This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Public Opinion Of US Supreme Court Deteriorates Following Obamacare Decision

Tyler Durden's picture





 

While we are still collecting various public polling results showing popular sentiment in the aftermath of the Supreme Court's surprising Obamacare ruling last week, the first results out of Rasmussen show that if Judge John Roberts' goal was to somehow restory credibility in the supreme judicial entity, following his alleged flip flopping on the ACA, whereby he passed the Individual Mandate in a format never intended by the Obama administration, he has failed. From Rasmussen: "A week ago, 36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week."

More:

Public opinion of the Supreme Court has grown more negative since the highly publicized ruling on the president’s health care law was released. A growing number now believe that the high court is too liberal and that justices pursue their own agenda rather than acting impartially.

 

A week ago, 36% said the court was doing a good or an excellent job. That’s down to 33% today. However, the big change is a rise in negative perceptions. Today, 28% say the Supreme Court is doing a poor job. That’s up 11 points over the past week.

 

The new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey, conducted on Friday and Saturday following the court ruling, finds that 56% believe justices pursue their own political agenda rather than generally remain impartial. That’s up five points from a week ago. Just half as many -- 27% -- believe the justices remain impartial. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

 

Thirty-seven percent (37%) now believe the Supreme Court is too liberal, while 22% think it's too conservative. A week ago, public opinion was much more evenly divided:  32% said it was too liberal and 25% said too conservative.

 

In the latest survey, 31% now believe the balance is about right.

Not surprisingly, the SCOTUS is merely the latest entity to fall cleanly into the political class divide, showing that when ideology is concerned, Justice is certainly not blind:

A week ago, Republicans were generally positive about the court. Forty-two percent (42%) of GOP voters gave the justices good or excellent marks, while 14% said poor. Now, the numbers are strongly negative — 20% say good or excellent and 43% say poor.

 

Among Democrats, the numbers went from mixed to very positive. A week ago, 35% of those in the president’s party gave the high court positive reviews and 22% offered a negative assessment. Now, 50% are positive and only 11% give the high court negative marks.

 

As for those not affiliated with either major party, the positives remained unchanged at 31%. However, among unaffiliated voters, the number rating the court's performance as poor doubled from 14% a week ago to 30% today.

 

Among Political Class voters, positive ratings for the Supreme Court soared to 55%, compared to 27% a week ago.

 

Among Mainstream voters, the court’s ratings headed in the opposite direction. A week ago, 34% of Mainstream voters said the court was doing a good or excellent job and 17% gave it poor ratings. The numbers have now reversed — 22% positive and 36% negative.

 

Democrats are now fairly evenly divided as to whether justices pursue their own agenda or remain impartial. However, by lopsided margins, Republicans and unaffiliated voters believe that they pursue their own agenda.

Next up it is Germany's constitutional court to confirm that when it comes to preserving the status quo, impartial and objective ethics and values, not to mention laws and mores, are irrelevant. The only problem, there and here, is the one day at a time, taking liberty with the heretofore endless supplies of other people's money, which allowed everyone to keep a blind eye to the government's encroaching take over of all seemingly impartial institutions, is slowly ending, as the above mentioned "enablement" money is now practically gone.

And no amount of "collateral expansions" by the ECB or other central banks can fix this realization at the heart of all modern-day problems.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:20 | Link to Comment P.T.Bull
P.T.Bull's picture

Another liberal who injects gay sexual practices into political debate. Cowardly Couplet, surely there are special interest forums where your sexual fantasies would be well received. This is not one of them.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:54 | Link to Comment blunderdog
blunderdog's picture

Wha?  Are you nuts, or is that the kind of mischief those gay Republicans get up to?  Pretending to fuck Rush's face?

Ugh.  I'd really rather not know that sort of thing, dude.  I'm all for you faggots doing whatever you want, but that's beyond any reasonable decorum to be boasting about it in public.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:02 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

When it comes to painting pictures of gowned clowns who do little parlor-tricks of word-games turning a "fine" into a 'tax"...

