Planet X
CBS News describes how John Roberts changed his mind on Obamacare. According to the story he was initially against it. Then through a process that CBS’s sources cannot explain, the Chief Justice abruptly changed his mind. It is an account that raises more questions than it answers.
(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama’s health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy – believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law – led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
“He was relentless,” one source said of Kennedy’s efforts. “He was very engaged in this.”
But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, “You’re on your own.”
The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.
Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts’ decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.
The CBS article suggests that Roberts may have been influenced by newspaper reports suggesting that if he struck down the law, he would damage the Court, as well as his own reputation. “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.
It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.
Some informed observers outside the Court flatly reject the idea that Roberts buckled to liberal pressure, or was stared down by the President. They instead believe that Roberts realized the historical consequences of a ruling striking down the landmark health care law. There was no doctrinal background for the Court to fall back on – nothing in prior Supreme Court cases – to say the individual mandate crossed a constitutional line.
So to the question: why did Roberts change his mind the apparent answer is that ABC’s sources don’t know. But pundits, no less than astronomers are always eager to find the unseen source of an action. Having observed an effect, they want to know the cause. This was famously the case with Planet X, and the search for it led to the discovery of Pluto.
Following the discovery of the planet Neptune in 1846, there was considerable speculation that another planet might exist beyond its orbit. The search began in the mid-19th century and culminated at the start of the 20th with Percival Lowell’s quest for Planet X. Lowell proposed the Planet X hypothesis to explain apparent discrepancies in the orbits of the gas giants, particularly Uranus and Neptune, speculating that the gravity of a large unseen ninth planet could have perturbed Uranus enough to account for the irregularities.
In the event Pluto was not Planet X. It was too small to account for the perturbations. Whatever was causing the gas giants to veer, it was not tiny Pluto. “Today, the astronomical community widely agrees that Planet X, as originally envisioned, does not exist, but the concept of Planet X has been revived by a number of astronomers to explain other anomalies observed in the outer Solar System.”
The mystery, like the actual cause of Robert’s change of heart, still awaits a definitive explanation. It may lie in a desire to put any future limitation of Congressional action on a sound footing. But for now, he did not want to be seen as meddling in politics. “Regardless of his thinking, it was clear to the conservatives that Roberts wanted the Court out of the red-hot dispute.”
The least convincing aspect of the CBS narrative is that Roberts could have been driven to avoid this controversy solely by reading the newspapers or listening to media accounts suggesting that the court would lose its legitimacy or that his reputation would suffer. Did those articles actually carry so much weight? Was the New York Times “Planet X”? An object so massive it was capable of steering the gas giants from the computed orbits without its massive bulk being seen? Or is there something else out there which the media telescopes have not discovered?
It’s is necessary of course to avoid the “fallacy of a single cause”, to believe that every event — such as Robert’s change of heart — is necessarily attributable to a single or major influence. An event might be the outcome of a dozen disparate influences. In that case, perhaps not even Justice Roberts knows exactly why he acted as he did, only that he did.
Belmont Commenters
How to Publish on Amazon’s Kindle for $2.99
The Three Conjectures at Amazon Kindle for $1.99
Storming the Castle at Amazon Kindle for $3.99
No Way In at Amazon Kindle $8.95, print $9.99
Who shot JFK?
Perhaps the most unfortunate aspect of the politicization of everything is that nothing that CBS says can be accepted at face value. I have absolutely no reason to believe that CBS did not make this story up out of whole cloth, or that its so called sources are not entirely fictional.
Who shot JFK?
The thread on conspiracy theories, and whether or not it is insane to credit them, was in the previous post. We are in the back to normal mode in which only sober matters are discussed. Of course you may ask, “why did Wretchard happen to post on conspiracies a few hours before the ABC article”?
The answer is probably the Texas Sharpshooter Theory. Given a bunch of shots fired at a wall, it is always possible to paint a bulls-eye which will include all the hits, if you draw the bulls-eye big enough. We see conspiracies where we want to see them. But it doesn’t mean of course, that they don’t exist.
A very interesting follow up to the previous post. A question of why with no answer, yet consistent with a pattern of left liberal justices remaining firmly in that camp, and yet Republican nominated, if not conservative, justices demonstrate about a 50/50 chance of ‘growing’ once on the court.
As of yet, I have no theory, but who got to Chief Justice Roberts, and what did they have on him?
The four voting to strike down the law have certainly disgreed on many a point, but are able to work together professionally, because at least they expressed their reasoning for the decision. The suggestion that Roberts both switched his vote, and could not adequately explain why to his peers satisfaction, is deeply troubling. It isn’t like Kennedy has set that bar very high.
EDIT: W, sorry, written before your #3. Although the ‘who got to him’ was meant humorously, the cause of leftward drift/wobbliness of R nominated Justices, is (I think) fair game.
Roberts is simply a coward who shrank from his moment in history. He rationalized this to himself with the idea that he would bring about a second Marbury. In fact this case, if it is remembered at all in the fullness of time, will go down as a sort of anti-Marbury. Here the court gives even broader powers (via the tax two step) to congress with scant limiting principles gained in return (even the commerce clause language is mere dicta). We now have to deal with an additional fascist tool-kit that was scarcely imagined by the most eeyore-ish conservatives before Thursday. And it is no answer to say that it is now up to the people in November. Even a victory in November will leave us vulnerable to the tactics he has blessed/invented, and these are exactly the kinds of tools that can be used to buy the people with their own money in the first place. I think the fault was not in any star or planet, but in himself.
Roberts’ reasoning in his opinion is not persuasive; he is transparent in justifying a previously determined goal rather than representing a logical process of deliberation. These can’t be his values!
He is titular leader of one whole head of government yet would any of the signers of the Declaration wanted such a man as their compatriots?
Because rewriting a Law isn’t meddling in politics. Right.
The entire legal profession needs to be rethought. When one appealled to the King, you at least understood him to be a man of parts with honor and prowess on the battlefield. For John Roberts to do this, he must be a very mere confused wee baby of a coward. I’m sure that Chicago had something to do with this, but the way one stands up to scum is still the true measure of a man, and he failed miserably.
Right now, trial by combat would be a far more equitable and less costly way to handle things.
And we’d have half as many lawyers in no time at all!
“Public opinion of the Supreme Court has grown more negative since the highly publicized ruling on the president’s health care law was released. A growing number now believe that the high court is too liberal and that justices pursue their own agenda rather than acting impartially.”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/supreme_court_update
It is interesting to think of Roberts as having been susceptible to some form of persuasion, other than reason and the force of logic in making his decision. If someone did have something on him I am curious to know how he squares the circle of acting to save himself now while damning himself for all eternity by potentially forcing such a burden on so many for so long.
The Texas Bulls-eye can cover a variety of strikes on the wall. For example, readers will recall that “U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, who was robbed in February at his Caribbean vacation home by a man armed with a machete, recently was the victim of a burglary at his residence in Washington, a court spokeswoman said on Thursday.”
You can always find connections where you want to find them. Breyer is after all, considered a liberal, so why should anyone pressure him? But the propensity to find connections doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
This just stirs the pot. What will it bring up?
From the article: “… Roberts may have been influenced by newspaper reports suggesting that if he struck down the law, he would damage the Court, as well as his own reputation.”
So instead Roberts correctly declared the mandate unconstitutional – and then incomprehensibly supported the law. And this did not damage the Court? This did not destroy his own reputation, irreparably & forever?
Why did Roberts make himself a permanent laughing-stock, and the author the worst Supreme Court decision since Roe vs Wade? Occam’s Razor suggests that Soetero’s Chicago machine got to him somehow. Since any incriminating evidence against Roberts personally would have been dragged up by those friendly Dems during his confirmation hearings, the likelihood is that Roberts sold his dignity, his soul, and his place in history to protect some family member from a New York Times airing, courtesy of the Obama machine.
To echo John J @ 7, even if Roberts intentions were good, his behavior is certainly that of a “very mere confused wee baby of a coward”.
We are still such an innocent people at times that I blush with pride in the lasting effects of morality and Christianity on our society. Be that as it may, in our decidedly post-Christian, post-moral era of situational ethics, one must simply follow the money or follow the pain. To think that Roberts acted out of some complex ideology or concern for the court’s legacy or any other theory founded in the atmosphere of our better angels is just begging for another kick in the teeth from our ruling elites.
“… Roberts may have been influenced by newspaper reports suggesting that if he struck down the law, he would damage the Court, as well as his own reputation.”
So instead Roberts ruled correctly that the mandate was unconstitutional — and then supported Obamacare anyway. And that stupid decision did not damage the Court? And did not destroy his own reputation for all eternity?
Occam’s Razor suggests the most plausible explanation for Roberts self-immolation is that the Soetero Chicago machine got to him. If there had been anything incriminating in Roberts own background, it would have been thorougly aired by those friendly Dems in his confirmation hearing. Roberts probably took a dive to protect some family member from embarrassing revelations in the pages of the New York Times, courtesy of the Obama machine.
But no matter how noble & self-sacrificing Roberts motives may have seemed to himself, his failure to do his duty to the Constitution has branded him for ever as (quoting John J @ 7) “a very mere confused wee baby of a coward.”
CJ Roberts’ reasons for making the decision he made will be his to divulge when and if he feels so compelled to do so. I await that day. I for one am not mad at the man nor his decision. He made what was to me the proper decision knowing that the SC is obligated to uphold the legislation as long as it can be found constitutional.
People need to get it through their thick skulls that elections and politics on even the local level are the second most important part of the lives of their children and grandchildren. I for one feel that when we abrogated our responsibility in the education of our children and left it to the state to determine the future’s mindset and cognitive abilities we earned this fight we find ourselves in today.
I know people say you should not assign blame but look and implement solutions to the problem. All the folks who put Wilson and FDR in power, especially those in the Republican party have earned my ire. They set the foundation for the rise of the child king. A pox upon all of ‘em!
“The ABC article suggests that Roberts may have been influenced by newspaper reports suggesting that if he struck down the law, he would damage the Court…”
I think this is the most likely reason for Roberts’ switch. If it’s true it gives me two concerns:
1. If Roberts’ motivation was to preserve the independence of SCOTUS didn’t he achieve the opposite? It appears lobbying and political pressure worked. Behavior that’s rewarded is repeated.
2. Isn’t the whole purpose of SCOTUS to stand as a bulwark against popular but unconstitutional initiatives? If not, who needs ‘em? We might as well ditch separation of powers and go with a parliamentary system and common law
It was Sigmund Freud who taught us that if you ask a man why he does something, he may not be able to tell you accurately.
Did those articles actually carry so much weight?
Yes, sufficiently.
Short answer.
He has gone from making judgements, to rationalizing the status quo.
