Catholics brought Obamacare onto themselves
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz3jJg1CB7c[/youtube]But did you happen to notice one curious line in Chief Justice John Roberts reading of the majority opinion?
Here it is: “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
If that doesn’t just about sum it all up nicely and neatly, nothing ever will. In short, you people, yes, as in WE the people, were gullible enough to elect this megalomaniac to office and all his thugs and cronies who crawled in behind him, so you get exactly what you deserved.
And that is exactly how God works. He cannot save us from the consequences of our choices. If he did, He would be unjust and undo his own handiwork–namely, our free will.
Nope, not gonna happen.
~ Michael Voris, Church Militant TV, June 30
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
I love Michael Voris, and his point about God and free will is a great one. But the last time I checked, John Roberts is not God, and the Supreme Court was not created to spank the American people.
I think Roberts’ statement was jaw-dropping.
To me, it was as if he was saying, “Hey, it’s not our job to protect you from a bad law.”
YES. YES, it IS the Supreme Court’s job!!! If a law is unconstitutional, then YES. IT. IS.
I didn’t vote for the “megalomaniac”, but I was “punished with” him just the same. See, Obama…that “punished with a baby” remark can come back to bite you! ;)
I completely disagree with the merits of that statement, even though I agree with the sentiment.
I believe that we — as a people — get the government we deserve. I held my nose and voted for the other guy, but too many Americans willfully strapped on their blinders and voted for a man about whom they knew exactly nothing.
On the other hand: the job of the Supreme Court is to strike down laws that are demonstrably unconstitutional. What CJ Roberts did was redefine the law as written to mean something else, and then say that the something else wasn’t a violation of the Constitution. That is NOT HIS JOB. He had the opportunity, the right and the obligation to do the right thing, and he didn’t.
That doesn’t mean we don’t deserve, as a nation, the unmitigated disaster of the Obama presidency, but that’s no excuse.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, it must be time to overturn Roe v. Wade. After all, it’s not the job of the court to protect us from whatever abortion laws our democratically elected legislators may pass.
“..but too many Americans willfully strapped on their blinders and voted for a man about whom they knew exactly nothing.” True, that!! Which I never thought would happen in this time, with all the new media, all the many ways we can find out things about people. The way the mainstream media touted him as a rock star and did his campaigning for him is an abomination. And now it’s turned us into an Abomi-Nation. In the past, other nations had the excuse of ignorance. In our country’s case, it was WILLFUL ignorance. Having not voted for this ghoul is cold comfort while I pitch in and work to undo the terrible damage, the extent of which may not be known for many years.
Gird your loins and press on, pro-lifers. We have a lot of hard work ahead of us.
OOPS! My God can and does rescue us from the consequences of our choices. It’s called Salvation by grace. My descendant Adam used his free will to disobey God……and as scripture clearly teaches, sin is NOT God’s handiwork.
John 1:13
Romans 3
Thank God he doesn’t leave it up to us!
That might be the stupidest observation I’ve seen in a while – one of the great predictions by those thinking the law would be upheld was simply that – that the supreme court’s job isn’t to overrule the laws that election officials make. It would have been an activist ruling to overrule the laws of those representing people – freely election people – and Roberts is simply saying that.
When those “freely elected people” seek to twist the commerce clause of the CONSTITUTION to mean they can FORCE the dupes who elected them to engage in commerce, then it is the duty of SCOTUS to uphold said Constitution.
That takes action, yes. It’s their job. But it’s not “activism” to strike down an unconstitutional law. But actually it is “activist” to reinterpret (read: rewrite) that law to give them a pass.
Roberts chose door number two and it led him and us to where he feared door number one would lead. An activist disaster that sullies the Court and keeps the economy in limbo.
To be more precise, how can Roberts go along with the minority in striking down the misuse of the commerce clause, and then side with the liberal justices and the authors of the law to uphold a tax / fine on those who fail to comply with this?
Hans – if you read up on the subject, you’ll find that generally people say it is activist to overturn a law passed. If you define judicial activism as rewriting the constitution, then you’ve boiled down the definition into opinion, as almost any law is a split by justices who are smarter than us.
I think Roberts was just looking for a way to not throw the law out as he knows it would have looked bad on the court – it would have, by definition, been very activist of them to overturn what a freely elected congress did.
Exz-RINO, according to your definition then Roe V Wade was an activist ruling (overturn a law passed) and Roberts and the rest of the liberals should overturn it if it comes before them again.
Everyone (almost) agrees that the function of the Supreme Court is to overturn unconstitutional laws. Most people tend to think laws they don’t like are unconstitutional. (and thank that laws they do like must be constitutional)
It looks to me that he did say that part was unconstitutional. That it would have to be a tax rather than a mandate. It seems he did what many folks here on this blog wanted. He clarified the commerce clause. The rest of the law wasn’t being challenged, just the funding mechanism which Roberts and others ruled was a tax.
Apparently Robert’s took a cue from Gore–he was against it before he was for it. Our resident legal sage weighed in before the decision so very sure the mandate was constitutional. The court said the mandate was unconstitutional.
The convoluted ruling courtesy of Robert’s mystifiying reasoning was predicted by NO ONE. One would think that in a nation of legal scholars offering their opinions on which way the court would go, that if indeed this was a viable option surely someone would had predicted it. Well, no one predicted it because it was not seen as an option by anyone but Roberts.
