Day by Day: John Roberts

Post image for Day by Day: John Roberts

by W.F. Price on July 5, 2012

Cartoon by Day by Day

{ 59 comments… read them below or add one }

Justinian July 5, 2012 at 12:18

The Real-World Middle Class Tax Rate: 75%

Who wants to man-up an marry a 30-something slut so you can bust your ass just to give away 75% of what you earn?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 59 Thumb down 1
Justinian July 5, 2012 at 12:23

Speaking of Roberts, he’s either an uber-beta or possibly gay.

He got married at age 40 to a similar-aged career woman who was too old to conceive and they had to adopt.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 7
"The One" July 5, 2012 at 12:26

So funny. This is the reality for so many men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 0
Geography Bee Finalist himself July 5, 2012 at 13:29

I guess adoption agencies need better standards.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Keyster July 5, 2012 at 13:35

Here’s the breakdown for those that are confused:

The Individual Mandate (that you must buy health insurance or be subject to a penalty) violates the Commerce Clause. Congress cannot compel someone to purchase something. The non-purchase of insurance is deemed “commerce”. The Individual Mandate is therefore unconsitutional.

BUT, if you call the “penalty” to not buy something a “tax”, Congress is then within its means to compel a purchase of a good or service. BUT legally under the Anti-Injunction Act no Federal Court can hear or issue an injunction against a tax until the date that tax takes effect or is being paid.

IOW, by calling the penalty a tax he clearly violates the Anti-Injunction Act by hearing AND ruling on the case at all post facto! Not only that, there is no written reference to the “penalty” being a tax in the bill. It was only brought up in passing (by Roberts!) during oral arguments as another way to approach the mandate’s constitutionality.

I can see why the dissent was in such an angry tone.
Frustrating for those four guys, against the 3 women and mangina – with the boss rewriting the legislative language to have it upheld.

It’s not a tax when you get it passed in Congress, but it IS a tax if the Supreme Court declares that it is. Whatever it takes to uphold the bill and not make the first black president look the fool.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 55 Thumb down 4
Anonymous age 70 July 5, 2012 at 13:39

It has been obvious for several decades that all our major violations of the Constitution have either been caused directly by the courts, or brazenly allowed by the courts. The only way we can ever regain control of our nation is to take on the courts.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 5
Rebel July 5, 2012 at 13:50

@Justinian July 5, 2012 at 12:18

The Real-World Middle Class Tax Rate: 75%

Who wants to man-up an marry a 30-something slut so you can bust your ass just to give away 75% of what you earn?”

When you calculate precisely, if a man is the only “breadwinner” in the house, he gets to keep only about 10% of all his earnings for himself.

The other 90% go to the government, the wife and the kids.

Men who chose to play solo can afford to work MUCH less, pay MUCH less taxes and live better.
And this is probably why the “man tax” has been thought of.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 47 Thumb down 0
greyghost July 5, 2012 at 13:57

Looks like we aren’t the only ones noticing things.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
Poester99 July 5, 2012 at 14:18

Here’s the breakdown for those that are confused:

The Individual Mandate (that you must buy health insurance or be subject to a penalty) violates the Commerce Clause. Congress cannot compel someone to purchase something. The non-purchase of insurance is deemed “commerce”. The Individual Mandate is therefore unconsitutional.

But individual states can, if they want to? One of the points that Obama made was that it was mandatory to purchase Car Insurance in every state, so what is the big problem with this, but this would be okay even if it were not ruled a tax if it were individual states that decided to do it that way….
lol .. Everyone would move to another state

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Art Vandelay July 5, 2012 at 14:21

But individual states can, if they want to? One of the points that Obama made was that it was mandatory to purchase Car Insurance in every state, so what is the big problem with this, but this would be okay even if it were not ruled a tax if it were individual states that decided to do it that way….

