John Roberts: The Umpire Strikes Out
Jun 25, 2015 Commentary, Political, SCOTUScare
There is no doubt Chief Justice John Roberts is an intelligent man. He can cite and discuss legal cases without notes and he is well versed. These fact make his two decisions in the Affordable Care Act (previously known as Obamacare but now to be known as SCOTUScare) quite perplexing. Roberts basically rewrote the law and twisted logic as well as stepping out of his area of responsibility to ensure that the law formerly known as Obamacare survived.
When the ACA was being forced on us the Obama Regime said that the fee for not getting insurance was a penalty and NOT a tax. Obama chided George Stephanopoulos when George said the penalty seemed to fit the dictionary definition of a tax. Of course Obama was lying then because he knew it was actually a tax.
But the Regime called it a penalty and defended it as such to the public. The Democrats called it a penalty in the law and told their constituents that it was not a tax. Mr. Gruber, the POS who helped with this said it had to be called a penalty or it would have never passed and that the Regime depended on the stupidity of the public to get it passed.
When the Regime went to court it argued that the penalty was really a tax for the purpose of arguing in court and that anything to the contrary was just silly.
Despite overwhelming evidence John Roberts sided with the left wing of the court and rewrote the legislation to make the penalty a tax and within the authority of Congress. He upheld the law by legislating from the bench.
Fast forward to now. There is a portion of the ACA that says subsidies will only be available to those who get insurance from exchanges established by the state. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that this sentence means the individual states. This is how it was intended and the Democrats along with Goebbels Gruber even told us that it would be in the best interest of the people if states set up exchanges so that the people could get subsidies. Given the straight forward language and what they said there is no doubt what it was supposed to be. This sentence was the subject of a Supreme Court case and once again Roberts sided with the liberal wing and rewrote the legislation. Roberts read the minds of those in Congress (Democrats only) and concluded that they really meant that state and federal government.
Roberts disgraced himself and his court and his legacy will be one of failure. I do not like the left wing right wing idea of a court. Courts are supposed to be impartial and rule on the law. Roberts made himself a legislator along with the lefties and rewrote the law to once again save Obama.
After Roberts knelt before Obama and pleased him there is no doubt now how he will vote on gay marriage. This issue should be left to the states and Roberts made a big deal of states rights when he was nominated but he will vote with the rainbow crowd and swallow hard for Obama.
It seems to me that Roberts must have been neglected as a child. His parents probably did not love him and daddy was probably never around. Roberts appears to need the approval of others and he seems to go out of his way to get the approval of Obama, his closet lover.
John Roberts once believed, or at least he said he did, that the judiciary was there to interpret not to make up the laws. Roberts basically stated that it is not his job to play the game or make the rules but to make sure those playing the game are following he rules. He did that when he compared judges to baseball umpires: “[I]t’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”
Roberts has gone from being just the umpire to also being on the rules committee. Instead of just making sure others follow the rules he is now changing them to suit his master’s needs. Indeed, the umpire has struck out.
Justice Scalia put it most succinctly when he stated in his dissent (it is well worth your time to read the dissent. Scalia basically spells out how it should work in a legal and logical way and he holds little back with regard to how he views his colleagues in the majority):
Under all the usual rules of interpretation, in short, the Government should lose this case. But normal rules of interpretation seem always to yield to the overriding principle of the present Court: The Affordable Care Act must be saved. Court Ruling
Scalia is correct. This court has a mandate and it is to protect and save the law now known as SCOTUScare. Obama put Kagan and Sotomayor on the court because they are not jurists they are activists. They do not care what the Constitution says or what is lawful or right as long as their liberal views and desires are taken care of. They are there to ensure the liberal agenda (I should call it the Communist agenda since Jarrett and Obama were raised by Commies and are commies themselves) is upheld the law and the Constitution be damned. Add those two to Buzzy Ginsburg, Breyer and wishy-washy Kennedy and you have the make up of a court that ignores the rule of law. When Roberts joins the mix it equals the downfall of society and the furtherance of communism.
God help them all when the day comes for them to be held accountable. It will be quite unpleasant indeed.
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: communism, dissent, lies, pussy, roberts, scalia, scotuscare
I Don’t Have To Wait On Sotomayor
May 26, 2009 Political
After years of having Bush judicial nominees hammered by Democrats in the Senate as soon as they were nominated the Republicans decided they would wait to pass judgment on Obama’s first judicial nominee. They pretty much have to because Obama selected a Latino who happens to be a woman so if the Republicans jumped all over her right now they will be painted with every brush in the liberal arsenal. Racist, sexist, blah, blah.
I don’t have to wait because, despite Obama’s claims about her qualifications (which seem to be only her ethnicity and her sex) I have already determined she is not qualified based upon several things.
First she is an activist judge and she is a racist. Obama did say he wanted someone who would empathize with those before the court. Empathy is an emotion and the courts are supposed to base decisions on the law and not emotions. Sotomayor is on record as saying that the court is where policy is made. This is absolutely untrue in our system. I am not saying it does not happen but her acceptance of that premise disqualifies her.
That statement is not the only place she disclosed that life experiences dictate rulings. Sotomayor stated; “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” New York Times
In one fell swoop she managed to show that her rulings are guided by life experiences (empathy or sympathy depending on the circumstances) and that she is a racist. Her comment about white males is out of line. Imagine if Justice Alito had stated; “I would hope that a wise white man with good family values and experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion that a Latino woman who has not lived that life.” (Sotomayor was also involved in a case where whites filed a discrimination suit. She was not in favor of their rights)
The liberals would go nuts. Ted Kennedy would have stroked out with his “concern” for women. Alito would have been labeled a misogynist pig and Borked out of contention. But I am willing to bet this issue will be left untouched by Republican Senators and if they address it the left will attack. Remember, you can only be a racist or sexist if you are a Democrat. One only needs to see how Kennedy or Clinton were treated compared to Justice Thomas. A murderer and an adulterer were defended and a man who had unfounded allegations thrown at him was slammed.
