User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:16:12 AM EDT
[#1]
their job is to uphold the bill or rights and constitution.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:24:51 AM EDT
[#2]
The constitution was written to protect the rights of the political minority. If majority rule was good enough, we wouldn't need a constitution much less a bill of rights. We could just go with whatever most people felt good about at the moment and not worry about meeting any constitutional standard.
Instead we DO have a constitution and we DO have a supreme court charged with upholding the highest law of the land. It's their job to tell the political majority "NO" when they want to float something that doesn't pass constitutional muster and/or infringes on the rights of the political minority. John Roberts is wrong. It is absolutely his job to protect people from the consequences of political choices. That's the whole point of having a constitution in the first place. TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLITICAL CHOICES! If the majority voted to...you know...segregate blacks again, would he just shrug his shoulders and say that it's not his job to protect people from the consequences of their political choices? Hey, whatever the majority says goes right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:26:44 AM EDT
[#3]
Nope. It IS their job. If people support a law and their representatives vote for it, and it is passed and signed into law, but it is NOT constitutional, it is the DUTY of the SCOTUS to strike it down.
Checks and balances. It's even for times when a majority support something. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:27:31 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The constitution was written to protect the rights of the political minority. If majority rule was good enough, we wouldn't need a constitution much less a bill of rights. We could just go with whatever most people felt good about at the moment and not worry about meeting any constitutional standard. Instead we DO have a constitution and we DO have a supreme court charged with upholding the highest law of the land. It's their job to tell the political majority "NO" when they want to float something that doesn't pass constitutional muster and/or infringes on the rights of the political minority. John Roberts is wrong. It is absolutely his job to protect people from the consequences of political choices. That's the whole point of having a constitution in the first place. TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLITICAL CHOICES! If the majority voted to...you know...segregate blacks again, would he just shrug his shoulders and say that it's not his job to protect people from the consequences of their political choices? Hey, whatever the majority says goes right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:30:58 AM EDT
[#5]
He fucked is in the "tax" or "penalty" bullshit.It should have died then.
'Course it was a 5-4 vote anyway.  
As far as the Constitution restraining the gov? 
We are so far down the rabbit hole it hardly matters at this point.Government is a huge monster that does nothing but expand under every administration.We the People have failed.Miserably.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:32:23 AM EDT
[#6]
I hate Obamacare as much as the next guy, but explain to me why it's an unconstitutional law. At its core, it is no more unconstitutional than Social Security, Medicare, or any other government-subsidized entitlement program.
Abhorrent, yes... socialist, yes. But unconstitutional? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:33:39 AM EDT
[#7]
They don't seem to have an issue with striking down state laws that were passed by the majority of local voters.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:45:44 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I hate Obamacare as much as the next guy, but explain to me why it's an unconstitutional law. At its core, it is no more unconstitutional than Social Security, Medicare, or any other government-subsidized entitlement program. Abhorrent, yes... socialist, yes. But unconstitutional? And I think that most people would also say that those programs should never have been ruled constitutional either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:46:59 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate Obamacare as much as the next guy, but explain to me why it's an unconstitutional law. At its core, it is no more unconstitutional than Social Security, Medicare, or any other government-subsidized entitlement program. Abhorrent, yes... socialist, yes. But unconstitutional? Being forced to purchase something is constitutional how? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:47:23 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate Obamacare as much as the next guy, but explain to me why it's an unconstitutional law. At its core, it is no more unconstitutional than Social Security, Medicare, or any other government-subsidized entitlement program. Abhorrent, yes... socialist, yes. But unconstitutional? Constitutional in this context doesn't literally mean that something is legally authorized by a certain consortium's famous paper; it's tribal lingo for sacred. Actual scholarly analysis is tangential to the anger. Analysis that reveals overlap between native policy and enemy action gets labeled as defection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:47:30 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
their job is to uphold the bill or rights and constitution. And to prevent government overreach by violation of them which they failed to do with Obamacare, instead signed off on it and passed the blame to ease their guilt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:48:33 AM EDT
[#12]
We are doomed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:48:38 AM EDT
[#13]
If he can be that dismissive about the responsibilities of the Supreme Court, then he doesn't need to be a justice, let alone Chief.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:52:31 AM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
A quote from John Roberts in regards to Obamacare.... Do you agree? The first time the Affordable Care Act came before the Supreme Court, its constitutional foundation under attack, John G. Roberts Jr. was its unlikely savior. In a spectacular display of spot-welding, the chief justice joined fellow conservatives on some points and brought liberals on board for others. Roberts was the only member of the court to endorse the entire jerry-rigged thing, and even he made sure to distance himself from the substance of the law. ("It is,” he wrote, "not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”) Still, his efforts rescued President Obama’s signature achievement on grounds that many had dismissed as an afterthought. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamacare-threatens-to-end-john-robertss-dream-of-a-nonpartisan-supreme-court/2015/02/27/325cd0cc-bcb3-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html Judge Roberts is as corrupt as most all government is today, as one would have to think that as a student of the law and the constitution he knows this and chooses to violate his oath of office.
