Chief Justice John Roberts Bowed To Political Pressure And Changed His Vote On Obamacare

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterPin on PinterestShare on Google+Share on LinkedInShare on StumbleUponEmail this to someone

It is being reported that after oral arguments were finished back in March, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts was planning to join with the other conservative justices in ruling that the individual mandate in Obamacare was unconstitutional.  But something changed.  According to Jan Crawford of CBS News, two sources with “specific knowledge” of the deliberations at the Supreme Court told her that at some point Roberts switched his position and decided to uphold Obamacare.  Roberts decided to characterize the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate as a tax.  This argument had been rejected by the lower courts and supporters of Obamacare had considered that argument to be essentially a legal “Hail Mary” with almost no chance of success.  But this is how the legal system in America works.  Judges decide what they want the result of a case to be, and then they try to figure out a way to justify it under the Constitution and under existing law.  Often, judges will go through all sorts of mental gymnastics to get to the results that they want.  Most Americans would be absolutely shocked if they truly realized what goes on behind closed doors in our legal system.


Chief Justice John Roberts did not wake up one day and suddenly realize that Obamacare was constitutional.  Rather, he bowed to political pressure and then attempted to find some possible way to legally justify his new position.

Normally, Supreme Court deliberations are very secret.  But in this case details of what happened have been leaked to the press.  The following is what reporter reporter Jan Crawford recently told Face The Nation….

“I am told by two sources with specific knowledge of the court’s deliberations that Roberts initially sided with the conservatives in this case and was prepared to strike down…the individual mandate”

So exactly why did he change his mind?

Well, according to CBS News it had a lot more to do with politics and the media than it did with legal issues….

But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court – and to Roberts’ reputation – if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.

It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, “wobbly,” the sources said.

When determining the outcome of a case, Supreme Court justices should be using the U.S. Constitution as their guide.

But instead, these days they let all kinds of other things influence their decisions.

There are also hints that John Roberts changed his vote in the way that the dissenting opinion is drafted.

The following is one of the clues in the dissenting opinion that was pointed out by the Volokh Conspiracy….

Notice also that his response to Roberts is tacked on at the end, rather than worked into the body of whatever he was writing (see page 64 of his dissent). For example, one would have expected Scalia to directly take on Roberts’ application of the Anti-Injunction Act, but his brief section on that act only mentions what “the Government” argues (see pages 26-28).

You can find more discussion on this right here.

Sadly, this Obamacare decision is just more evidence of the lack of respect for the U.S. Constitution in our legal system today.

In law school, I was taught that the U.S. Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that must evolve as society evolves.  This sick philosophy is being taught in almost every law school in the United States.  The idea is that our society is “growing” and “progressing” and that the elites of today know how to run things far better than the founding fathers of this country did.

When John Roberts was originally nominated to be a Supreme Court justice, I tried to warn people that his record clearly indicated that he was one of these “progressives” that did not have respect for the U.S. Constitution.  I tried to warn people that he would be a horrible Supreme Court justice.

Unfortunately, at the time I did not have my websites and so my warnings did not go very far.

Now, it has become very apparent to everyone exactly what Chief Justice John Roberts is.

Sadly, law schools are producing hordes of new graduates just like him with each passing year.  Our law schools do not have respect for the U.S. Constitution and they openly teach that it must “change” as society changes.

If we continue down this road, eventually the U.S. Constitution will be totally destroyed.

Nobody is going to rip it up or set it on fire, but it will be destroyed because all of the meaning will have been sucked out of it.  People will still call it “the Constitution”, but we will not follow what it says.

If you still believe in the U.S. Constitution, then you need to stand up and be counted, because right now our Constitution is under attack like never before.

  • Jodi

    Holy Cow! Nobody does the honorable thing anymore. How do we plant the seeds in order to make it right for future generations? There is obviously something very dirty going on and something is not right. I really have know idea how these people sleep at night, this POTUS and all of his minions are truly evil people.

  • Cinderella Man

    John Roberts is a ************** coward!!!! He is a sellout and I dont care who pressured him he is the Chief Justice for crying out loud!!! He is supposed to be above the party line and vote according to the Constitution. This is no different when the 16th admendment “supposedly” passed and gave the govt. the right to tax our income. This is for Gary the twit libertarians are not conservatives we believe that someone else is not your property. Therefore you are not entitled to steal from the rest of us to pay for your life and mistakes!!! If I want to help someone then it should be my choice not a demand. Besides all the tax money goes to pay the FED and not much goes to your beloved social programs. If you want fair join the revolution and stop being a crybaby!!!