Long answer:
Roberts simply buckled, lost his way, lost his nerve, convinced himself he was being clever, and apparently managed to badly piss off his former friends. We can speculate that he decided to agree with those who said the court had become too political, and he sought something else. But his actual words and logic are very nearly gibberish, they are utterly inconsistent from point to point. His bottom-line result is that Congress is free to do more of this, so NOTHING was accomplished. His “limits” on the commerce clause mean nothing, because he showed the way around it – and this is a point that was not even made in the dissent. Just as the Obamatons on this morning’s shows claim, hey they got what they wanted, all the rest is legalese that nobody will understand nor should care about. Roberts wimped out, or slighly more sympathetically, he reached his breaking point, or at least his Peter Principle point, his level of incompetence.
Or someone met his price and paid him a bribe, or held a gun to his head. But there seems little enough speculation along these lines, so I’ll go with the psycho-socio-anthropo-babble instead.
This is the same man who shook his head at Obambus at the state of the union two years ago.
OTOH it is also the same man who voted against Arizona on three of four points this same week, and who voted against the stolen valor case as well. So, we can’t say that he’s folded on just one issue, he’s folding across the board.
I think it was George Will this morning speculating that the court will uphold photo ID for voting in an upcoming case, and that that, added to the Citizens United decisions, will be enough to mark Roberts’ time on the court as a success, and to put the purported limits on the commerce clause in a good light. Well George, we shall see.
Go and try to find a car salesman who will not tell you, “Now is the time to buy.” even if the lot is nearly empty and the new year cars are due out next week.
It’s the same with every profession. People will follow their self-interest, perhaps even come to actually believe what they tell you that furthers their own interest.
Justice Roberts or anyone else in Big Government must realize that the more of the product the sell, the better for themselves. I have had Federal civilian government employees tell me just that, flat out. Limiting government inevitably limits their own opportunities. The fact that Roberts has reached the pinnacle of his profession and cannot be fired does not automatically subtract that viewpoint from his mind.
One one hand, a majority struck down part of Obamacare which would withhold all medicare funding from states unless they expand medicare. It’s not constitutional because it is coercion of the states by federal government.
On the other, Roberts says the mandate does not pass muster, but can be permitted as a tax to coerce the public to do what is unconstitutional under the commerce clause.
There appears to be a deficit of logic. Whence cometh this?
It makes no sense that any provision of the constitution could be construed as allowing taxes to be used for purposes that are not part of enumerated powers. Andrew McCarthy did a beautiful piece titled “Limiting the General Welfare Clause” which is linked by Hot Air.
Not sure that general welfare as discussed should actually be elevated to the status of clause, as it is used in our discourse about the Constitution.
Where does ABC come into the CBS report?
So, CBS is reporting that the news media swayed Roberts. Spiking the ball?
Where does ABC come into the CBS report?
Fixed the typos.
Limiting government inevitably limits their own opportunities.
And that is the only game in town. Lots of “good” folks know no other. They think it perfectly reasonable, within their own lights, to take as much as possible, and acquire more employees beneath them to raise their status in the empire. To government employees, even amongst the best of them, everything about capitalism is a zero-sum game, but everything about bureaucracy is limitless, expansive and eternal.
I am a cynical bugger who has dealt with lies, deception, and criminal conduct as a career. And not just amongst the criminals I incarcerated. I made a living reading people who were trying to conceal criminal conduct, and the ability to do so sometimes saved my …tail.
Granting the previous caveat that there is absolutely no reason to believe anything reported in the Journo-List 2.0 media as having reality outside of a White House press directive, unless independently corroborated, the Occam’s Razor explanation has apparent merit.
IF it is true that he could not elucidate any rational arguments to his fellow justices [ and Wo3 de5 tian1, a5; if you have Lefty weathervane Kennedy on your side, if facts matter you do not have to worry about the decision being called "right wing" by other than hacks] and just dug in his heels to the point where the others have put him in Coventry, he was gotten to and turned.
Something to consider. Once turned, you are turned for good. Compliance with an extortionist/blackmailer does not remove the threat you have already yielded to, and the eventual revelation that you did give in makes it worse for you. It is like a cop who takes a bribe, is owned by the source who can let it be known that the cop took a bribe.
Roberts has to be considered as being owned by the regime. To trust him or depend on him to ever rule against the regime’s interests regardless of the case makes as much sense as re-appointing Benedict Arnold to command of West Point.
We cannot impeach or remove him. Neither the Institutional Republicans in the House, or the Democrats in the Senate would allow it; albeit for different reasons. And once these means are successfully used once against a justice, it has to be assumed to be a regular tactic that can be executed on others.
The Supreme Court has been de-legitimized. Congress was long ago, for its supineness in dealing with the usurpations of the Executive. The Executive uses the Constitution as toilet paper.
At what point, under what is supposed to be a system operating by “consent of the governed”, can allegiance and obedience be withdrawn? I leave that as a subject for discussion, on or offline.
Subotai Bahadur
People who refuse to get health care insurance still go to the emergency room when they get a hangnail The hospital sends the bill to Congress because it’s not a charity outfit they’re running here. Congress raises revenue to cover this bill. It’s called a tax. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. So if you want to get rid of this tax, then get hospitals off the hook for treating the uninsured.
To me it is obvious from the published opinions he was bullied into cowardice. 7. John J is spot on. Roberts is now in the very position he wanted to avoid – that of a rotten carcass swinging at the end of a noose to and fro in the breeze.
And there’s not any practical way to rehabilitate himself. This was his Blackstone moment in history and he turned himself into Breyer.
Warning: Avoid standing too close to him in the future because the “spin” factor is gonna be awesome.
The reason that the ideas :
A. That he feared that a decision to strike down Obamacare might damage the court
B. That someone got to him
don’t fly, is that why did Roberts then side with the Left on the other two big cases of this court term, the Arizona Immigration case and the Stolen Valor case? I think the answer is that John Roberts is just another supremely arrogant SOB who schemed for high, powerful office, like Buraq and the Bernank, and who thinks his ideas and legal reasoning far surpass mere mortals and the rest of the legal profession. That, and the combination of fashionable left adulation and media fame, were just too much for his out sized ego.
#14 JFSanders
He made what was to me the proper decision knowing that the SC is obligated to uphold the legislation as long as it can be found constitutional.
I take issue with this.
1) Due to the less than legal finagling it took to get it through Congress, including using shell legislation, deem and pass threats, and budget reconciliation; there was not a severability clause in Obamacare. A severability clause in a law means that if part of the law is unconstituional or illegal, the rest remains in force.
2) Under the rules of legislative construction, if a law without a severability clause is found to be unconstitutional in one part, the whole law goes down.
3) The Medicaid mandate was found to be unconstitutional.
4) The failure to submit mandate was found to be unconstitutional first, and functionally re-written from Roberts’ desk to be a constitutional tax. That is not the function of the courts.
5) In any case, the law should have been tossed out and Congress told to start over with the guidance above.
Subotai Bahadur
“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices”
Our politcal choices? Does Roberts mean my “political choice” not to become a congressman/legislator?
So it’s my responsibility as an American citizen to take, say, six weeks off work and read through 2700 pages of legal gibberish, looking for the word “tax”. And when I don’t find the word “tax” (since it’s not written down in any of those 2700 pages), I can count on Justice Roberts to find it for me and chide me for my naivte in not seeing the word “tax” everytime the word “penalty” or “mandate” appears.
Anyone else find this attitude flat-out insulting?
From the first I have been with Subotai Bahadur 23. Someone made Roberts an offer he couldn’t refuse. And it was probably delivered by someone very close to him, such as his wife. If he can be touched, is anyone safe?
And even if we could remove Roberts for provable cause, we know that the man Bummer would put in his place would be Bader-Ginsburg on Steroids, and far younger. We’re better off with the devil we know than the designer devil. We are stuck with this for a very long while.
Another thing.
Anyone who has not already listened to Mark Levin’s Thursday podcast (found at his dotcom) really ought to listen to the first 60 minutes or so. It doesn’t solve a thing, but it sure is nice to hear someone deliberately explain it all. He delivers an analysis of why the news is bad and how it’s bad, and he did it within hours of the news. (Levin was ahead of the curve because his Landmark Legal Foundation had filed a friend-of-the-court brief on the tax aspects of all things — how ACA could not be a tax!) After hearing Levin, I was convinced that Orwell was right again. Roberts gave us Duckspeak. He ducked the hard questions by writing gibberish. Levin called it inconsistent and incoherent. I say it’s Duckspeak. (And all those apologists on the Right who have been trying to spin this into a win are also engaging in it, if not deliberately, then by dint of not being exposed to good counter-arguments such as what Levin laid out.)
If I were writing a headline for Mr. Levin’s explication, it would be “Absolutely Lawless.” It comes from how he began his show on Thursday. “…As a matter of fact, this decision I would go as far to say is lawless. Absolutely lawless. That’s why people are stunned.”
So I’m reading on one side that Roberts has made a clever “inside baseball” decision by labeling the “mandate” a tax. Almost immediately Obama is screeching “is not a tax.” Reminds me of the old Saturday Night Live parody, “Its a floor wax!” “No! Its a desert topping!” Said argument does not discuss that you have a floor wax that attracts roaches or a desert topping that destroys your liver. In other words the product is deeply flawed no matter how versatile.
If I Recall Correctly, Recently a dissident Chinese lawyer made the observation that the Chinese Constitution has numerous right for the citizen, but that they do no good when the Party thugs do and can ignore them. Obama is a thug and he will ignore the delicate argument inside the Roberts ruling.
This is the same man who shook his head at Obambus at the state of the union two years ago.
Josh – Do you mean Justice Alito? He shook his head and was seen mouthing the words, “Not true,” during an 0 speech a couple years ago IIRC.
“Roberts has to be considered as being owned by the regime.”
ALL the USSC decisions, the conduct of Congress, the decisions made by the executive make sense if you look at them with the POV that the establishment is acting to protect itself from the serfs. The haves are scared of the have nots (There are so MANY of us) and they are operating to keep their boot on our neck. In America, a large part of the boot is Law. It isn’t the people that work in the Law itself. They are just normal guys and gals, doing their work and collecting their check, sliding toward retirement.
The Law itself is created by crooks for their benefit, Administered by Judges and Lawyers for their benefit, With little if any thoughts about society or the have nots.
There will be no election in November. If you are not ready, it might be too late for you.
The Police in the larger cities will have lists of everybody that bought guns and ammo this year. Expect a visit.
I almost forgot. The SciFi theory on Planet X is that it’s a wormhole.
Celer, Silens, Mortalis.
15.
“The ABC article suggests that Roberts may have been influenced by newspaper reports suggesting that if he struck down the law, he would damage the Court…”
Michael Savage says the influence, on Roberts, was his epilepsy medications.
