've been close at all).
Finally, what will you say about Roberts if we don't regain enough power to repeal and obamacare stands forever? What will you say when he had the chance to repeal it today?
Thanks again for sharing. You nailed it.
Let me help you...senate, house and presidency...plus, never again will congress try to stretch the commerce clause beyond recognition. You might not recognize it, but others will, including myself.
Well Mark... you convinced me... and you did it again, as usual with sound legal thought and rationale... as well as remaining true to originalist intent.
Sadly, I too stood on the bandwagon hailing this as a chess move by Roberts to take the Commerce Clause off the table in ObamaCare as well as a shot in the arm for Republicans to be galvanized against Obama. But you convinced me that had Roberts gone with the other 4 dissenting Justices, that ObamaCare would have been removed thoroughly and would have the added benefit to galvanize Republicans against Obama for his thoroughly un-constitutional legislation. But sadly that opportunity is gone and Republicans will be squawking about taxes until November 4th while Dems will be rubbing Republican noses in the Robert decision the hole time in response. Obama will be seen as the winner... and Republicans as sore losers.
As usual Mark, there is very little I can disagree with you about... except maybe your yelling... but that too I have come to welcome as an old friend.
"That is why he'll never be appointed to anything other than his own radio show."
What does this even mean? We should all strive to be as successful as he's been in life.
That is a response to everyone who wants him to be AG or anything else. I think he's a jerk. You think I'm a jerk. Where's your beef? Oh, I know, it's beef jerky.
I knew I wasn't crazy... I'd forgotten that the government lawyers argued before the court that it indeed was a tax, contrary to their original argument. This is classic bait and switch... and indeed Roberts did apparently rule on that argument. But Levin counters that the taxation argument was not competently argued as part of the presentation and was NOT included as a presentation... so Roberts should NOT have ruled on it as such because of a simple claim that it was a tax by Obama's lawyers. (I'm no lawyer but I tend to believe Levin's comprehension of detailed argument before the court.) Levin also asserts that clarity is one of the prime outcomes for rulings, but there is NO clarity in what Roberts says in his decision. And the arguments of what's not a penalty and what is a tax (as laid out in this video) are so convoluted you can only shake your head in confusion.
Justice Roberts: "Choosing not to comply with the mandate can only subject you to what amounts to a tax". Huh! What the!... Comply or not comply you are taxed anyway. I read this that you have NO option but to comply. Non compliance is NOT an option so you won't be penalized. Confused yet? Levin is looking even more sane after hearing this.
Now to your point where I do agree... that Obama-Care was "deemed" passed because the law coming back to the House from the Senate would never be accepted... therefore shenanigans by Pelosi "deemed" it passed. My question is... Does "deemed" still count as an act of the House of Representatives. That is the question... and you can be damned sure that if Republicans claim that Obama-Care is void because it was "deemed"... then Dems will cry bloody murder then "RACISM"! Not necessarily in that order. Like you I see some silver lining about the deemed argument, but I have not seen it anywhere else other than in this clip.
Thanks for this.
Too busy spreading icing on my head right now. Then I'm gonna pop a candle into my cranium and crash someones birthday party.
Good morning there cupcake! I hope you had a good sleep with no bad dreams about us cave-ins and sell outs to fear.
Here's a good article by Ben Shapiro. I have a love/hate thing with him about 80/20 percent of the time. His argument is constitutional. Yours is political. My position is the same as Shapiro's who says the constitution trumps the political. Not that the political is invalid, but that the constitutional has been manipulated far too long... and this is the case that Shapiro makes. Interested to know what you think.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2012/06/28/Now-Constitution-Up-To-You
I was not thoroughly wedded to either opinion because I was looking for more arguments. I don't think it's weak... but just fair and rational. I just feel that Levin's was the most sound from a constitutional stand... and that trumps the political imho.
But you are right... I do hope Levin does not have a heart attack... but I always appreciate his take... and he's like a grumpy old gramps... you know he's right even if his delivery is not so nice.
I will, in spite of your malleable nature. Hopefully you are not continuously hammered in "like" fashion.
I got a few extra "like" shekels you can borrow from me to put in the slot.
P.S. I indeed changed my opinion. Btw... I read Krauthammer's and skimmed a few others and read as well the one you posted. Your article I thought the analysis was plausible politically. Certainly not asinine (don't know why that dis was used)... but constitutionally, Levin nailed it and blew all of them out of the water. But you stood your ground... hold you head high.
Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.