  • The Constitution was a contract between the States delegating some authorities to the Federal Government to complete its assigned tasks. The Bill of Rights was added to list just a few of the numerous rights that the people (not residents, not citizens, but “the people”) retain in their dealings with the Federal Government.

    Since 1861 and Lincoln’s War against the States and the people of America, the Constitution has been a dead letter due to it no longer being a voluntary “contract” (Lysander Spooner). Through the Progressive/Fascist Era (T. Roosevelt – B.H. Obama) the interpretation of, but not the letter of, the Constitution has changed to authorize the Federal Government to steal all it needs to buy the support of whomever it decides it needs their support.

    Since the Constitution is no longer valid, then the Federal Government, which is what is constituted by the Constitution, is no longer valid and one should consider the States and the people of America to be under a state of “Occupation” just like France and other portions of Europe during WWII…

    • Gay Veteran

      neo-confederates just hate them some Lincoln

      • One doesn’t have to be a Neo-Confederate (I’m not) to “hate” Lincoln and the wreckage he caused this country. Adolf Hitler just loved Lincoln and the way he centralized all political power of the States in Washington, D.C. Francis Bellamy, a devoted socialist, loved the form of nationalistic socialism that Lincoln brought to America. Mr. Bellamy created a popular loyalty oath for all Americans to recite to show their devotion to Lincoln and his un-Constitutional new form of government for America. It starts like this, “I pledge allegiance…”

        • Gay Veteran

          considering how the states have acted, I don’t particularly weep for their weakening

  • Gay Veteran

    “…In law school, I was taught that the U.S. Constitution is a “living, breathing document” that must evolve as society evolves. This sick philosophy is being taught in almost every law school in the United States. The idea is that our society is “growing” and “progressing”….”

    I expect that from a white male heterosexual.

    • chris12138

      Troll harder….

      • Gay Veteran

        try and post an intelligent remark

    • Giudo

      Actually, it is a stupid concept. If you want an idea of how stupid the “living document” idea is, how would you like to play some poker with me using my “living rules?”

      The Constitution was left with space for amendments, but that doesn’t make it a living document. It’s a dead document whose strictures were meant to be hard as stone. None of the founders would have expected to see the God-given rights of the Bill of Rights eliminated or subverted in the name of security or convenience.

      BTW-if you eliminate God, where do those rights come from? Barry? The DNC? Channel 4? Just curious.

      • xander cross

        LOL. Your founding fathers were elitest who actually made the constitution against blacks. How in the hell can all men be created equal, when you forefater enslaved blacks? Oh, I know, you support slavery and you don’t like black people. I get that part, it’s just the constitution is a fake document. Also, you’re going to benefit from obamacare and actually use it, just like michael.

        • ME

          Lincoln was right on the subject of expatriation.

        • Guido

          Xander, you are really amusing to read. It’s like… I don’t know what it’s like. You’re so resentful over things you neither understand, nor ever personally experienced.
          Let me explain for you.
          First, you can’t look at the past and judge people from decades of centuries ago with 20/20 hindsight.
          The reason why is quite simple: What was acceptable then is different from what is acceptable now. If you insist on applying modern values to another historical period, you’re being foolish. One can only wonder what values you hold that will be considered outmoded and stupid in the future.
          Next-you obviously don’t know much about history, let alone that period of history. For one, there were many members of the founding fathers who wanted abolition-but they had to face political realities of the time. Abolition was still a hot button issue over 60 years later when Mr. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation as a war effort to weaken the Confederacy. (He never gave a damn about the slaves and stated he wouldn’t have signed it if he could have held the union together otherwise. Look it up.)
          I might also add, the US didn’t invent slavery. Slavery was brought here by Europeans. They bought their slaves from black slave traders on the West African Coast. THEY got their slaves from the interior and from the Arabs, who also went to Africa for slaves. The natives in South America practiced slavery, as did the Egyptians, Arabs, Greeks, Romans, and many, many, MANY others.
          In fact, slavery in the Middle East only officially ended in about 1969, the last holdout being Sudan, although Saudi Arabia is suspected to have held onto slaves for much longer.
          Also, in case you didn’t know, the US conducted anti-slavery patrols with the Brits after 1812. It was the US Navy’s first international cooperation with another Navy.