“The chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, John Roberts, said [about Obamacare], ‘It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.’ Not our job…. So Obamacare is nothing more than the largest tax increase in the history of the world…. We have the biggest tax increase in the history of the world right in the middle of one of this country’s worst recessions. In fact, as the vice president said yesterday, a depression for millions of Americans.” -Rush Limbaugh, June 28, 2012

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 19:21 | Link to Comment Pure Evil
Pure Evil's picture

So, what you're saying is that Obama should paint Rush's face on his ass so that he can pretend that Rush is getting fucked in the face while he takes it up the ass?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 22:11 | Link to Comment UGrev
UGrev's picture

Can't wait til the fields are filled with people like you.. it will be fish'n barrel time and I won't lose a wink over it. 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:51 | Link to Comment Bobportlandor
Bobportlandor's picture

All military personnel at the end of their tour should not reinlist.

Thats my solution.

No point protecting gov: steeling private property,

printing counterfit money,

NDAA,

campaign bribery,

crony capitalism,

.....

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:32 | Link to Comment Haole
Haole's picture

Or how about fighting the corruption and not fighting for it?  Unless, of course, they are all now incapable of honoring the oath they swore as well. Meh, constitution, schmonstitution...

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:22 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
Sun, 07/01/2012 - 22:10 | Link to Comment mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

Yeah, they should just take one of those plentiful private sector jobs, maybe security guard part time with their experience.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:52 | Link to Comment SIOP
SIOP's picture

 I lost all my respect for the supreme court when they over turned eminent domain. (Kelo v. City of New London)

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:01 | Link to Comment Yellowhoard
Yellowhoard's picture

Thank you Bush 41 for David Souter.

Romney should be forced to provide a list of acceptable Supreme candidates before he is awarded the nomination.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:08 | Link to Comment wee-weed up
wee-weed up's picture

Yep, Roberts proves the maxim...

Fucked by BUSH yet again!

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 20:21 | Link to Comment porkdrippingsle...
porkdrippingsleavestains's picture

Kelo was my waking up moment.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 13:56 | Link to Comment Yellowhoard
Yellowhoard's picture

I'm no lawyer, but I think Robrts may have pulled a fast one on the libs.

Apparently, he strengthened states rights, narrowed the breadth of the Commerce clause and defined the mandate as a tax.

This wil galvanize opposition to those politicians that supported this wildly unpopular bill.

Clair Macaskill and several other Dem senators are toast.

Romney pulled in millions in donations within hours of the judgement.

If Romney and the GOP run as a group to overturn ObamaCare and win, the legislation will be overturn by a simple one vote margin the same way it was passed.

Maybe I'm being overly optimistic but I'm feeling pretty good about things right now.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:09 | Link to Comment Uncle Remus
Uncle Remus's picture

I would agree he pulled a "fast one" and made a lot of people furious. Still, unless he's the Manchurian Supreme, this isn't what the MSM et al would like the peanut gallery to think it is. I'm still waiting for "the other shoe" as it were.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:14 | Link to Comment Killtruck
Killtruck's picture

I thought Romney was the one who practically wrote Obamacare? I'll be interested to see how this plays out.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:30 | Link to Comment Yellowhoard
Yellowhoard's picture

As a states rights guy, I really dont care what states do. If Romney wanted government healthcare in his state, the residents can always move to a more reasonable state.

So long as he doesn't cram that shit down our throats as President, who cares?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:12 | Link to Comment sosoome
sosoome's picture

Except for fact that he ruled it constitutional for fedguv to mandate purchase of a product or service as long as the alternative to pay a tax instead is available, I'd tend to agree with you. 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 22:16 | Link to Comment UGrev
UGrev's picture

Exactly.. and that's why I don't think there's any "fast one" here.. just the "other shoe". He could have said.. no, this is uncon.. and still made the same decision with the states issues as well. If there was any "fast one" pulled, it was on us.. 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:42 | Link to Comment DosZap
DosZap's picture

Yellowhoard ,

I'm no lawyer, but I think Robrts may have pulled a fast one on the libs.

I agree, Roberts decison STOPS mandates.

It must be a tax, or it will not pass Constitutional muster.

IF it had passed as Mandate, they could mandate ANYTHING they want.

Now they cannot it has to be a  Tax, and pass muster from that basis.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:25 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Point of order. Did Obamacare originate in the House as all tax bills must?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 19:44 | Link to Comment Jena
Jena's picture

I believe it did.  