EDIT; There is no collective right to violate the rights of the individual as he has put forth, in fact that is one of the very things that his job is suppose to protect us from. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:53:59 AM EDT
[#15]
Term limits on EVERYONE.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:55:48 AM EDT
[#16]
Fuck him and his tax.
He should be impeached. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 10:56:13 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
their job is to uphold the bill or rights and constitution. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ DING DING DING!!!!!!!!! WE HAVE A WINNER!!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 11:29:51 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. It IS their job. If people support a law and their representatives vote for it, and it is passed and signed into law, but it is NOT constitutional, it is the DUTY of the SCOTUS to strike it down. Checks and balances. It's even for times when a majority support something. What's more interesting is the dirt they have on him. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 1:52:10 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What's more interesting is the dirt they have on him.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Nope. It IS their job. If people support a law and their representatives vote for it, and it is passed and signed into law, but it is NOT constitutional, it is the DUTY of the SCOTUS to strike it down. Checks and balances. It's even for times when a majority support something. What's more interesting is the dirt they have on him.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 1:59:53 PM EDT
[#20]
I distinctly remember watching the John Roberts nomination hearings.
He said all the right things. He had showed much promise.
At just 60 yo, the Head Druid will probably be running this country for another 25 years.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:02:52 PM EDT
[#21]
if its not his place to protect people from their political choices, then isnt he basically endorsing the tyranny of the majority?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:03:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Everything that needs to be said has been said.
Imagine what this country would look like if the average everyday American were the politicians instead of lawyers. Despite the stupidity of the Average American, I personally believe that we'd be better off governed by functioning retards than lawyers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:04:28 PM EDT
[#23]
If "the people" meaning the majority have elected persons and advocated laws which are anathema to the US Constitution, such as the ACA, it absolutely IS their job.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:04:36 PM EDT
[#24]
If we're just going to have a tyranny of the majority, why the fuck are we paying you to sit your faggot ass on that bench for the rest of your life
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:12:48 PM EDT
[#25]
How about protecting some people from the consequences of other people's choices?
What an ass. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:20:43 PM EDT
[#26]
Roberts is a Judas.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:22:30 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Roberts is a Judas. Whoa! Whoa! Whoa! That's a little harsh on Judas don't you think?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:23:22 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The constitution was written to protect the rights of the political minority. If majority rule was good enough, we wouldn't need a constitution much less a bill of rights. We could just go with whatever most people felt good about at the moment and not worry about meeting any constitutional standard. Instead we DO have a constitution and we DO have a supreme court charged with upholding the highest law of the land. It's their job to tell the political majority "NO" when they want to float something that doesn't pass constitutional muster and/or infringes on the rights of the political minority. John Roberts is wrong. It is absolutely his job to protect people from the consequences of political choices. That's the whole point of having a constitution in the first place. TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLITICAL CHOICES! If the majority voted to...you know...segregate blacks again, would he just shrug his shoulders and say that it's not his job to protect people from the consequences of their political choices? Hey, whatever the majority says goes right? Exactly. This is precisely his fucking job. If the SCOTUS is just going to rubber-stamp anything that makes it through congress and across the president's desk with a signature, they're completely pointless. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:27:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about protecting some people from the consequences of other people's choices? What an ass.  Or would he suddenly figure out what individual rights are?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:37:04 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The constitution was written to protect the rights of the political minority. If majority rule was good enough, we wouldn't need a constitution much less a bill of rights. We could just go with whatever most people felt good about at the moment and not worry about meeting any constitutional standard. Instead we DO have a constitution and we DO have a supreme court charged with upholding the highest law of the land. It's their job to tell the political majority "NO" when they want to float something that doesn't pass constitutional muster and/or infringes on the rights of the political minority. John Roberts is wrong. It is absolutely his job to protect people from the consequences of political choices. That's the whole point of having a constitution in the first place. TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLITICAL CHOICES! If the majority voted to...you know...segregate blacks again, would he just shrug his shoulders and say that it's not his job to protect people from the consequences of their political choices? Hey, whatever the majority says goes right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:39:27 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Being forced to purchase something is constitutional how? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I hate Obamacare as much as the next guy, but explain to me why it's an unconstitutional law. At its core, it is no more unconstitutional than Social Security, Medicare, or any other government-subsidized entitlement program. Abhorrent, yes... socialist, yes. But unconstitutional? Being forced to purchase something is constitutional how? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:43:12 PM EDT
[#32]
