Justice Roberts' decision was sound
-
Print
-
Create a hardcopy of this page
-
Font Size:
-
Default font size
-
Larger font size
Posted: Thursday, July 5, 2012 12:00 am
|
Updated: 6:26 am, Thu Jul 5, 2012.
Justice Roberts' decision was sound
Jerry Osgood's letter, "It's time to take our country back," June 30, succinctly covered the major events caused by the present federal administration and Senate that have placed our beloved nation in its most critical position in its relatively short history.
His grasp of the reasons our Chief Justice voted as he did are right on, I think. In my opinion Justice Roberts, in his unexpected action, chose to put the issues of government control of medical care and out-of-control entitlement expenditures in the hands of the populace. Taken at face value his decision may be bizarre, but his purpose may well prove to be right. It is up to all of us to replace the present federal (and local) administrations and self-serving politicians with people who have our nation's health at heart.
Four more years of "socialistic fascism," as Mr. Osgood aptly described it, which has already deeply eroded our country's worldly status, will sound the death knell of our wonderful nation as we have known it. As he said, "Vote the gangsters out!"
Jack Barnard
Stockton
Posted in
Letters
on
Thursday, July 5, 2012 12:00 am.
Updated: 6:26 am.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thanks for visiting Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 free articles every 30 days. You will see 10 articles for free before being asked to register, and then you can view 10 additional articles by registering or logging in. Then, if you enjoy our site and want full access, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thanks for visiting Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 free articles every 30 days, and you currently have (%remaining%) free articles remaining ((%remaining_reg%) before being asked to register and (%remaining_sub%) before being asked to subscribe). Then, if you enjoy our site and want full access, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thanks for visiting Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 free articles every 30 days, and you currently have (%remaining%) free articles remaining ((%remaining_reg%) before being asked to register and (%remaining_sub%) before being asked to subscribe). Then, if you enjoy our site and want full access, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thanks for visiting Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 free articles every 30 days, and you currently have (%remaining%) total free articles remaining ((%remaining_reg%) before being asked to register and (%remaining_sub%) before being asked to subscribe). Then, if you enjoy our site and want full access, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thank you for reading Lodinews.com. You have viewed (%viewed%) of your 20 free pages in 30 days. Please login or register at this time and enjoy the next (%remaining%) articles free of charge. After your 20 free articles, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thank you for reading Lodinews.com. Because you have already viewed this article, you may view it again as many times as you would like without subtracting from your remaining free article views.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thank you for registering on Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 articles for free every 30 days, and you currently have (%remaining%) remaining. Then, if you enjoy our site and want full access, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thank you for reading Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 articles for free every 30 days, and you currently have (%remaining%) remaining. Then, if you enjoy our site and want full access, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thank you for reading Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 articles for free every 30 days, and you currently have (%remaining%) remaining. Then, if you enjoy our site and want full access, we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thank you for reading Lodinews.com. You're entitled to view 20 articles for free every 30 days. This is your last free article this period. On your next article we'll ask you to purchase an affordable subscription.
(%remaining%) Remaining
Thank you for reading 20 free articles on our site. You can come back at the end of your 30-day period for another 20 free articles, or you can purchase a subscription at this time and continue to enjoy valuable local news and information. If you need help, please contact our office at 209-369-2761.
Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:24 am on Wed, Jul 11, 2012.
Ms Bobin... what is that saying ...Put up of shut up.... please post your evidence that Bush lied. democrats were saying the same thing as Bush before Bush was president. Were they telling lies too? You appear to be listening to your god, Stewart, too much. Please stop watching comedy shows to substantiate your truth Ms Bobin. Try thinking a bit.
Joanne Bobin posted at 8:59 pm on Tue, Jul 10, 2012.
Far "war" likely. Was that a pun, Mr. Baumbach.
Deniers are always the ones who cry "but I believed!" as they sink in the quicksand. Glug, glug, glug. The fate of those who cannot think for themselves.
Darrell Baumbach posted at 6:57 pm on Tue, Jul 10, 2012.