First, a shout out to Justice Kennedy. I am not a close follower of the court, but it strikes me that Kennedy is usually a reliable vote for LIBERTY. He is mistakenly viewed as a “swing vote” because when giving the benefit of the doubt to liberty, he will sometimes tick off the Dems (ObamaCare) and sometimes tick off the Repubs (Stolen Valor).
As for Roberts (with apologies to Sir Winston):
He was given the choice between tyranny for America and ridicule of the Court. He chose tyranny for America and will get ridicule of the Court.
John Yoo agrees with my layman’s view that “the passage by the Supreme Court of individual manadate is effectively the American version of the Beveridge report, the founding document of the Welfare State in the United Kingdom.”
However I added that unlike the Beveridge report this expansion hasn’t got a hope in hell. “Whereas the British Welfare State of 1945 was mounting a rising tide, the welfare state concept of 2012 is going straight into the teeth of a probable depression or worse.”
There’s no money to carry out an expansion of the Welfare State, whatever Roberts Bernanke or Obama say. Nobody ever won against arithmetic. Fortunately the President isn’t going to pocket his winnings, but try to cash them in. And he should be encouraged to do it.
The establishment isn’t going to reform itself. Only reality will compel that, through a system collapse. Roberts’ capitulation proves, at least to Rupert Murdoch, that there is nothing Chicago can’t fix. He thinks Romney has no chance because he brought a ballot to a gunfight. The Chicago Way must prevail in the end. Here’s his tweet:
All the same the administration is doomed; not by Romney, but by reality. Count on it.
32. stoicheion: “There will be no election in November. If you are not ready, it might be too late for you.”
It’s generally a good idea to follow the Boy Scout motto. But just in case there IS an election this November, I suggest we all get to work on defeating Obama and at least 3 Dem senators. ObamaCare can be negated (repealed or gutted) via the Reconciliation process with 50 votes in the Senate plus Romney’s VP as the tie-breaker. 60 votes not required.
I always wondered why Roberts got in with such a minimum of fuss.
“It’s enormously gratifying that the chief justice, who once was one of my star students in constitutional law, saved the day — and perhaps the court,” said Harvard professor and constitutional law expert Laurence H. Tribe, who said the court’s “place as a legal institution had begun to fall into dangerous disrepute.”
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/politics/view/20220629roberts_hailed_for_swing_vote/
Its helpful to understand that Lawrence Tribe argued the Gore side in Bush v. Palm Beach County during the 2000 election.
The deeper question is why has Harvard become institutionally fascist.
Richard’s reference to the search for Pluto, that is, dating the issue back to the 18th century– I think is correct.
Harvard was wholly calvinist christian up until late in the 18th century when it switched over to being unitarian. That change made all the difference in the world.
Why? Because unitarianism holds that Jesus is just a man. That means that the central mystery is just a human sacrifice. It changes the unitarian from being God centered to man centered. unitarians have no moral inner spring. It made their morality only the reflected glory of the culture. when the culture went bad, so did the unitarians.
same goes for Harvard. when the culture went bad so did Harvard. Like the unitarianism it had adapted –harvard had no inner moral spring.
All of last week’s posts could apply- Reset, War Unseen, Nurse, Republic, Crossed Wires, Why Things Don’t Work. It would be nice to think Roberts was pulling a Ben Kenobi act. He did something seemingly foolish, but sneaky and wise in the long run. Maybe this will force a total repeal of the income tax?
They’re all suffering fools though. It’s best we forget about it.
stoicheion- I think “X” is a spaceship, but wormhole is interesting too.
The other team plays the “Chicago Way”.
I know what Planet X is. The deciding factor was what the other four conservatives did in response, and especially how they could not get a straight answer from him.
It’s either money or the threat of violence.
It’s money.
Search your heart you’ll know the truth. He was purchased.
Teresita @24: It is absolutely correct that if EMTALA is Constitutional, then socialized medicine is not only Constitutional but will eventually be required.
With EMTALA, Congress mandated evaluation and treatment without payment. Hospitals don’t “send the bill to Congress”, that is explicitly forbidden.
Under EMTALA, hospitals have to pay for deadbeats’ treatment out of their nonexistent profits – and must do so without limit. Every year since EMTALA (now 26 years old), the capital position of hospitals has been deteriorating. How much of your bill is a hidden tax to fund EMTALA is unknown, but it is substantial.
Also, every year since EMTALA, the number of protected deadbeats has been increasing. When I started charging for services, the nonpayment rate was 3%. It’s now close to 30%.
And why not? Everybody knows it’s gonna come out of Obama’s stash, eventually.
The SCOTUS decision itself seems worse in its long term consequences than Obamacare.
What is left that Congress can’t impose on us? Do X, buy Y, and submit to Z, or we will tax you. There are almost no limits on what X, X, and Z will be.
The only thing left to stop the machine is the sheer arithmetic of the debt.
I can’t imagine accepting a story from CBS at face value. I also can’t envision spending much time trying to make sense of a CBS narrative. CBS, as part of America’s Main Stream Media, has a credibility factor below that of the National Enquirer (Elvis back from the dead with an amazing new UFO sex diet!).
But I can wonder about justice Roberts decision. And I can believe that the Chicago political machine, from whose anus dropped Barack Obama, could conceivably influence a member of the SCOTUS. I don’t need help from the MSM to develop my own conspiracy theory.
Obama recently cut a deal with the Saudis to keep oil production at a high level to drive down prices. There is always Quid Pro Quo in these election year deals, and I can only hope that Obama didn’t screw America to get reelected. Sadly, our MSM is fascinated with Tom Cruise’s marriage and won’t be able to look into the Saudi deal.
Make no mistake, I don’t want Obama for president. But I have to give the devil his due – he’s getting his way somehow.
Obama in 2012? Groan! – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4nvhAZ0vr0
rb @ 37: He was given the choice between tyranny for America and ridicule of the Court. He chose tyranny for America and will get ridicule of the Court.
Oh, excellent. I hope they get the Internet on Malta and Roberts sees that soonest. But that’s just what I meant by the articles in the MSM *did* influence him.
–
bw @ 31: Do you mean Justice Alito?
Oops, guess I do. So Roberts is NOT the same man who did that two years ago. Nevermind.
41. Mike – “It’s money. Search your heart you’ll know the truth. He was purchased.”
Mr. F wrote something about Strauss-Kahn recently, which reminded me: a lot of these chaps (the billionaires, media moguls, various leaders) appear to be causing their own downfall. Even Madoff didn’t put up a fight, he just plead guilty to everything. There are no bribes or extortion happening – these men are willingly taking on scandals for some reason. I have to assume they are stepping down in a sense (hitting ‘reset’), and this could be what Roberts was doing. The actual reason for all this is unknown. Maybe it’s war-on-terror related, or something bigger/smaller? Don’t know.
What breaks, breaks. All you can do is route around it. There is no percentage in wishing someone had more character or greater ability if they don’t. Reality is pitiless in that way. It hands each of us a report card and if we have the honesty to look at it, then we see ourselves as we truly are.
I’ve written elsewhere that nobody should assume he can stand up to coercive interrogation or mortal danger until he has. When it is your turn, God forbid, then you can say what you can after it, but not before.
There was a friend who went to pieces after being captured back in the old days. After release we all knew but nobody ever mentioned it. There was no blame attached, for each person understood how you have to walk a mile in those shoes before you can judge; and probably if you do, you will just feel sorry.
There was no blame, but never again an iota of trust. It isn’t personal, just the fact. It’s incumbent on people who can’t hack it to simply go and look for a life elsewhere, for God gives us many chances at repentance provided we observe the rule that we should acknowledge the truth about ourselves.
He will forgive us if we try again at a task within our capacity. But insist on pretending to a role you can’t fulfill and to keep trying from pride or pretense — well you owe it to your fellows to get the hell out of the way.
I don’t think we can look into Roberts’ heart. But it is probably best to gently remove him from the factor of calculations, as you would put a broken wrench in a pile of old tools. He looked good, but that’s where it ended.
Route around and don’t look back.
I’m reminded of The Firm.
Also, why has there been no president since Bush I who has a son?
As Wretchard states our hope lies in work a rounds.
Some interesting money flows to the Republicans and drops in fund raising for the Obamaites.
The Obama team is remarkably tone deaf to have the President fund raising in Paris while the current power outages and heat waves hit the US. As of right now no cell phone service in DC……you can almost hear the screams in Texas. Sure would have been nice to have a hard power distribution system and more power generating capacity. I guess that wasn’t green enough or shovel ready enough.
If Roberts was bought once he can be bought again. So who buys him next and with what. MICE.
“All the same the administration is doomed; not by Romney, but by reality.”
FNC asked the Ag Dept about their efforts to increase the usage of food stamps, such as the department’s even going so far as to recommend Food Stamp parties to promote them. The parties would, of course, offer free food, presumably paid for with food stamps.
The reply from the Ag Dept was:
“Each $5.00 of food stamps produces a benefit of over $9.00 to the local economy. If food stamp usage increased by 5% that would equal a $2.5 billion increase in the U.S. economy.”
We are talking seriously delusional people here. Aside from my own observation in #17 above, these people genuinely think that giving away food paid for with taxpayer money produces a net gain in the economy that is close to twice as much as you gave away.
Obviously, if we could just give enough taxpayer money away we could pave the streets with gold.
Seriously delusional. Next, the FAA will announce that you can fly if you jump off of tall buildings and flap your arms. Of course, there will be a tax on that activity.
Forget using the theme song from “Springtime for Hitler” – replace “Hail to the Chief” with “They’re coming to take me away.”
“I suggest we all get to work on defeating Obama and at least 3 Dem senators.”
No help from me. I consider 0bama a symptom, not a disease. I will vote for Romney under no circumstances. I had extensive correspondance with my Senator before the SALT II treaty. He voted for it so I will vote against him. I’m looking into taking out ads in the small town papers explaining why he was wrong and needs to be retired from the Senate. Fookin RINO.
I don’t see democrats or even liberals as enemies. I do see the establishment as an enemy.
The establishment created 0bama but I’m not sure they control him. His Marxist leanings will do serious damage to the Establishment, which is fine by me.
I have worked hard since 0bama was elected to set myself up to avoid any social or economic collapse. I’ll save me, my children and my siblings. The rest of you are on your own.
Celer, Silens, Mortalis.
On the red herring that Lil’ John might have been worried about damaging the reputation of the Supreme Court — how can any institution lose its virginity yet again? We face this strange conundrum of the increasing unpopularity of the institutions of government in a democracy. In principle, that should not be possible. But in principle, those institutions in a democracy should be responsive to the people.