          Pretending the entire US is evil or damned because of the actions of some Americans 2 centuries ago is rather childish and ignorant. Even worse, what will you do when you learn this nation was colonized by WHITE SLAVES?

          Ever hear of Indentured Servitude in social studies? That’s the nice-nice name they had for all the white slaves they sent here first. They died off in droves, though, and they only had them for a brief period of time, say 7 years, so they worked them to death and replaced them with black slaves-who were a more long term investment. Black slaves actually had it better than white slaves, since their owners had a good reason to keep them healthy-they weren’t going anywhere.

          In any case, Xander, no matter where you live, you’re probably the result of uncounted centuries of oppression, terror, war, rape, murder, conquest, retreat, and survival. There’s a reason Hobbes said man’s existence is solitary, brutish, and short.

          To pretend you’re somehow better than the ages of history upon which you stand is egotistical and silly. Some of the founders may have had slaves, but what are you doing that makes you worth half as much as one of them? And does that one aspect of their history invalidate their reasoned use of a couple thousand years of political and philosophical thought to create the freest nation the world has ever seen? No other nation has enshrined freedom and limited government like theirs did and no other nation has approached theirs in achievements. When applied, their ideas and concepts do more to enrich and liberate people than any other ideas in man’s history. Consider it.

          Or you can continue to bask in your ignorance and resentment of things you don’t even understand. Crack a book some time…

      • Gay Veteran

        ever hear of natural rights? see “On Liberty” by John Stuart Mill

      • ME

        The amendment process was intentionally made ardous.

    • expect what? a perosnal recollection from the writer? gee, reaaal hetro…..Michael Peroutka said same things too……as a straight man, cannot I have a recollection, or comment?

  • Gay Veteran

    And I should have added Christian.

    Your legal philosophy would result in the tyranny of the majority.

    The Founding certainly understood that they were not perfect, and that this country would indeed evolve. You think “cruel and unusual punishment” has been a FIXED concept since the Constution was ratified in the late 1700s?

    • A concerned young AmeriCan Patriot

      Gay vet, true Christians do not want to eradicate all gays from the earth, we just despise the sin (yes it is a sin in our eyes, that is our belief, don’t criticize it while at the same time begging for us to accept yours). The Bible does NOT say to kill all gays, rather it teaches to “hate the sin, love the sinner.” (though obviously not in the same way you do to each other (attempt at a pun, really bad attempt)) Those who preach the eradication of gays because they are gay (or for that matter, those gays, atheists, etc. who preach the eradication of Christians because of past wrongs) are no better than the other mass genocidal people that have lived. I have no problem if you’re gay, that is your business, not mine. Just do not force your beliefs on us. All people are people, whether they be white, black, asian, straight, gay, etc. What you do is your business, so long as you don’t come up to me and say it repeatedly, your business is your business, and mine is mine.
      -Young Patriot

      • Tim

        NOWHERE does the Bible say to “hate the sin, love the sinner.” In fact, the Bible says that God hates all workers of iniquity! (Psalm 5:5) Furthermore, the 1st chapter of Paul’s epistle to the Romans states that homosexuality is the result of God giving reprobates over to their own vile affections. It is an act of judgment by God for the unthankfulness of the wicked and for their rejection of the knowledge of God, which is visible in creation.

        • Gay Veteran

          eyeroll, Paul is NOT Jesus

        • A concerned young AmeriCan Patriot

          In the Bible, it says to love everyone, regardless of anything. I personally find homosexuality as an abomination and a sin (which is my opinion, once again gay vet, respect our opinions if you want yours respected), but the Bible does say to love everyone. Plus, is it our right to pass judgement on those who will be judged later, by GOD? GOD will punish the sinners, but we as humans get closer to GOD by treating everyone equally, and fairly. No, the Bible does not specifically say to “hate the sin, love the sinner,” but that is its message. When Jesus told us to love our brothers and sisters, he meant every single one, not just those we like. We can try to redeem them, but their choice is their own, as GOD gave man free will for a reason, so that we can truly love him. Free will is an important value of humanity, and it is their choice. I chose to be Catholic, and many people also have a problem with that and say that I’m not a Christian, even though I do more Christian things than many people who say Catholics are not Christian. I just find it ironic.
          -Young Patriot