No... Bush took it seriously and did not lie.You have no evidence he did unless you think Letterman, Stewart and Buggs Bunny are reliable.
Joanne Bobin posted at 5:29 pm on Tue, Jul 10, 2012.
I will make the assumption that you have never been in the military, Mr. Baumbach. Only those who have not or do not know someone who has served can even fathom the devasting sacrifices and after effects.
War should not be taken lightly.
Bush took it lightly.
Now there are 4000+ dead and 30,000+ gravely wounded.
Wake up and get off your idiotic soap box of self-preservation.
Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:42 pm on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.
Ms Bobin stated...What I said was that George Walker Bush and his president, uh, I mean "vice-president" Cheney lied to Congress and the rest of the American people about the level of threat Saddam Hussein
Obviously, Ms Bobin is mistaken...again... She never lets facts get in her way of spreading falsehoods.
Ms Bobin feels free to push liberal talking points that Mr Bush lied but in reality, there is no credible evidence that he did anything but tell the truth.
In fact, it is far war likely that Ms. Bobin lies , not Bush.
Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:36 am on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.
K Lee stated... So, you are saying that Ricky Gill is not so smart.
Hummm...A smart person wouldn't want to have Tina Fey as an imagine associated with themselves... does that mean you are not smart K Lee?
I have always taken a position that smart people can and do make mistakes or bad decisions.
Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:32 am on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.
Mr Kinderman stated...On the other hand when it comes to Ricky Gill, where he might be a smart young man, he's clearly lacking in wisdom...
Mr Kinderman brings wisdom to this topic. Thank you. I would agree that any 25 year old has not even come close to realizing their full potential and will gain knowledge and wisdom throughout his years.
However, in this case, when making a comparison between McNerney and Gill, it is open and shut case for me. McNerney has proven that he is a Pelosi rubber stamp and even if he has wisdom through experience, he is not wise enough to speak his own mind and develop a spine that would allow him to not be classified as a rubber stamp.
Gill on the other hand, though young, will not vote for bills like Obamacare.
So Mr Kinderman is right, wisdom and experience is very valuable. But if one decides to ignore common sense and what wisdom should dictate, then McNerney's “experience “ value becomes void.
Joanne Bobin posted at 9:21 am on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.
The expert on Constitutional law speaks: "Roberts erred from the outset with this terrible and unconstitutional decision."
Joanne Bobin posted at 9:18 am on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.
Mr. Docktor wrote:
"You know Ms. Bobin,
Many people here on these bloggs believe you are a head case. For example: Are you denying many liberal politicians were were for the removal of Saddam because he was a threat?"
You know, Mr. Docktor, that many people here on these blogs believe you are a racist and an Islamaphobe?
You, apparently, still have the inability to read what people write. What I said was that George Walker Bush and his president, uh, I mean "vice-president" Cheney lied to Congress and the rest of the American people about the level of threat Saddam Hussein (my, doesn't his name sound similar to the president's middle name?) was directly to the US.
We all know that SH was a menace to his own people for the multiple decades that he was in power. George Walker Bush and President Cheney just decided to choose a vulnerable moment to fool the public and take him out.
Make all the excuses you like, It doesn't change anything about the lies we were told.
Jerome Kinderman posted at 12:45 am on Mon, Jul 9, 2012.
Lawyers now rank just below used car salesmen. At least the majority of them have earned that distinction. I would think the amount of money it takes to achieve a law degree weighed against the flooded attorney industry (at least in California), it might be logical to assert that choosing to be one nowadays isn't all that smart. Of course that doesn't mean that it would make one lacking in intelligence for desiring it.
On the other hand when it comes to Ricky Gill, where he might be a smart young man, he's clearly lacking in wisdom (in spite of those who for whatever reason believe the opposite to be true). I've already opined not too long ago that the Republican Party should have been able to find someone with just a tad more life experience to shuffle off to the U.S. House of Representatives. Of course that was at a time when I believed Barack Hussein Obama was nearly guaranteed a second term. Clearly things have changed.