Yegor Gaidar wrote a book for his Russian audience trying to explain the breakdown of the USSR (“Collapse of an Empire: lessons for modern Russia”, Brookings Institution, 2007). Cliff Notes version — the communists spent decades dissipating the support of the people, and had no reservoir of popular goodwill left when the excessive debt they took on swamped the USSR. Does any of that sound familiar?
Roberts just pulled another brick out of the wall.
Wretchard, RE “route around,”
I think it is tactically useful for a large segment of the nation to remain angry at Roberts.
I completely disagree with the motive of the anger, but…we still have several months to keep morale up in the ranks and if a little, focused anger gets us over the finish line, then I say let’s keep it up.
Folks’ll simmer down after the Congress takes the ACA Bill up again under a new President. Heck, even if Obama wins another term, and if Patriots can retain the House and pick up a few seats in the Senate, ACA is still toast.
We just need to funnel the anger for Roberts into the soon-to-come Presidential race, and the Senate and House legislative fights…which is where it’s focus always belonged in the first place.
stoicheion I sadly agree with some of what you wrote. especially making provision for a bad ending. I will vote for romney becuase not doing it is giving in to absolute pesimism and defeatism. but in the end im prepared for the worse becuase everything points to some kind of eventual failure. maybe catastrophic. the failure of leadership and policies devoid of rational basis across the spectrum of political military and social, dont bode well. maybe we turn this ship with a new captain before we hit the iceberg of reality and maybe not but sitting it out is defeatist.
@ Wretchard 47
That was very interesting. Now that you mention it, I agree. Roberts has done the Court and the US and our very posterity incredible and unbelievable harm. There is treachery afoot of the kind you read in history books. The name Richard Rich (The Thomas More case) was one of the first thing that came to my mind once I got over the initial shock and disbelief about the decision.
Then I thought – Did we somehow think we’d be immune from mere treachery? Did we think original sin disappeared just because we’ve abolished the term?
Roberts is in the category of Judas. There is always a Judas it seems, and as you suggest, I could be one my very self in analogous circumstances. You never know until you know.
But we have to move on past this guy. We may have to move on past the Court for awhile. He can never be trusted again, nor can any Court he sits on. Until he is gone and order is restored to the Kingdom (and I know my history enough to know we’ll be lucky if that restoration is not cataclysmic, he must both be ignored and made to be a pariah when and if he foolishly reappears in public.
My hunch is that his conscience will forbid him from doing so much.
I want to see what the four remaining conservatives do. They are brothers in arms now, and I have a feeling they are up for a fight knowing the odds are against them. But they are decent people fighting the indecent and so they have a chance.
@47
He will forgive us if we try again at a task within our capacity. But insist on pretending to a role you can’t fulfill and to keep trying from pride or pretense — well you owe it to your fellows to get the hell out of the way.
via meade
Finally, the Christian meritocrat must live in the light of the doctrine of Original Sin. Often seen as some dark, dismal dogma of the bigoted and the misanthropic, this idea may be the single most necessary piece of mental equipment a successful person needs to lead a genuinely constructive life in America today.
Original Sin is the idea that human beings, despite all their talents and capacities, are deeply and hopelessly flawed. Like water flows downhill, we are constantly turning toward our own selfish goals. We are vain, jealous, petty, self-seeking. Our judgement twists away from what’s right to what benefits us and our side. We can’t keep our fingers off the scales.
It’s not just our moral choices that go awry. Our thinking isn’t straight. What we think is logic is often self interest. When our interests and our passions are engaged, we lose all mental clarity just when we need it most
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/07/01/is-meritocracy-a-sham/
I know this is going to anger many people here, but I believe that, in the broad sense, the Obamacare Mandate, as well as Chief Justice John Roberts’ ruling on the same, are consistent with the US Constitution (even though many other rulings would also have been consistent); and that if this fact troubles you, while you may have a proximate beef with the man John Roberts, your ultimate beef ought to rest with the Constitution itself. There is a tendency on the part of many self-described conservatives to consider the term ‘constitutional’ and its cognates to be synonymous with ‘good policy.’ They aren’t. The US Constitution as written is an open invitation to the tyranny of oligarchs and lawyers, as the history of the last century amply demonstrates. As is my wont, I will use this occasion to append another incidental argument in favor of monarchy. Obamacare is unaffordable—we all know that. But only someone who is used to spending other people’s money would ever embark upon such a fiscally ruinous course as the one on which Obamacare will take us. However, no sovereign who viewed the wealth of his country as something akin to his own private property, to be held in trust by him and preserved intact for his successors, would ever have ruined his finances in such a way. Conservatives are apt to speak loudly and frequently about the salutary effects of private property—how it engenders responsibility and whatnot; so why then do the refuse to recognize the validity of the same concept at the sovereign level, where it is most applicable, and from whence the entire idea derives its legitimacy in the first place?
But all that aside, we must also take full account of the fact that “universal health care”—with or without mandates, taxes, laws, penalties, or any other form of persuasion or coercion—is not affordable by any society, anywhere. Health care costs have been spiraling out of control in the Western world and the ACA, however mendacious it might otherwise be, was an attempt at addressing that very real problem in America. But the dream of universal health coverage itself has its roots in an otherworldly ideology that simply cannot be actualized within the bounds of the nature that we know. It is a reckless and pretentious monument, a veritable Tower of Babel. Even if the ACA had been legally and “constitutionally” pure, it still would have been foolhardy. Without a doubt the principal actors involved in the passage of this bill have ulterior motives; they want to set up a giant slush fund and affect a socialist revolution by Alinskyite means. This has all been discussed before; however, their intentions are beside the point. Facts, as always will determine historical outcomes. There is no sense in combating this menace with deviations into yet more ideology, with lamentations over the unconstitutionality of the bill and its passage. For what power is there in a constitution to avert such a thing? Obviously none.
The power to combat it consists in changing the culture by hammering home the hard facts of life. Firstly, that we cannot afford it—this cannot be stressed too often. Secondly, I should very much like to see a discussion ( a la Foucault) concerning the nebulosity of what actually constitutes health care, leading to the conclusion that it cannot be considered a right or even a good, since it has no definite substance but is only a slogan which comes to symbolize many heterogeneous notions. Thirdly, we must emphasize that society is not something merely posited and hence open to revision. It has a natural and metaphysical basis; and while part of its purpose is to secure the material wellbeing of its members, this cannot be considered independently of the merits and claims of specific individuals, nor can it take precedence over the higher functions of civic order, foreign policy, and especially the necessity of rendering due worship to God. The welfare state has to be defeated on fundamentals, but these are seated much deeper than many people realize.
Roberts has done conservatives a huge service. Ever since ObamaCare was enacted, Republicans ran on the promise of defunding the damn thing, and they made great gains in 2010, but here we are 2012 going full tilt. Everyone assumed SCOTUS would just overthrow it, so no one had to do the politically unpopular thing of making the cuts. Now they do. This is what Roberts meant in his opinion, when he said it was not his job to shield people from the consequences of their political choices.
(This is also a test of posting under Lynx, a text-only browser that will bypass all the annoyances of Pajama Media)
rwe @ 50: “Each $5.00 of food stamps produces a benefit of over $9.00 to the local economy.
But, it is probably true.
What they leave out is that to get the $5.00 into play the feds had to collect and spend $10, which did at least $18.00 worth of damage to some other local economy.
It’s simple math, folks.
If you *print* the $5.00 it’s probably cheaper, maybe it only takes $7.50 to get the $5.00 deployed and it spreads the damage to EVERY holder of US dollars, but it STILL destroys more than it builds.
–
m @ 55: But all that aside, we must also take full account of the fact that “universal health care”—with or without mandates, taxes, laws, penalties, or any other form of persuasion or coercion—is not affordable by any society.
Two things. First, it may be affordable, at least in theory, to do somewhat better than we do now. The problem is there is no stopping point, you can always improve it a tiny bit at horrendous extra cost. Politics deals poorly with such situations. Second, if it were clearly NOT possible, then I believe SCOTUS would be justified in tossing out any bill that pretends that it is, on the same basis that a lower court can nullify inequitable or fraudulent contracts. But, it’s not clear the court has that expertise, and it is clear that nothing like that was argued, and in our system what is not argued is seldom adjudicated (this may be somewhat different in systems like France, though I barely know what I’m talking about here, where the court is a finder of fact rather than an arbiter of adversaries).
So, it might be possible for Obamacare to either be constitutional, or to be beyond the court’s domain to decide. However, the question is whether THIS version of Obamacare is constitutional, and that is where Roberts went completely bonkers. First he said it’s not, then he pretended to rewrite it so that it was. And the next day, the original defendants opined publically that they didn’t care for a thing he said, only that he ruled substantially in their favor. And, as far as I can tell, that is exactly right. It may not be what Roberts thought he was doing, in spite of the four conservative justices trying to explain it to him. I can barely imagine what Roberts’ mental processes must have been.
–
DrM @ 62: That’s very charitable, but it runs up against a problem identified by the Canadian blogger Kathy Shaidle: “When we say “we don’t know what we’d do under the same circumstances”, we make cowardice the default position.”
That’s a little much, like Patton slapping the soldier with battle fatigue.
Scalia is at an age where he must be thinking of retirement. I am persuaded that were Scalia, a very great Justice, to to resign in disgust right now, he would concentrate the conservative (not Republican) cause in November.
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/07/01/gov-scott-florida-will-not-implement-insurance-exchanges-or-expand-medicare
It’s starting to look more and more like 1860.
“Roberts has done conservatives a huge service”. To quote Col. Potter; “Poppycock”
It wasn’t the reaction to 0bama care that created the massive GOP gains in 2010, it was the TEA Party.
If there had been no 0bama care, the 2010 outcome would have been the same. If there had been no TEA Party, the Donks would still control the house.
The Establishment fears the TEA Party and wants to marginalize them in hopes they go away.
The powers that be really need to worry about them going away, then coming back as the Committee for Public Safety.
I’m over posted so I not defend my position beyond suggesting one search out the exit polls from 2010. At that time 0bama care was just getting to 50% disapproval. It’s in the 60′s now. The myth of free health care is still holding in places.
Wretchard @ 47: “I’ve written elsewhere that nobody should assume he can stand up to coercive interrogation or mortal danger until he has. When it is your turn, God forbid, then you can say what you can after it, but not before.”
That’s very charitable, but it runs up against a problem identified by the Canadian blogger Kathy Shaidle: “When we say “we don’t know what we’d do under the same circumstances”, we make cowardice the default position.”
We can’t preserve a decent society if we’re too eager to absolve treachery and weakness. And you see what you’re already doing: transplanting the pity one feels for people who endure actual physical torture to people like Roberts, who was not stretched on any rack or subject to beatings and starvation. Isn’t there ANY hardship we’re entitled to expect people to undergo in exchange for elevation to high position? Can’t they be expected to withstand even embarrassment anymore? Or do we accept, in the common cant nowadays, that they have to “feel comfortable” at all costs.