          • A concerned young AmeriCan Patriot

            And yes, I know this sounds way out of left field for my normally conservative comments, but I believe that equality means equality for ALL, not just those we like, especially because Jesus said we shall be judged by how we treat our fellow man, and NO, I know it is not in those exact words. After all, if equality for some is the view of things, then we would not have equality at all.
            -Young Patriot

      • Gay Veteran

        well that’s very interesting “concerned”, just how do we recognize these “true” Christians?
        all this “hate the sin, love the sinner” feeds violence against us, so excuse me for not being impressed with your Christian charity

    • A concerned young AmeriCan Patriot

      And do not say gays do not have rights either, last time I checked, you can vote, you can adopt children, you can get a job, you can even get a “civil union” in most states, which gives you basically the same benefits as marriage, just without the title. I hate it when people of any denomination in America say they do not have rights. We still do, for now. What will happen in the future, only GOD knows.
      -Young Patriot

      • They have no rights to “marry” and the idea of adopting is revloting, God made Adam and Eve, countless other areas of Bible clear that Man+woman=children….thats the model….

        • Gay Veteran

          poor Winston, too bad you missed the days of slavery

        • A concerned young AmeriCan Patriot

          Winston, I am not pressing the agenda of homosexuality at all, I am just stating that equality for all means equality for all. What I am sick and tired of (besides being sick and tired (Monty Python reference)), is those hypocrites (on both the right and left sides of the aisle) who say they want equality for all, but deny it to those they don’t agree with. That is the beauty of America; or was the beauty of America, I should say. One could have many different opinions and beliefs, and all would be equal under the law of the land. Now it’s “conform or be ridiculed and excluded” sadly. Plus, who are we to judge those whom GOD will judge? Did not Jesus say to love ALL of our brothers and sisters equally as children of GOD? I believe homosexuality is a sin, yes; but it is not my right to force my belief on others, nor is it their right to force their belief on me. Everyone is entitled to the freedom the constitution guarantees, and GOD will judge us on how we treat ALL of out brothers and sisters, regardless of whether they beleive the same things we do or not.
          -Young Patriot

      • xander cross

        He is telling the truth. Gays don’t have a lot of rights and blacks don’t as well. The problem with this country is white supremency. Once again, you’re lying as usual. Black people did not have rights for many decades and also, name one law that benefited blacks and disfranchised whites? That’s right, none. You’re just a liar you so called patroit.

        • A concerned young AmeriCan Patriot

          Xander: Please stop trolling. No one likes a troll. At least gay vet here can actually post something factual, and Gary’s posts make me laugh. You are just an anti-white/anti-Christian troll. Though it is your right to be that, I would advise you stop, seeing as you cannot form a valid argument against anything, and all you do is spew hate and vile. You call me a racist? Why don’t you look in the mirror.
          -Young Patriot

      • Gay Veteran

        wow “concerned”, you display a truly massive ignorance (note that I am not saying you are stupid):
        We can not adopt adopt children in all states.
        In the MAJORITY of states it is perfectly legal to discriminate against us merely because of our status (not actions).
        Nor can we get a civil union in most states (btw, no heterosexual would trade their marriage for a civil union because they do NOT confer basically the same benefits).

        • A concerned young AmeriCan Patriot

          But you do have some rights, thus voiding the argument that gays have no rights, which was the whole point of the argument.
          -Young Patriot

          • Gay Veteran

            well gee “concerned”, guess I should be grateful for being a second class citizen in my own country


    • The Constitution, and particularly the attached libertarian Bill of Rights, was meant to curb the excesses of the Majority, or as Jefferson put it, “the tyranny of the mob.” That is why the U.S. was never a democracy but a Constitutional (read: restrained) Republic. Of course, both are just words written on a pieces of paper and have no inherent power of their own to restrain the natural state of man. Don’t fault the work for the abuses of the workers.