You can avoid that by not buying a car though. There is no such thing with healthcare.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 5
Firepower July 5, 2012 at 14:29

Firepower is pleased to see Spearhead promote
Day by Day

It puts a lot of truth into a few panels
AND, should be a regular feature.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 11
Anonymous Reader July 5, 2012 at 15:16

A great deal of time and money can be saved in the future Supreme Court decisions – fire all of the clerks, and simply have Roberts telephone the White House for his instructions.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader July 5, 2012 at 15:19

But individual states can, if they want to? One of the points that Obama made was that it was mandatory to purchase Car Insurance in every state, so what is the big problem with this, but this would be okay even if it were not ruled a tax if it were individual states that decided to do it that way….
lol .. Everyone would move to another state

What if I don’t own a car, should the state still require me to buy car insurance?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 0
Anonymous Reader July 5, 2012 at 15:21

Keyster, regarding the decision, two questions:

1. How many feet does a normal dog have?

2. If I call his tail a “foot”, how many feet does he have?

A pity Mark Twain isn’t around to write about this decision, and Chief Mangina Roberts.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0
Uncle Elmer July 5, 2012 at 16:04

My old man sent me a clipping from the WSJ.

Showed a “lactation specialist” advising a woman of color on how to breastfeed.

According to the text, under ObamaCare, all large companies will have to provide breast-pumping facilities and time off for women to breast pump.

I thought, why is Dad sending me this?

Then on the reverse side realized it was an article about an experimental camera featuring an array of 100 14-Mpixel cameras and capable of almost unlimited zoom on features in the same frame.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 1
Gilgamesh July 5, 2012 at 17:27

Great, a man tax and another way to make men pick up the slack for women at work. It’s been about 12 years since people really started getting pissed at the government (the bush vs gore election fraud), maybe this will finally get the ball rolling.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 3
Brendan July 5, 2012 at 17:38

The real problem, gents, is that now there is a precedent on the books that the government can do whatever the hell it wants, because even if it is doing something that is, in substance, unconstitutional, its enforcement of that unconstitutional act in the form of a penalty is a constitutional tax. So basically the government can do whatever the fuck it wants now, as long as they remember to invoke a penalty/tax for failing to abide by the unconstitutional rule.

In essence, this gives the government unlimited powers. It’s like saying this: the government can’t tell you to buy a car, but it can tax you for not having a car. It’s pure solipsism and has set one of the single worst precedents in the history of the jurisprudence of the SCOTUS. I mean, look — Justice Kennedy joined an opinion that basically ignored the Roberts opinion, and scathingly, blisteringly critiqued the result reached. This is Kennedy, who wrote Lawrence v. Texas. Roberts is way, way out there — he has done something that will cause massive damage downstream in the years and decades to come — paving the way for an authoritarian fascist/socialist people’s republic.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
dragnet July 5, 2012 at 18:14

@ keyster

“The Individual Mandate (that you must buy health insurance or be subject to a penalty) violates the Commerce Clause. Congress cannot compel someone to purchase something. The non-purchase of insurance is deemed “commerce”. The Individual Mandate is therefore unconstitutional.”

This graph seems to assert that Congress is forcing participation in the healthcare market by penalizing people who don’t carry health insurance. This logic turns on the idea that people would otherwise not ever participate in the health if it weren’t for the gov’t penalty.

But this is plainly false. At one point or another everyone participates in the healthcare market, whether or not they carry insurance. If an uninsured (poor) person is hit by a car or falls ill and can’t recover on their own they go to the nearest hospital emergency room and avail themselves of medical services. Their inability to pay results in increased insurance premiums for everyone else in the marketplace. It can be argued that Congress is, in fact, regulating a market (commerce) that everyone, at one time or another, is a participant in.

All that said, I do not agree with the individual mandate. I do however support universal healthcare…which means I would have liked to see either, 1) Medicare coverage expanded for all, or 2) each state (or groups of states) provide universal coverage for it’s residents.

Federal gov’t in this manner really doesn’t sit well with me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 10
Anonymous Reader July 5, 2012 at 18:14

Brendan, the Roberts court is probably going to be moot at some point.

Earlier this year, Obama said that he couldn’t pass the DREAM act that effectively offers amnesty to a large category of illegal aliens, not all by himself. Congress had to do that. Then in the last 30 days he basically ordered Homeland Security to “just do it”, i.e. just implement DREAM in regulations. No need for a legislative branch and the judicial one is rapidly turning into a rubberstamp.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Journey July 5, 2012 at 18:39

So the US govt now has the power to use taxes for coercion of the populace. America’s descent continues.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Pops July 5, 2012 at 19:11
TFH July 5, 2012 at 19:19

I think shaming language from the three female justices finally got to Roberts…

He actually changed his opinion from his original one to oppose it.

