Politics The Political Hook -- Your Free Speech Board

The Political Hook -- Your Free Speech Board


Fishing Reports
BFHP Articles
Fishing News
Fishing Tactics
Places to Fish
Boat Ramp Stories
Other Topics
Other Fishing Topics
Swap/Sell (no boats)
Props 4 Sale

Boats 4 Sale
Saltwater Fishing
Striped Bass
Lure Making
OBX Wildlife Photos
More Politics


SUBJECT: Chief Justice Roberts Is A Genius

Submitted by Harumph #11038 from OHIO on

Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true
nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got
Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything.
Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax.
Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles,
the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote
as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the
Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the
land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to
justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking
their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop
existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program,
but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline
to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating
in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not
force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that
Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.


  1. Ereich ( from MAINE says It certainly will help Romney
    though it would have helped more had he not debased himself with Romney care. It will help every republican candidate running for office. We get to do 2010 all over again.

  2. RJR from MISSOURI says the problem is the Obama voters will never realize this
    right PJ?

  3. PJzaBruin ( from CALIFORNIA says Hey Rump-Hair, whose work did you plagiarize here?
    It's far too cogent an argument to have come from what passes for a brain in you.

    Never mind that the writer errs in believing that folks will now change their understanding from being mandated to buy health care coverage to being taxed if they don't. Of course, that's because to most folks, there is no difference between the two. If they're going to have to pay, then most will buy something with the money instead of just sending it in to the government.

    Obama might actually have fared better had the court struck down the AHCA. Folks LIKE most of the parts of the act, like the ability to keep their kids covered through the age of 26, and being able to get coverage when they change jobs in spite of pre-existing conditions. Had the court taken all that away, then Obama could correctly have beaten Republicans with the charge that they took away these things.

    Now all he can do is correctly tell folks that if Romney is elected and carries through on his promise to repeal the health care act, this is what they stand to lose.

  4. Harumph #11038 from OHIO says Here ya go PJ


To post a followup to this subject use the following form:

(Sponsors/Supporters only)

Email Address:




Advertising/Sponsor Information

Register to post messages and reports


Subscribers don't receive these ads

Fishing Reports
BFHP Articles
Fishing News
Upcoming Events
Rally Page
BFHP Surveys
Fishing Tactics
Places to Fish
Other Topics
Product Evaluations

Boat Ramp Stories
Trailers & Towing
Boats For Sale
Tournament Tactics
Striped Bass

Fly Fishing
Saltwater Fishing
Non-Fishing 2
Political Hook
Tall Tales, Fiction & Legend
Complete Listing of Boards
Copyright © WMI, Inc. 1995-2017. All rights reserved.
This message board created and maintained by: WebMasters International, Inc. (WMI) address mail to wmi@wmi.org

WMI disclaimer
Privacy Statement