Those coattails of the incumbent president aren't all that inviting today - and he himself knows it. So maybe an upstart like Gill, kind of like Obama was in 2008 isn't all that unlikely. Still, it’s a long way to November. Anything can happen. Maybe by then Obama will change his mind and admit that the individual mandate is a tax. That should make his followers very happy indeed.
K Lee posted at 3:14 pm on Sun, Jul 8, 2012.
Darrell Baumbach wrote, "Hummm... I cannot speak for others, but ......I think if one is smart, they wouldn't want to be a lawyer."
Darrell: So, you are saying that Ricky Gill is not so smart.
Jerome Kinderman posted at 10:37 am on Sun, Jul 8, 2012.
The individual mandate could never have been considered a tax. Not only was it not represented as such all during the creation and subsequent "debate" of the bill (“debate” used very loosely in this context), but even now when all is said and done and this president has his victory (ill-gotten as it clearly is), he refuses to acknowledge that it is a tax. Does President Barack Hussein Obama really not understand that we realize we’ve been snookered; that he (and his minions) clearly lied and misrepresented nearly everything having to do with this law from the very beginning?
Roberts erred from the outset with this terrible and unconstitutional decision. If he in fact actually did believe the IM to be a tax, a one-line decision should have rendered the entire law unconstitutional because it was crafted in the wrong chamber of Congress - only the House of Representatives has the authority to create such legislation; not the Senate. Of course not too many people actually know what was going through his head (including Obama) that could help us understand this debacle from his point of view. And he’s under no obligation to share that with us beyond what he wrote in the official opinion.
Thankfully since the first three legs of our government have failed us in this regard, we have the fourth leg of our government – We the People – who will have the final word in November regarding not only this law, but whether or not the President of the United States should be fired for gross incompetence. Am I 100% certain of the wisdom of the People? No, but at least there are now many more who are finally waking up from this nightmare of “hope and change” who are giving me a lot more confidence that we’ll be able to recover before it’s too late.
Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:47 pm on Sat, Jul 7, 2012.
Unfortunately for Ms bobin, she does not have the ability to articulate the specifics as to what she thinks is ridiculous and why ... she simply enjoys throwing verbal fire bombs and running away without explaining herself. Maybe she is just intellectually lazy. Whatever the reason, I hope she someday educates herself to articulate her thoughts as it would be interesting to discover why she throws all thows stink bombs.[wink]
Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:40 pm on Sat, Jul 7, 2012.
Mike stated...If all you conservatives contributors are so smart and know so much about the law, why aren't you lawyers?
Hummm... I cannot speak for others, but ......I think if one is smart, they wouldn't want to be a lawyer.
Andrew Liebich posted at 8:22 am on Sat, Jul 7, 2012.
The use of offensive military force by a President without prior and clear authorization of an Act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under article II, section 4 of the Constitution.
One need not be an attorney to understand that president Obama violated the War Powers Act by involving America in a war in Libya without getting congressional approval.
Mike Adams posted at 7:44 am on Sat, Jul 7, 2012.
"According to a report in the Pakistan Observer...." Oh please!!! How lame is this?
What was this citation number 110,008 on google?
If all you conservatives contributors are so smart and know so much about the law, why aren't you lawyers? I didn't notice that weasel was one of the Supreme Court justices? Or that he could practice law in a federal court or even a state court for that matter. Lot's of second guessing by amateurs who don't even have the slightest idea about the function of government set up in the Constitution. Even less about the judiciary branch.
Andrew Liebich posted at 10:07 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
All of the above blind Bobin...
Andrew Liebich posted at 10:05 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
Ms. Bobin so desperately wants to believe the US "does not have a dictator" but by definition of the word the facts she chooses to ignore say otherwise....
Facism is defined as "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator"
On June 9, 2011, President Obama issued a sweeping executive order (#13575) for a White House Rural Council. How is that not a "centralization of authority" Ms. Bobin?
In addition, the White House issued an executive order that creates a council of state governors.