Did he really marry a woman the same age as him, at 40? If so, his pedestalizer tendencies are demonstrated.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 16 Thumb down 11
Eric July 5, 2012 at 20:07

Keyster:
Although it should duly be noted that the previous Mangina-in-Chief, Bush Junior put Roberts on the court and made him Chief Justice.

The point being that manginas can’t be trusted with power any more than feminists can; they reflexively cave in to female pressure like an involuntary spasm.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
W.F. Price July 5, 2012 at 20:14

Roberts is way, way out there — he has done something that will cause massive damage downstream in the years and decades to come — paving the way for an authoritarian fascist/socialist people’s republic.

-Brendan

Roberts was white knighting for the SCOTUS ladies and the President. Even I wouldn’t have expected something like this.

The Whammer July 5, 2012 at 20:18

Kagan should have recused herself from this case because there was a conflict of interest.
And Roberts should have never even been on the court due to disability. He has epilepsy and takes drugs to control it. Likely drugs like pjenobarbital, Dilantin and Klonopin which is a benzodiazepine like Xanax and Valium. These are drugs that can effect your thinking and judgement.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
ode July 5, 2012 at 21:11

Rebel

The Real-World Middle Class Tax Rate: 75%

Who wants to man-up an marry a 30-something slut so you can bust your ass just to give away 75% of what you earn?

This reminds me a story.
Awhile back I was sitting in the break room at my work during lunch time. I mentioned I was looking into buying a new HDTV. My coworker, who made the same as me, mentioned he saw a pretty good deal for a big screen TV for $1,500 which can be paid in 6 easy monthly installments of $250
*pause*
The first thing that came to my mind was why the hell would anyone need to buy a TV on credit? If I want to buy a TV I’ll just use the money from my savings account. Unless you have the financial common sense of a drunken sailor why pay interest on something you don’t have to? But I had enough sense to keep my mouth shut and smile politely. Then it hit me, this guy is married with kids, that explains why he doesn’t have any money.

So gentlemen if you want to avoid becoming part of the working poor then avoid marriage.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 1
Eric July 5, 2012 at 21:20

Whammer:
Quite interesting that you should bring that up. Roberts’ mental condition wasn’t known to the public until he suffered a seizure and it was reported. Former senator Arlen Specter admitted to the press afterwards that the Senate Confirmation Committee and Bush Junior knew full well about Roberts’ problems but withheld the information during the hearings.

I don’t have a link for that—I think this was in 2007 if anyone wants to look it up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
The Whammer July 5, 2012 at 21:43

Then it hit me, this guy is married with kids, that explains why he doesn’t have any money.

Of course that’s the reason. And if he didn’t have the money why wouldn’t he just save it for 6 months, a very short time, and just buy it when he had the money? You can be sure that he’s going to end up paying a lot more that that $1500 when he doesn’t make his “installments” on time. People who buy things on installments rarely pay it off when they are supposed to and it ends up costing twice as much. He’s a typical married guy. The wife or kids want something and he has to get it NOW whether he has the money or not.
As a bachelor I’ve never bought anything on credit. If I want a car or something I just buy it cash. And the only card I use is Amex which must be paid in full when you get your statement every month.
Marriage is just a drain and a lot of aggravation where you have to contend with the whims of an irrational female. No matter how good she is today she may go off at any time in the future. Even if you’re really rich like a McCartney or Cruise and can’t really be drained of a lot of your money you may still be in for a lot of grief in other ways.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
Norm July 5, 2012 at 21:45

Only good thing about Keagan on Sodomeir(did I spell it right :) ) is that they are in their fifties and do not look like pictures of health.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Eric July 5, 2012 at 21:46

Poester99:
Which brings up an interesting question: so far my plan to deal with Obamacare is the same as I deal with most other government regulations: i.e., ignore them until I’m forced to comply. If I needed heathcare and just opted to pay the fine (which I would pay a doctor anyway) would I be forced to enroll for Obamacare, or go on ignoring it and pay another fine, if the need arises again?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Norm July 5, 2012 at 21:47

I meant to say Keagan and Sodomeir. Your Obamacare is worse than our Canadian health care as yours will be way more expensive and offer less from what I have been reading and researching.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire July 5, 2012 at 22:14

It has been obvious for several decades that all our major violations of the Constitution have either been caused directly by the courts, or brazenly allowed by the courts. The only way we can ever regain control of our nation is to take on the courts.
—————————-

the supreme court, a bunch of guys that make decisions like this behind closed doors that have their jobs for life (never voted out)

a cabal

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire July 5, 2012 at 22:23

You can avoid that by not buying a car though. There is no such thing with healthcare.