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 21:27 | Link to Comment Ned Zeppelin
Ned Zeppelin's picture

Doszap is right.  If you read the decision, the seeming "victory" is also complemented by a very bright line which says that the gov't cannot require you to "be" in commerce (e.g., buy health insurance) but can only regulate you once you are in commerce,  A new holding.  And the "tax" method of making you do things is subject to all of the rules that apply to taxes. So it may not be a complete win, but it makes alot of sense in the context of the Court's holdings over many decades.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:20 | Link to Comment Hedgetard55
Hedgetard55's picture

Roberts took a gigantic crap on the Constitution and the average US taxpayer, period.

 

Now they can mandate anything they want and ruin you with a "tax" when you do not comply.

 

Roberts - scumbag of the highest order, and no amount of magical thinking from the right will change that.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:36 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>Roberts took a gigantic crap on the Constitution

Nope.

The Constitution always contained the evil seeds that are now bearing fruit.

Roberts is merely the gardener.

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 18:11 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

Interpreting words to mean the exact opposite of their intent does not make the words wrong.  These people can't see reality.  They think they can overwrite reality as it is merely by twisting definitions.  

But their twisting of definitions does nothing about reality.  It only makes them unable to understand what is going on, and makes then unable to effect positive change in the world.

The Constitution is good.  Those who say that it says things that it doesn't are bad.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:46 | Link to Comment lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

Barry X: "See how quick these Drones work, Judge? Anytime, Anywhere, BOOM!"

JR: "Yes."

Barry X (cig hanging from mouth as he cleans his Makarov) "Then I'm sure you know which way to vote. Thanks for stopping by at this late hour. Take him home, guards."

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 20:24 | Link to Comment mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

So what, same thing with car insurance. If you don't get it, you pay huge penalties and/or lose your license. Same thing with property tax. If you don't pay, you lose your property. If you get caught with some weed, you might have to pay a huge fine or even go to jail. If you get drafted and don't show up, same thing.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 22:18 | Link to Comment UGrev
UGrev's picture

At the state level.. 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 21:28 | Link to Comment Ned Zeppelin
Ned Zeppelin's picture

Have you bothered to read the decision - it's written in a way that is comprehensible at a 5th grade level.  So you'll have no trouble. Well, hopefully.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 00:21 | Link to Comment Freddie
Freddie's picture

If you watch TV or Hollywood's shit, buy newspapers (except Investors Business Daily) or buy anything from the media - you support it.   Fox is the same as the rest.  Your cable or sat TV money keeps them in power.  Keep it up serfs.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:27 | Link to Comment cherry picker
cherry picker's picture

If the founding fathers were alive today, they would be outcasts who few would follow.  There is no paitience for thinking men who dare question authority and who believe in freedom and justice for all without religious interference.

I think we are fortunate that their achievements have not been erased from recorded history, yet.....

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:18 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

What makes you think the founding fathers "believe in freedom"?

They defeated one oppressive government only to errect another one in its place. Why did they even bother defeating King George? Probably for personal fame and greed, not for any kind of lofty ideal.

These guys "who believe in freedom and justice for all"; how many slaves did they keep?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:53 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

To denigrate these men for their role in the founding of this country is to denigrate America.

Zero Hedge ran a piece prior to July 4, 2011 by TFMetals Report on Lives, Fortunes and Honor in recognition of the nation’s 235th anniversary-signing of the American Declaration of Independence. It contained not only the words of the Declaration but a link to "The Americans Who Risked Everything" by Rush Limbaugh, Jr.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/folder/american_who_risked_everything_1.guest.html

Wrote TJ:It is the best summary I have ever found on the history of America's ‘Founding Fathers’. It was written some fifty years ago by the father of radio host Rush Limbaugh. Regardless of your opinion of Rush the Third, please take a few moments to read and reflect upon the words and wisdom of Rush the Second.”

Here is an excerpt:

Lives, Fortunes, Honor

Of those 56 who signed the Declaration of Independence, nine died of wounds or hardships during the war. Five were captured and imprisoned, in each case with brutal treatment. Several lost wives, sons or entire families. One lost his 13 children. Two wives were brutally treated. All were at one time or another the victims of manhunts and driven from their homes. Twelve signers had their homes completely burned. Seventeen lost everything they owned. Yet not one defected or went back on his pledged word. Their honor, and the nation they sacrificed so much to create is still intact.

And, finally, there is the New Jersey signer, Abraham Clark.

