User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 4:26:15 PM EDT
[#1]
"not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
It was his job to enforce the Constitution, and rule of law. He didn't do his job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 4:40:18 PM EDT
[#2]
FJR.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 4:43:54 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well said. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 I'm always glad to see someone who can appreciate eloquence in profanity 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 4:47:08 PM EDT
[#4]
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 Roberts also opined that if you don't like the law, you have the ability to change it yourselves by voting out those responsible for implementing it......he was trying to sway the 2012 election results and have FBHO voted out....but it backfired. ETA: “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 4:54:11 PM EDT
[#5]
Your job, you stupid son-of-a-bitch, is to judge versus the constitutionality; not by which direction the political winds blow.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 4:55:07 PM EDT
[#6]
It's disgusting, abhorrent really, that so many justices on the highest court of the land don't even understand the function of their seat.
They literally don't know what their job is.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 5:06:08 PM EDT
[#7]
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? Man I wish I could argue this well, every time I try it comes out as Fuck John Robert's with a rusty Ebola pinecone !!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 5:08:18 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: 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. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. This^ |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 6:00:11 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? 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? 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? The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. Amendment X The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. If you can't show where in the constitution it allows the federal government to force you to buy a third party product then the ninth and tenth amendments kick in, look if you want but you won't find. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 6:07:10 PM EDT
[#10]
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? what do i get in exchange for that tax? I make too much money to receive subsidies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 6:18:32 PM EDT
[#11]
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 is the power to force us into a health insurance policy written in the Constitution? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 6:45:00 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. I believe more likely he was bribed as to how he adopted his children. The means used was shady at the very least. I believe this was used against him. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 6:58:58 PM EDT
[#13]
Roberts is a traitor to his oath. He saddled us with this crap when he could have stopped it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 7:06:47 PM EDT
[#14]
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? You are correct. All those programs are unconstitutional. There is actually several reasons this is unconstitutional even more than the others but I can't type it all out on my phone though so hopefully someone else will. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 7:11:06 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? 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? 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? May be the fact they have no constitutional authority to do it and they are not supposed to do anything that is not authorized in the constitution. Every other power is specifically left up to the states and the people. The state is supposed to have much more power than it does while the federal government was designed to be very limited. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 7:13:56 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: what do i get in exchange for that tax? I make too much money to receive subsidies. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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? what do i get in exchange for that tax? I make too much money to receive subsidies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 7:21:26 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
if its not his place to protect people from their political choices, then isnt he basically endorsing the tyranny of the majority? This. Best, JBR |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 7:27:39 PM EDT
[#18]
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? I'm with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 7:29:41 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Man I wish I could argue this well, every time I try it comes out as Fuck John Robert's with a rusty Ebola pinecone !!!!! 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? Man I wish I could argue this well, every time I try it comes out as Fuck John Robert's with a rusty Ebola pinecone !!!!! So you want to completely miss the entire point of a quote and then waste your time typing a long reply to something that you didn't understand? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 7:35:50 PM EDT
[#20]
Personally, considering the way he flipped his vote at the last minute, I think Roberts was threatened by some very dangerous, very powerful people.
