Jun 302012

Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas) said Thursday that ‘It’s time for the American people to get outraged,” after the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act mandate on all Americans to purchase health or pay a tax.

The Texas Republican congressman and former judge also said Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan “may need to be impeached” if she lied about her involvement in the legal defense of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) — otherwise known as Obamacare—when she was Solicitor General in 2010.

“It’s greatly disappointing because obviously the Supreme Court they said by their verdict, by their opinion that when the administration and the president himself and all of those he trusts repeatedly said this is not a tax, the Supreme Court is saying, ‘You people are a bunch of fools,’” Gohmert said on the steps of the Supreme Court just after the ruling was announced.

“‘Of course you should have known they lied when they said what they did to get this bill passed. Of course it’s a tax. Don’t listen to what they say, listen to what we say,’” he said.

“It’s time for the American people to get outraged,” Gohmert added.

“And I think it’s time now especially that this opinion is out to look and see whether Justice Kagan lied in order to get on the Supreme Court,” he said. “If Attorney General [Eric] Holder is refusing to answer questions about her role in this case, in this legislation because she may need to be impeached if she lied to get on the court.”


Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) spoke on the House floor about the Supreme Court Ruling in favor of Obamacare. He noted specific phrases from the opinion and explained the meaning of this historic decision. On Kagan…My Senator Sessions mentioned

If anyone tries to say Justice Roberts wasn’t political, is an embarrassment…

Louie walks us through the Supreme Court opinion:

1. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, concluding that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar this suit.

3. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable. (b) Such an analysis suggests that the shared responsibilitypayment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax. The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy healthinsurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation.

* 5. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, joined by JUSTICE BREYER and JUSTICE KAGAN, concluded in Part IV that the Medicaid expansion violates the Constitution by threatening States with the loss of their existing Medicaid funding if they decline to comply with the expansion. Pp. 45–58.

We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.

The same does not apply to the States, because the Constitution is not the source of their power. The Constitution may restrict state governments—as it does, for example, by forbidding them to deny any person the equal protection of the laws.

Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences oftheir political choices.

“The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those lim- its may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Marbury v. Madison

~ I find it alarming that Roberts cited Marbury v. Madison, this is why from April:

The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes — and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.

It seems the ‘intimidation’ worked for Roberts. So we catch more lying on Obama’s part. The same way he expounded THIS is NOT a tax, he did so for Marbury v. Madison. with going on record Opposing Marbury v. Madison.

Liberty requires limits on government, and those limits come primarily from the Constitution. Chief Justice John Marshall explained it this way in Marbury v. Madison: “The powers of the legislature are defined, and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written.” Needless to say, a written document matters only if it is read.

The first fallacy is defining judicial activism as overturning a Congressional law. Since Marbury v. Madison established judicial review in 1803, the High Court has overturned hundreds of laws in part or whole. The real measure of activism is whether the Court’s reasoning is rooted in Constitutional principle. If it is, the Court is not activist but is adhering to the highest legal principles.

Well ‘targeting’ Roberts seems to have worked!

Left tries to intimidate the High Court on ObamaCare

FULL SCOTUS Opinions Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 1 Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.”>

Also Read: Americans for Prosperity Responds to SCOTUS Ruling on President’s Health Care Law

Why Justice Roberts’ Opinion Could Set Alarming Precedents Roberts’ opinion sets alarming precedents because it ignores decades of established Court doctrine, which could have massive implications.

images from Business Insider


 Leave a Reply



You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>