He gave two sons to the officer corps in the Revolutionary Army. They were captured and sent to that infamous British prison hulk afloat in New York Harbor known as the hell ship Jersey, where 11,000 American captives were to die. The younger Clarks were treated with a special brutality because of their father. One was put in solitary and given no food. With the end almost in sight, with the war almost won, no one could have blamed Abraham Clark for acceding to the British request when they offered him his sons' lives if he would recant and come out for the King and Parliament. The utter despair in this man's heart, the anguish in his very soul, must reach out to each one of us down through 200 years with his answer: "No."

The 56 signers of the Declaration Of Independence proved by their every deed that they made no idle boast when they composed the most magnificent curtain line in history. "And for the support of this Declaration with a firm reliance on the protection of divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor."

http://www.zerohedge.com/article/guest-post-lives-fortunes-and-honor

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 22:12 | Link to Comment mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

So what? Almost all the Bolsheviks died along with their entire familes and anyone they spoke to much. Likewise Mao and Ho Chi Minh.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 22:21 | Link to Comment UGrev
UGrev's picture

Shut up and die..  Ho Chi .. ARE YOU FOR FUCKING REAL!!  long march this right up your stupid fucking ass.. dick face.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:22 | Link to Comment P.T.Bull
P.T.Bull's picture

They were libertarians. They would have one seat in congress, and maybe one in the senate

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:45 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

They were slaveholding libertarians?

Derp.

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:30 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Nobody's perfect. Which, of course, if why libertarians insist on the right to self determination to begin with. Ironic, isn't it?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 18:14 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

The Evil use the Perfect to destroy the Good.

Can you guess which one you are?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:35 | Link to Comment Stuck on Zero
Stuck on Zero's picture

If it's a battle between centralization vs. individual rights we pretty well know how the court will cast a decision.

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 14:44 | Link to Comment cherry picker
cherry picker's picture

They say an alcoholic is someone who sees the truth and cannot live in this world without the spirits numbing his or her mind.

The truth displayed on these pages is enough to turn anyone into an alcoholic as the inability to do something to implement "Hope" and "Change" is obvious to most of us.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:31 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Whiskey rebels.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:06 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

The court's logic is sound.

A government that has the power to tax can tax you for any reason.

If robbery is legitimate, then everything is legitimate.

The truth just hurts now that it's out in the open and not obscured by "commerce clause" B.S.

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:14 | Link to Comment ebworthen
ebworthen's picture

KELO vs. City of New London, in which the Supine Court determined that a municipality can confiscate your home or any property simply to increase tax revenues, should have set every citizen 100% against the court.

The sheeple are slowly awakening, but are so easily herded and culled by the wolves of Washington and Wall Street that most won't realize they are being slaughtered until the wolf's mouth is on their neck.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:17 | Link to Comment cherry picker
cherry picker's picture

The day I found out about that ruling I knew in my heart the Supreme Court is only "Supreme" in their own minds.

They are no longer of significance to me.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:34 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

"The right most valued by all civilized men is the right to be left alone." -- Justice Louis Brandeis, Associate Justice on the Supreme Court of the United States from 1916 to 1939.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:22 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

There was an attempt to have a municipality use its eminent domain power to seize one of the justice's homes, but I guess it didn't work out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Liberty_Hotel

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:31 | Link to Comment optimator
optimator's picture

ebworthen,  On this off chance you don't know, Those seaside homes that were handed down from gereration to generation, were taken by the city for a Pfizer Chemical Co. expansion.   With Ct. taxes the highest in the country, Pfizer didn't expand, put started pulling out of the state.  The property now brings in less taxes than before.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:16 | Link to Comment Fozzy Slippers
Fozzy Slippers's picture

You want me to pay for some ghetto crack heads and illegals? Go F your self Barry.

Lock n Load.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:18 | Link to Comment great escape
great escape's picture

Two of my favorite American Revolutionary heroes. General John Stark and Patrick Henry. These days General John Stark has been forgotten for the most part. Although, New Hampshire uses a phase from a letter he wrote in 1809 to decline an invitation to an anniversary reunion of the Battle of Bennington, in which he wrote. Live free or die: Death is not the worst of evils. New Hampshire’s Motto: “Live free or die”.

 Patrick Henrys quote is far more memorable and quoted, although the whole quote is rarely recited. “Is life so dear, or peace (Obama Care) so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!”

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:39 | Link to Comment Dr. Acula
Dr. Acula's picture

>Patrick Henry...give me liberty or give me death!