      There is a Constitutional process for changing the Constitution to keep up with the times and the changes in morality in America and that is the amendment process. Even here the Founding Fathers showed some wisdom by making the process a very solemn and lengthy undertaking so as to avoid sudden changes that turn out to be nothing more than passing fads (the 18th and the 21st are prime examples of when the process is rushed). Judicial activism is a faster way to change the make-up of the governments of the U.S. but like slamming a square peg into a round hole, it can have devastating consequences that stretch beyond the case at hand and last for countless generations beyond any relevance to the matter before the courts at the time they render their decisions…

    • evovle to what, how fast, to where? Do we get a playbook to fill us in on changes? What is RIght and wrong, does not change……..

    • wow, Micahel has expressed Christian thoughts, yet here you are still, trolling…..not *********** meetings tonight? No parades to proclaim your anti-natural life style to the world????

      • Gay Veteran

        gee Winton, look to nature, homosexuality is everywhere

  • Gay Veteran

    heck, not everyone can even agree on “strict constructionism”:

    “…It is especially ironic that those who claim to advocate “strict constructionism” so vehemently criticize the Supreme Court’s 1973 decision in Roe v. Wade. Roe found that there is a constitutional right to privacy in matters of conception and pregnancy, rendering the government powerless to intrude into such matters until a pregnancy is discernable to others (i.e., after the first trimester). Roe v. Wade is a rare libertarian decision, one of only a handful over the past fifty years that actually upholds a right of individuals to act against the wishes of the state. Critics of Roe v. Wade argue incessantly that such a right to privacy is not found in the Constitution, and that the Supreme Court simply made up the right in 1973. But the ruling of Roe was actually built on the strictest of strict constructionist foundations….”

    Topic: Abortion
    “Strict Construction” is in the eye of the beholder
    Roger Roots suggests Roe v. Wade was actually a strict constructionist decision
    by Roger Roots
    Monday, February 18, 2008

    • A concerned young AmeriCan Patriot

      In the case of Roe vs. Wade, it is the fact that as soon as conception happens, the child is alive, and the killing of a live human is murder. This particular issue has less to do with constitutionality than with morality (which ironically the left claims to have, and says the right has none, when in reality, the right is much more moral than the left). My personal belief is pro life, however, if I ever get a girl pregnant and we’re not married, though I would encourage her to have the baby; I realize that I’m not the one who would have to spend 9 months with 30 or so extra pounds. Thus, if this were to happen to me, I would encourage her to have the baby, but the final decision would be hers.
      Bit of a ramble there.
      -Young Patriot

      • “(A)nd the killing of a live human is murder.”

        You need to recheck your Bible on this one. Murder is to intentionally and knowingly kill another person without his consent and without moral or legal justification such as acts of self-defense or to deal with trespassers.

        If you had an invasive and growing parasite inside your body would you not want to hire a medical professional to surgically remove it? How would you feel if the government decided that this parasite was an “Endangered Species” and would force you to keep it alive at all costs to you? Would you not feel like a slave to those that decide that you must suffer this parasite to live and question by what authority do they enslave you?

        I’m very glad that you would leave such a decision to the young lady and I would hope that you would step up to support the child, on your own if necessary. That was and would be very Christo-libertarian of you…

        • a child is neither invasive nor a parasite, but a human being-same as you…cannot compare a tumor and a person……this is a rather stupid arguement from a fellow clearly blinded by God to the truths…..blindness is a sign of condemnation…..
          No, murder is not left up to the young lady….that is why we have laws, not a free-for-all, if it feels good mentality…again, you show a Malthusian, anti-god inclination in your thinking…..again, a sign that at present, you are on road to damnation….enjoy life then, while you can…..

          • Your god would only have power over me if I believed in it. Since I don’t, it is powerless to either blind or condemn me…


            But let me ask: Are you willing to put a gun to the hypothetical young lady’s head and threaten to blow her brains out if she insists on getting an abortion? That would kind of defeat your purpose in trying to save the fetus, wouldn’t it? But if you leave the matter up to Caesar by passing a law he has absolutely no problem in doing what you might be too squeamish to do.

            And another question: Are you willing to step forward and convince, rather than coerce, the young lady to not have the abortion by promising to take on the unwanted child as your own and put your money, wealth, health, and sanity at risk by raising a child in this modern world? I know my family can.

            As I am an Anarcho-libertarian I cannot be a Malthusian but since you are in support of laws that enslave people and their bodies to your way of thinking, then you are obviously a supporter of the coming authoritarian police state. “….(E)njoy life then, while you can…..”