That's what I believe and I'm sticking to it. Fear is every bit the motivator corruption is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 7:47:39 PM EDT
[#21]
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? Well, Social Security, Medicare, and any other government-subsidized entitlement programs are unconstitutional as well. The Supreme Court has perverted the meaning of the general welfare clause. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/2/2015 7:50:34 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Personally, considering the way he flipped his vote at the last minute, I think Roberts was threatened by some very dangerous, very powerful people. That's what I believe and I'm sticking to it. Fear is every bit the motivator corruption is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2015 9:42:01 PM EDT
[#23]
It's not the SC's duty to protect the People but rather it's job is to serve the People by protecting the Constitution from any all attacks against it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/3/2015 10:00:52 PM EDT
[#24]
Poor policy law can still be constitutional. His point is that SCOTUS only validates constitutionality and not policy
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2015 12:18:32 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Poor policy law can still be constitutional. His point is that SCOTUS only validates constitutionality and not policy ^^^^ This ^^^^ ....I think... My lay recall from reading the opinion is that HHS argued it is a tax. Regardless if they claimed in the public discourse it wasn't a tax and that Republicans were the devil for saying it was, if they codified it so that it passed muster as a tax and if plaintiff didn't adequately argue that it was an improper use of the power to tax, I believe CJ Roberts had little choice, IF he wanted to stay true to his actual oath. Maybe someone with a JD can weigh in on whether / how far a Justice can go ruling on arguments and precedent NOT briefed or argued by the parties. ie. Plaintiff argues it's unconstitutional because of A and B, supported by case law X and Y; Can the justices turn around and say "No, your arguments and precedents don't support your claim, but argument C and case law Z DO support your claim. Therefore it is unconstitutional. So ordered."??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2015 12:39:53 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Poor policy law can still be constitutional. His point is that SCOTUS only validates constitutionality and not policy The Obamacare penalty is only constitutional if it were a tax which it wasn't until Roberts said it was. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/4/2015 3:11:21 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
^^^^ This ^^^^ ....I think... My lay recall from reading the opinion is that HHS argued it is a tax. Regardless if they claimed in the public discourse it wasn't a tax and that Republicans were the devil for saying it was, if they codified it so that it passed muster as a tax and if plaintiff didn't adequately argue that it was an improper use of the power to tax, I believe CJ Roberts had little choice, IF he wanted to stay true to his actual oath. Maybe someone with a JD can weigh in on whether / how far a Justice can go ruling on arguments and precedent NOT briefed or argued by the parties. ie. Plaintiff argues it's unconstitutional because of A and B, supported by case law X and Y; Can the justices turn around and say "No, your arguments and precedents don't support your claim, but argument C and case law Z DO support your claim. Therefore it is unconstitutional. So ordered."??? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Poor policy law can still be constitutional. His point is that SCOTUS only validates constitutionality and not policy ^^^^ This ^^^^ ....I think... My lay recall from reading the opinion is that HHS argued it is a tax. Regardless if they claimed in the public discourse it wasn't a tax and that Republicans were the devil for saying it was, if they codified it so that it passed muster as a tax and if plaintiff didn't adequately argue that it was an improper use of the power to tax, I believe CJ Roberts had little choice, IF he wanted to stay true to his actual oath. Maybe someone with a JD can weigh in on whether / how far a Justice can go ruling on arguments and precedent NOT briefed or argued by the parties. ie. Plaintiff argues it's unconstitutional because of A and B, supported by case law X and Y; Can the justices turn around and say "No, your arguments and precedents don't support your claim, but argument C and case law Z DO support your claim. Therefore it is unconstitutional. So ordered."??? SCOTUS can do damn near anything it wants. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2015 4:26:08 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Roberts also opined that if you don't like the law, you have the ability to change it yourselves by voting out those responsible for implementing it......he was trying to sway the 2012 election results and have FBHO voted out....but it backfired. ETA: “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." Quote HistoryQuoted:
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 Roberts also opined that if you don't like the law, you have the ability to change it yourselves by voting out those responsible for implementing it......he was trying to sway the 2012 election results and have FBHO voted out....but it backfired. ETA: “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2015 4:41:52 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The same thing someone who consumes no welfare resources gets for their taxes that subsidize welfare, or the same thing someone who has no children gets for their taxes that fund public schools. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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? what do i get in exchange for that tax? I make too much money to receive subsidies. That warm, fuzzy feeling of fulfilling the social contract? 
This thread is depressing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2015 4:47:58 PM EDT
[#30]
Just like Menendez, Roberts is owned by Obama's lackeys with something on him.
Txl |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/7/2015 4:57:54 PM EDT
[#31]
I've lost all faith in the Supremes.
|
|
|
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.
.jpg)