Then what good is our republic?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:43:21 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: if its not his place to protect people from their political choices, then isnt he basically endorsing the tyranny of the majority? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:44:22 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You missed the point of Roberts comment. The law was deemed meeting constitutional muster once Obama etal. argued it was a tax, not a fee. Whether you or I dislike the ACA doesn't change that fact. Roberts was simply saying that it is not the job of the SCOTUS to protect the people from bad, but constitutionally valid, laws like the ACA. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
The constitution was written to protect the rights of the political minority. If majority rule was good enough, we wouldn't need a constitution much less a bill of rights. We could just go with whatever most people felt good about at the moment and not worry about meeting any constitutional standard. Instead we DO have a constitution and we DO have a supreme court charged with upholding the highest law of the land. It's their job to tell the political majority "NO" when they want to float something that doesn't pass constitutional muster and/or infringes on the rights of the political minority. John Roberts is wrong. It is absolutely his job to protect people from the consequences of political choices. That's the whole point of having a constitution in the first place. TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLITICAL CHOICES! If the majority voted to...you know...segregate blacks again, would he just shrug his shoulders and say that it's not his job to protect people from the consequences of their political choices? Hey, whatever the majority says goes right? Quoted:
Been that way since the "great society" when the government decided to force you to buy retirement savings (social security) and forced you to buy senior medical insurance (Medicare). ACA is no different, your just arguing it is based on semantics. I would contend that half of what the Warren court approved couldn't genuinely be considered "Constitutional" in any reasonable sense. FDR stacked the shit out of that court, and everyone knows it. My concept of 'Constitutional' is obviously different than theirs, but I can't possibly know anything since I didn't attend an Ivy-league university. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:45:05 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Been that way since the "great society" when the government decided to force you to buy retirement savings (social security) and forced you to buy senior medical insurance (Medicare). ACA is no different, your just arguing it is based on semantics. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I hate Obamacare as much as the next guy, but explain to me why it's an unconstitutional law. At its core, it is no more unconstitutional than Social Security, Medicare, or any other government-subsidized entitlement program. Abhorrent, yes... socialist, yes. But unconstitutional? Being forced to purchase something is constitutional how? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:45:34 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
A quote from John Roberts in regards to Obamacare.... Do you agree? The first time the Affordable Care Act came before the Supreme Court, its constitutional foundation under attack, John G. Roberts Jr. was its unlikely savior. In a spectacular display of spot-welding, the chief justice joined fellow conservatives on some points and brought liberals on board for others. Roberts was the only member of the court to endorse the entire jerry-rigged thing, and even he made sure to distance himself from the substance of the law. ("It is,” he wrote, "not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”) Still, his efforts rescued President Obama’s signature achievement on grounds that many had dismissed as an afterthought. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/obamacare-threatens-to-end-john-robertss-dream-of-a-nonpartisan-supreme-court/2015/02/27/325cd0cc-bcb3-11e4-8668-4e7ba8439ca6_story.html It is true that it is not the court's job to protect people from the consequences of their political choices. Their actual job is to uphold and defend the Constitution. A job they have failed to do spectacularly in a number of cases (though I have to give them credit for Heller). |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:53:10 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If we're just going to have a tyranny of the majority, why the fuck are we paying you to sit your faggot ass on that bench for the rest of your life Well said. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:53:24 PM EDT
[#38]
John "Dred Scott II" Roberts?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 2:55:57 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
America currently has tyranny of the majority, with just some minor constitutional constraints. For example, 51% of the voting populace could, via their representatives, vote to make income taxes on anyone earning over $100k equal to 90%. That would be constitutional. Conversely, 51% of the voting populace could not, via their representatives, vote to make income taxes on whites earning over $100k equal to 90%. That would not be constitutional. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
if its not his place to protect people from their political choices, then isnt he basically endorsing the tyranny of the majority? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 3:36:46 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Your wrong, "nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."(part of the V amendment). How is one justly compensated for his 90% when others pay none and get the same treatment as the guy that pays 90%. Clearly anything but a flat tax is in violation of the constitution. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: if its not his place to protect people from their political choices, then isnt he basically endorsing the tyranny of the majority? Get your head out of your ass. The Bill of Rights is dead. Violations or not, no one has done the needful to stop the bullshit for the past 87+ years. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 3:48:49 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Get your head out of your ass. The Bill of Rights is dead. Violations or not, no one has done the needful to stop the bullshit for the past 87+ years. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
