jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (23 posts)

Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of up

  1. Marisaupa profile image59
    Marisaupaposted 5 years ago

    Conservatives, how do you feel about Chief Justice Roberts siding in favor of upholding ObamaCare?

    In what can only be characterized as a victory for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision which basically upholds the The Affordable Care Act.  Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority decision and was the swing vote in the decision siding with the 4 left leaning justices.  Conservatives.. do you feel betrayed by Roberts?  Do you worry about what this might imply for future decisions from the Court?

    https://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/6823278_f260.jpg

  2. profile image0
    Longhunterposted 5 years ago

    In his Obamacare ruling, John Roberts called the president a tax-and-spend liberal.

    http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/oba … -zH-XCr-_M

    Roberts may have actually helped the Republicans. By coming down on the side he did, the bad law can now be used against Obama. With 21 new taxes, Obama has most certainly become the biggest tax-and-spend president in the history of this country.

    Now it's up to the Republicans to capitalize on that EVERY CHANCE THEY GET.

    Couple that with a horrible economy, we just might have the makings for a landslide election for Romney.

    There's a silver lining, no matter how thin, to everything.

    1. Conservative Lady profile image74
      Conservative Ladyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I absolutely agree Longhunter - I hope the Republicans see what an opportunity they have here!

    2. harmony155 profile image70
      harmony155posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Please read Romneycare before the November election: you'll be surprised how similar it is to Obamacare!

  3. Mitch Alan profile image81
    Mitch Alanposted 5 years ago

    This is a sad day for the Constitution and the Nation.  For the first time in our history the federal government will not mandate that it's citizens purchase a product or service whether they want to or not.  It flies in the face of the 1st and 10th Amendments, the original intent of the "commerce clause" and good policy in general.  It has, and will increase prices, reduce choice and lower quality.  It's not about politics...it's about the Constitution, freedom and good economics.

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
      wba108@yahoo.composted 5 years agoin reply to this

      It is indeed a very sad day, our freedom is at stake and has been for quite some time! The government can now compell us to buy thier lousy insurance, America has surcome to tyranny!

    2. harmony155 profile image70
      harmony155posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Do you prefer to give free healthcare to immigrants and "free riders"? Fyi: This bill does not affect you if you have medical insurance through your employer. It does not affect you if you have Medicaid or Medicaid.

  4. AlexDrinkH2O profile image81
    AlexDrinkH2Oposted 5 years ago

    He was right to state the individual mandate was unconstitutional with respect to the Commerce Clause, but he left the administration with an out by declaring, essentially, that it can be imposed as a tax.  Now, Obama and the Democrats stated over and over again that the mandate was NOT a tax (I've seen and heard the clip today several times with Obama adamantly denying it was a tax).  So what do his lawyers do in arguing before the Supreme Court?  They argue it's constitutional because (everybody say it together now) it's a TAX!  The president comes out today and brags about this "victory" but assiduously avoids the word "tax."  I'm sure Chief Justice Roberts had his reasons to rule the way he did so I'm not going to criticize him but his vote is disappointing.  I agree that the court has handed the GOP a great issue to focus on in this election, and has rejuvenated the Tea Party as well.

    1. FitnezzJim profile image83
      FitnezzJimposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      In a way, this is hilarious.  To actually put this law into affect they have to go and change the tax law, and my guess is the resulting tax law will be voted through Congress without being read.  Funny in a sad sort of way.

  5. FitnezzJim profile image83
    FitnezzJimposted 5 years ago

    From the time it was originally passed, both factions of the press have been dutifully ignoring the fact that fourteen of our States were not faithfully represented by their individual Senators.  A majority of the States sued to have the law overturned.  That in itself indicates that our government has changed from the balanced People/State representation system designed into our original Constitution into a clearly partisan system.  No matter which way the Supreme Court ruled, that fundamental problem of partisan representation (where elected officials owe allegiance to their party rather than to their constituency or their State) is still there.
    Essentially, and without even mentioning that they recognized the underlying systemic imbalance, the Supreme Court just upheld partisan government, and struck down States rights.

  6. profile image0
    Old Empresarioposted 5 years ago

    They did this to overshadow their recent suppression of the Montana Supreme Court's decision to uphold that state's laws on anti-corporate campaign contributions in elections. The US Supreme Court overturned 200 years of federal tradition in 2010, and again a few days ago, by considering corporations to be "American citizens" who could contribute unlimited capital to a political campaign. This caused a big enough stir that the court that is doing something more progressive to draw attention away from something that may lead to an uprising in Montana.

    1. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
      wba108@yahoo.composted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You are severely mistaken my friend, the real issue is to uphold the 1st amendment which the court did.

    2. profile image0
      Old Empresarioposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Sure it did. You're right. A corporation, as a collective financial venture with the singular goal of making money for its investors, is entitled to all of the same rights as any citizen. That's just what Madison had in mind with the 1st Amendment.

    3. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
      wba108@yahoo.composted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Corporate personhood is "straw man" argument. The point is that speech not the speaker  is what is protected by the first Amendment.