Oh please...

It's more like give me slaves or give me death!

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:17 | Link to Comment Killtruck
Killtruck's picture

Good one. Thanks for contributing.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:36 | Link to Comment CrockettAlmanac.com
CrockettAlmanac.com's picture

Dr. Acula, you used to seem kind of cool but a few months ago you turned into a complete asshole. Do you think it might be a tumor?

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 18:17 | Link to Comment tmosley
tmosley's picture

You do realize that England allowed slavery at that time as well, right?

Or did you want the house to be divided against itself during the war so that they could continue to have slavery forever?

Did you forget that slavery was abolished in the US?  And before that, it was abolished in the Northern States?  Nevermind that it was a backwards, untenable system that would have eventually fallen apart on its own to start with.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 00:10 | Link to Comment jumbo maverick
jumbo maverick's picture

Enough of your slave BS. Remember the president is black. Your argument is mute.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:21 | Link to Comment shovelhead
shovelhead's picture

Pitchforks and rope...

Hope and change you can believe in.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:26 | Link to Comment bugs_
bugs_'s picture

Now its widely accepted that all three branches are against us.  Knowing is half the battle.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:36 | Link to Comment ugmug
ugmug's picture

Americans have only one freedom left - the freedom to become a ward of the government - i.e. SCOTUS Couch Potatoes 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 15:37 | Link to Comment IthinkMyHeadsGo...
IthinkMyHeadsGonnaExplode's picture

I sure hope they hurry up with that ACA thing because my butt sure hurts and I don't have any insurance....

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 16:41 | Link to Comment Walt D.
Walt D.'s picture

As deep throat said "follow the money". How much money can dissapear from a $3 trillion a year trough before anyone notices? I estimate close to $1 trillion. This is Solyndra on steroids every year goiing forward.  As the man said - Forward! 

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 07:11 | Link to Comment WTFx10
WTFx10's picture

IT all leads to the PRIVATE Criminal EMPIRE known as Rothschild. Anything else is believed is standard operating procedure bullshit.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:29 | Link to Comment lakecity55
lakecity55's picture

Obviously, We The People cannot count on court nor politician.

That's what the Founders intended.

It is up to us to retain our power or lose it.

Voting has consequences.

Now we shall see if We The People want to start taking our Freedom back in November.

Otherwise, we're Gulag Bound.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:31 | Link to Comment kraschenbern
kraschenbern's picture

Masterfully executed Bait and Switch!

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:35 | Link to Comment azusgm
azusgm's picture

My congressman's opinion of the Roberts opinion (with a few swipes at Holder and Kagan thrown in).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JcxpO7f_Bw4&list=UU0HMa6X3iMhMq96kkRLLTog...

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 17:46 | Link to Comment JR
JR's picture

Liberty Re-defined by John Roberts (on Daily Paul) today. Submitted by fireant:

http://www.dailypaul.com/242749/liberty-re-defined-by-john-roberts

According to Roberts' ruling, "liberty" is maintained as long as there is a choice between complying or paying a tax. Roberts claims as long as that choice exists, the government is not compelling persons to buy a product or service. What he overlooks is that by defining the choices, the liberty to seek other choices is eviscerated, and the Constitution no longer seeks to Secure the Blessings of Liberty.

Liberty per Roberts: Do as I say, or pay a tax. You are free to choose.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Roberts, and all signers of the majority opinion, are due impeachment for failure to safeguard constitutional intent as stated in the Preamble.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 22:42 | Link to Comment Centurion9.41
Centurion9.41's picture

You are a fool to believe he was some how ignorant or confused of the facts and reality.

Robert's choose to side with evil. Roberts choose to take away your freedom to serve his idols.

That is all that has happened.

Roberts would take everything you own and put you in a gulag to serve his idols.

You're a fool to believe otherwise.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 19:57 | Link to Comment squexx
squexx's picture

3 Jews out of 9 are SCOTUS, including Kagen whose only qualification is that she blocked closer scrutiny of Obama's ineligibility to sit in the Oval Office. Anyone see a pattern here?!?

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 07:07 | Link to Comment WTFx10
WTFx10's picture

If any one can not see the percentage of rothschilds Jews in our government compared to Non-Jews and not question it are traitors to the US. Dual citizenship israeli and US officials? In High office of government there is NO diversity.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 08:07 | Link to Comment Disenchanted
Disenchanted's picture

 

 

 

Actually it's 4. Sotomayor is most likely from a crypto or Marrano background...