The modern way of dealing with the embarrassing question of courage in our leaders is to try to evade the matter. Instead of looking for men who can be brave in the face of threats, we’ve decided we’ll choose ciphers who are so unsubstantial, they’ll never have to face any credible challenge. Men with no paper trail, no history – as transparent as protozoa. That started after the Bork debacle, and Roberts himself was seen as a successful specimen, which is why he was proposed for the court. Yet if you’re right, it seems that even someone as scrubbed and blank as Roberts can be “got to” with the right sort of pressure. Which brings us back to the question of how to create a society that values bravery if we simply throw up our hands helplessly in the presence of cowardice.
We have to punish Roberts for his treachery, with scorn and contempt since no other recourse is available. If we want people to be brave, we have to assure them that we think bravery is possible. Not only that, but that we have faith in each other that we WILL do the right thing. If we believe that others will be brave for us, we’re more likely to force ourselves to be brave when it’s our turn, out of fear of letting down the team. We can’t treat courage as some rare quality, like genius, that inexplicably strikes here and there with no reason. No one is ashamed of not being a musical prodigy like Mozart, because we recognize that his sort of talent is a gift that comes into the world almost at random. But standing up to danger is something that we all have to believe that we can do, and not pre-emptively castrate ourselves before we even try because “we just don’t know”.
42. gokart-mozart
See, this is why I don’t comment here very often. No matter what the topic, anything I can think of saying has already been said, and said better, by someone else. I was going to mention EMTALA.
The dissenting opinion read rather like a majority. Opinion and was unsigned. Iwonder if that means anything? I wonder if Roberts wrote two opinions and if that had anything to do with the extra two decision days being added to the court schedule? Doubt I will ever have my curiosity satisfied and what does it matter anyway.
It would be very interesting if the justices were required to write their own opinions in seclusion first, without the aid of their clerks. These would be sealed for later release. The opinions would vote themselves.
We would find out how badly each justice writes. In some cases, how badly (s)he thinks.
We would find out how crazy is “the law”, because the opinions would be wildly different, based on different parts of the Constitution and past cases.
What would it mean to have a “law” which could and would be read in 9 different ways. We might find out that it is all politics, some good, some bad. But not law.
In the speculation about what caused Roberts to turn, I can’t help thinking about a scene from the movie Eight Men Out, which was about the 1919 World Series and the conspiracy by several members of the White Sox to throw it.
Before one game, a pitcher who was not involved in the conspiracy was approached by two mobsters who told him that he needed to lose the game. He basically told them to get stuffed.
On game day, when he took the mound, he looked over to his wife in the stands and saw the two men sitting next to her, smiling at him.
He threw the game. It doesn’t take much, if one is sufficiently ruthless.
As Studs Terkel’s character said (in a different context), “It’s Chicago. Anything can happen.”
I can’t find the relevant clip on YouTube, so this one will have to do: The fix is in
If social security, Medicare, unemployment, and disability are taken from my paycheck without my permission, how is it any different to take money from me to pay for socialized medicine?
My opinion: This is not a legislative or judicial problem. It is a constitutional crisis. Until the people and the states summon the will to amend the commerce clause, the 10th, and 14th ammendments to make it impossible for any and all to misinterpret, this crisis will persist.
Josh @ 59 – I don’t think it’s too much at all; I think it’s absolutely necessary for a working society. And you too are making the same stretch Wretchard did: we’re dealing here with a privileged bureaucrat who might have been leaned on by political agents to rule a certain way. You immediately compare him to a shell-shocked soldier who can’t stop thinking about the horros he’s just experienced. Why is that a fair comparison? Would you be outraged if Scalia slapped Roberts in disgust? Would that be a heartless response to Roberts’s “suffering”? I don’t think “pressure” is the same thing as bullets ripping through flesh, and I think a man who wants to be considered a man should be able to withstand it. I don’t think it’s asking too much. And in purely practical terms, when we have no other recourse, public shaming may be a way of impressing other officials that corruption is not a cost-free enterprise.
DrM @ 68: Would you be outraged if Scalia slapped Roberts in disgust?
I’d love to see it on YouTube.
And if Scalia won’t do it, I’ll volunteer, or maybe we can get Cher to do it for us:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0x-fkSYDtUY
For that matter, I’m not so sure Patton was wrong, either.
But it conflates several totally different issues, whether it’s Patton or Scalia, expectation and causation and failure and response. Mental illness is not cured by shunning. OTOH your point is valid that neither should it be celebrated nor approved.
Nobody said it was easy.
Oh, and for the record, I don’t believe that Roberts was strong-armed or threatened into changing his vote. These hypothetical excuses for his betrayal are just lurid detective story fantasies, but I think they’re easier to accept than the alternative. I think John Nolte had it right in this article: http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2012/06/29/Media-Roberts-Kathleen-Parker Roberts was bought – not by envelopes of cash, but by promises of respect and admiration from the clever “idealistic” Left. He was seduced, in other words.
Just look at his pleased, “Oh, what a naughty boy I am!” air as he joked about flitting off to an “impregnable fortress” on Malta in the wake of his outrage. That’s not a man who’s just had his arm twisted behind his back and had to be tortured to give in. I’ve seen what that looks like: I remember after 9/11 the Pakistani president speaking to his nation after George W. Bush told him his pissant country was going to play ball or else. I didn’t even have to understand his language to be able to read that he’d been scared badly and had no choice. That’s not Roberts. He’s tickled and thinks he’s a daring rebel. And as Nolte said, the Left is gladly paying off, with appreciative laughter. Expect the admiring profiles on him that will be written this fall to mention how witty he is. Those clodhoppers on the Right never appreciated him properly, but now the world will see him as he REALLY is. As the White Witch said “He sold you out…for sweeties.”
So John Roberts is either the Lord Jim of jurisprudence or the most confused man of all time. In the end it doesn’t matter which. The ruling is what it is and simply means or inalienable rights can’t really br entrusted to a court. could be it was a honest opinion or if not it could be that he feared any other would be ignored and the court humiliated and exposed as really rather powerless.
For my money I furled the flag after I heard the ruling and put it away. I have fond feeling for it and memories of better times but don’t really feel the love any more. I am still here, stil subject to the laws of the USA but subject in the way a Kenyan was subject to the Queen of England in 1961 I.e. somewhat against my will. before the ruling I though Leviathan would crumble and that would be sad. After the ruling I still think it wil crumble but am glad. It’s flaws make the current system untenable and it wil collapse economically, socially, and politically.
if I can speed the inevitable along without running afoul Leviathan’s laws I intend to do so which is why I have resolved to vote for Obama in November and will encourage everyone else living in a blue state to do likewise. I hope he loses nationally in the electoral Colege but wins substantially in the popular vote as I believe this will touch off a crisis that will cause the Left to miscalculate fatally. And if it doesn’t? Well what the heck some other crisis will come along. That is guaranteed when you borrow 40 cents of every dollar you spend.
FWIW: The governor of Florida has stated that Florida will not comply with the ruling of the Dread Pirate Roberts: “Scott claims Medicaid has been growing in Florida at three-and-half times the state’s general revenue. He calls the law the ‘biggest job killer ever’ and says Floridians cannot afford the $1.9 billion dollar increase he believes the law will cost.”
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/07/01/gov-scott-florida-will-not-implement-insurance-exchanges-or-expand-medicare
A wild guess:
Roberts reasoned that the Wan could/ would run against the USSC this November if 0bamaCare were nixxed.
Such a campaign would — almost certainly — give him another four years.
By upholding the Wan’s pet — the USSC is Out of the Picture — and the Tea Party is stoked up.
By inverting the statute into a TAX BILL he’s destroyed the filibuster.
Further, this also forces further modifications into the HOUSE… for the only serious remaining issues turn on FUNDING.
Of which, there is none.
Roberts has also given Mitt a clue bat: THE BIGGEST TAX INCREASE IN HISTORY — ON ITS FACE.
There is enough time for the economic impact — dead ahead — to trigger fulsome hiring freezes nationally.
Certainly, ANYONE with 40+ employees is at a crossroads. ( 50 = magic )
Roberts and his four cohorts on the Supreme Court did violence to us, that is beyond question.
This bill, Obamacare, was never popular and still today faces 60% opposition. A majority of states oppose it and were party to the suit before the Supreme Court. It is law only because a Democratic controlled White House and Congress forced it down America’s throat by hook and crook, with rule-bending, late-night votes both on Christmas Eve and Easter, incredible payoffs to senators in Nebraska and Florida, and the giant deceit of the Stupak compromise. Antagonism to ObamaCare even led to the Democratic loss of the hallowed “Kennedy Seat”. The 2008 elections shocked the Democrats by tossing a historic number of them out of office. Opposition to ObamaCare was key to these defeats. ObamaCare is a textbook example of a people being abused by a haughty elite determined to rule against their will, ridiculous huge gavel and all. Pelosi laughed dismissively at the very question of constitutionality saying, “Are you serious?” Yes, madam, we are. The woman did not even bother reading the bill, nor did the majority of our purported “legislative representatives” despite the sweeping and important nature of the bill at hand. Having been so abused, the people look towards the constitutionally defined _role_ of the Supreme Court to act as a check and balance against over-reach. It has utterly failed as a constitutional institution.
The majority opinion is ludicrous. Nothing good can be salvaged from it. Those who herald the restrictions of the commerce clause miss the greater point: who cares about the commerce clause now. The court has confined that wrecking ball, today, but instantly undermined that victory with a far greater peril. Federal taxation powers have now been elevated to a height where they can freely compel any behavior, freely impose any cost, without check. This is as unprecedented as much as it is unconstitutional. Constitutionally, the federal government is quite restrained in the number and types of taxes it is allowed to levy upon the states and upon the people. It can levy a direct head tax upon the states based upon their population (this is not done, however). It can also levy excise taxes, tariffs and duties. The income tax required a constitutional amendment. The Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid taxes are technically a nebulous expansion, and this nebulous vein is the one Roberts and Company tapped. The court has green-lighted the whole expanding entitlement and redistributive framework and blessed it. It has done so precisely at a time when the flaws of such approaches are most pressing. The court has failed its core task in this way also.
Chief Justice Roberts held court on Friday in a private confab in which his commentary was quite disturbing. His attitude was sniping, condescending, and dismissive of his critics. If he was indeed a good man who was turned, then, as Subotai suggested, he’s permanently turned. He, very much unlike the surprising Justice Kennedy, will be a total loss I predict. Roberts is an enemy of the United States Constitution, and he is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. What a disaster!
I’m inclined to agree with Wretchard’s feeling that this decision is akin to the Dred Scott decision. It is that poor, that myopic, and that futile in the face of a reality threatening to crash in on all sides.
