Everyone I know is down on Roberts for his Obama-care decision. I was too for several hours until I had time to cool off and actually get my emotions out of my thought process. Lets look at what really happened here, and by that, I mean lets look at the underlying thoughts that Roberts may have had, but see what he actually did to the political process.
First, I believe that Roberts saw an opportunity to throw this faulty legislation back into the lap of the people who keep kicking stuff down the road hoping that the Supreme Court will finally make the decision for them. By this, I mean Congress. For a long time Congress has been passing stuff that they have not read, passing stuff that is completely un-constitutional, passing stuff that has hindered Americans and American business. They have not addressed politically appointed people's actions as well as problems that are causing the degradation of the U.S.A. This Obama-care decision gave Roberts the opportunity to give a special piece of legislation, that contains political issues rather than legal issues, back to Congress and make them make a decision, maybe actually do their job and vote the will of their constituents. (Rasmussen reports 67% of Americans are against Obama-care) Remember that this bill was not passed by a large by-partisan majority as advertised by the administration. Only one Republican in the entire Congress (Senate and House) voted for it. If the RINO progressive Olympia Snow had not voted for this bill in committee, it would have never even left the committee much less come up for a vote. It passed the Senate by a vote of 60-39 with all but one Republican voting against It. Okay, since one Republican voted for it, I suppose it can be called by-partisan in the Senate. The House passed it by a 219-212 margin with all 178 Republicans voting against it. No by-partisanship in the House. In 2011 the House went Republican, but did they hold a repeal vote as they promised during their campaigns? Nope, just kicked Obama-care down the road and let the states take it to the Supreme Court. Are you starting to see Robert's possible agenda?
Second, If the House votes on the repeal of Obama-care on July 9th, as has been reported, it will do several things. The Republican majority in the House should easily win a vote to repeal. Any person who votes against the repeal will be exposing themselves to defeat in the November elections. Then it goes to the Senate. I believe that Reid will postpone it and not bring it up for a vote. Here is a chance for all conservative Republicans to get on every TV show that they can and berate Reid for not voting. If Reid does allow the vote (unlikely), then, again, every one who votes against the repeal will be exposed to defeat in November. We need to FLOOD the Progressive Mitch McConnell's office with faxes telling him to bring this up for a vote, no matter how mad it makes Reid. McConnell has only 6 months to put up with Reid (hopefully) and if McConnell does not bring this up for a vote, he is, and should be, toast and not even be considered for any leadership position in the Senate. To cement this, you should attend every political rally for your senator and specifically ask them if they will vote to put McConnell in the leadership position if he will not call for a vote and Republicans get the Senate. If they will not give you a straight answer, tell them you will not vote for them...flood their offices with faxes asking this question and stating that If McConnell will not call for a vote and your senator tells you he will back him for the leadership, tell your senator that he just lost your vote since McConnell has shown he does not have the stomach to handle the job.
Sidebar- If the Members of the Senate were appointed by the States, as the Founders wrote in the Constitution and the 17th amendment had not been passed, the Senate would vote Obama-care down since it is not good for the State, much less the citizens of the state(s). End sidebar
Okay, so if the repeal were to accidentally pass in the Senate and it went to the desk, Obama would veto it, thereby cementing his defeat.
When you look at Robert's decision from this viewpoint, it appears that Roberts was not so stupid after all. He may have actually saved us from this 2,700 page monstrosity as well as secured an Obama defeat and a Republican controlled Senate.
AND that's my two cents!
Fred
Replies
After I calmed down, I have to agree. I think he helped us out.
Thank you Fred. I tend to agree that all is not lost and the decision was not entirely bad.
The past is in the past, let's get on with the future. It is time to clean up the government.
Agreed...
Ladies, Gentlemen, Blood-pressure & Heart-rate, {I have a wrist-monitor} get down to Angry Patriot ~~For the sake of our Children...I read the answer's with small breaks, as my kids call 1st words; `Dad Fact or Fiction" hows mom doing,< Master-chief female Protege' for me...! Prior proper planning.."
