NEW YORK BOSTON |#Popular: Irish Celebrity Gossip Irish in US Politics Irish Festivals Irish Roots Irish Entertainment Offbeat Irish

Home Page > Blogs > News blogs > Periscope > Chief Justice John Roberts votes his Catholic conscience on Health Care bill -- One of six Catholics on court and a true lover of Ireland

Periscope by Niall O'Dowd

Chief Justice John Roberts votes his Catholic conscience on Health Care bill -- One of six Catholics on court and a true lover of Ireland

Posted on Friday, June 29, 2012 at 08:26 AM

Larger Text

E-mail

88 Comments

RSS

88 comments

Next Previous Page 2 of 6 pages

Cranleigh | Jul 01, 2012, 12:48 PM EDT

Guys, spellchecking programs, editors?? It's Sotomayor with one 'a'..

Report abuse

Cranleigh | Jul 01, 2012, 12:45 PM EDT

'Roberts is one of six Catholics on the Supreme Court, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alioto and Sonia Sotamayor are the others.' Erm, I'm counting five on your list - you missed one. I know he doesn't say much but Clarence Thomas is still there. And it's Alito BTW.

Report abuse

BrianO | Jun 30, 2012, 07:07 PM EDT

Seano, you have nailed it, social justice.------------------Social justice is based on the concepts of human rights and equality and involves a greater degree of economic egalitarianism through progressive taxation, income redistribution, or even property redistribution.-- this is according to your wiki pedia

Report abuse

seanomelb | Jun 30, 2012, 06:52 PM EDT

In regards to healthcare Justice Roberts,Obama and the pope have one thing in common.It's called social justice.

Report abuse

BrianO | Jun 30, 2012, 05:34 PM EDT

eiriamch I do, the comment board prompts me by name, I answered the question about out of staters flocking to massachusetts on the other board, but MA> has lost congressional representation for loss of population, those flocking to MA. are illegal aliens who by the way do not have to pay the mandate/tax.

Report abuse

Kendall | Jun 30, 2012, 05:32 PM EDT

When you have individuals like Naill who believe Being Irish one must be Catholic. Couple that thought process with certain members of the Orange Order who insist on marching every July. Is it it in wonder why brokering a peace is so difficult. I''m neither Catholic nor Protestant, I'm just a Christian who is tied of religious bigotry and what it has done to Ireland. So Niall when will you stop perpetuating the bigotry?

Report abuse

eiriamach | Jun 30, 2012, 03:52 PM EDT

BrianO, please download Firefox or some other browser that automatically signs you in to a website. When you forget to sign in, your post goes up with no name and the name of the next person to post becomes attached to the post that you wrote! When I see a no-same post, I can't write anything after it. To answer your question, I'll just copy some of what I wrote on Cahir O'Doherty's "The Verdict on John Roberts..." where I quoted from the Court's decision at Jun 29 8:58, about Massachusetts. The Massachusetts solution is suffering precisely because it worked!... Out-of-staters drive to Mass. for better quality and less expensive health care than they can find at home. Their use of the system drives up the costs beyond what Massachusetts residents can sustain.... The ACA regulates INTERSTATE commerce in health insurance because any state that reforms its health care system as Massachusetts did is immediately disadvantaged in competition with neighboring states whose overwhelmed systems drive their residents elsewhere. Only the fed can solve such problems in a federalist system! Insurance is a shared-risk financial product. I paid for 20 years' worth of health insurance before I ever once used it. My payments paid for others' health care, and I do not consider them to have stolen from me!

Report abuse

BrianO | Jun 30, 2012, 03:00 PM EDT

patrickesq/post1. mine.

Report abuse

patrickesq | Jun 30, 2012, 12:22 PM EDT

Justice Roberts voted to uphold the ACA because the facts and legal precedents supported that decision. He is to be applauded for acting as a judge should , and not conforming to the perceptions of his personal political beliefs. Congress makes the policy for the USA, not the Supreme Court, or the Republican party. History will determine if the intended goals of the Act to make health care available to millions of more Americans, at affordable rates, is achieved. That is certainly a worthy goal. I suspect what really motivates the Republican attacks on the Act is their fear that it will prevent the major insurance companies from completely controlling the market for insurance coverage,that has permitted them to annually escalate premiums far in excess of the rate of inflation, freely deny coverage for those with preexisting conditions, cap the amount of life time coverage after serous illnesses, and have little accountability to the health care consumer and our government.