It is obvious that Sotomayor is fuzzy on how the judicial system works and though she claims to be in favor of staying in line with the Constitution she is either lying or does not understand the document. It is obvious from her statements of making policy and life experiences that she is an activist but the icing on the cake for me is her position on the Second Amendment.
Sotomayor does not believe that the Second Amendment is an individual right and believes it only applies to the federal government so the states can do what they want which would make it different than any other Amendment in the Bill of Rights and runs contrary to the equal protection clause. I know there are many anti gun zealots out there who believe the same thing but the reality is that gun ownership is an individual right and the right existed before the Constitution and before we were a country. The Second does not say the government gives the right, it states that THE RIGHT (meaning it already exists).
How is it that the Bill of Rights is a list of INDIVIDUAL rights but the Second Amendment is not one? How can that be? How is it that the Founders are on record as stating that gun ownership is an individual right but our activist judicial system has ignored that? A list of Founder’s quotes on the Second Amendment is here. Here is a sample:
“Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
— Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution [emphasis mine]
The quotation states the people which is the phrase that means all of us and private arms. This means the people and the arms do not have to be part of the militia especially when the first part discusses raising military forces to pervert power and injure fellow citizens (not members of the militia). The words of the Founders echo this sentiment. The Bill of Rights contain individual (civil) rights. To say the Second is not an individual right like the rest perverts the Constitution and demonstrates a misunderstanding of it.
I know that the argument has been made that the issue is settled law and gun control advocates point to the Miller decision. This is what was decided:
In the case of U.S. v. Miller, the 1939 Supreme Court ruled there was no Constitutional basis for Miller to own a sawed-off shotgun without registering it under the National Firearms Act (GPO 1193). Miller’s argument was based upon the Second Amendment right to “keep and bear arms” and as such, was not required to register his shotgun (ibid). After reciting the original provisions of the Constitution dealing with the militia, the Court observed that:
“[w]ith obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted with that end in view” (1194).
Continuing, the Court defined the militia as a force consisting of “civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion” and that it was “comprised [of] all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense,” who, “when called for service . . . were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time“ (emphasis added) (ibid).
Whereas the Court had ruled that the firearm in question was not exempt from registration, it also highlighted two key points that reinforce the notion the Second Amendment provides for private firearm ownership. First, the Court states that the militia was composed of “civilians primarily,” which is contrary to gun-control activist’s views that the militia of the Constitution equates to the National Guard (i.e. “professional soldiers”) of today. Second, the Court states that those civilians, when called into service, “were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves,” which is only possible if private firearm ownership is permitted. Lythosants
People claim that this is the only definitive adjudication of the Second Amendment (until Heller) but that is not true. If one looks at the Dred Scott decision then one can see the court acknowledged that carrying a weapon was an individual right. The merits of the case and whether they got it right is a subject for another time. The important thing here is this argument against granting Scott’s petition:
“It would give to persons of the negro race, …the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, …the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
~snip~
The Territory being a part of the United States, the Government and the citizen both enter it under the authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights defined and marked out, and the Federal Government can exercise no power over his person or property beyond what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right which it has reserved.
A reference to a few of the provisions of the Constitution will illustrate this proposition.
For example, no one, we presume, will contend that Congress can make any law in a Territory respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people of the Territory peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for the redress of grievances.
Nor can Congress deny to the people the right to keep and bear arms, nor the right to trial by jury, nor compel anyone to be a witness against himself in a criminal proceeding. [emphasis mine] Cornell Law
This is case law and it is an opinion by the Supreme Court. It clearly states that firearm possession is an individual right and this is affirmed by discussing a negro (not a militia member) would be allowed to keep and carry a firearm. Dred Scott is not brought up in the gun debate as anti gun forces work very hard to deny us our basic right. The same people who will fight to the death to protect a “right” that is NOT in the Constitution (abortion) will fight just as hard to deny one that IS in there and is clearly defined.
Sonia Sotomayor is not fit to serve in the Supreme Court. She rules by empathy rather than the rule of law, is a racist and lacks a fundamental understanding of the Constitution.
Maybe she sat in on one of Obama’s lectures. I hear he was a Constitutional law professor.
The Republicans in the Senate need to do their homework and come prepared to batter her on the Second Amendment. She needs to be beaten as hard and as badly as Alito and Roberts were with the issue of abortion. She needs to be hammered on her racist views just as Sam Alito was for his membership in the Concerned Alumni at Princeton (CAP). Kennedy portrayed Alito as a racist for belonging to that group. The Republicans need to hammer on Sotomayor for her racist views as well. If any Democrat objects, take him out back and shoot him (a tongue in cheek remark clarified for the benefit of Meathead).
Drudge has a headline asking if Republicans can vote against a Latino nominee. Why not? They are not voting on Miss Latin America or for an ethnic issue, they are voting to put someone on the highest court in the land. What they are is of no consequence; what they believe and how they administer the law is.
Besides, it is not like the Republicans are going to get much of the Hispanic vote. That demographic is captured by the promise of Democrats to give away other people’s money and to give them amnesty. They will vote for the party that gives away what is not theirs and enslaves people in the name of diversity and the common good.
So hammer Sotomayor because it won’t make one bit of difference with regard to election day.
Besides, it is better to lose an election doing what is right than to win one while selling out the country.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: activist judge, alito, constitution, democrat, law, Obama, policy, republican, roberts, Second Amendment, sotomayor, unqualified