View Full Version : Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare
From Obama’s perspective, he must be very concerned that 15 of the “57″ states are rejecting his signature legislation. After all, it has only been two weeks since the SCOTUS ruling. That’s probably why he hasn’t mentioned a peep about it – that I have heard – since his short, bittersweet victory speech the day of the ruling.
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/07/10309-follow-up-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/
i think his speech was ill prepared and he was struck with surprise with the decision. i think it also sealed his loss in November.
lpgasman
07-14-2012, 22:41
Well, when you throw in Mexico, we probably have "57 states"[Bang]
BPTactical
07-14-2012, 22:45
i think his speech was ill prepared and he was struck with surprise with the decision. i think it also sealed his loss in November.
I also thought the same thing, while he tried to appear happy he was off center. I feel that the ruling solidified more than a few undecided voters.
Hell, even a percentage of typical libs were adamantly opposed to this plan.
Roberts called BO's bluff.
Bullshit!
If Roberts was to make the right "long term" decision he would have struck down this law. Insiders are saying that he originally was on the side of striking it down but then changed his opinion.
Apparently the dissenting justices were Effing pissed about it and refused to even recognize the majority ruling.
I'm sick and tired of hearing the bloggers say, "this was good long term" and "this was paying Obama back for past transgretions" Yada yada yada
Roberts wasn't playing a complex game of chess. He sided with a bunch of tyrannical ass hats that want to control every aspect of our lives.
End of story.
beast556
07-15-2012, 01:22
+1 I have to go with this also. Well said Bryan.
Bullshit!
If Roberts was to make the right "long term" decision he would have struck down this law. Insiders are saying that he originally was on the side of striking it down but then changed his opinion.
Apparently the dissenting justices were Effing pissed about it and refused to even recognize the majority ruling.
I'm sick and tired of hearing the bloggers say, "this was good long term" and "this was paying Obama back for past transgretions" Yada yada yada
Roberts wasn't playing a complex game of chess. He sided with a bunch of tyrannical ass hats that want to control every aspect of our lives.
End of story.
TheBelly
07-15-2012, 01:58
From my limited understanding, Americans do not understand economics. They simply just don't care enough to do their homework, and then translate that into a vote.
From my limited understanding, Americans do not understand economics. They simply just don't care enough to do their homework, and then translate that into a vote.
FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We're going to make history!
TheBelly
07-15-2012, 02:57
Thanks Irving....
Sad as it may be that was pretty much the mindset that elected him, that and the clowns thinking he was going to give them everything for free.
theGinsue
07-15-2012, 05:01
Not buying it either. Justice Roberts is a fool!
Not buying it either. Justice Roberts is a fool!
^^^ Yep.
FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT! YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We're going to make history!
Not according to Morgan Freeman.
mevshooter
07-15-2012, 10:48
Not according to Morgan Freeman.
Yeah... the racism that the extremists in the black community have against people of mixed ethnicity almost surpasses their hate for us white folk.
Based on the law of unintended consequences...you can count on being told to grab your ankles to grin and bear it. The larger issue here is that precedence has been set (no limits on taxation) and it is open season on the largely uninformed electorate.
Zundfolge
07-15-2012, 15:57
Bullshit!
If Roberts was to make the right "long term" decision he would have struck down this law. Insiders are saying that he originally was on the side of striking it down but then changed his opinion.
Apparently the dissenting justices were Effing pissed about it and refused to even recognize the majority ruling.
I'm sick and tired of hearing the bloggers say, "this was good long term" and "this was paying Obama back for past transgretions" Yada yada yada
Roberts wasn't playing a complex game of chess. He sided with a bunch of tyrannical ass hats that want to control every aspect of our lives.
End of story.
^THIS!
I still think Obama and his Chicago buddies found some dirt on Roberts and blackmailed him into changing his position. Still makes him a schmuck.
I understand the desire to look for a sliver lining in this cloud of shit, but unless this ruling causes the house and senate to fall into constitutionalist/Tea Party hands, Romney to both win the white house AND have a come-to-Jesus moment where he becomes a constitutionalist/Tea Party type and we get a handful of constitutional amendments preventing the fed.gov from even thinking of pulling something like this Obamacare crap again THEN we can claim there was a silver cloud to Robert's treason.
However giving Roberts credit for what may end up being a positive outcome is akin to giving Hitler credit for creating the nation of Israel.
buffalobo
07-15-2012, 17:11
Bullshit!
If Roberts was to make the right "long term" decision he would have struck down this law. Insiders are saying that he originally was on the side of striking it down but then changed his opinion.
Apparently the dissenting justices were Effing pissed about it and refused to even recognize the majority ruling.
I'm sick and tired of hearing the bloggers say, "this was good long term" and "this was paying Obama back for past transgretions" Yada yada yada
Roberts wasn't playing a complex game of chess. He sided with a bunch of tyrannical ass hats that want to control every aspect of our lives.
End of story.
Damn straight.
Isn't the Tea Party run by the Coch brothers now?
Singlestack
07-15-2012, 21:35
Although Roberts' ruling did weaken the commerce clause as justification for everything liberal, it opened pandoras box on the tax front. Even if the Republicans win congress and the white haus in November, some time in the future dems will have control again after the Republicans do something stupid again. Then they will pass additional "taxes" to control more and more elements of our lives. One thing Beeho's presidency has shown everyone on all sides is how much a president can get away with if he disregards law, the constitution, oath of office, etc. In short, consequences be damned. They will take the hit in future elections if they can continue to "fundamentally transform" America, but I think thats a tradeoff the dems are willing to make. Impossible to predict the future, but my bet is on constitutional crises, power grabs, and increased possibility of economic collapse/massive civil unrest.
Singlestack
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.