———————-
few folks can really make do without an auto though

personally i think auto insurance is a crock too

how many people ever spend anywhere near as much on repairs as they pay in premiums over the life of a new car?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire July 5, 2012 at 22:30

Anonymous Reader July 5, 2012 at 15:16
A great deal of time and money can be saved in the future Supreme Court decisions – fire all of the clerks, and simply have Roberts telephone the White House for his instructions.

————–
a good, sarcastic burn would be to suggest it at liberal forums as a way to save money for entitlement spending

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
The Whammer July 5, 2012 at 22:55

@ Norm- well Ginzberg is 79 so she may be on her way out too :)

This is a good omen-
“Her older sister died when she was very young. Her mother struggled with cancer throughout Ruth’s high school years and died the day before her graduation”

This doesn’t sound good at all-

“From 1961 to 1963 she was a research associate and then associate director of the Columbia Law School Project on International Procedure, learning Swedish to co-author a book on judicial procedure in Sweden. Ginsburg conducted extensive research for her book at the University of Lund in Sweden”

Ther are 3 NY feminist females on the court and 3 liberal Jews. Does that seem like a reflection of the US? These are political appointments and they’re there to push their own opinions that are just cloaked in some legal arguments which is why they can look at a case and come to opposite “opinions”. I’ve read them and could write them myself both for and against the same case.
Look at Roe v Wade. They wanted to make abortions legal (and most people wanted it legal too) so in a convoluted way based on some vague privacy interpretation of the 9th amendment they wrote opinions to support legalising abortion. The Supreme Court is not impartial or are their decisions based on law and precedent. It’s all politics and you never know what’s going on behind the scenes. These 9 justices are just people and are just as biased as anyone else or even more so. The same is true all the way down the line to the lowest courts. You give a judge a little power and the natural human instinct to dominate others and he becomes a dictator.
The men who wrote the Constitution knew this which is why it was all about restricting goverment from doing certain things and making sure that no one got too powerful.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 0
Art Vandelay July 6, 2012 at 00:58

how many people ever spend anywhere near as much on repairs as they pay in premiums over the life of a new car?

Most car insurers pay out around 100% of the premiums they collect so it’s pretty efficient.

I think the point of car insurance isn’t to insure you, it’s just so that if you injure or cause damage to others they are covered (that’s the way it is in Germany).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7
Opus July 6, 2012 at 02:44

I have not understood so much as one word of this thread, but I do appreciate the drawings of those pretty Georgetown houses. Ah memories.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
The Whammer July 6, 2012 at 03:07

Journey July 5, 2012 at 18:39

So the US govt now has the power to use taxes for coercion of the populace. America’s descent continues

Nothing new. What do you think the intent was for the Harrison Tax Act and the Marijuana Tax Act ? It was simply a roundabout way for the Federal Government to control who can posess certain drugs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0
freebird July 6, 2012 at 03:38

There is a ‘backdoor’ that makes obamacare allegedly ‘constitutional:
The IRS is prohibited from collecting the tax,it can be refused on a tax form.
That should please some folks who do pay taxes.
Let’s not get into a private NGO given the enforcement powers of the federal govt…
Same the the private corporation known as the federal reserve,which is neither federal nor has a reserve..
The rabbit hole is deep once one starts digging.

There is no way to ‘pin the tail on the donkey’ when clearly both sides participate in wholesale deception daily.
But I will say I have to vote republican next time around,not that my vote counts,the shadowy electoral college does the voting for me.
They remain unidentified.

The real problem is plutocracy and obligarchy,and nothing so simple is going to fix that.

The fact is at one time ‘the people’ may have had a chance to overthrow such a system,but now technology and superior weaponry make that impossible.