Report abuse

patrickesq | Jun 30, 2012, 12:17 PM EDT

Eiriamach why do you trust government to do the "right" thing. Is their track record that good in providing efficient effective service? What does government do best? It grows. To your cost argument, I live in Massachusetts the reddest of the occupied red states, Before Mass health those who were freeloaders took advantage of welfare or emergency rooms, hospitals are required to treat all. This cost was passed on to the non freeloaders which resulted in the rate being paid to be larger, You would think if an entity deemed that all must have insurance or be fined to offset the costs the cost of insurance would go down. In Massachusetts the cost of insurance has almost doubled, younger citizens who's needs for insurance are much less, are being fined, people who are just getting by are fined, the non citizens don't belong to the system and are not being fined. This is about power and control, that is why I use the term serfdom, Freedom is not just another word for nothing left to lose, I like control of my life and how I pursue happiness, Giving an entity the power to limit my health care is a reduction in my freedom. They will not stop there. They will deem some other right to impose on me and my fellow citizens that will further control their freedom. It is theft to force people to pay for other peoples services. Why do these plans prevent catastrophic injury insurance to be sold to low risk clients? why should an eighteen year old kid on his own have to have a policy designed for a fifty year old. ---I've gone on too long-- Give your freedom away but leave me alone.

Report abuse

eiriamach | Jun 30, 2012, 11:02 AM EDT

BrianO You're still thinking in terms of government existing only to protect your individual right to accumulate wealth. Its broader purpose is to ensure equal treatment of all under one rule of law, so that your rights are the same as my rights, etc. The ACA imposes a fine on people who can afford insurance but who choose to freeload on the national health care system. It fines people who do not pay their fair share but who use the health care facilities we pay for (60% of the uninsured require health care each year). Their use of the system burdens those who pay for the system to the tune of $100 Billion each year in high costs of insurance and services! We carry the freeloaders, most of whom truly cannot afford the cost of insurance and must freeload. How can you call such a fine "theft" and "serfdom"? It frees the serfs (freeloaders). It compels them to pay only a small share of the cost of insurance, not even their fair share, and it does not apply to anyone who truly cannot afford insurance! This fine steals nothing from you; it controls the cost of your insurance! (Roberts' "tax authority" argument for it was so ridiculous that he'd have to approve taxing you for not eating broccoli if congress mandated it! As regulation of insurance industries, however, ACA makes sense.)

Report abuse

jacersagain | Jun 30, 2012, 10:27 AM EDT

Incidentally, in matters of proper justice, one’s religion, faith or atheistic belief should not influence proper deliverance of justice. An I for an I, a toof for a toof, says eye agreeing with my God's Bible.

Report abuse

jacersagain | Jun 30, 2012, 10:18 AM EDT

I’m a simple man. When I’m unsure about something, I look up traditional, long-established forms of definitive reference. I looked up an English Dictionary for definitions of the words Penalty and Tax. Penalty: Punishment for a crime or offence; a forfeit. Tax: Compulsory payment by wage earners, companies etc imposed by Government to raise revenue. I also looked up Roget’s Thesaurus for alternatives. Penalty: damage, an infliction. Tax: tariff, excise, a toll. From these definitions, it is clear neither word is compatible with the other, so what the heck are these Judges doing making out that both words mean the same? The USA’s Supreme Court Judges should be sacked en-masse for lack of knowledge of word definitions and making a judgement based on a hugely wrong interpretation of words. Just like the members of the European Court of Human Rights, the very few (nine members of the US Supreme Court) should not be allowed to exclusively decide for the very many (millions). From far away here in Ireland, even I, the simple man, can see this USA decision is full of crass stupidity affecting the many millions (of simple people) and serving up to the very few (insurance companies). Surely this decision is a definitive sign that America has gone to pot. Foe once, I'd agree with a tenet of Islam: that no insurance is needed for anything. What you do or get up to is your own business between you and your God.

Report abuse

shop tom | Jun 30, 2012, 10:01 AM EDT

I find in interesting that posts indicating the poster has the opinion that Obama is an arrogant failure aren't allowed on this liberal rag.

Report abuse

BrianO | Jun 30, 2012, 08:48 AM EDT

eiriamach this bills legalizes theft nicely packaged as mandate but for purpose of constitutionality called a tax. I have life insurance, my neighbor does not, mandate or fine, I have car insurance, i argue transport in the US is essential for maintaining access to health care so if you do not have car insurance mandate a penalty, sounds like the road to serfdom where the control is in the hand of the mandators/executive.

Report abuse

Next Previous Page 2 of 6 pages