It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CBS News Confirms: Chief Justice Roberts Pressured to Change Vote on Healthcare

page: 4
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 12:11 PM
link   
I agree with Michael Savage, John Roberts was on epileptic medication which is why he was not thinking straight.
The same thing happened when he flubbed up the oath during the swearing in ceremonies.
This happened in front on millions, the Inauguration Day that didn't count so they did it again the next day.
Sorry millions, it was all for nothing.

This vote also requires a do over.




posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 01:06 PM
link   
reply to post by six67seven
 


Essentially no because the mandate never was a tax proper but a tax penalty. Which under the taxing power of Congress they can do. What the ruling does is say no you cannot just mandate someone buy something by virtue of regulating commerce, but you can use tax incentives to obtain compliance. Much in the same way they use tobacco and other taxes to discourage smoking. This is nothing new the only difference is you are getting "taxed" or penalized for not doing a certain activity as opposed to being taxed or penalized for doing an activity. Both have the same outcome encouraging citizens to act in a desired manner they just do it different ways.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by macaronicaesar


What a joke, I can't believe intelligent people of the 21st century still buy this sh*t.


Well there is your problem. Who in the hell is intelligent and buying this sh*t?

I do see a lot of people buying it, eating it, bathing in it, feeding it to their children, etc... but intelligent is the LAST word I would use to describe them.

Carry-on the "debate"
edit on 2-7-2012 by UdonNiedtuno because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
People change their minds. Whatever prompted Roberts to change his mind, he did so and it's his choice and responsibility. Blaming the media for Roberts' decision is a cop out, IMO. If he made his decision and held firm against the pressure of his peers for 2 months, then he must have pretty strong convictions about it.

Liberals being ok with forcing everyone to pay to private insurance companies whom they will later protest at your local Occupy-Insurance-Corps makes absolutely no sense.

This is a complete lack of......every brain activity available

Secondly how MUCH MONEY is there for these insurance coporations????
That's way more than sniper money
Who knows how much "pressure" got to him


Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I tend to believe this from the article:



Some informed observers outside the Court flatly reject the idea that Roberts buckled to liberal pressure, or was stared down by the President. They instead believe that Roberts realized the historical consequences of a ruling striking down the landmark health care law. There was no doctrinal background for the Court to fall back on - nothing in prior Supreme Court cases - to say the individual mandate crossed a constitutional line.


Whatever the reason Roberts decided to uphold the law, he did it himself and is responsible for it.


Some people say...........
Remember that saying from outfoxed?

Some informed obsersers say.....


Did you know you are also forcing POOR PEOPLE to pay for insurance?



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by FractalChaos13242017
 


Thanks for sharing that video. I took your dare, plus some -- watched the whole thing.


Great content!



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 02:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by MRuss
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Hey, this isn't about Obama Care. This is about slavery. This about the trouncing of the Constitution. This is about socialism and oliogarchy. This is about the NWO.

THIS IS ABOUT OUR COUNTRY COMPLETELY LOSING IT.

Have you done any reading here at ATS?

Or do you just come here to spout off your liberal views?


I am here to receive an advanced education from [the likes of] you and thank you so very much in advance. rofl



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by kozmo
 


Seems almost comical doesn't it?

Theoretically they can require that we all buy the Slap Chop. There will be a 20 dollar anual fine for every year you choose not to chop. The device will lead to better salsa and easier cleanup, leading to less water waste and more quality time with the fam.

I realize this is a ridiculous stretch, but it's not apples and oranges. It's the fact that American people are made to buy a product.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Alxandro
 




Here's a fact for you: There is no evidence that Chief Justice John Roberts takes epilepsy medications. He has had a grand total of two—count them TWO—seizures in his lifetime, and these two seizures were 14 years apart. His last one was five years ago in 2007.


Source

Unless, of course, you have something to back up your statement, I'm going to go with the idea that Savage is on so much Viagra that he isn't thinking clearly...

I take epilepsy medication. Have been for 40 years now... I've probably had a thousand seizures in my life. I managed to be on the Deans List and Honor Roll through high school and college and have a shining and successful career... And I can dress myself!

Shame on Savage AND you for your discrimination of people with seizure conditions!



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 04:16 PM
link   
And this is why there should be term limits on Supreme Court justices.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   
Millions of people who didn't have healthcare before now do...and that's a good thing. I see nothing unconstitutional about it.

What makes me chuckle is that the right media was OUTRAGED about this...yet when corporations suddenly turned into people they remained all silent. What a funny coincidence



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Here is a wild idea.
maybe the guy was just doing his job???

maybe???


How is a tax unconstitutional?

Love how everyone on ATS is a constitutional scholar when it comes to things they don't like.

You know what would have been even more constitutional? single payer healthcare...but nooo...republicans wanted =their= plan of capitalism and taxes over actual good ideas and now we are stuck with this plop.

Roberts did what he did because he has a moment of clarity and remembered he isn't running for office, he is being technical on a ruling..and taxes are perfectly within the rights of the government.


It was not drafted on paper as a tax.The verbiage Obamacare said fine. People will be fined for not having heath insurance. Roberts changed the verbiage and Interpreted even though it said FINE. He changed the law from the bench.

Taxes are within the rights of the goverment, but fining people for not purchasing a good or service is called a dictatorship. Heres a good one.

" your candy bar will cost you $2 in taxes please" I dont want a candy bar "sorry, you owe $2 in taxes, pay up or go to jail"

Its not that obamacare past that is scary. its the way roberts found it constitutional. It sets up a presentence through case law that allows the government to force you to purchase goods and service. If you do not comply, you will be fined! if you dont find that scary one bit then i dont know what will scare you.
edit on 2-7-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
Millions of people who didn't have healthcare before now do...and that's a good thing. I see nothing unconstitutional about it.

What makes me chuckle is that the right media was OUTRAGED about this...yet when corporations suddenly turned into people they remained all silent. What a funny coincidence


yeah your right, it is a good thing that everyone is covered. Its a good thing the goverenment will take on an additional 300 billion more dollars a year increasing the deficit to 1.6 Trillion dollars a year! No really, everyone is covered, we can’t pay for it, but it’s a good thing. The Federal Reserve is printing and purchasing 75% of the treasure bonds but who cares, everyone is covered now.

You all wait and see, because of this crazy government spending we will have inflation and hyperinflation. But it’s cool, everyone is covered now. You’ll still get your $400 SS check weekly, it will only buy you a pack of tic tacs, but youll still get it.

Wait, wait, let’s tax the rich, that will fix everything. I have a better idea, confiscate all the “riches” wealth. Tax 100% and liquidated their assets. This will only cover the government for 165 days and we will still be in defect! But its cool, i have free halthcare now and everyone is covered.

you are all in for a big eye opener in the coming years but its cool, we have free healthcare for now.
edit on 2-7-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 05:25 PM
link   
so the scotus has the same dynamic of who is sitting with who in a high school cafeteria ?

basically ?

that's not very reassuring



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Nobody's proposing a 100% tax.


And don't you think it's ironic that the very same rightwing sources whining about Obamacare increasing the deficit remained totally silent when they introduced the largest single-policy contributor to the deficit...the Bush tax cuts?

Also, the deficit doesn't only depend on the budget and spending. That's why Clinton was able to balance the budget...not because he saved so much. But let's just continue to repeat the same nonsense Fox news tells people every single hour of every single day...that the budget and spending are the main issue



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


Nobody's proposing a 100% tax.


And don't you think it's ironic that the very same rightwing sources whining about Obamacare increasing the deficit remained totally silent when they introduced the largest single-policy contributor to the deficit...the Bush tax cuts?