          • Now that I have more time, let me dissect your faulty strawman “arguement” (sic).

            “(A) child is neither invasive nor a parasite, but a human being-same as you.”

            A true statement that has nothing to do with any thing I wrote about. A child is outside and separate from either one of his parents and, depending on his level of maturity, is self-sufficient to one degree or another. A fetus on the other hand is generally found inside a woman’s body and since part of it came from outside the woman’s body, it is invasive in nature. The fetus is also attached to the woman’s body through the umbilical cord and is dependent upon the woman’s body for sustenance, therefore it is parasitic. This not to be derogatory of the fetus but just the proper use of language to apply labels based upon the common definitions of the terms used.

            “(One) cannot compare a tumor and a person.”

            This is blatantly false as anyone can create an analogy with anything to everything if one uses a proper context. The Nazarene prophet did this a lot in his teachings through parable and fables.

            Everyone is entitled by natural rights to full control over their own bodies and that includes to choosing to have certain elective surgeries, such as those to remove trespassing organisms, as long as the person involved is ready and willing to pay for the services of the surgeons involved. Your “arguement” (sic) that you have been authorized, probably by self-delegation, to interfere with this natural right of all humans is to argue that you can enslave others. You work from your premise with circular logic by suggesting that which is, is not, and that which is not, is, until you circle back to your foregone conclusion. Darn, Winston, you’re just like Justice Roberts…

      • Gay Veteran

        indeed, the final decision does belong to the woman because we no longer have slavery in this country.

        as Karl Denninger (one of the founders of the Tea Party movement) said, if you do not control your body then you are not free

        • Though I agree with the rest of your statement, I must take issue on your proposition that slavery no longer exists in this country…

        • A concerned young AmeriCan Patriot

          Yet part of the decision should also lie with the man, as a child is the product of both a man and a woman. Too many abortions are done without the woman (actually girl in my generation) informing the man (boy) before she goes through with it, and yet the women then complain that the men didn’t talk them out of it when the men didn’t know. It is something that, if it is even to be considered, should be discussed between both a man and a woman, not just the woman. Although I personally believe it is murder.
          -Yong Patriot

          • I will have to respectfully disagree with you on this point. Even though the fetus contained within the woman’s uterus is a product of the sexual interaction with the man, again hypothetical, the woman by her natural right to ownership over her own body is not the slave of the man and cannot be compelled to bear the infant for this man just because he might be the father.

            If she does not want it in her body, her primal piece of personal property, then it is trespassing and she has the natural right like any other human being to hire someone to surgically remove the trespassing organism from her property, whether it be a fetus or a tapeworm or a drunk male throwing up on her front lawn.

            By the same token, if the sexual act was consensual, the woman has no right to compel the man, or anyone else for that matter (think “Taxpayer”), to pay for the abortion if she chooses to get one. The only person responsible for paying for an elective surgery is the person who “elects” to have it, whether it is a face-lift or an abortion.

            The best piece of advice that I can give you is if you find a young lady willing to have sex with you, ask her if she is willing to bear you a child. If she’s not, then skip the sex. It will save a lot of headaches. Wow, now that sounded Malthusian…

          • A concerned young AmeriCan Patriot

            Ghost; I was not saying the final decision should be the man’s, I was saying he should have some input in the decision. Yes, the final decision is the woman’s, but the man should also be able to for instance, if he can support the baby, ask for her to give birth to it so he could raise it.
            -Young Patriot

          • Young Patriot:

            Consultation without coercion? Works for me.

            Thou are truly a good Christo-libertarian.

  • A concerned young AmeriCan Patriot

    Michael, great article, as well as the previous one. The title was severely misleading; you actually gave me hope that he had just now changed his vote, and declare it unconstitutional. Other than the misleading title, great article.

    • Michael

      Thanks for the kind words. :)


  • Giudo

    Michael, I’m curious-You’re a lawyer, right?
    Do you have any personal stories of warped judges and insane rulings?

    • Michael


      I used to work as a lawyer. And I don’t like to name names, but let’s just say that I don’t have a whole lot of faith in how our legal system works. Most judges pretty much do whatever they want.


