Quote from: Trip on July 17, 2013, 01:45:32 PM
YEAH, because Roberts has made such a difference, and we could rely on him and his ethical concerns in the clinch.

I've got no problem having Roberts removed from office, even with the chance of Obama appointing another justice.  The funny thing about doing things for the right reasons, is that things actually start working properly.

Amazing, that.  Whodda thunk it!

Trip, I appreciate you posting about this.  I think there is something there....

Quote from: taxed on July 17, 2013, 03:24:09 PM
Trip, I appreciate you posting about this.  I think there is something there....

Taxed, thanks. 

I think it's important that we all keep our eyes open nowadays, and really recognize that what is going on all around us does not even have pretend to be legitimate government anymore,  and in the meantime we see the "method" repeatedly shown in the news,  with government gathering information on everyone, everything available, and listening in to even our own "representatives".

"I have a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore."

Trip, w/respect.
I posed several questions earlier and you responded tactfully. Fair enough but insufficient.
When conspiracies are afoot, my lodestone will always gravitate to the Great Ockham
and his Principle of Efficient Reasoning (Razor) ie. the explanation w/the  fewest plausible
causes and variables will invariably be the correct explanation. By the way, when people
disagree w/you; it doesn't imply that they disrespect you.

Quote from: Walter Josh on July 17, 2013, 09:01:14 PM
Trip, w/respect.
I posed several questions earlier and you responded tactfully. Fair enough but insufficient.
When conspiracies are afoot, my lodestone will always gravitate to the Great Ockham
and his Principle of Efficient Reasoning (Razor) ie. the explanation w/the  fewest plausible
causes and variables will invariably be the correct explanation. By the way, when people
disagree w/you; it doesn't imply that they disrespect you.

I understand the comment about disrespect, and I, uh,  agree.

That said,  part of ockham's razor isn't just presupposing normalcy, but judging all the available data, and then reaching a conclusion. And that is actually what I was in the process of doing when I ran across the adoption information.  I was researching Roberts past decisions and his legal involvements. 

One thing I knew for certain is that his rationalization of the governments taxing authority was not  accurate as represented, along with other rationales in what became the majority opinion that weren't congruent  with constitutional principle,  or even precedent.  Coupled with the very strange tenor of the minority opinion, that did not read at all like any sort of minority opinion, as is noted in the intro, and that became my motivation to search for answers.

When my research ran across the adoption information and I read about two Irish children "born in  Ireland 4 1/2 months apart", and "adopted through Latin American countries" (plural), it hit me like a ton of bricks.

The point of applying Ockham's blade to the facts and incongruity of a Chief Justice actually flipping his allegedly deeply held view not long before the decision was made public, just did not yield any sort of straight line. It's not as if Supreme Court Justices are isolated from society, and the facts of ObamaCare had not long been in the media beforehand.  This was not some convoluted case hinging on some obscure fact, or point of law.   There's little doubt that every one of the Justices knew their position before the hearing, and their questions and comments during that hearing often only served as cover for their resolve - except for Roberts.

A Chief Justice does not reasonably write 46 pages, and some 13,000 words all with the undeniable intent of rejecting the entirety of ObamaCare, and then suddenly slap himself in the forehead exclaiming, "oh damn, I forgot about the federal authority to tax!"

Overall, the Supreme Court ruling that the legislature, and one mere statute, not even an amendment, might profoundly and extremely change the relationship between the citizen and government,  is not made any more reasonable by framing the individual mandate as a tax.

Not even Sir William Ockham himself could divine a straight line between the facts and outcome without recognizing that some critical consideration was being overlooked. 

The adoptions represent that consideration.

Quote from: Walter Josh on July 17, 2013, 09:01:14 PM
When conspiracies are afoot, my lodestone will always gravitate to the Great Ockham
and his Principle of Efficient Reasoning (Razor) ie. the explanation w/the  fewest plausible causes and variables will invariably be the correct explanation.

By the way, when people
disagree w/you; it doesn't imply that they disrespect you.

