Right Blasts Conservative Chief Justice Who Upheld Affordable Care Act
June 28, 2012 3:56 pm ET by David Lyle
Right-wing media figures are heaping harsh criticism on Chief Justice John Roberts for his opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act as constitutional. These critics ignore Roberts' record as Chief Justice, which is very conservative. But even this conservative justice recognized that the Constitution gives Congress the power to address the nation's health care crisis with the Affordable Care Act.
Breitbart.com editor-at-large Ben Shapiro blasted the Chief Justice:
I knew that Roberts was a bad pick because he didn't have a proven track record of adherence to the Constitution. He was picked by President Bush because Bush knew he didn't have a track record - and he knew that Roberts would sail through the confirmation process without a hitch.
That should have been an indicator that Roberts was a rotten pick. Nobody doubted Robert Bork's originalist credentials. Nobody doubted Clarence Thomas'. Nobody doubts Judge Janice Rogers Brown's. But nobody had any reason to buy into Roberts as an originalist. Yet they did.
Dan Gainor, Media Research Center's vice president for Business and Culture called the decision to nominate Roberts "awful."

Fox News Radio's Todd Starnes applied the "L word" to Roberts.

This attempt to paint Chief Justice Roberts as a closet liberal is absurd. Experts have called the Supreme Court under Roberts the "most conservative in modern history." As the leader of a five justice conservative majority, Roberts has played a leading role in decisions like Citizens United (empowering corporations and wealthy individuals to spend unlimited money in political campaigns); Wal-Mart (preventing women alleging sex discrimination from joining together to seek justice); Concepcion (allowing corporations to manipulate fine print in contracts to keep ripped off consumers from joining together in court); and Ledbetter (preventing a woman who was paid less than men from going to court).
Also, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce enjoyed a perfect year with the Roberts Court this term, winning every case in which the Court ruled on the position the Chamber took, according to a study by the Constitutional Accountability Center. (The Chamber took no position on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, but merely argued that if the mandate were struck down, the entire Act should be invalidated). According to the study, the Chamber has not won every case in a term since at least 1994.
Rather than calling John Roberts names or trying to make the absurd case that he is a closet liberal, the right should simply acknowledge that their crusade to kill the Affordable Care Act failed because they lost the vote of the deeply conservative, Republican-appointed Chief Justice who heads one of the most conservative and pro-corporate courts in history.