      • xander cross

        and yet, you actually benefited from all of the perks working as a lawyer. Also, you know that you going to use obamacare to your advantage, so you’re being very hyprocrital because you actually never make a whole artice about the person who actually created obamacare and that person is Mitt Romney. I know why though, because he is republican and Ron and Rand Paul endorsed him. Oh, you never mentioned Rand Paul being at the bilderberg group meeting in VA.

  • El Pollo de Oro

    “I share the right wing’s critique of Obamacare. It’s a disastrous bill. It was written by corporate lobbyists.”—Chris Hedges

    The Banana Republic of America (formerly the USA) has become a corporate fascist state. John “Citizens United” Roberts is a corporatist to the core; so when you think about it, it makes sense that he would bow down to his corporate slavemasters and support Romneycare/Obamacare. Roberts never met a corporate boot he didn’t want to lick. Roberts reasoned that supporting Romneycare was the best way to lick the boots of health insurance companies (butchers like Blue Cross and Aetna), while Scalia and Clarence Thomas disagreed and felt that their corporate masters would be better served by opposing Romneycare. Now, we get to watch the political freak show in which Romney The Clown, an empty suit, will rail against Obamacare knowing full well that Obamacare is really Romneycare on a national level. And health care in the BRA will continue to stink because the health insurance companies that have caused so much death, misery and suffering will still be running the show. The high cost of health insurance will continue to kick the crap out of small business owners like myself. Companies like Blue Cross and Aetna have blood on their heads, and they’re still running the show.

    Clueless neocons will whine that Romneycare is “socialism” or “communism.” No, we aren’t living in a socialist state or a communist state. We’re living in a fascist state, and as Alex Jones points out, the corporate thugs won’t think twice about murdering anyone who gets in their way. Bienvenidos todos a la República Banana de América, maldita pesadilla del tercer mundo.

  • 1stVArifleman

    I will always be counted as a defender of the US Constitution, particularly the Bill of Rights. That is why I consider myself a Virginian more than anything, because I believe the Constitution based on the principles of Life, Liberty, and Property to be fundamental to Virginia and our nation’s sacred birth, virtue, strength, honor, courage, and wisdom. As long as those principles our held sacred, I believe we as men of Liberty and Honor can defend this document and ensure its sovereignty through republican self-determination. If a clash of arms be necessary in this inevitable fight then always remember what the great statesman Patrick Henry said at St John’s Church in 1775:

    I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past…. Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us…. it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable–and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come….Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace– but there is no peace. The war is actually begun!….Is life so dear, or peace 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!

    I do not wish for a clash of arms in this inevitable struggle. For as a student of history, I know civil clashes of arms are always the bloodiest. However, I have drawn my line in the sand I wait for the Fascists to make the first move, and more sheeple to emerge as patriots. In closing I will leave some continued advice from great Virginians:

    “Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
    George Washington

    “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”
    George Washington

    “The strongest reason for the people to retain to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    “The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    “What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”
    Thomas Jefferson

    “We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties.”
    James Madison

    “A people armed and free, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition and is a bulwark for the nation against foreign invasion and domestic oppressions.”
    James Madison

    “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
    Patrick Henry

    “The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”
    Patrick Henry

    “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more
    propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?”
    Patrick Henry


    Fortune Favors the Brave:
    The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us!

    • xander cross

      You left a alot out of that article. Like slavery for example. How come a lot of you founding fathers had slaves and yet, they claim that everyone was free? Typical racist.

      • 1stVArifleman

        Clearly you have not read much about the American Revolution, and if you have it is clearly from a progressive point of view. I admit our country has had many faults in its past, present, and will continue to fault in the future, for as men are not perfect neither is any nation.

        If you actually have read history in detail as I have my whole life, especially focusing on free nations, you’ll see that the nations historically that are considered the most free all had slaves at some point in their history. Those countries were the Democratic City States of Ancient Greece, the Roman Republic, and the Early American Republic.

        As much as one might like too, it is not objective for a scholar or anyone who lives in the 21st Century to impose their 21st Century morals and beliefs on 18th Century Philosophers/Statesmen. However, that still doesn’t justify the American Republic’s hypocrisy towards blacks or the American Indians in its history, but it does allow for understanding and education.