The 2nd was based around having the citizenry having EQUAL arms and greater numbers to enforce the basic concept of “consent of the governed.”

We would all need hydrogen fusion weapons to achieve parity.

Just be glad you’re free enough for now.
A good start would be convincing the local gendarmes it would be in their best interest to go back to keeping the peace,serving and protecting,rather than “regulation enforcement.”

Another part of the problem is erosion of States rights via the commerce clause,and the fact that politics have become a lifetime career for most,selling out at the State level to aspire to a comfy Federal position.

My plan to recruit congressmen from the local population via a lottery with 4 year term limits would fix all this.

No lawyers or attorneys would be allowed.
The fact is the law has become a means to an end.
That end being subversion of “the law.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7
The Whammer July 6, 2012 at 03:45

personally i think auto insurance is a crock too

how many people ever spend anywhere near as much on repairs as they pay in premiums over the life of a new car?

It’s insurance which means that not every policy holder is going to put in a claim. The States have determined that in the public interest that you need to carry liability insurnce to cover any bodily injury or property damage that you may cause to someone else and it’s a good idea because most people are idiots and would cause damage but don’t have the means to pay for it and suing someone with no money or assets would be a waste of time and the injured party would suffer. In fact, I carry extra coverage for uninsured or underinsured motorists in the event that some moron is either uninsured from being canceled for not paying his premium or never had insurance to begin with;or just had the minimum coverage and the damage was way above that. Yes, in effect I’m paying extra to protedt myself from the dumb proles who don’t give a damn because they have no assets to worry about losing.
And btw, there is no State that requires you to insure your own car, house or property from a loss. You’re not required to take comprehensive, fire, theft etc. on your own property(unless some lender requires it as a condition of a loan where they have a lein on the property but that’s a private matter) However, it would be pretty dumb to go out and buy an $80k Mercedes and not get comprehensive and uninsured motorist coverage because if the car is stolen you’re out the money or if some prole with the bare minimum the State requires totals your car you’re still out most of the money.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
The Whammer July 6, 2012 at 04:34

But I will say I have to vote republican next time around,not that my vote counts,the shadowy electoral college does the voting for me.
They remain unidentified.

The electoral college merely votes all of their votes for their State based on who got the majority of the popular vote in that State. And the electors are not unidentified, you can easily find out who they are if you’re interested.
Can one of them vote against the popular vote in a State? Probably, but I don’t believe it has ever happened or if it did and some renegade did it it had no effect on the election. If a State had 30 electoral votes and one electors decided to vote for a candidate who did not get the popular vote then that would be just 1 electoral vote but the other 29 would go to the popular vote winner.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
Keyster July 6, 2012 at 07:45

One of the points that Obama made was that it was mandatory to purchase Car Insurance in every state, so what is the big problem with this, but this would be okay even if it were not ruled a tax if it were individual states that decided to do it that way….

Driving a car is a privilage, just being alive and breathing is not. The STATE decides whether to make having auto insurance mandatory, not the Feds. You have auto insurance should you ram or be ramed by a vehicle, another person, and its part of a no-fault system to save on court costs. How is this like manadatory health insurance?

The auto insurance argument is a fave of liberals, but its not even in the same context of Obamacare.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Keyster July 6, 2012 at 07:48

But I will say I have to vote republican next time around,not that my vote counts,the shadowy electoral college does the voting for me.
They remain unidentified.

If you live in a purple county or state, you should vote Republican. If you live in a hard Red or hard Blue county or state – vote with your heart or don’t bother to vote at all.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Brigadon July 6, 2012 at 09:00

I am writing in ron paul

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Eric July 6, 2012 at 11:50

Keyster:
‘Driving a car is a privilege, living and breathing is not.’

I’ll have to disagree with you there. The State has no right to restrict freedom of movement; and since the roads are publicly funded, they have no right to restrict a person’s use of them. Use of the roads is a right, although it is subject to some general legal restrictions like any property held in common.