Rather than elected representatives being in control of states, Obama has created a body of ten lapdogs who answer to the federal government and not the American people.
Again, How is that not a "centralization of authority" Ms. Bobin?
Brian Dockter posted at 7:42 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
Ms. Bobin,
Are you suggesting we just ignore what many liberal politicians said leading up to the war in Iraq because they really didn't mean what they said? I've always gotten the impression from you that liberals never lie. Oh wait, they don't lie. They just misspeak.
Brian Dockter posted at 7:37 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
You know Ms. Bobin,
Many people here on these bloggs believe you are a head case. For example: Are you denying many liberal politicians were were for the removal of Saddam because he was a threat?
Joanne Bobin posted at 4:11 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
No, I'm not confused, Mr. Baumbach.
Apparently, you think this is an accurate portrait of our government. You are a very sad and sick example of an American citizen if you believe our government fits the above definition.
RUN, DON'T WALK, all the way to Thailand. Why wait? Leave and be happy!
Joanne Bobin posted at 4:09 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
It is just amazing how far conservatives will go to try to prove that they are correct. The amount of ignorance displayed is just horrifying.
Mr. Baumbach and Mr. Liebich should be ashamed by promulgating such ridiculous postulations.
Joanne Bobin posted at 4:07 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
Mr. Baumbach wrote: "A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism."
And which part of this describes the US Government, Mr. Baumbach?
Joanne Bobin posted at 4:05 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
So sad that committed conspiracy theorists create their own versions of political philosophies that fit their needs.
The US does not have a dictator, as both you and Mr. Kinderman like to claim, unless you REALLY believe that the Constitution, Congress, the military, and the Supreme Court would allow one.
Pea soup seems to dominate your considerable mental acuity, Mr. Liebich.
Joanne Bobin posted at 4:00 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
HA HA. You are joking.
Too bad your intellect does not allow you to put the pieces together. Along with all of the other events you left out.
What a juvenile effort to support your former president, Mr. Baumbach!
Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:43 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
Oh... you want more quotes from liberals?
""The community of nations may see more and more of the very kind of threat Iraq poses now: a rogue state with weapons of mass destruction, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists. If we fail to respond today, Saddam and all those who would follow in his footsteps will be emboldened tomorrow." -- Bill Clinton in 1998
"Iraq is not the only nation in the world to possess weapons of mass destruction, but it is the only nation with a leader who has used them against his own people." -- Tom Daschle in 1998
"There's no question that Saddam Hussein is a threat... Yes, he has chemical and biological weapons. He's had those for a long time. But the United States right now is on a very much different defensive posture than we were before September 11th of 2001... He is, as far as we know, actively pursuing nuclear capabilities, though he doesn't have nuclear warheads yet. If he were to acquire nuclear weapons, I think our friends in the region would face greatly increased risks as would we." -- Wesley Clark on September 26, 2002
"What is at stake is how to answer the potential threat Iraq represents with the risk of proliferation of WMD. Baghdad's regime did use such weapons in the past. Today, a number of evidences may lead to think that, over the past four years, in the absence of international inspectors, this country has continued armament programs." -- Jacques Chirac, October 16, 2002
Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:38 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
What is the difference between what Obama did and what George WALKER Bush did? Oh, that's right, Bush lied to Congress ...
Ms Bobin is confused...again... before Bush was president the following took place...
"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." -- From a letter signed by Joe Lieberman, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara A. Milulski, Tom Daschle, & John Kerry among others on October 9, 1998
"Saddam's goal ... is to achieve the lifting of U.N. sanctions while retaining and enhancing Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs. We cannot, we must not and we will not let him succeed." -- Madeline Albright, 1998
"(Saddam) will rebuild his arsenal of weapons of mass destruction and some day, some way, I am certain he will use that arsenal again, as he has 10 times since 1983" -- National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, Feb 18, 1998
"Iraq made commitments after the Gulf War to completely dismantle all weapons of mass destruction, and unfortunately, Iraq has not lived up to its agreement." -- Barbara Boxer, November 8, 2002
Darrell Baumbach posted at 3:32 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
Evidently, Ms Bobin is confused...again...
fas·cism (fshzm)
n.