Roberts is a traitor who deserves to be shunned at every turn. His treachery is that big, that dire. We’ve got a real fight on our hands now trying to remedy a no-brainer fraud that was perpetrated on an unwilling American populace. The weight of the institutions now figures against this happening, thanks to Roberts and him alone.
This is high treachery. It is Benedict Arnold level treachery.
CBS inserts the poison lie in the tail. Of course it is novel and certainly it is completely unconstitutional. The tax on not participating in an activity that is not among the enumerated powers of the government to purchase on your behalf is a definitive example of what the Constitution was designed to prevent. Would Mr Roberts have advised Lord North that he would do better imposing a Stamp Tax on colonists who did not use official documents?
RWE 50,
Illiteracy and derangement should be made grounds for removal from the federal service for any job above GS-5. It would be technically possible to pass such a law and then purge the rolls of federal employees. Do so methodically using polygraphs. They will scream and claim it is an ex post facto but if courage is shown, it is a clarification consistent with the Americans With Disabilities Act, then this tool might solve half our problem.
stoicheon 51,
You are wrong. For anyone who does not have $20,000,000 to rest on your approach means submission to the destruction of the last best hope on earth. Yours is the selfish position of a bad officer. You know better. The troops need better. We are facing an approaching army. We are at Manzikert or falling into line near the Yarmuk. The Commander is a disappointment. So what? We are not fighting for him but for something far more important. Are you going to quit now?
Roberts should face ostracism until he answers the “Why” question. That might make for a cinematic confession. Most of the Leftists on the Court cannot be accused of improper, as opposed to unwise conduct. They are what they are. Upon reflection however Kagan’s refusal to recuse herself should be grounds to eject her from the Court.
From the latest WSJ editorial:
“The commentary on John Roberts’s solo walk into the Affordable Care Act wilderness is converging on a common theme: The Chief Justice is a genius. All of a sudden he is a chessmaster, a statesman, a Burkean minimalist, a battle-loser but war-winner, a Daniel Webster for our times.
Now that we’ve had more time to take in Chief Justice Roberts’s reasoning, we have a better summary: politician. In fact, his 5-4 ruling validating the constitutional arguments against purchase mandates and 5-4 ruling endorsing them as taxes is far more dangerous, and far more political, even than it first appeared last week. . . .
Chief Justice Roberts’s ruling is careless about these bedrock tax questions, and they are barely addressed by either the Court’s liberal or conservative wings. His ruling, with its multiple contradictions and inconsistencies, reads if it were written by someone affronted by the government’s core constitutional claims but who wanted to uphold the law anyway to avoid political blowback and thus found a pretext for doing so in the taxing power.
If this understanding is correct, then Chief Justice Roberts behaved like a politician, which is more corrosive to the rule of law and the Court’s legitimacy than any abuse it would have taken from a ruling that President Obama disliked. The irony is that the Chief Justice’s cheering section is praising his political skills, not his reasoning. Judges are not supposed to invent political compromises.
‘It is not our job,’ the Chief Justice writes, ‘to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.’ But the Court’s most important role is to protect liberty when the political branches exceed the Constitution’s bounds, not to bless their excesses in the interests of political or personal expediency or both. On one of the most consequential cases he will ever hear, Chief Justice Roberts failed this most basic responsibility.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577496603068605864.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Charles @ 39
I whole heartedly concur with your analysis on the downfall of Harvard, having come to the same conclusion myself after studying the history of Unitarianism at Harvard.
This is not the petty poison of Grima Wormtongue and Saruman, but rather that of the sweet voice of Sauron in the court of Numenor, an extremely subtle toxin indeed.
Whatever the reason for it, this was an historically bad decision. This is one for the ages, alongside Dred Scott, and it will have equally momentous consequences. This is akin to someone opening a gate in the city’s walls at the same time the rest of the populace are desperately trying to repel the invaders.
If Dr. Mabuse is correct in #70 and Roberts did it out of pure vanity, that is simply too much to take.
We live in interesting times, all right.
pac @ 76: From the latest WSJ editorial
I think as the weekend has ground on, the consensus has grown that this decision stinks like mackerel by moonlight.
I have much larger concerns than just this ruling on Obamacare. The Roberts Ruling effectively stated that the Congress has the power to impose a tax on a citizen who fails to do as the Congress deems for the common good. There is no individual choice in such a ruling. Yield your choice and obey the Congress or yield your freedom and serve up the fruits of your labor to Congress. Heads you lose, tails they win.
This is Tyranny, pure and simple.
All taxes must be paid for in cash on the barrel head. We earn that cash through our labor – by applying our brains, our hands, and our backs. We have just been sold into slavery by the Congress who passed this law, the Executive who advocated and signed this law, and the Court who upheld it. We are now all property of the state who must do as our overlords tell us or spend our hours toiling on their behalf for failing to comply.
The State has openly declared War on Liberty. The only escape is wholesale change of the power structure or death of the individual.
Words cannot begin to describe how angry I am this weekend. The last scales have fallen from my eyes and the sheer terror of what we have allowed to occur in the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave makes me retch convulsively.
Live Free or Die. Thomas Paine is ashamed of us today.
I’m inclined to agree with rickl @ 78 and Dr. Mabuse @ 70. NPR has referred to Roberts as another John Marshall. It appears that Roberts was seduced by his own vanity.
Also, I agree with Peter Boston @ 2:
“I have absolutely no reason to believe that CBS did not make this story up out of whole cloth… ”
Always initially assume that the MSM is lying. Particularly if the lie is entertaining.
Time to turn to Rudyard Kipling again, methinks. (For “marketplace,” think “agora.”)
The Gods of the Copybook Headings
AS I PASS through my incarnations in every age and race,
I make my proper prostrations to the Gods of the Market Place.
Peering through reverent fingers I watch them flourish and fall,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings, I notice, outlast them all.
We were living in trees when they met us. They showed us each in turn
That Water would certainly wet us, as Fire would certainly burn:
But we found them lacking in Uplift, Vision and Breadth of Mind,
So we left them to teach the Gorillas while we followed the March of Mankind.
We moved as the Spirit listed. They never altered their pace,
Being neither cloud nor wind-borne like the Gods of the Market Place,
But they always caught up with our progress, and presently word would come
That a tribe had been wiped off its icefield, or the lights had gone out in Rome.
With the Hopes that our World is built on they were utterly out of touch,
They denied that the Moon was Stilton; they denied she was even Dutch;
They denied that Wishes were Horses; they denied that a Pig had Wings;
So we worshipped the Gods of the Market Who promised these beautiful things.
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “Stick to the Devil you know.”
On the first Feminian Sandstones we were promised the Fuller Life
(Which started by loving our neighbour and ended by loving his wife)
Till our women had no more children and the men lost reason and faith,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “The Wages of Sin is Death.”
In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: “If you don’t work you die.”
Then the Gods of the Market tumbled, and their smooth-tongued wizards withdrew
And the hearts of the meanest were humbled and began to believe it was true
That All is not Gold that Glitters, and Two and Two make Four
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings limped up to explain it once more.
As it will be in the future, it was at the birth of Man
There are only four things certain since Social Progress began.
That the Dog returns to his Vomit and the Sow returns to her Mire,
And the burnt Fool’s bandaged finger goes wabbling back to the Fire;
And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins
When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,
As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,
The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!
Most of the commentators have covered my points. I’ll keep my observations to a minimum.
1. Roberts was probably turned. His legal reasoning is schizoid and reeks of political malfeasance. It shows that US Supreme Court decisions can be bought and sold like a commodity.
2. The Institution at large is infested with scoundrels reminiscent of the Chicago gangs. The infestation has spread to large media outlets. These large media outlets like CBS and the NYT are controlled by the donks. They should not be trusted. I have not read the NYT nor listen to CBS, NBC, or CNN for six years (accept the inserts Wretchard posts). The internet is deeper, wider and better. I have not missed much if anything.
3. Conservatives are out gunned and out financed by the opposition. We are basically in a gorilla conflict.
The real question is how do we use what men and materials we have to the greatest advantage. I am all ears.
Blert 73 indicates that there is some parliamentary procedure(s) that can be used to defang the 0bamaTax bill. I would like to know what procedure would neutralize this monster of a tax bill. If it is funding let’s get to the specifics.
Supposing we take each of the nine justices as representing a planet, then Planet X must be his wife, Jane.
They say Mao’s wife had similar influence on his otherwise flawless ideas… Love makes men blind.
The Supreme Court has been de-legitimized…
…and for some time too. Frankly the Kelo decision made it pretty damn clear the court didn’t give a rat’s rear end about the Constitution, but looking even farther back it’s been a crapshoot to have the USSC actually apply anything approaching a common-sense, plain English reading of the law to decisions. Mostly it’s just another legislative body that votes the party line, only it’s not elected, not recallable, and members can’t be non-violently removed from their seats if they don’t want to go. And it shouldn’t be any surprise, considering how dysfunctional lower courts have been.
I think the court was an interesting experiment, but we can conclude it’s a failed one. Honestly, it failed decades ago, but like so many other institutions, we pretended it was still functional. Either out of hope it might recover or out of simple reluctance to face facts, I don’t know. But whatever it was, the pretense is gone and no sense avoiding the truth anymore.
We can fix the other branches of government with votes, but the court simply needs to go. That’s a tall order and will take some time to pull off (perhaps that’s the real reason we’ve avoided admitting it was broken, it’s going to be a bitch to fix). But, the bigger the job, the sooner you ought to get started.
Matt wrote:
“no sovereign who viewed the wealth of his country as something akin to his own private property, to be held in trust by him and preserved intact for his successors, would ever have ruined his finances in such a way. “
Matt, I hate to burst your bubble (again) regarding the joys of monarchy, but this is, perhaps the most inaccurate thing you’ve written about it on these pages.
Bone up on your history.
Indeed, monarchs’ borrowing more money than they could pay back, followed by either usuing blunt force to kill the debt holders or ruining their country and the chances for their progeny to continue, is a continuing and nearly universal theme throughout the history of Christendom. Said moneys were usually for wars of expansion. not defense; I’ll let you judge the morality there. Traditionally, the money was borrowed from Jewish folks (who were going to hell anyways in the medieval/renaissance Catholic’s mindset, so it didn’t matter if they committed the sin of usury) and oft times when the money couldn’t be paid back Jews ended up with their property confiscated, or being deported or killed. It was Catholic monarchs who did this during the early medieval period in places like Venice and other city-states. It was Catholic monarchs who did this in various German states, France, and England.
Monarchy is no proof against this sort of behavior and since the bulk of monarchs tend to be at least as bad if not worse than the general poulation (there are a lot more Longshanks than Edward the Confessors) the destruction they do with their borrowing without regards to the future has historically been more ruinous, although the current crisis may be an exception.
