So is Kavanaugh.

Agree except that maybe Roberts is subject to blackmail about adoption irregularities.

Gorsuch OTOH seems okay.

I do believe I read there was a USSC precedent already on the books that established that imposing taxation for the purpose of bahavior modification is unconstitutional. If that is true, then if it is a tax, it's unconstitutional on that basis.

Bump to archive.

There will be NO draining the swamp without bloodshed.

The swamp is a cancer that will never be removed without radical surgery.

Obama’s own lawyers argued Obamacare was not a tax. Roberts justified saving Obamacare by arguing it was a tax. ... Roberts ignored the Constitution

That move by Roberts was Taxation without Representation + no legislation at all is supposed to originate at the Supreme Court -- much less "presto change-o" tax levy legislation, which that law wasn't except in Roberts' jurisdictional-overstepping imagination. His decision should have been disqualified on those grounds and he probably should have been impeached to remove him from the bench because of his Judiciary power-grabbing ploy:

Origination Clause - Wikipedia

This clause says that all bills for raising revenue [i.e. tax levies] must start in the House of Representatives [as such], but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as in the case of other bills. ... This clause resonated with a citizenry opposed to taxation without representation.

It is interesting reading. The swamp was covering the swamp.

no legislation at all is supposed to originate at the Supreme Court

As much as I disagree with is ruling, I don't think that argument sticks as a "yes" vote by Roberts is not legislating. I do agree the courts in general have effectively legislated by treating the Constitution as a "living document", but picking out this one ruling as that doesn't really fly.

When you have time you might read about Justice Owen Roberts and what he did for FDR.

It is interesting reading. The swamp was covering the swamp.

Thank you for suggesting that SCOTUS topic. I would like to know more about the FDR era of it. Yesterday, during my Sierra Club researchings, I found that [FDR nominee] Justice William O. Douglas argued that trees, etc. of earth's ecology should have plaintiff-standing to sue in court. [Ref. Section 3.5 "Trees have standing" at the linked Wikipedia page.]

There will be NO draining the swamp without bloodshed.

Indeed when you mess with the federal pensions people have worked hard and long to get, you upset the apple cart. It would piss them off to no end, maybe even enough to take up arms trying to keep that pension. ;)

trees, etc. of earth's ecology should have plaintiff-standing to sue in court.

This is interesting that an inanimate object would be given the standing to sue in court.

But when you consider that corporations being similar inanimate objects having the standing to sue in court, it makes perfect sense. ;)

As soon as Roberts' name came up as potential "JUSTICE" (emerging from obscurity like they all do) our observers roundly denounced him as leftist/insider poison.

His vote on Obamacare is the one that decided the issue in favor of it. Luckily, Congress defunded it. ;)

a "yes" vote by Roberts is not legislating. I do agree the courts in general have effectively legislated by treating the Constitution as a "living document", but picking out this one ruling as that doesn't really fly.

I don't understand how he could have authoritatively reconfigured the legislation at question into a tax when Congress didn't make it a tax. If you do, please explain. I'm ok with standing corrected when wrong.

When you have time you might read about Justice Owen Roberts and what he did for FDR.

It is interesting reading. The swamp was covering the swamp.

Owen Roberts - Wikipedia

Roosevelt's long presidency allowed him to appoint most of the [Supreme Court]. By the end of Roberts's tenure, he was the lone Supreme Court Justice who was not appointed by Roosevelt. ... On the Hughes Court, Roberts was a swing vote ... [His] vote often decided whether President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal legislation would be upheld. ... Roberts was appointed by Roosevelt to head the commission investigating the attack on Pearl Harbor; his report was published in 1942 and was highly critical of the US military. ... Roberts had been one of the most clamorous among those screaming for an open declaration of war. [He] demanded that we immediately unite with Great Britain in a single nation. The Pearl Harbor incident had given him what he had been yelling for – America's entrance into the war. ... Roberts dissented from the Court's decision upholding internment of Japanese-Americans along the West Coast in 1944's Korematsu v. United States. ... [He] became frustrated with the willingness of the new justices to overturn precedent and with what he saw as their result-oriented liberalism as judges [but] overruled an opinion that had been written 19 years earlier by [himself]. ... Roberts retired from the Court the following year, in 1945; Roberts's relations with his colleagues had become so strained that fellow Justice Hugo Black refused to sign the customary letter acknowledging Roberts's service on his retirement. Other justices refused to sign a modified letter that would have been acceptable to Black, and in the end, no letter was ever sent. Shortly after leaving the Court, Roberts reportedly burned all of his legal and judicial papers. As a result, there is no significant collection of Roberts' manuscript papers, as there is for most other modern Justices.

Pearl Harbor, 75 years on - Washington Times [Note: PC maneuverability issues there - graphics overload, imo]

Excerpts:

In short, the Japanese were fascinated by the British surprise airstrike at Taranto, which destroyed the Italian Fleet primarily by dropping torpedoes in relatively shallow water. ... The U.K. raid on Taranto became the blueprint for the Japanese surprise attack on Pearl Harbor.
>
Of the eight official inquiries, the most biased conducted was by Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts shortly following the attack. Neither Adm. Husband E. Kimmel, the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, or Lt. Gen. Walter Short, who was responsible for the defense of Hawaii, received any information from the decrypted codes which would have alerted them to the Japanese fleet’s intentions. Yet the Roberts commission declared Adm. Kimmel and Lt. Gen. Short derelict in carrying their duties and held them solely responsible for the Pearl Harbor disaster. None of the 10 Washington officials authorized to receive the decrypted information was held accountable. Cover up?