Incidentally,  when I responded to your post, the first reply in this thread,  it had nothing to do with "respect", or any knee-jerk defense of the the evidence and argument I've put forth.

What I responded to was you manipulating facts to affirm a preordained conclusion, which does not demonstrate any sort of employ of Ockham's razor at all.

You indicated that this was concerning  "Gaelic Law (not Irish)" which is entirely untrue, and was demonstrated by my address of the "Overview of Ireland Adoption Law", only two posts prior to yours. 

You then assumed for some undisclosed reason, that this somehow necessitated that Roberts was impeachable then, but not so now, which was actually entirely the opposite of what I had indicated.

And finally you surmised that Roberts might have enough influence  "w/the Dublin Bar and in their Dail (Parliament)" to adopt the children by normal means, without any sort of "chicanery".   In this surmise, you're ignoring the previous referenced Ireland Adoption Law, as well as the facts of the adoption  confirmed by different sources, that the children were adopted through Latin American countries.   If Roberts were actually adopting with the blessing of the Irish government, and within Irish law, he most certainly would not have to go through Latin America for one adoption, much less two.

This deliberate disregard for the facts does not demonstrate any actual regard for Ockham's "efficient reasoning" at all,  but rather the employ of "convenient rationalizations" to get to a preordained conclusion.

And I don't indicate this with any disrespect for you at all, but rather regard for the facts themselves.

Now you've got me poking around. This is off topic, but more fuel for the fire.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-prop-8-john-roberts-lesbian-cousin-20130626,0,2259194.story

There are lots of things on the adoptions:

http://underneaththeirrobes.blogs.com/main/2005/08/the_roberts_ado.html

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tea-party-nation-wonders-if-john-roberts-was-blackmailed-uphold-health-care-reform

I'm still at odds with the blackmail theory, since the fact that the kids were Irish and adopted through Latin America, was an open secret back in 2005.

What's the search on his previous rulings and decisions showing? Is it possible that he's just a closet leftist?

If that were the case, it would also explain his disregard for the law, in the adoptions; the ends always justify the means.

If Roberts was indeed involved in human trafficking, one would think that the democrats would have hammered him with it during the confirmation process...I mean, consider the embarrassing public spectacle they created over Clarence Thomas supposedly saying that a hair on a Coke can looked like a pubic hair.

The one thing I've heard about Roberts is that he somehow builds his votes / rulings / opinions on how it will affect the legacy of "his SC".

Just another 75% conservative.  Apparently he wants "his SC" to be remembered as compassionate and socially nice, kind, fair, decent.

As opposed to simply refereeing how existing law has been used or misused.

Quote from: AndyJackson on July 18, 2013, 04:17:58 AM
The one thing I've heard about Roberts is that he somehow builds his votes / rulings / opinions on how it will affect the legacy of "his SC".

Just another 75% conservative.  Apparently he wants "his SC" to be remembered as compassionate and socially nice, kind, fair, decent.

As opposed to simply refereeing how existing law has been used or misused.

There's too much of that going on. Their job is to apply the constitution, "as it is written", to each and every case. Period. Feelings don't matter.

Trying to understand why he screwed us leads to conspiracy theory.
Maybe there is no conspiracy at all, he's just a damn lib at heart.

I don't buy the conspiracy crap one bit.
My belief is Roberts isn't a Conservative in the sense we think he is, he's no Scalia or Thomas, he's a damn kid that interpreted the Constitution the way he wanted to, capitalism and culture be damned.


Lets face it, he screwed us along with the other commies on the court, remember, he wasn't the only one.

Quote from: kramarat on July 18, 2013, 02:33:28 AM

I'm still at odds with the blackmail theory, since the fact that the kids were Irish and adopted through Latin America, was an open secret back in 2005.

What's the search on his previous rulings and decisions showing? Is it possible that he's just a closet leftist?

If that were the case, it would also explain his disregard for the law, in the adoptions; the ends always justify the means.

If Roberts was indeed involved in human trafficking, one would think that the democrats would have hammered him with it during the confirmation process...I mean, consider the embarrassing public spectacle they created over Clarence Thomas supposedly saying that a hair on a Coke can looked like a pubic hair.