if its not his place to protect people from their political choices, then isnt he basically endorsing the tyranny of the majority? Get your head out of your ass. The Bill of Rights is dead. Violations or not, no one has done the needful to stop the bullshit for the past 87+ years. Nonsense, the bill of rights is alive and well You have a right to lie about conservative white people. You have a right to free shit, said free shit to be determined later. You have a right to free weed. You have a right to free internet. All of your rights are contingent upon NOT being a second class citizen. Those filthy animals are the slaves used to pay for your free shit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 3:50:22 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Everything that needs to be said has been said. Imagine what this country would look like if the average everyday American were the politicians instead of lawyers. Despite the stupidity of the Average American, I personally believe that we'd be better off governed by functioning retards than lawyers. This is why I think SCOTUS should have term limits (like being appointed for one 20-year term) and the House of Representatives should be filled by a draft lottery system. "Got my letter in the mail; gotta go be a Congressman for my district for 2 years." Limited to one two-year term. Senate should revert to being the states' representatives in the Fed Govt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 3:54:08 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Violations or not, no one has done the needful to stop the bullshit for the past 87+ years. And it wont get any better. We the People keep electing the shitbags that take an Oath to the Constitution,and then they do whatever they want and we just keep sending them back. IF we had decent politicians that adhered to the Constitution,SCOTUS would be sitting around waiting for a case to show up now and again.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 3:55:03 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate Obamacare as much as the next guy, but explain to me why it's an unconstitutional law. At its core, it is no more unconstitutional than Social Security, Medicare, or any other government-subsidized entitlement program. Abhorrent, yes... socialist, yes. But unconstitutional? Where in the constitution is the Government given the power to make you buy anything? Doesn't matter if its health insurance or an AR-15... they do not have that authority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 3:56:14 PM EDT
[#45]
Traitor. Based solely on that statement he should be removed from the USSC. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 3:56:32 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This is why I think SCOTUS should have term limits (like being appointed for one 20-year term) and the House of Representatives should be filled by a draft lottery system. "Got my letter in the mail; gotta go be a Congressman for my district for 2 years." Limited to one two-year term. Senate should revert to being the states' representatives in the Fed Govt. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Everything that needs to be said has been said. Imagine what this country would look like if the average everyday American were the politicians instead of lawyers. Despite the stupidity of the Average American, I personally believe that we'd be better off governed by functioning retards than lawyers. This is why I think SCOTUS should have term limits (like being appointed for one 20-year term) and the House of Representatives should be filled by a draft lottery system. "Got my letter in the mail; gotta go be a Congressman for my district for 2 years." Limited to one two-year term. Senate should revert to being the states' representatives in the Fed Govt. I'd rather see Congress meet every 5 years,and get rid of direct election of Senators. Instead of sitting around day after day figuring new ways to control us............. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 3:57:45 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Where in the constitution is the Government given the power to make you buy anything? Doesn't matter if its health insurance or an AR-15... they do not have that authority. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I hate Obamacare as much as the next guy, but explain to me why it's an unconstitutional law. At its core, it is no more unconstitutional than Social Security, Medicare, or any other government-subsidized entitlement program. Abhorrent, yes... socialist, yes. But unconstitutional? Where in the constitution is the Government given the power to make you buy anything? Doesn't matter if its health insurance or an AR-15... they do not have that authority. Liberal-"Where does the Constitution say they can't?"
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 4:17:12 PM EDT
[#48]
You can rationalize Roberts' decision to save Obamacare any way you choose, however, the only explanation that makes any sense is that he took a massive cash bribe to rule the way he did.
He was talking about leaving the Court in the year before the case was heard. He said he wasn't sure that he was doing right by his family staying on as Chief Justice seeing as how he could make far more in private practice. Bribery has a long and proud history in American Courts. Clarence Darrow was charged with jury tampering after it alleged that he tried to bribe jurors in several trials. He gave up his CA law license as part of a plea bargain. I'm convinced that a huge cash deposit was made to a Cayman Islands bank account for Roberts to ensure his vote. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 4:17:25 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Liberal-"Where does the Constitution say they can't?" Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: I hate Obamacare as much as the next guy, but explain to me why it's an unconstitutional law. At its core, it is no more unconstitutional than Social Security, Medicare, or any other government-subsidized entitlement program. Abhorrent, yes... socialist, yes. But unconstitutional? Where in the constitution is the Government given the power to make you buy anything? Doesn't matter if its health insurance or an AR-15... they do not have that authority. Liberal-"Where does the Constitution say they can't?" 10A which has been dead since Civil War 1.0 |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 4:24:38 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Being forced to purchase something is constitutional how? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I hate Obamacare as much as the next guy, but explain to me why it's an unconstitutional law. At its core, it is no more unconstitutional than Social Security, Medicare, or any other government-subsidized entitlement program. Abhorrent, yes... socialist, yes. But unconstitutional? Being forced to purchase something is constitutional how? What prohibits the federal government from forcing us to purchase things - at least through a third-party industry like health care, or military defense contractors? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