1. often Fascism
a. A system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator, stringent socioeconomic controls, suppression of the opposition through terror and censorship, and typically a policy of belligerent nationalism and racism.
Andrew Liebich posted at 2:09 pm on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
Apparently Ms. Bobin does not care for yourdictionary.com's definition of facism...LOL
http://www.yourdictionary.com/fascism
I can only assume she won't like the definition found...
Here: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascism
or here:dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Fascism
or here either... http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Fascism
[beam]
As far as Libya... WAKE UP!
The UN Resolution did NOT authorize member states to support rebels, defend armed insurgent groups, remove Qaddafi from office, or take steps to prevent Qaddafi’s use of mercenaries. However, that’s precisely what US, NATO and EU forces did.
Even as Obama promised not to send US troops into another warzone, 2,200 Marines from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit were dispatched to Libya.
According to Pentagon spokesman Capt. John Kirby, the Al-Qaeda backed rebel siege was directed by British SAS troops, along with American and French Special Forces.
According to a report in the Pakistan Observer, hundreds of special forces personnel from the US, Britain and France arrived on February 23 and 24 in “American and French warships and small naval boats off Libyan ports of Benghazi and Tobruk.”
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=78009
You know nothing!
P.S. "What is the difference between what Obama did and what George WALKER Bush did?"
Simple. Bush sought CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL as our Constution requires.
Joanne Bobin posted at 11:28 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
Mr. Liebich - get over Libya already. No American lives were lost, there were no "boots on the ground." All the president did was contribute fire power.
What is the difference between what Obama did and what George WALKER Bush did? Oh, that's right, Bush lied to Congress and the American public about Saddam HUSSEIN's involvement in 9/11 and his "weapons of mass destruction."
Lives lost to date: 4000+
Wounded: 30,000+
Quit whining and get over it just because you and Mr. Kinderman hate Obama.
Joanne Bobin posted at 11:22 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
Mr. Kinderman wrote: "Actually Mr. Nelson, Roberts did not make his decision based upon the "constitutionality of the law;" because if he had done so, he would have had to have found the law (as it stood and was argued by both sides) unconstitutional. And President Obama agrees."
Actually, Mr. Kinderman, the Solicitor General did make an arguement for considering the mandate a "tax" under Congresses power to tax and spend, although this was just a small, last ditch effort just in case the Supremes didn't see the mandate as constitutional under the Commerce Clause.
Look it up and stop making false, ignorant claims as is your wont.
Joanne Bobin posted at 11:18 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
And the more ignorant pile on.
Joanne Bobin posted at 11:17 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
Mr. Liebich - you had better recheck your definition of "facism." You sound ignorant.
Andrew Liebich posted at 9:38 am on Fri, Jul 6, 2012.
HCR 107 has been virtually ignored by the corporate establishment media.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.CON.RES.107:
Jerome Kinderman posted at 1:06 pm on Thu, Jul 5, 2012.
. . . "For example, when a president violates the War Powers Act and involves America in a war in Libya without getting congressional approval . . ."
While Americans stand idly by saying/doing nothing.
Jerome Kinderman posted at 1:03 pm on Thu, Jul 5, 2012.
Actually Mr. Nelson, Roberts did not make his decision based upon the "constitutionality of the law;" because if he had done so, he would have had to have found the law (as it stood and was argued by both sides) unconstitutional. And President Obama agrees.
The mandate was declared in the bill and subsequent law and argued by both the plaintiff and defendant to be a penalty. Such distinction is important. Instead, Chief Justice Roberts actually changed the law to determine the penalty to be a tax. This allowed him to uphold it.
Obama now is enjoying his cake and dining on it happily as well - talk about hypocrisy! It matters not to this so-called Constitutional scholar that his victory was won through a colossal blunder by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Obama knows like everyone else out here that the mandate is a penalty. Politically speaking, this is what Obama must have all of us believe if he doesn’t want to get whacked in November for raising taxes; after all this was one of his promises. But he also promised integrity and transparency too.