        Unlike your immediate rush to judgement over some of our Founders ‘property’ (for that is how they saw it, though today we would view that property as slaves), I have chosen to separate the good from the bad and objectively try to learn from our Founders successes and mistakes. Yes, focusing more on the successes than the mistakes, but I guarantee if you tell me one of your heroes I will find a many skeleton in his/her closet as well.

        Also, my comments were all about Michael’s call to stand up for the Constitution and what I believe in, which as I stated is “Life, Liberty, and Property.” If you noticed all the quotes were about resisting tyranny, even violently if necessary, or our right to keep and bear arms and to take alarm at any challenge to our liberties. Those quotes have nothing to do with racism, and should identify with a white American as much as it does with a black American or Hispanic American. However, I chose not to focus on our differences as many Progressives and Social Conservatives endlessly want to do, but to focus on our similarities: debt slavery, fiat money, inflation, perpetual wars, political corruption from your local police- through all three branches of the federal government, and a secret fascist cabal of international bankers and politicians who clearly want to create a ‘New World Order;’ thus, basically a death/debt bases paradigm.

        All I’m asking of you x-cross is actually pick up a book and read it for yourself and think critically about it using observation, logic, and rhetoric. Don’t just regurgitate Progressive/MSNBC/CNN talking points about the Founding Fathers, (just as I would tell any Social Conservative the same thing about anything they see/hear on O’Reilly/F(ox)ascist News).

        Long Live the Constitutional Republic!
        Sic Semper Tyrannis!

        “I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”
        Thomas Jefferson

        “Get correct views of life, and learn to see the world in its true light. It will enable you to live pleasantly, to do good, and, when summoned away, to leave without regret….
        The education of a man is never completed until he dies.”
        Robert E Lee

        “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”
        Abraham Lincoln

        “A brave man is a man who dares to look the Devil in the face and tell him he is a devil.”
        James Garfield

        “The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.”
        H L Mencken

        “Wise men are instructed by reason; men of less understanding, by experience; the most ignorant, by necessity; the beasts, by nature.”
        Marcus Cicero

        • A concerned young AmeriCan Patriot

          1stVArifleman: excellently stated; well versed, good beliefs, overall a bloody good job. However, do not expect xander to intelligently reply, all he seems capeable of is spewing racist anti-American, and anti-Christian crap. He is troll ultimatum. However, both of your posts were very intelligent and I agree with almost everything you said.
          Also (I am assuming from your “name” on the site, that you are either a member of the VA or a retired soldier), either way, thank you for your service
          -Young Patriot

  • “When John Roberts was originally nominated to be a Supreme Court justice, I tried to warn people that his record clearly indicated that he was one of these “progressives” that did not have respect for the U.S. Constitution…”

    John Lofton and Michael peroutka used to have a radio program and they did at least 4 programs I recall on Roberts……..that he was getting paid back for being helpful to the Neocons, paid by a Judge’s seat and the Chief one to boot, despite Alito and Scalia being there longer…

  • Watson

    Pure republican crap!!

  • Watson

    pure republican nonsence

  • jsmith

    Slowly but surely this country has been invaded by the body snatchers. This infection can only be narrowed down to neocons. It has infected and taken over both political parties. What hope is there for the country?

  • PB

    I’m sorry American christians, but no matter how much you all rave on with all your brainless, angry Schofield based stupidity, he still doesn’t exist. I know how much you all need a god to agree with what you think yourselves, no matter how stupid, but he just doesn’t exist. No amount of wishful thinking…er, sorry…faith…will change that.

    • A concerned young AmeriCan Patriot

      You go and attack our religion, and then when anyone does anything atheist bashing you cry and sue. Really? I guess atheists are just too prideful to admit there is a higher power than man, and are forced to use obscure reasoning to defend their views (because aliens telling Moses the ten commandments is SOOOOO much more believable(intense sarcasm). I honestly do not care if you decide to reject GOD, just do not attempt to attack us, and then go crying to someone else when a Christian bloodys your nose with the Truth. and you are talking to someone who has experienced GOD help him through a tough time, so whatever you say (which will probably be some nonsense about alien abductions and the like) is rendered as invalid. Plus, if GOD doesn’t exist, then explain the feeling believers get when they walk into church, or are in a group prayer.
      -Young Patriot

  • ME

    Come on, Tatiana. Don’t sugar coat it, tell us how you REALLY feel.