Put down the Hans Hermann Hoppe and the Lew Rockwell, and move away slowly…..
Dr. Mabuse @70: I think John Roberts’ motivation was the same as CJ Taney in authoring Scott v. Sandford – he imagined that he could use the prestige and authority of the Court to put to rest a divisive social issue that, if pursued politically, could lead to war. The issue in Scott v. Sandford was, can Congress turn free states into (effectively) slave states through unconstitutional legislation? The issue in the PPACA case is, can Congress turn free states into (effectively) socialist states through unconstitutional legislation?
Of course, by using “constitutional” rhetoric not found in the constitution to block the legitimate exercise of popular sovereignty, Taney didn’t prevent war – he assured it.
The ridiculous PPACA “opinion” hashed together by Roberts is like Roe v. Wade in one sense – it blocks majoritarian government and leaves opponents no political path to success. But in another sense it is worse, much more like Scott v. Sandford, because it is so dangerous to the Union.
The opponents of Roe are scattered among the fifty states. There is no (theoretically) sovereign State government in which opposition is strong enough to nullify Roe and precipitate war.
But the States which stand to be ruined by PPACA are many, including my own, and the wastrel States who stand to benefit are few. Nullification, with a strong sectional bias, is a serious possibility.
The armies of the recipient class are highly localized. Roberts has settled upon them a constitutional “right” to tax the provider class without constitutional warrant and without limit unimagined before last Thursday. They may well want to fight for their share of “Obama’s stash”. And the still free States may well wind up fighting back.
What is at stake is, can States, exercising sovereign legislative power exercised by their citizens, limit the reach and scope of the recipient class, acting through Federal legislation?
Roberts says no – and he had to lie to do it.
Rough waters ahead.
Matt @57
“However, no sovereign who viewed the wealth of his country as something akin to his own private property, to be held in trust by him and preserved intact for his successors, would ever have ruined his finances in such a way.”
History offers us numerous examples of monarchs who ruined the finances of their kingdom, Louis XVI being perhaps the most memorable. Sovereign bankruptcy is not unique to democracies.
Blast #75:
GS-5 is way to high a position for an illiterate or demented person. GS-5′s have way too much responsibility for that kind of person.
Sweeping the floors in an area with no security concerns is the highest job such an individual could aspire to – outside of Hollywood.
“The ABC article suggests that Roberts may have been influenced by newspaper reports suggesting that if he struck down the law, he would damage the Court…”
We sequester jurors to prevent outside information from influencing them in their deliberations. Has it really come to this? Must we sequester Supreme Court justices in order to keep their deliberations (and ultimate opinions) non-political?
89 – Numerous examples, perhaps, but consider how much of human history, in how many different cultures, has been lived under the rule of kings. Yet you can recall precise cases of kings overspending their economies to the point of ruin. Maybe that’s because, when you consider the larger canvas, those kings were unusual. A king who was bad enough to be actually overthrown is not that common; monarchy lasted a long time because it was a stable system. We remember the bad kings and the periods of disorder, but we don’t remember the eras, as C.S. Lewis put it, “where good king followed good king, and there was hardly anything to put in the history books.” Against that backdrop, democracy today isn’t looking that good. How many democratic nations today are peaceful, solvent and thriving? Aren’t they ALL scrambling to keep their footing? And the majority of them have only been around for less than a century. I’d say the jury is still out on which system has the best track record. Democracy might be good and flashy in a short sprint, but doesn’t have the legs for a marathon.
Oh, and by the way, I think this is the first time I have EVER gone to the limit in posting on a thread!
Nullification, with a strong sectional bias, is a serious possibility.
The only thing that can stop the infinite expansion of Federal power is a real, ding-dong Constitutional crisis precipitated by one or more States. There are dozens of ways this could play out but it would probably start with some governor’s very public, absolute refusal to comply with a Federal mandate, backed by a resolution of the State legislature.
You could imagine a scenario of the State police arresting a Federal official, or burning a Federal Court order at the State capitol, or any number of other triggering events.
States have the 10th Amendment: “powers not granted to the Federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States or the people.” It hasn’t meant much since 1860 but neither has the clear language been changed.
I cannot imagine any situation that could precipitate in a kinetic confrontation but that doesn’t exclude the threat of of it.
Regardless of his motivation, Roberts has sent a message to the voters. “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.” I see that as the heart of this ruling. There has been a general complacency in the last few weeks — a sense that because the Supreme Court held a conservative majority, that it doesn’t really matter what the Democrats and Obama do, if it’s something that conservatives don’t like, the conservative Supreme Court will fix it, just like if Congress passes laws that liberals hate, a liberal-controlled Supreme Court would bend and torture the logic to “fix it.” Roberts threw cold water on that notion. The Obama administration argued in court that the mandate was covered by the taxation power, and Roberts agreed that their argument was sufficient. Roberts found a Constitutional interpretation of the law, and upheld it on those grounds. If he truly believed in this interpretation, then he did the right thing.
Take note: Conservative justices are conservative justices precisely because they follow the Constitution instead of their party politics. If you want an America based on conservative principles, you must elect conservatives, not allow liberals to take over the government and rely on a legacy conservative Supreme Court to hold the line against destructive liberal legislation. The opposite is true of liberal justices. They will twist the Constitution to fit their politics. If you want a liberal government, you don’t need to hold Congress or the White House. Having a liberal Supreme Court is sufficient, and we are perilously close to just such an arrangement should Obama win a second term. If Obama were reelected and were to appoint another two or three of his brand of justices, it wouldn’t matter what happened in 2016. Republicans could take control of the White House and every seat in Congress, and they would be powerless in the face of a liberal Supreme Court that would rule the country with an iron fist.
The correct response by the people is to elect the sort of legislators who will not pass bad law in the first place, and a President who will appoint conservative justices that put the words of the Constitution above their own political ideals, so that legislation like this never reaches the Supreme Court in the first place.
Sometimes it takes a slap in the face to remind us of that. Slap received.
novanglus @ 80: “We are now all property of the state who must do as our overlords tell us or spend our hours toiling on their behalf for failing to comply.”
Despicable as Lil’ John’s ruling was, it was not the start of the problem of over-reaching Big Intrusive Government. Low-flow toilets. Reformulated dish-washer detergents. Ban on incandescent light bulbs. The list goes on & on.
And in raining down contempt on the spineless Roberts, let’s not forget the other 4 “Justices” who signed up to his sophomoric arguments. They too have failed their country.
JMH @ 85 has a good point that the Supreme Court as an institution has failed, and should be restructured in some way. Perhaps the worst aspect of this current failure of Roberts & the Supreme Court is that it has rendered moot one of the few peaceful options as a practical way of getting off the unsustainable course which the US is following.
Add ‘restructuring the Supreme Court’ to the list of changes we will have to make after the inevitable coming collapse. As Wretchard reminds us, reality always wins in the end.
94. jms
”Regardless of his motivation, Roberts has sent a message to the voters. ‘It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.’ ”
You’re absolutely right and I also posted to this effect earlier: no more running to Daddy. If we repeatedly elect scoundrels who abuse us and their office and laugh about it, then we will get what is the predicable result of that.
Roberts said: ”You elected ‘em, now either live with it or change it.”
I understand everyone’s disappointment but it only stems from expecting too much of the Court, for too long. It’s a passive attitude and we’ll have to change it if we expect things to be better. Elect the right people and then watch them like pickpockets.
Roberts is Obama’s prison bitch.
I have ordered my followers to spit on the ground whenever his name is mentioned, unless he is in the room, in which case, the must spit in his face.
kinuachdrach @ 95: ” let’s not forget the other 4 “Justices” who signed up to his sophomoric arguments. They too have failed their country.”
No, not really the same. Ginsburg’s opinion, signed by Breyer, Kagan, and the Wise Latina is just naked socialism qua socialism. There is no attempt to justify PPACA through reason or constitutional analysis.
I think Robert’s hidden influence (X) is simply his calculation (however vain) that the court’s future legitimacy needs to be protected so future decisions protecting liberty (narrowing gov. power) will not be written off as right wing “activism.”
I have to agree with him that it is really the electorate’s job to control their representatives through elections. Where exactly is the court’s power to limit the tax power? That’s what the revolution was for. Taxes should be limited by their unpopularity, not a technicality. Robert’s took the disguise off the “benevolent government meme” to expose the obvious theft that such bureaucratic compassion rests on.
Disclosing the AFA as as the biggest tax in history strikes exactly where the problem is: the popular delusion that more government means more caring and more fairness.
Ask yourselves how Obama feels about it; Having his reasoning and labeling corrected but in a helpful and friendly way. Is this not the worst of worlds for his campaign? He says care, the echo says TAX. But its not the “unelected” court to blame. He has no one to blame. Roberts is wise and judicious. A centrist.
I see this as a tag-team match. The judiciary has taken the mask off Goliath, taken his mace (misinformation) and armor (protection of precedent) and calls in Voter Davy and his sling shot for the final coup d grace.
Pretty canny, if it works; or is too clever? I think not for this is the way is was designed to work. Elections are the cure for bad representation. As it was said about Wisconsin, when the issues are made clear the people act (vote) reasonably.
I see the AFA as an already severed head still perched atop the neck rather precariously.
Oh look, there’s a food stamp on the ground!
error: Of course I meant ACA.
Nonsense. First of all, it is the job of the USSC when ruling on the constitutionality of a law to protect the minority of voters from the imposition of unjust burdens by the majority’s political choices. Else we are all just two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch. Robert’s message is that it’s perfectly fine with him to put mutton on the menu.
Second, even if we’re willing to live with a 50%+1 democracy, consider the un-democratic means by which Obamacare was enacted.
No, Roberts was just a coward, or a sell-out, or a fool. The one quibble I have with Wretchards comment:
Robert’s volunteered for his position, took it willingly. It comes with a requirement of honor not to sell out, not to buckle under, if the time comes. One problem with our modern selection process is that anyone who has been tested is generally excluded, and I think there is a reason for that. Liberals don’t want someone they know can stand his ground.
History is full of men in positions of high authority who, when compromised, shot themselves instead of betraying their position. But very few of those were educated as attorneys. Maybe we should stop appointing lawyers as judges. Perhaps a lifetime spent putting advocacy above truth isn’t the best training for men who’s integrity will be tempted or tested.
From now on, I will refer to the CJ as Chief Justice Jack Woltz.
At least Jack was put under considerable pressure to change his mind.
Just ordered my “Coward” t-shirt with Jack’s face above the description from glennbeck.com.
Jeeze, the Cock only crowed once…but the result was much the same.