True, the adoptions was a sort of open secret in 2005,  however at that time it was one were it was never really phrased publicly that the adoptions were had through a means deliberately contravening the law.  The New York Times research and story was squelched by the assertion they were violating the anonymity of the adoption process and harming at least the future well-being of the children, and to many of leftist intent (and rightist as well), this would be enough to discourage  further probing into the issue. 

At that time in 2005 Roberts had no actual position on the Court, and much less longevity in that position to warrant the research.   However an enormous transition has occurred in this country since 2005.   

Since then, radical leftists have come out of the closet, and assumed open control of the Democratic party.   In the 2008 primaries when Hillary Clinton was asked to define Liberal, she dismissed the term "liberal" and engaged an enormous head-fake, instead indicating she was a "proud Progressive."   Most Americans really didn't know what that was, and certainly didn't recognize it as a repackaging of another ideology, a  neo-Marxism.  Since then, both the Executive administration, and Congress itself have openly praised redistributive goals and fomented race and class strife.  I never thought I'd see these ideologies exercised in this country, much less openly voiced as if they were legit under the Constitution, along with the claim it is anywhere legitimately government's job to engage in the dictate of social engineering.

My point here is that there is now far greater impulse to undermine Roberts than there was in 2005,  particularly when a major Socialist goal is in sight, as well as the overall validation of the belief that the end justifies virtually whatever means.

Perhaps Roberts was acting to preserve, or create, his "legacy" in the Court.  And perhaps he had some intent to promote conservatism overall as more 'kindly" and "caring". We certainly heard this from  the pundits after the decision, but all of this was claimed as a way to rationalize Roberts decision, and explain the unexplainable with that vote-flip.  And the rumblings from the likes of Scalia and Thomas, both growing since that decision, as well as what they wrote in the remaining pages of the dissent itself, show a dismay, and even disgust,  at Robert's action, and the attempt to stop his flipped vote from happening are said to have continued to the twelfth hour.

Nothing particular in Roberts past  decisions or legal involvements really sends up any red flags.  It's pretty much a uniform conservative ideology, generally competent in its representation of historic and legal perspective, and sometimes even straying into  originalism. 

Roberts is not a great historian in the writings of his decisions, and not known for profound constitutional thought, particularly in comparison to some justices, but this is entirely different than the rationalization we saw regarding the "Tax vs penalty" distinction, with the misrepresentation of the "authority to tax" being a  deliberate distortion of fact, precedent, and history on Roberts part.

I've been poking around these forums to try and find an area to post this historic reference of the power to tax, i.e. "Tax vs Pentalty".  There is no real "Constitutional" area on this forum,  ...<edit> Ive decided to post this information to a separate thread in this forum. I will follow with a link to that thread

The overall point of these posts, to follow, is that this nation's founders were not idiots. THey didn't write a constitution that would create a check to Congress writing penalties into law, prohibiting things like Bills of Attainder, and Ex Post Facto laws, and then entirely ignore the penchant of tyrants to re-define words, renaming a penalty as a tax, and thereby skirt previous prohibitions. There are repeated checks and counter checks to prohibit this sort of thing.

• "How strangely will the Tools of a Tyrant pervert the plain Meaning of Words."
  ~ Samuel Adams

One final observation.
Solar is on a Trifecta on this board today!
His comment nails it." I don't buy the conspiracy
crap one bit. My belief is that Roberts isn't a
conservative in the sense we think he is..."
Indeed and I'll bet Ockham is smiling over that.

Quote from: Walter Josh on July 18, 2013, 11:39:16 AM
One final observation.
Solar is on a Trifecta on this board today!
His comment nails it." I don't buy the conspiracy
crap one bit. My belief is that Roberts isn't a
conservative in the sense we think he is..."
Indeed and I'll bet Ockham is smiling over that.

That tears it.

Last time somebody said that he wore the purple ermine robe for DAYS around here...