  7. scottwkelley profile image59
    scottwkelleyposted 5 years ago

    I have a prediction...As this was defined as a tax, and we know we all love taxes, don't we? It will only take 51 votes in the senate to over turn any new tax, which we all love. We all got a raise this year and can afford it, right?
    So I predict any one in the house that votes for the new care tax will probably be replaced and is sure death for their position.
    While I believe their is a better way I can not see how the insurance companies could sustain unless the Government gives them money to pay for the insurance for all with no denials or caps.
    Medicaid and Medicare should be the focus and since it is already in place congress could increase the tax and figure out the costs for everyone.
    But are we willing to pay for it? I think we already are.
    I thought the judgement of saying states are protected from having funding's cut if they do not expand was good and sound.
    But the Judge did a political move for the people to decide and i hope the people who will vote on this will do the right thing and not impose a new tax when all they really have to do is fix the system that is in place today and make it available to those who can not afford medical insurance. Most people I know in the State of Michigan that are below poverty receive free care today through Medicaid and Medicare, Me: I am a VET and use the VA, no one has talked about how this will effect Veterans who use the VA for their Medical Needs. And by the way, in comparison to the Private Health Care System the VA is way superior and I wish everyone could get the type of Care I receive from the VA because the Private sector really sucks.

  8. Wayne Brown profile image85
    Wayne Brownposted 5 years ago

    Roberts decision today did just exactly the opposite of what he intend.  His intent was to show the Supreme Court as a body reasoned in objectivity yet his rationale for his vote rang even more hollow than the pleadings of the government lawyers pushing to allow the law to stand in light of the Constitution.  Basically, Roberts attempt to reason that he took his position on the basis that he was "allowing the will of the people to stand."  He explains this position with the reasoning that the law was created by elected representatives of the people and therefore the result is something which is the "will of the people".  His explanation plainly ignores the Constitution and the validity ofthe law relative to that document.  Few justices have rendered a decision which will be more damning to the American public that this one.  ObamaCare was never vetted in the Legislative Branch but in effect more of just a product created and approved in a backroom deal on Saturday night.  By allowing it to stand, the ruling throws open the doors for even greater deviation from Constitutional guidance on future issues.  In effect, this ruling just set America adrift on a sea which has no sailing orientation and offers no real destination.  History will note the grievous error of this decision and the failure of the last bastion of protection with regard to the Constitution as a milestone in the destruction of America and the platform on which she stood.  Today we received official notification that the third and final branch in the triad of checks and balances in Constitutional governance has also shirked its sworn duty to protect and serve our Founding Document.  History will record this as a sad day on which America headed down the road to its own demise. WB

    1. scottwkelley profile image59
      scottwkelleyposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      A sad day indeed. We sent a message in the last election and we will send another this election.

    2. wba108@yahoo.com profile image81
      wba108@yahoo.composted 5 years agoin reply to this

      I wish you were wrong wayne but Roberts has blatantly neglected to protect the Constitutional protection of Americans and should be removed from office. This nation may well be headed for disaster if we don't change course. Time to pray hard!

  9. American Romance profile image59
    American Romanceposted 5 years ago

    The justice has opened the door to allow government to force the people to purchase or be fined anything they desire.  They can now say we need to support the American Industry and if you don't purchase an American made vehicle we will fine you, If you don't purchase goods made in America we can fine you, If you travel for vacation outside the US we can fine you for not supporting American hotels, If you drink coconut juice we can fine you for not drinking American water...........etc.................saddest day in my life for America.

    1. harmony155 profile image70
      harmony155posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      That isnt going to happen and is  an extreme exaggeration.! This bill is intended to be affordable hense the name "affordable care act". It is designed to specifically help those that are uninsured due to "preexisting conditions". Pls read  the bill!

  10. profile image0
    Ghost32posted 5 years ago

    Reckon I qualify as a conservative (except on certain social issues), so here goes:

    1.  For Roberts at this point, I have only scorn and disgust.  I don't feel he betrayed me personally but do feel he betrayed his own (apparently flexible) principles and his oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution.  Much of my reaction to his vote comes from a perusal of the photo showing him smirking a whole lot like Obama at putting one over on the people. It even occurs to me that somebody may have gotten to him, though I'm not leveling that as an accusation, just speculation.

    2.  Worry is not part of my long term makeup, at least when it concerns something I can do nothing about.  What the Court will do, the Court will do.

    3.  I DO agree with those pundits who have been pointing out that this "may" fire up the anti-Obamacare base toward the November elections...except that there's no MAY about it.

    1. harmony155 profile image70
      harmony155posted 5 years agoin reply to this

      You'll be surprised when you read about RomneyCare.... It's shockingly similar to Obamacare!

    2. FitnezzJim profile image83
      FitnezzJimposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      There is a fundamental difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare that should not be overlooked.  RomneyCare is a State level care system.  ObamaCare is a federal level care system.  I believe Romney favors States choosing their own system.

 
working