A very heinous cover up.

His decision should have been disqualified on those grounds and he probably should have been impeached to remove him from the bench because of his Judiciary power-grabbing ploy:

Agree.

trees, etc. of earth's ecology should have plaintiff-standing to sue in court.

This is interesting that an inanimate object would be given the standing to sue in court.

But when you consider that corporations being similar inanimate objects having the standing to sue in court, it makes perfect sense. ;)

I don't agree that corporations have "personhood" standing or that their money donations to political campaigns should be considered a "personhood" Freedom of Speech issue for them. Evidence that their supposed "personhood standing" is a fiction can be seen everytime they donate more money to political campaigns than the limited amount that one actual human person is restricted by law from exceeding at the threat of prison. Ref. Dinesh D'Souza. "Justice" William O. Douglas who basically claimed in the (1972) Sierra Club v. Morton case that even minerals should have standing, when he said that the lawsuit "would therefore be more properly labeled as Mineral King v. Morton", is the same "Justice" William O. Douglas who sided the very next year with the Roe v. Wade (1973) majority that denied personhood status for fetal humans and declared it to be against the "law" for the State to even have a compelling interest in preserving their life before the later pre-birth development stages.

His decision should have been disqualified on those grounds and he probably should have been impeached to remove him from the bench because of his Judiciary power-grabbing ploy:

Agree.

Thanks for your support while we await Pinguinite's appellate decision on that.

: ]

Of the eight official inquiries, the most biased conducted was by Supreme Court Justice Owen Roberts shortly following the attack. Neither Adm. Husband E. Kimmel, the commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, or Lt. Gen. Walter Short, who was responsible for the defense of Hawaii, received any information from the decrypted codes which would have alerted them to the Japanese fleet’s intentions. Yet the Roberts commission declared Adm. Kimmel and Lt. Gen. Short derelict in carrying their duties and held them solely responsible for the Pearl Harbor disaster. None of the 10 Washington officials authorized to receive the decrypted information was held accountable. Cover up?

Very good, excellent. You did your homework.

Justice Roberts was "assigned" the job of clearing FDR and hanging the military.

He did just that in...30...days. Imagine that???? An investigation in 30 days as to who was to blame for a war????

I have not checked to see that Roberts is related to the current loser justice.

corporations have "personhood" standing

Corporations are fictions of law, just as the Strawman is a fiction of law. They both need a live human to talk in their stead. Why do you think someone who is not a lawyer cannot address the court unless the judge speaks to them? Of course the judge never does. The judge always addresses the lawyer. ;)

As soon as Roberts' name came up as potential "JUSTICE" (emerging from obscurity like they all do) our observers roundly denounced him as leftist/insider poison.

His qualification was that he could call Bush 43 by his first name.

Justice [Owen] Roberts was "assigned" the job of clearing FDR and [blaming] the military.

He did just that in...30...days. Imagine that???? An investigation in 30 days as to who was to blame for a war????

I have not checked to see that [Owen Josephus] Roberts is related to the current ["Chief justice" John Glover Roberts, Jr.].

: [

I could only confirm that those SCOTUS Roberts are from the neighboring States of Pennsylvania and New York and that something they do appear to have in common is switching their votes for political impact rather than Constitutional law reasoning. I did find this about Owen Roberts:

Will Democrats Regret Weaponizing the Judiciary? - by Matthew Pritchard | politico.com | September 24, 2018

Despite the blow his reputation would take, [Justice Owen Roberts] began to side with the [FDR] administration in virtually all the cases that came before the court, often reversing votes he had cast just a few terms before. The message was clear: The court would no longer get in the [Democrat] president’s way.

Am archiving this article here about John Roberts similarly, with emphasis on the "Obamacare" tax issue:

Did John Roberts Switch His Vote? - by Paul Campos | Salon | June 29, 2012

The first "switch in time" also involved a Justice Roberts -- Owen Roberts, who in 1937 suddenly switched his vote in a case whose outcome signaled the end of a five-vote majority that was blocking much of the Roosevelt administration's New Deal. [Fast-Forward ...]
>
Rumors had been circulating in legal circles for weeks that Chief Justice [John] Roberts in particular was under enormous political pressure not to be the vote that would overturn the most significant piece of social legislation passed by Congress in decades. Indeed, in April President Obama took the unusual step of issuing something of a public warning on the subject, saying that he was "confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
>
It is impossible for a lawyer to read even the first few pages of the dissent without coming away with the impression that this is a majority opinion that at the last moment lost its fifth vote.
>
as the following passage makes clear:

Finally, we must observe that rewriting §5000A as a tax in order to sustain its constitutionality would force us to confront a difficult constitutional question: whether this is a direct tax that must be apportioned among the States according to their population. Art. I, §9, cl. 4. Perhaps it is not (we have no need to address the point); ... [They] are saying that construing the mandate as a tax would require them to address a constitutional question that they don't have to address. But the only reason the Court would not have to address this question is if the majority in fact refused to construe the mandate as a tax

Everybody in ameriKa has to know it's gangster govt...

Most of the makers here know that, but most of the takers here think that everything's just fine and dandy.