It could better be argued that mandatory auto insurance and Obamacare are IDENTICAL scams. In fact, I think a better case could actually be made for socializing auto insurance than for healthcare. The roads are common property; the human body is not.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
freebird July 6, 2012 at 19:19

I’m writing in Ron Paul also.
Let’s see whammer list a single States list of electoral college members.
Ron Paul said on Jay leno’s show he often won the popular vote but never got “elected.”
Back when Buchannan was running,everyone I knew voted for him,but no electoral votes at all.
It’s simply not true the electoral college “merely votes the popular vote.”
Even in the Bush/Gore election Gore had more popular votes.
Another case of ‘heresay’ education making some people dumber than rocks.
Oh, it’s commonly known,BS!
Prove it or GTFO

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 7
Eric July 6, 2012 at 20:13

Freebird:

In my state, voting is completely rigged. We have a ‘vote-by-mail’ system without any transparency whatsoever. Also, we have a ‘closed primary’. The top two candidates who win the primary, regardless of party, are the only two permitted on the general election ballot.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
The Whammer July 6, 2012 at 21:41

Let’s see whammer list a single States list of electoral college members

You may want to get off your arse and ask the board of election where you live. Or is that too much effort for you?

‘It’s simply not true the electoral college “merely votes the popular vote.”
Even in the Bush/Gore election Gore had more popular votes’

The dispute was over who had the most votes in Florida because that candidate would get all of the electoral votes there. There are a few times where a candidate can receive more popular votes in the US as a whole and lose the electoral vote. If you do a little math you’ll figure it out but that’s only because we usually only have 2 candidates running. The system was not set up based on popular vote of the entire US but on who had the most votes in each State and he would win that State and all of the electoral votes. In some elections, like Lincoln in 1860, there were 4 candidates running and Licnoln won the electoral vote with 40% of the popular vote.
The US is not a paliamentary system where the leadero f the party is prime minister if the party gets the majority of seats.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
American July 7, 2012 at 06:27

The media spin doctors have most folks on lockdown as to what to think about Obamacare. The spin doctors have been told to make Obamacare look like socialist medical care, but its actually forced privatization of medical care, thats why the chief justice voted for it. It baffles me how many people are so susceptible to what the media spins to them.
The president doesn’t have grand balls for all the major US media players for no reason folks!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7
American July 7, 2012 at 06:30

The “associated Press” gets told how to spin or “frame” a news story like Obamacare, then all the little spin doctors fallow suit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6
Anonymous July 7, 2012 at 10:46

Speaking of Roberts, he’s either an uber-beta or possibly gay. He got married at age 40 to a similar-aged career woman who was too old to conceive and they had to adopt.

Roberts strikes me as too intelligent, too poised, too good-looking, and too professionally successful to be an “uber-beta”. There’s nothing about him that signals “self-effacing pedestalizer” — so the late marriage + adoption means something different about him.

Gay? Possibly; but given that he is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the world’s sole hyperpower, one would think that there would be some rumors out there about his sexual past now that he is in such a prominent political position. I’ve heard nary a peep about it. Then again, from what I’ve read George W. Bush was known in Texas society as a notorious womanizer at least up until the point where he married Laura, and yet all one heard in the national media was about his excessive boozing rather than the fornication and cocaine use that apparently accompanied it.

There’s a number of possible explanations for his surprising personal CV, and while I have my own theories I would say that he reminds me of Elena Kagan in that he seems a bit “remote” in his demeanor and personal relations.

[It]ts enforcement of that unconstitutional act in the form of a penalty is a constitutional tax. // Justice Kennedy joined an opinion that basically ignored the Roberts opinion, and scathingly, blisteringly critiqued the result reached. This is Kennedy, who wrote Lawrence v. Texas.

Brendan makes some good points about the aberrant logic in the Roberts decision. One should also note that as far as electoral politics go, the pro-Obamacare decision aids Romney and the Republicans more than their opponents, because (modern) political bases are more motivated by repealing hated legislation than rewarding popular legislation. (E.g. Congressional sea change elections of 2006, 2010, 1994, and even Bill Clinton’s 1980 loss of his “Boy Governor”-ship after increasing the Arkansas motor vehicle tax.)

Although given Romney’s promotion of mandatory health insurance in Massachusetts, it is a bit ironic that he could be elected primarily to repeal the national version of his signature political project.

And Roberts should have never even been on the court due to disability. He has epilepsy and takes drugs to control it. Likely drugs like phenobarbital, Dilantin and Klonopin which is a benzodiazepine like Xanax and Valium. These are drugs that can effect your thinking and judgement.

