Roberts Rules of Constitutional Obliteration

It has taken me over a week to process the latest desecration of the United States Constitution promulgated by no other than the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice John Roberts.
The Roberts Court I predict will go down as the most liberal Court in U.S. history.

And that's saying something.

Much has been made in the media of the decision reached by Justice Roberts on the most contentious provision contained within the 1,300 page "(Un)Affordable Care Act."

His holding in that respect defies any and all Rules of Law and the common law in this country, and wipes out any illusion that the Bill of Rights was written in order to protect individual Americans from federal (OR STATE) overstep.

Upholding this provision was not only overstep, it was crushing the American people under federal jack boots.

Now the "talking heads" on the cable news networks, who make their profits over sensationalized news and cases such as this one they can milk for weeks and years to come, are arguing whether this mandate is a "tax" as Justice Roberts defined it (is this man insane, or what?) or a penalty.
From Websters:

Definition of PENALTY

1: the suffering in person, rights, or property that is annexed by law or judicial decision to the commission of a crime or public offense

2: the suffering or the sum to be forfeited to which a person agrees to be subjected in case of nonfulfillment of stipulations
-------------------------------------------------

It is, no question, a penalty and not a "tax," or within Congress or the Supreme Court's taxing authority under our Constitution or those founders intent.

But more importantly, just what was the purpose of Justice Roberts defining it in such a manner, since there did have to be an ulterior motive here with such an outrageous ruling.

Well, the Supreme Court has, for literally decades, refused to hear cases involving taxation due to a decision either it made independently, or after passage of another of those back door bills, that it will not hear any cases involving taxation.

Since, of course, the federal income tax itself and its passage was by no means a popular move by that Congress so very long ago...

As long as the Supreme Court defines it as such, it never, ever again has to re-examine its own ruling on this provision.

By its own edict...

In other words, Roberts both ruled it a tax, and then protected this Court (and any future Court also) from ever having to hear any more cases with respect to that provision in ObamaCare ever again.
I still haven't figured out how the Supreme Court has the power anywhere in the Constitution to refuse to hear any case brought by an American citizen, but it does so rather regularly.

This, in an of itself, is a demonstration of the high regard the Court holds for itself as the Court of last resort.

And it is still unclear to me just who the appealing parties were in this case, since it was announced that it was brought by several of the states (who also stand to gain revenue from this ruling, revenue which they can now use elsewhere in their states for more and more unconstitutional functions when they cut many of their also state funded programs).

From what I read in briefly having a chance to read the Supreme Court opinion in full before it was yanked from the web, it was brought by a "corporate" entity I had never heard of (and additional appellees).

This was not just a wacko ruling, it was a wacko ruling that had a further political purpose as its objective.

Which makes the Roberts Court one of the most liberal and political courts ever in this country.
I wonder just how much stock Justice Roberts has in the insurance and health care sector?

Since it is clear that most of those in Washington who hold all those insurance, hospital and pharma stocks will be making a killing on this ruling - and Mr. Romney is also no exception.

They all should be ashamed...as this provision actually was the most contentious, and yet most important provision within that 1,300 page bill.

Make no mistake about it....

It set a "precedent" like no other ruling before it...that the federal government's power is absolute with respect to using any means necessary to pass any old legislation it wishes...

And the first order of business in this country for any new Congress should be re-examining the law school curriculum in this country, particularly those Ivy League schools on the East Coast...

Since the amount they are charging for tuition for such a legal education as obviously Mr. Roberts must have received seems like highway robbery...or money down the drain.

I hope Mr. Roberts paid for that education, and not his parents...

And if the penalty was upheld as a tax, then it would stand to reason that the mandate to provide health insurance for individual Americans and that cost is also a tax, and all dollars paid by Americans for their own health care should then be fully deductible on their federal and state income taxes.

You can't have it both ways...