 

Read between the lines here:

 

Life story, Israel trips tie Sotomayor to Jews
Sun, 07/01/2012 - 20:08 | Link to Comment overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

no reduction in centralized power will ever come from the black robes. confuse with pages of contrdictory lies and out right criminal actions: kagen did not recuse per her support of the this law prior to it's passing. roberts rewrote the law as a tax vs penalty, but held it as a penalty so the court had juristiction..our central gov has grown in power with the end of the civil war and lincoln..that trend has come to it's head with kelo and now this ..

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 20:12 | Link to Comment JimS
JimS's picture

Actually, SCOTUS couldn't rule any other way than it did, and by that same margin. This is strictly a matter of the Legislature. Ruling it a tax was the correct call. Now it is up to the people this Fall to either vote President Obama (and all those the supported the Health Care Act) out of office, or, support him for another term. Quite simple. Taxing authority lies with the Legislature. 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 22:37 | Link to Comment Centurion9.41
Centurion9.41's picture

Jim, congratulations for proving you have no idea what you are talking about; read the first 3 pages of the ACA ruling and the anti-injunction act.

IF the case was about taxes, the law required the SCOTUS to throw the case out b/c it did not yet have jurisdiction.

SCOTUS broke the law and hid doing so by literally saying "it's not about a tax" and then saying "it is about a tax".

Evil that's what this was all about, pure evil.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 20:16 | Link to Comment mjk0259
mjk0259's picture

Big deal.  More than 28% don't even know what the Supreme Court does. They are just responding to the recent rantings of Rush, Beck, etc.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 21:00 | Link to Comment booboo
booboo's picture

All you need to know about the U.S. Constitution is contained in Article 1 Section 8 " The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties,Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

The rest was just there to keep the farm animals from seeeing the fences closing in. They alway knew that they could squeeze the animals until they dropped. Want to own a gun? $10,000 tax, car? $20,000 grand in tax. Those of you waiting for a reset are not going to see shit until the last human chicken lays it's last egg. Then, they will allow a "Great Revolution" and allow the animals to think the fence was broke down, and the current farmer stomped into heifer dust. nah, they just moved it out of sight until the next ponzi is begins to go parabolic. Afterall, you have zero hedges.... bitchez.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 22:30 | Link to Comment Centurion9.41
Centurion9.41's picture

"for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

You pervert the meaning of the words. What is being done was never the meaning of those words when written. That is why the very concept of "guaranteed" entitlements like health care and social security were not even debated as a part of the "general welfare" clause discussion.

It's also why they specifically said that taxation was to be "uniform"

The reason why things are the way they are is the Sheeple began down the Orwellian path of "freedom". Lincoln and FDR were two of the biggest contributors to the perversion and raping of the Constitution.

I'd argue Lincoln was the first "progressive liberal" to ignore not only freedom and the law to get what he thought was right. Though I do of course agree that slavery is an evil and needed to end, Lincoln did more damage to the country by the way he went about doing it than any long term benefits to the nation.

CJ Roberts has proven himself to be nothing more than a selfish and arrogant man more concerned with his legacy than your freedom or that of your children. Like many post Vatican II Catholics he his religion is his vision of "Social Justice". And he is willing to break one of the very Commandment's he claims to believe, to steal from you and give the money to another to pay for that vision.

He is no different than the puppet judges in medevial courts.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 22:49 | Link to Comment booboo
booboo's picture

I imparted no meaning to any words, they did. The question remains, what are the farm animals going to do about it? right now you are just mooing.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 23:17 | Link to Comment UTICA CLUB XX PURE
UTICA CLUB XX PURE's picture

I hate every fucking one of them too BUT THEY WONT CONTROL MY FARM...

 

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 23:27 | Link to Comment robertocarlos
robertocarlos's picture

The gvot could always go to big pharma and name your own price. Ask the Shat.

Sun, 07/01/2012 - 23:33 | Link to Comment rotagen
rotagen's picture

Breaking news: " public opinion of Thieves deteriorates after several cars stolen".... thanks captain obvious.

Mon, 07/02/2012 - 02:59 | Link to Comment CaptainObvious
CaptainObvious's picture

You're welcome. :)

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!