Medved refused to call him out on his comment.
Someone in Government does something a conservative doesn't like, automatically, he's a traitor and should be tried for treason.
I know wingnuts have a hard time believing that you can hold up the law, without falling prey to ideology (at least in this case).
.
Oh wait. He actually did that too.
When turning the tables doesn't work - twice - by all means try it again.
Yup, extermination, its the only way to deal with an infestation.
Wanna go another round? We can both say exactly the same things again.
And, oh yeah, "infestation" conclusion invalid.
Ha!! You really don't believe that, do you? Because REALITY is exactly the opposite.
I suggest you read John Dean's book.
And it's maddening. Dems can NEVER get all of their own party's votes. On (virtually) every bill, we lose the Blue Dogs (Nelson, Baye, Lincoln, Baucus, Conrad, Landreu, Manchin...), or the far-left (remember Kucinich voting against ACA - until he was BEGGED by everyone from Ed Shultz, Maddow, and the Dem house leadership - we couldn't even get 51 out of 59, for reconciliation)
Pubbies - (virtually) ALWAYS in lock-step, no matter how bad the party line is on a given bill/issue. They live in constant fear of the party/campaign conmmittee/TEA Party funding a primary challenge (ask Bennett, Simpson, Lugar, Hatch...)
On the Dem side: no party loyalty, whatsoever. Manchin runs ads shooting the ACA, Lincoln, Landreu & Nelson demanding perks for ACA, then bragging about it - giving Fox a talking point, like Cornhusker Kickback (what did they nickname Landreu's dela?) - Lieberman, like Zell Miller before him, campaigned for the GOP prez nominee ... SURE, no hard feelings, have a chairmanship...
Pubbies use the talking point "Obama had SIXTY votes in the senate and a BIG majority in the house for TWO YEARS, but they didn't ..." Try about FIVE WEEKS - they held up Franken for 8 months (remember how they attacked "Sore/Loserman" in 2000?) until Ted Kennedy left for med leave, and 60 Blue Dog Dems had made a pact with Rove in Jan '06!
.
Nice try, though. I bet you felt really proud of yourself there for a minute, didn't you?
*you & your's only used for discussion
Actually Dumb A$$, "Americas Poorest" now get the help they need to buy insurance and or it will be provided for those too poor. Not to mention most of the middle class now get a tax credit for the health insurance costs and so do their employers. You are so sadly uninformed its maddening..........
The expanding pool with need to be subsidized. Time to buy AETNA stock.
Why do the nutjobs hate efficiency so much?
Whether YOU believe in it or not, in our consumer driven social construct, big profits are very motivating.
This is why Medicine should NOT be a capitalist adventure. Growing a more sickly less health society is not a good idea but it's the only way to ensure growth in the health care market. Answer me this: What is in it for a health care company or the insurance company if we totally eradicate cancer. Answer: lost profits. Will that kill the market? There is no free market incentive to cure people especially not with long term cures. If health care were strictly a debt to our society we would all agree that to attempt to eradicate disease would be a necessity. You Righties always seem to think that medicine can follow the free market principles, but it just can't. Listen, If a rich man and a poor man both want a car, there is a free market answer for each. The affordable used car for the poor man and a Lamborghini for the rich man. Now lets say they both get stage four cancer. Is there a poor version of that treatment. No? Then there is no free market is there? Poor people and there kids don't choose to get sick base on the care they can afford. It's not like shopping from a wish list jacka$$. Wealth does not and should not equal health...............
Read up on "economies of scale" for more information.
So, a $300 job becomes a $30,000 job.
And if you think he's lousy at defending the substance of this item, get a load of his attempts at psychoanalysis in comments above.
Emergency rooms are not meant for the common cold, but since people can't afford health care before the health care law, they either go to the emergency room for the sniffles or wait until it becomes pneumonia, then skip out on the bill.
That's how we save money. They don't wait until things are an emergency or go to the emergency room (something expensive) for something very minor.
More demand doesn't lower cost? Really? Ever take an econ class?
You have read at least something like this right?
Good point pops. For example, I've noticed every gloom and doom prediction you and your teabaggy ilk have made in the past three and a half years have all turned out wrong. Every. Single. One.
this one
infestation
the list of unacceptable labels grows more meaningless with every addition.
Yeah that's just like us Marines, all head and no heart.
How about we just go with the experts on this one. Something you and your Faux Noose refuse to do.
I don't mind the experts postulating on the future, but their record is less than stellar. Hopefully, the experts you reference are right, and Obamacare is a stellar success.
Cite one time that the CBO under estimated health care costs. One time. Can't? Cause they haven't. In the past they have grossly overestimated, but not underestimated. So one again, please explain their "less than stellar" record. Or do you just say things before thinking?
Finally, something we can agree on. I knew you were just playing dumb..........
So, which is it? Are we raising taxes on the poor, or spending too much money by not raising taxes on the poor?
The poor won't see increased taxes. And it's funny how NOW the republicans are all of a sudden concerned about the poor...
No I do not. I believe that in the long run we will spend less money, but "save money"? No. The government is not and was not intended to be profitable. It shouldn't have a savings account. We as a country and our government must spend tax dollars on a great many things in order to remain a great nation of and for the people. I just believe that money is better spent on health care than oil subsidies. That's all.
Hey Poopy, you believe in God? Jesus? What did he say about taking care of the poor and the sick? I truly feel for your internal conflict of interest. Oh wait, your a liar. No conflict their I guess..............
Actually Dumb A$$, "Americas Poorest" now get the help they need to buy insurance and or it will be provided for those too poor. Not to mention most of the middle class now get a tax credit for the health insurance costs and so do their employers. You are so sadly uninformed its maddening..........
Congratulations, you've received your talking points memo from someone. Guess what?
The law, as passed, that's not how it works. If you can't afford to purchase health care, then, you have supplemental money given to you so that you CAN purchase health insurance on open exchanges within each State. Which means, lower prices, because there will be competition in those said same exchanges. The amount of supplementary money you get, depends on what level of the poverty level you are earning money at.
So, to summarize for you. If you're poor, chances are you're going to pay nothing or very little for quality health care.
Other people are only "taxed" if they opt out. And hence are given a penalty.
You really have no idea what is in this law do you? YOu just repeat verbatim what republicans tell you to say, as in, raising taxes on people, even when that is mostly patently false.
Please, go learn something, and come back when you have some actual information to provide. Because right now, you've got absolutely nothing.
Short answer; they're not. Not at all.
Why didn't these morons get angry when, you know, republicans were warrantless wiretapping American citizens, holding Americans without charge or trial indefinitely because they were tagged as "combatants", or when SCOTUS ruled without setting precedent on a Presidential election?
And those were just a few things that happened that they weren't mad about. But oh dear, require everyone to have health insurance, they're talking about armed insurrection against the country.
The freedom to be a free rider and not carry health insurance, meaning that everybody else has to pay for your healthcare when, inevitably, you do need it.
The freedom to buy and sell junk health insurance policies that don't cover all of the things you're likely to need health insurance for, meaning that everybody else has to pay for your healthcare.
Of course the law's opponents would like to do away with a far more valuable freedom; the freedom of citizens to come together through their elected representatives to address big societal problems.
Your entire argument rests on the premise that all people "need" to go to an ama, big pharma, big government approved institution for "health" care.
Of course, if they do not wish to go then they are ipso facto insane, and need compulsory mind destroying court mandated drugs.
A comically circular farce.
Should we expect sound reason and logic from the dialectical materialism? Perhaps its my mistake. After all, there is the clear thinking logic of the proletariat, and the false logic of the bourgeois. And how can you tell the difference? It depends on the conclusion of course. Ex post facto logic evaluation. If you agree with the state, then ipso facto your logic is sound.
5 out of 9 supreme court jesters have outed themselves.