So then the question is how did he arrive at this inexplicable and contradictory conclusion that he alone could discern? We may never know. But this we do know: The vast majority of prolifers and conservatives understand the devastating impact Obamacare will have on our nation if allowed to go forward. Instead of wasting time and energy on the court’s decision we understand that there is but one option…that we must defeat Obamacare at the polls in November.
Oops! My apologies to John Kerry for misattributing his (in)famous statement to Gore…although he probably would like it if everyone did the same.
I am glad that Mr. Vorris expressed my sentiments so much better than I am able and the fact that he is ‘catholic’, and I am not, makes them ever so much more efficacious.
When all the republican members of a congressional committee vote to hold Eric Holder in contempt, the liberal/progressive/democRATs and their accomplices in lame scream media accuse the republicans of ‘partisanship’, but fail to explain why the democRATs, who also voted in lockstep, are not being ‘partisan’.
I agee with CJ Roberts that it is not SCOTUS’s responsibility to protect us from incompent or malignant elected officials.
But it is their primary responsibility to preserve and protect the constitution which they have sworn to uphold.
Any bill that is over 2,000 pages in length has to have at least one offending word, phrase, section that is in conflict with the constitution which sets to limit the federal government.
I understand there was no ‘severability clause’ in the bill which the obamateur signed into law. Therefore it would have been a simple matter to find that one ‘conflict’ and overturn the whole stinking mess.
That is not judicial activism. That is not legislating from the bench. That is due diligence.
Roberts cannot be a happy man right now. He has violated his oath of office and he has violated his own conscience. He has jeopardized his posterity’s future.
I do not condemn him, I pity him and will continue to pray for him.
Prov 25:26 Like a muddied fountain and a polluted spring is a righteous man who yields, falls down, and compromises his integrity before the wicked. AMP
Now, all us who understand we are counted among the ‘righteous’ are faced with the same decision.
Will we use Romans 13:1&2 as an excuse for inaction,
or
we will read Romans 13:3 and understand that sometimes duly constituted governments are hijacked by the wicked and we will be more guity than they if we ‘give way’.
“In this situation of this Assembly groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings? In the beginning of the contest with G. Britain, when we were sensible of danger we had daily prayer in this room for the Divine Protection. — Our prayers, Sir, were heard, and they were graciously answered. All of us who were engaged in the struggle must have observed frequent instances of a Superintending providence in our favor. To that kind providence we owe this happy opportunity of consulting in peace on the means of establishing our future national felicity.
And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? or do we imagine that we no longer need His assistance.
“I have lived, Sir, a long time and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth — that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings that “except the Lord build they labor in vain that build it.” I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our little partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall be become a reproach and a bye word down to future age. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Governments by Human Wisdom, and leave it to chance, war, and conquest.”
Benjamin Franklin, Speech to the Constitutional Convention, July 28th, 1787
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm
This nation will celebrate another birthday tomorrow [take note: it is not the anniverary of the ratification of the United States Constitution nor the date of the British surrender.]. It is anniversary of the day that men, nearly all of whom were made ‘righteous thru Christ’, refused to give way, and rejected the authority of a monarchy that ruled over them.
Think of that tomorrow when you read the ‘Declaration of Independence’.
Ask GOD what HE would have you do in this hour?
Ken the Birther Rocks.
So does Michael Voris, for refusing to mince words about his faith and the results of Catholics refusing to live out their faith when they vote.
Roberts tried to be all things to all people when writing his opinion. He should be made to understand his failure to properly dispose of a law which was presented in a deceitful way to both congress and the people.
At the exact time that Obama’s lawyers were arguing the insurance mandate as a tax before the Supreme Court, we were STILL being told that it was NOT a tax, (as we had been told when it was passed).
My bro ken,
As someone typing this very minute on a hill a scant twenty miles from Independence Hall, I thank you, sir for a timely reminder of what this important Day should still mean to us.
We could come out ruined, or we can trust in God-and pray for a miracle. A candidate must be chosen-and by no news contingency or other such force of gravity or power caused by anything than that of the PEOPLE’S CHOICE. Romney has not sealed the nomination-it has been promised to him by those to whom it does not belong, but who have claimed the duty of it’s choosing, unto themselves-tresspassing on the rights of others-our right-and that of the nations children to vote wisely and effectively for whom THEY CHOOSE. See Lawyers for Ron Paul, and their charge of the lack of fidelity to Party Principals that played into the 2012 Republican Primary electoral charade – it was a complete and utter debacle that will continue to play itself out to our own defeat-assuming we continue to allow it to stay on the current course.
Our nation’s ancestors fought to preserve all life and at every stage-to BREATH-IN FREE un-taxed air. America’s promise was to provide a hearth. Home to the Homeless. The ‘promise,’ The Dream still has a home here. Men and Women died to bear that righteous burden, to bear the light to persue a happiness enkindled within them by God, to give the next generation the promise always, in liberty, of a better life.
If there was a ever a reason to fight for the freedom of choice-religious or other-wise-it is NOW. VOTE. THIS TIME MATTERS.
He wants to reverse for the better the HHS mandate and all other devastating and undignified unconstitutional rulings.
PAUL NOVEMBER 2012.
Vote 4LIFE.
Vote 4LIBERTY.
Vote 4HONESTY.
Vote 4PEACE.
RP2012
Ron Paul is still alive?