Another surprising factoid. I’ve never heard anyone accuse Roberts of being muddle-headed before this decision, although dubious judgment can be attributed to even the most intelligent of people.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
E July 7, 2012 at 19:56

dragnet

All that said, I do not agree with the individual mandate. I do however support universal healthcare…

Because it works so well? Or because you feel the gov should play mommy to the rest of us.

Federal gov’t in this manner really doesn’t sit well with me

The power of the state is like waving a sword around without a hilt. I wish you people would grow up and understand that.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
ralph gorman July 8, 2012 at 01:21

If the government can tax you for not buying health insurance, it can impose a tax for citizens who refuse to buy a new car every five years. Calling that reulation of commerce is insane. What else would you expect from a Supreme Court justice?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
cassius July 8, 2012 at 11:48

The car insurance argument is a red herring. The problem with Obamacare is the overreach of the federal government, and that does not change by pointing out that states require car insurance. States are legitimately allowed more power over individuals than the federal government.
This is also why calling it a tax does not make it any more legitimate. The federal government is still way over the line in its control over private activity, and by whatever name you call it, there is no limit on the power ans extent of government.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dragnet July 9, 2012 at 07:56

@ E

I support universal healthcare for two main reasons:

1) Healthcare costs are the only costs that market mechanisms have been unable to control or price effectively, and

2) Because the market is unable to effectively control skyrocketing costs, it puts businesses, individuals and the broader economy in jeopardy. How many people are prevented from starting businesses because they are unable to afford healthcare for their employees? How many solid, hard-working middle class families have been driven into bankruptcy over a family illness? How many employers have been put out of business by the skyrocketing healthcare costs of their employees? Too many to count.

Spiralling healthcare costs are bad for the economy and if something isn’t done, economic ruin will be the outcome.

And while we’re at it, let’s not forget the history of the individual mandate. Originally, American liberals favored a single payer system and conservatives decided the employer mandate would be a better fit. Eventually, mainstream liberals came around to the idea of the employer mandate—and then conservatives began to favor the individual mandate. In the 90s, the healthcare platforms of Newt Gingrich and Bob Dole contained an individual mandate for implementation at the federal level. The individual mandate has always been seen as a conservative idea…until Obama decided to use it.

“The power of the state is like waving a sword around without a hilt. I wish you people would grow up and understand that.”

I agree–which is why these are hard issues. Part of being an informed voter is making hard choices about what kind of gov’t involvment you want, to what extent, and why. Getting rid of all state power isn’t a realistic–or even desirable—option. For instance, I favor gov’t regulation/involvement in healthcare and national defense but not on civil liberties and the tax code (ie, I believe in a flat–or radically simplified–tax). Most people who believe in gov’t healthcare also hate the flat tax but those two don’t have to go together and in my case, they don’t.

Saying that any use of state power is bad is useless. And the people who spout stuff like that simply refuse to deal with the hard issues as they are, and as such have no real solutions to offer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower July 10, 2012 at 09:29

Uncle Elmer July 5, 2012 at 16:04

According to the text, under ObamaCare, all large companies will have to provide breast-pumping facilities and time off for women to breast pump.

Wow, a Democrat supports that kind of stuff?

Teach us moar

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Bskillet81 July 26, 2012 at 07:02

The entire bill was, as usual, a huge transfer of hundreds of billions of dollars from productive, hard-working men, to un-productive, jobless or lazy women.

In other words, the same damn thing we’ve been doing since FDR. Roberts attitude was simply, “Why stop now?”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Bskillet81 July 26, 2012 at 07:03

Gay? Possibly; but given that he is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the world’s sole hyperpower, one would think that there would be some rumors out there about his sexual past now that he is in such a prominent political position.

Actually, there were rumors to this affect during his confirmation hearings.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
lee September 21, 2012 at 07:18

Keyster, if the SCOTUS rules it to be Constitutional, then it is.

They have, therefore it is.

The law is not just, right, ethical, moral, consistent or what you wish it to be. It’s a set of instructions like computer code, nothing more.

You disagree, so your options are to appeal or to revolt.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

Previous post:

Next post: