June 29, 2012 - 2:24 pm
Overall, 50 percent of those polled said they disapprove of the court’s 5–4 decision, while 45 percent said they support it. Consistently, a majority of voters said that they oppose the individual mandate (53 percent); believe taxes will increase (52 percent); believe their personal health-care costs will increase (56 percent); and disapprove of Obama’s handling of health care in general (58 percent). Only 24 percent of those polled said that they believe the ruling will make the country better off.
Having had a day to reflect–when considering that this decision was released on the same day as the Stolen Valor act decision, and that a positive act had to be made in order for those two releases to be occur together, I must finally consider yesterday to have been a deliberate finger from John Roberts to the non-establishment portion of the land; as well as his clear sign that only those who routinely profess a love of the Court (Progressives) will be able to reliably count the Court as their protector and friend in the future. This is because forty years of conservative complaints about the Court result in nothing; one month of Progressive complaints cause the Chief Justice to switch sides and release the ruling on the same day as another decision sure to be offensive to more than a handful of Americans–probably many of whom were not in favor of the ObamaCare decision. As I said, it is hatd for me not to consider both acts together a middle finger, from the Chief Justice of the United States, and if it was not, it had the same effect as if the intent was there.
On another note, it is my understanding that White House and Democrats have been very clear today the mandate is a penalty, not a tax. What say Chief Justice Roberts, genius of our time?
From AP via Drudge (so go to Drudge “Roberts jokes about trip to ‘impregnable’ fortress”, becuse I do not link to AP):
“Lambert hinted at the controversial decision when he asked Roberts if it bothered him that he can’t respond to his critics.
“No,” Roberts said, his brief answer hanging in the air to more laughter.”
Why would it? We’re just the little people. On the other hand, if I were a man who ruled as he did yesterday, and then the *very* next day the politicians I saved by my contortions kept on saying it was a penalty and not a tax, cutting me off at the knees, I’d feel like a fool who had sold a lot of folks down the river. But then, I need a touch more narcissism before I could ever aspire to be in such a position, so I shant worry.
I understand they had a jolly time at the judicial conference. Breed apart, you know.
could the little people now have a lower opinion of the loathsome lunatic lawyer leeches than we already had? guess ole johnny got an ‘offer he couldn’t refuse’ from the kool krackin kenyan kleptomaniac.
john (def.) webster online: a prostitute’s client
oh yeah!