Not that it matters much at this point in time, who are we to side with? Roberts gave the administration their healthcare system; but in doing so in the manner in which he did, he's no better than all of those who succumbed to whatever pressure was brought to bear during the crafting and passing of the legislation in the first place. But this president doesn't care - just so long as he gets his “signature” legislation enacted.
So much for integrity in the Judicial, Executive and Legislative branches of our government. If I'm not mistaken, we have nothing left to rely upon to protect us. The Constitution has been rendered impotent.
Andrew Liebich posted at 11:51 am on Thu, Jul 5, 2012.
Facism is a system of government marked by centralization of authority under a dictator,
For example, when a president violates the War Powers Act and involves America in a war in Libya without getting congressional approval...
Joanne Bobin posted at 10:08 am on Thu, Jul 5, 2012.
Wow, the LNS considers N azi a profanity? That certainly limits one's ability to reflect on things historical.
Joanne Bobin posted at 10:06 am on Thu, Jul 5, 2012.
Amazing that Jerry Osgood's nonsense has spread all the way from Galt to Stockton.
Both Mr. Kinderman and Mr. Baumbach have rightly determined that Mr. Barnard doesn't even know what he is talking about with regard to Roberts decision, but he certainly agrees that Jerry Osgood is "right on."
The first thing that should be questioned is why both Osgood and Barnard believe there IS such a thing as "socialistic facism."
Since facism contains the essential component of uniting a country by creating a nationalistic identity - shared ancestry and culture, etc. - and eliminating foreign influences and those deemed unfit as did the N azis with Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, mentally and physically disabled people...and the list goes on....I don't know how these two mental giants can label Obama a facist.
Remember, Mr. Barnard...he eliminated DADT, came out in favor of same-sex marriage, is pro the DREAM Act, wants healthcare for all, and he is partially of African American heritage?
Osgood and Barnard should be immediately dismissed just based on their agreement on the term "socialistic facism," let alone their convoluted opinions on the Supreme Court.
Charles Nelson posted at 10:06 am on Thu, Jul 5, 2012.
The answer is simple gentlemen.The people are responsible for who we put in office. If the people don't like the decisions being made by those that they elect, then they need to pay more attention to what they stand for when it's time to vote. Roberts made his decision on the constitutionality of the law, that's his job. He did not give it his personal endorsement by saying it was legal. The purpose of the Supreme Court is to uphold the Constitution and it's principles. Personal feelings are supposed to be left at the chamber door.
Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:16 am on Thu, Jul 5, 2012.
Mr Bernard stated...In my opinion Justice Roberts, in his unexpected action, chose to put the issues of government control of medical care and out-of-control entitlement expenditures in the hands of the populace.
Since Obamacare created federal government domination and entitlement of heath care, how does one draw a conclusion that Roberts put it in the hands of people...
Jerome Kinderman posted at 7:26 am on Thu, Jul 5, 2012.
Mr. Barnard claims that Chief Justice Roberts, ". . . chose to put the issues of government control of medical care and out-of-control entitlement expenditures in the hands of the populace" as his reasoning to support this seemingly bizarre decision.
The only problem is that this simply isn't the purpose of the Supreme Court. While many of their decisions may be difficult to reach owing to the complexity of the laws they're tasked to evaluate, when it's all said and done all they’re required to do is determine if what's set before them is in line with the United States Constitution.
It was way out of Roberts' purview to change the law in order to be able to uphold it - which is precisely what he did when determining that the individual mandate was a tax rather than a penalty. Even still, if it were true that the mandate is the former, then the entire health care bill should have been tossed away because it is up to the House of Representatives to create bills having to do with taxation; not the Senate's. In short, it isn't the SCOTUS's purpose to provide civics lessons to We the People as they formulate their opinions regarding the constitutionality of any law brought before it for evaluation.
So to Mr. Barnard I offer a hearty "nice try," but no cigar.