Also, the deficit doesn't only depend on the budget and spending. That's why Clinton was able to balance the budget...not because he saved so much. But let's just continue to repeat the same nonsense Fox news tells people every single hour of every single day...that the budget and spending are the main issue


I'm not about this left vs right. You have to leave that peradime to see the big picture and Clinton never truly had a surplus. And if he did, woppdy do. With the interest on debt over 400 billion a year now, we will never get to the Clinton spending era. What's the point in point fingers and arguing on the past. The only thing Obama care does is accelerate spend and the coming dollar collapse.

And the whole thing about fox news and budgets, I don't have time to watch tv so I'll take your word on. Do really know what fox new has to do about our coming fiscal problems
edit on 2-7-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-7-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 08:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stryde
reply to post by FractalChaos13242017
 


Thanks for sharing that video. I took your dare, plus some -- watched the whole thing.


Great content!


I truly appreciate at least one ATS member taking the time to watch this video. The history and understanding conveyed in this video is paramount to the comprehension of what road we are traveling down. Not too many people are willing to go down this road, they tend to remove themselves from the responsibility of actually acquiring the knowledge to successfully debate such topics. I applaud you for taking the dare.

It's funny, because I was going to say that once someone starts watching this video... they will undoubtedly watch the entire thing!

Thank you.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 08:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by MRuss
In my opinion, Roberts had something to hide ......





Some of the better known "foibles" in Washington's circles are pedophilia, homosexuality, drugs, drug smuggling. I'm sure I'm missing a few ..... and these are all under the blackmail category.



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by jcarpenter

Originally posted by MRuss
In my opinion, Roberts had something to hide ......





Some of the better known "foibles" in Washington's circles are pedophilia, homosexuality, drugs, drug smuggling. I'm sure I'm missing a few ..... and these are all under the blackmail category.





I don't think that it has anything to do with the topics that you stated. This man has a bleeding heart, and one that is focused on the public perception of himself. The only thing he's hiding is his testicular fortitude in standing up for what the Constitution represents. He didn't want to go down in history as the guy that prevented millions from receiving health care(as some would have put it). Although the jury is still out on how long this will last.

You may be right though... but I'm still sticking to the story that he was to weak to stand up for what the Constitution represents due to the pressures of public perception. I see it also as a last ditch, bleeding heart attempt to solve a problem that realistically is only present because of government intervention in healthcare in the first place.

All in all... disgusting. You better believe that there are some groups that many claim to be sinister(masons) working against to restore this nation. There will be some interesting developments that arise from this. This is far from over, and many will not stand for such government intervention in public affairs. The only reason healthcare costs tax payers so much is because we manipulated multiple systems to allow for this. We need a complete revamp. It's about time that the Constitution gets a rewrite... on that retains a Lockean principal, and address the complexities of the world today!
edit on 2-7-2012 by FractalChaos13242017 because: Spelling error



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 09:53 PM
link   



posted on Jul, 2 2012 @ 10:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by KeliOnyx
reply to post by six67seven
 


Essentially no because the mandate never was a tax proper but a tax penalty. Which under the taxing power of Congress they can do. What the ruling does is say no you cannot just mandate someone buy something by virtue of regulating commerce, but you can use tax incentives to obtain compliance. Much in the same way they use tobacco and other taxes to discourage smoking. This is nothing new the only difference is you are getting "taxed" or penalized for not doing a certain activity as opposed to being taxed or penalized for doing an activity. Both have the same outcome encouraging citizens to act in a desired manner they just do it different ways.


China has a 1 child policy if you have a second your fined.Now in the US the government would now have the ability to tax you for having a second child.Using taxes to enforce government policies is wrong, With this new found power they no longer have to tax anything they can tax not doing something.Im sorry you dont see the difference. What if the government decides everyone must join a gym if you choose not to you have to pay a tax? Im afraid are freedom is truly gone we just gave the government the power to regulate all aspects of our lives.



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join