Quote from: Walter Josh on July 18, 2013, 11:39:16 AM
One final observation.
Solar is on a Trifecta on this board today!
His comment nails it." I don't buy the conspiracy
crap one bit. My belief is that Roberts isn't a
conservative in the sense we think he is..."
Indeed and I'll bet Ockham is smiling over that.

Thank you sir.
Roberts was, after all a Bush appointment, a family friend, so there can be no doubt he is in the image of Bush, a RINO, a big Govt advocate.

Reference: ObamaCare: "Tax vs Penalty" Is Irrelevant

The point of the above discussion, is that Roberts' indication of some broad, unfettered federal authority to tax is really not accurate.   

The authority to tax deliberately prohibits direct taxation to the individual, which must be enumerated according to the census, even after the 16th Amendment, as the ObamaCare tax is not based on "income".   

The claim that the individual mandate is a penalty, not a  tax, allows it to bypass the barriers still in place even after the 16th Amendment. 

However Congress, and the  described it to be a "Tax", and this is how Roberts justified it, because of need to bypass bills of attainder, which it clearly is.

Roberts claimed it was a tax, and claimed some broad power of Congress to tax virtually anything, despite the fact that the authority to tax in Article 1, Section 8, is specifically applied to the enumerated powers that follow it. 

Nowhere among those enumerated powers is any authority over health care.

"Property and capitation" are not the only two types of direct tax. The Hylton vs United States (1796) case,  often cited in support of an authority to tax, was concerning a tax on carriages, with carriages being argued in that case to be the equivalent of property, like land, which the government rejected, and relegated to being an excise tax in the decision.   However, as shown by the discussion of Direct tax, which I provide in the second post at the above reference, the consideration of such "property" to be direct taxation, is only the secondary recognition of what constitutes direct taxation. Direct taxation is quite literally applied directly "to the individual". Capitation is only one form of direct taxation.

Furthermore, in conflict with Roberts' implication in the majority opinion regarding "without regard to property, profession, or any other circumstance", the fact that such a capitation tax is only payed under ObamaCare by individuals without insurance, does not remove the consideration of it being capitation or direct tax, as those who do not pay that tax are already paying it by compliance, having acceptable dictated health care insurance.

"Direct" tax involves "to the person", and the reason it was prohibited is that allowing such taxation enables the government to exercise agendas against individuals or groups, something that Leftists want to enable, yet is in gross conflict with the founder's intent.

Roberts totally ignored these applicable facts of taxation, and deliberately misrepresented them, instead claiming some broad plenary power to tax, that does not exist and deliberately did not exist at this country's founding on to today.   

This isn't just bad jurisprudence, it is deliberate malfeasance to a corrupt end, which once again has us questioning how Roberts might write 13,000 words and 46 pages rejecting ObamaCare, and then suddenly flip, ostensibly having just then discovered this overriding power to tax, that really doesn't exist.

Quote from: Walter Josh on July 18, 2013, 11:39:16 AM
One final observation.
Solar is on a Trifecta on this board today!
His comment nails it." I don't buy the conspiracy
crap one bit. My belief is that Roberts isn't a
conservative in the sense we think he is..."
Indeed and I'll bet Ockham is smiling over that.

The only conspiracy here occurred more than 200 years ago, where a handful of brave men took action to institute a form of limited government so as to protect indivdual freedoms, and you don't seem to "buy" what ensured from that either.

You also don't actually subscribe to Ockham's Razor as well, instead taking the most direct route, the "straight line", to support your convenient preconception,  ignoring the facts, which is not actually what Sir William of Ockham promoted.

Mitt Romney wasn't "a conservative" in the sense that some tried to claim he was either,  but that in no way validates Romney's corruption of the 10th Amendment as "Fifty Flavors of Democracy" allowing the the State to take over de facto ownership of each citizen's body, and reducing citizens to being refugees in their own country, fleeing from state to state in hope that one might still recognize those "unalienable" individual rights.

What is being conserved under "Conservative" are the terms of the Constitution, and not some constantly expanding authority of government to dictate every aspect of our lives.