Twana, I have been hearing this take on Roberts decision since it was made. My view is this very well may be his thinking but I really doubt it. What if this backfires and Obama is reelected. Even if Mitt is elected we have to take the Senate and get rid of the rino's at the same time. Mitch, Lindsey, John, Susan, Olympia and who knows how many others can and will sell us down the river in a heartbeat.
If Mitt runs on the repeal of Obama Care, every Liberal, Black, Hispanic, illegal, under 26 kid with no job, all the food stampers and welfare recipients will turn out for Obama big time and in turn vote for the Senate Dems.
Those who think this will energize the Conservatives could be right but it may well do the opposite.
It is not Roberts job to make the Supreme Court look non political, rewrite and redefine the law or change the law. His job is to rule on the constitutionally of the law passed using the Commerce Clause in the Constitution, as it was written, sold to the People and passed by Congress.
My thoughts are, if this is what he is doing, how DARE he RISK and GAMBLE the future of my Country on our politically corrupt 2 party system. That is who Roberts threw it back on, not the people. If this backfires and Obama Care stands for any reason, we will be living in the United States of Socialist America.
Roberts had the chance to wipe out Obama Care completely and he blew it, big time or did he? I really think Robert's is a CINO, (new word) Conservative In Name Only. I also think he sold the American People down the river on purpose. All this on (maybe he was thinking) is a horse-crap cop-out and he may have destroyed our Constitution completely.
All this on the gamble that Congress will do the right thing. When is the last time that happened. Give me a break I wasn't born yesterday.
Luke, What an excellent post! The States should have nullified the law instead of risking it to the Supreme Court! But I am beginning to wonder if our Attorney General's know enough about the Constitution and State Sovereignty to realize they have the power to do this! And I am tired of hearing the Left ask what the GOP plan is! It is not the government's role to provide us with medical care! Geez! this has been a long four years.
Like you Fred, I also was jumping mad, evan at the media's handling of "misinformation" to Fox and CNN, which smells very suspicious to me. I now beleive that Roberts was correct to say that We the voters are responsible for the actions of our electorate, and therefore, we must elect candidates WE feel will carry out our desires. We must remember these words in November. It seems like a long road ahead, but it must be followed for the sake of our children.
Fred
You said: "I now believe that Roberts was correct to say that We the voters are responsible for the actions of our electorate, and therefore, we must elect candidates WE feel will carry out our desires"
...
I claim we can't elect candidates. That's the core problem we have instead of the plausible rationale that's constantly fed to us, "corruption". The problem has been with us since the mid 1870s when the "Secret Ballot" was first introduced.
About the same time a mantra was also introduced that people of the time (and today) repeated over and over to each other that had the effect of infecting the collective consciousness of the entire nation. That mantra was "The sanctity of the secret vote" (as if God Almighty required it). As a result no one even questions the flimsy rationales for a secret vote any more than they question the idiocy called "Daylight Savings Time".
Prior to that time and for the better part of first 100 years the vote was conducted viva voce, a latin term for "voice vote". Everyone within hearing distance could hear the voters choices, notate them and later compare their notations to the registrars. That process was called "verification" and was lost with the introduction of the Secret Ballot.
Think about it! It all goes on behind closed doors. The problem isn't "electronic machines", or "paper ballots" or "get out the vote", the problem is the loss of verification through the introduction of secrecy. We can't vote them out because we never voted 'em in.
I wrote an eBook about this in 2007 entitled Desiderata of the Citizen Vote. There's an article that pretty well explains it all entitled Why You Can't Vote Them Out. Both have been very well ignored by the small Internet community who are supposedly "trying" to find a solution to vote fraud.
You'll find the article here: http://howtorescueamerica.org/trilogy.html
mac
MAC, I even reread my post and I never said what you quoted me as saying. ie, "I now believe that Roberts was correct to say that We the voters are responsible for the actions of our electorate, and therefore, we must elect candidates WE feel will carry out our desires"
You are quoting a commenter, not me. I did not say what you are attributing to me...It was a sneaky way to tout your book though. I will give you that credit.
Fred
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next