Thre are so many posts here already that I may simply be repeating what others have said:
In a perverse way Roberts muddled and stupefying pseudo-decision provided one type of clarity:
We are ruled by establishmentarians who will go to any lengths to save the prevailing power structure, even if it means rescuing the calamitously bad legislation of a malicious tyrant-in-the-making.
I would not have thought the day would come that I would sound like what I once would have called an old, paranoid crank — but here we are!
And please note the very revealing language of the CBS analysis:
They instead believe that Roberts realized the historical consequences of a ruling striking down the landmark health care law. There was no doctrinal background for the Court to fall back on – nothing in prior Supreme Court cases – to say the individual mandate crossed a constitutional line.
Excuse me? The SCOTUS has been “altering” the Constituion without benefit of the required amendment process for half a century now, and using the same power of the court to go in the opposite direction is somehow “destructive?” That reasoning too, is very revealing and clarifying. All those prior SCOTUS “constitutional” decisions were not based on an acual honest reading of the document itself, but upon derivative law that has evolved from a series of “precedents” that have substituted for a thoughtful, careful amendment process meant to wind its way through the state legislatures.
I take exception to one aspect of those who “agree” with Robert’s supposed message that it is not the job of the SCOTUS to protect the people from their electoral folly. I don’t disagree with the underlying assumption that SCOTUS should not have such power, but the problem is: SCOTUS has arrogated to itself just that power for liberal causes for many decades, so excuse me/us if we feel “betrayed” when the one time a momentous decision has to be made to curb the power of government the SCOTUS and Roberts bail on us with the disingenuous, and cowardly, point about “voter responsibility” or something.
Josh @ 59 What they leave out is that to get the $5.00 into play the feds had to collect and spend $10, which did at least $18.00 worth of damage to some other local economy.
And let’s not forget the $5 worth of labor that the local community is now missing, having been deprived of the just labor of the food stamp recipient.
Therefore, they had to pay someone else for that labor. It’s necessary then to directly subtract that from the $9 at the beginning of the analysis.
Hence they get $4 of local economic activity for $5 spent by the recipient. Or am I mistaken in this analysis?
Trump gets it right.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/07/02/trump_roberts_wanted_to_be_loved_by_the_washington_establishment.html
Pournelle hits it out of the park:
http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=8259
… It is time, the Chief Justice said, for the will of the people to be expressed through the political departments. You should not try to make the Supreme Court the final arbitrator of such political matters. It has not the wisdom for that.
… Now it is up to us. Mr. Roberts has said he cannot protect you from the consequences of your actions, and he has done so at a time and in a way that makes the question stark and clear. Whatever his intentions, this is what he has done, and I for one thank him for it.
Ari @ 107 – I must protest. Our liberty was purchased by the blood of ancestors, not a result of an election or referendum. The natural proclivity of people in power, as a rule, is to accumulate more power.
Provisions were proscribed to curtail that. Division of powers, enumerated powers, and so forth. A specific responsibility of the SCOTUS is to prevent other branches from spilling the bounds of limitations.
Every dollar taxed is an impound of the labor of the people. What other protection do we have against the politician who seeks to gain and hold power by promising to shovel greater largesse from the public treasury to coerce support from the electorate?
Embodied in “want some candy, little girl?” is a thought that is disturbing to parents everywhere. It is a threat to our children as they are easily deceived.
“Want some free stuff, little voter?” is just as disturbing. It is a threat to our liberty, as they are also easily deceived.
re: 108
Do you think that Pournelle is incorrect that this issue is as fundamental as the slavery question? And that a court cannot resolve this fundamentally political issue any more than it could the question of slavery?
A citizenry that can be “coerced” with bread and circuses can’t be protected by a court (other than as it presumes the power of a parent).
What better time and issue for a court to wash its hands of its populace? If not now (before a presidential election), when? If not this issue, what issue? Where it’s clear any other decision ends in economic disaster, if not violence (i.e. short term victory but no change in vector – Controlled Flight Into Terrain still guaranteed).
This is but one example of a hundred equally deadly drifts into socialism and worse that are happening today. I see no way but what Robert’s did to give us the opportunity to force the public to soberly decide the “slave or free?” question (again). And if the public goes for bread and circuses the productive now have the opportunity to leave and make a better life for themselves and their children – opportunities that before globalization and the (global) rise of economic freedom and respect for same, didn’t exist. Which will be the second to last “pull up, pull up” alarm for the ruling class before impact.
Socialism is to democracy what heroin is to an addict. If heroin addicts are given the choice, they will always vote unanimously for more heroin (preferably provided free by the government). Addiction to socialism represents a fundamental weakness in democracy.
Free government cheese is the standard enticement that the demagogue offers to the voter in exchange for their freedom. Obama follows a long tradition that goes back to Tiberius Gracchus.
Ari – Let’s get down to specifics. Which of the limited powers, delegated to the Congress, permits a mandate to conscript a percentage of the income of working peoples to fund a transfer to retired folks over 67 years of age?
I’ve looked and found no such power. Therefore, one may question whether SSA of 1935 is within the powers delegated to Congress.
The issues is not whether people should be saving for retirement, or future needs in general. It is whether the treasury is empowered be an insurance company, competing necessarily with private enterprise.
More like a Ponzi scheme, in our case, because there is no capital reserve is the SS fund. It’s just a dusty box full of IOU’s from the same folks who are $16 trillion in debt, with no credible plan to repay.
Why should not we expect a properly constituted SCOTUS to call foul?
Note that the SSA could have structured the program differently, possibly in such a way that there would actually be funds that goverment could not expend. 401Ks and IRAs come to mind.
I would assert that provisions where incorporated in the Constitution specifically to prevent “mission creep”. One of those provisions is that the CO & XO where to be selected by the College of Electorates. Not from D & R nominees but from all eligible voters.
This insulates the CO & XO from the opportunity to gain power by promising free stuff to the voters.
Frankly, upon scanning Pournelle, appears that he is wrong out-of-the-gate. It is not the responsibility or duty of SCOTUS to implement the “will of congress”. It is their responsibility to judge according to a standard.
When a party brings a suit in the law before the court, a decision is required according to that standard, regardless of popular trends or political malfeasance.
It should not be a case of, well, that’s what the public seems to want or, golly, they voted in a bunch of idiots, so let’s let the idiots have their way.
Holy Cow, batman. Where did such a notion come from?
If they get lynched as a result, so be it. Men and women got killed giving us our liberty. They die protecting it. They do so with courage.
But, but, the liberals wouldn’t like me if I struck it down. Really, really? Is that what he is ‘on about’ as they say in the Queen’s English?
Re: Roberts
Wherever he is right now, Roger Taney must be doing a face-palm:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford
re: 111 & 16th amendment, attacks on our rights in property and the property in our rights.
No argument from me. Observing the obvious doesn’t fix it though. What Roberts did gives us the opportunity to do something other than the one-way ratchet left that the Constitution created and the Left abuses (the Founders could have written a sunset requirement for all laws, including the Constitution and its interpretations – without which we accrete law which by its nature reduces liberty), something that requires great political (not judicial) will to reset. And if politics doesn’t work, there’s revolution (or abandonment).
I expect we’ll look back some day and see that if Roberts hadn’t upheld, those in love with liberty wouldn’t have won and maintained the 60 seats needed in the Senate (for 24 years), what it’ll take to pull out of this dive. I hope (us) libertarians will be able to tolerate living with conservatives and their social priorities (oppressive government of another form, especially when local) long enough to return governance to the people, their families and localities. Then at least if someone is telling me what to do and how to do it, it’s my neighbor and neighborhood, and unless I’m a real outlier I’ll be able to vote with my feet to be with others that share my outlook and view of good government.
Right, I (and Pournelle) are dreamers. As much as we would like the Constitution to be read as a largely immutable contract, we’ve descended so far beneath this reading that political domination is the only possible salvation from national CFIT. I suspect the Federalist Society Roberts knows exactly what he is doing. He’s given us our best, and perhaps last, chance.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/02/after-fleeting-supreme-court-victory-obama-remains-amateur/
Klein, strangely, punches through my exact same list @73…
Like myself, he sees the election as now turning on 0bamaCare.
101. JMH: We do not have a 50%+1 democracy. We have a legislative process with numerous checks and balances. A bill must pass the house which proportionally represents the people. It must pass the Senate which equally represents the States. The Senate minority can Filibuster the bill. The President can sign it or veto it. Congress can override the veto, but eventually the checks and balances end when the legislation is signed into law.
The founders never intended the Supreme Court to serve as an unelected, unaccountable veto against bills that they personally don’t like. If the Supreme Court is to protect the minority of voters from the imposition of unjust burdens by the majority’s political choices, then what is the difference between such a Supreme Court and an absolute monarch with ultimate veto power over the legislature? The wisdom of legislation must start at the beginning of the legislative process — not occur as a do-over once the legislation is signed. The Congress has enormous authority to pass god-awful, face-plantingly horrible legislation that is perfectly Constitutional! The idea that we can be protected from a Congress of fools by a Supreme Court of wisdom is not what the United States is all about!
Yes, this legislation was passed by multiple abuses of power. The power was abused by people we elected to positions of trust. That is the mistake that must be corrected.
104. Don Rodrigo:
Agreed. The liberal Supreme Court justices have abused their power for decades. They will never stop abusing their power. If the SCOTUS is to ever stop abusing their power, the initiative will have to come from conservative justices. God willing John Roberts intends to start that initiative and isn’t just randomly wandering off the reservation.
112. epignosis:
The standard should be whether or not the legislation can be tied to an enumerated power. Roberts found the authority in the taxing power.
————————–
All that said, I think that John Roberts did something very clever here. I don’t know if it’s novel or not, so I’d appreciate any insights.
It seems that Roberts has used this opportunity to assume a new role to the Supreme Court. When Congress passed the PPACA, they justified it under the interstate commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause, as did the President when he signed the legislation. What the Supreme Court did was make an unsolicited determination that the law was based instead on the taxation power. This is significant because tax laws (and their repeal) cannot be filibustered. In other words, the Roberts court has lowered the Senate threshold for repealing the ACA from 60 votes to 50 votes.
It appears that with this decision, he has stripped authority away from the Senate and assigned it to the Supreme Court in a very clever way. By siding with the liberal wing of the court, and giving them a “victory” they have been craving, he has made it virtually impossible for liberals to fight back. If Roberts wrongly reassigned the PPACA to the taxation power, then the PPACA is unconstitutional and should be struck down. Thus, Obama and the Democrats have little choice but to quietly accept this ruling — and implicitly accept the new Supreme Court authority underlying it.
The Republicans see this as an opportunity, and will immediately move to repeal the law through filibuster-proof reconciliation, as provided for tax laws. In the end, the Republicans will probably succeed in repealing the law in the House and Reid will stall it in the Senate, to prevent Obama from having to veto the repeal. If Romney is elected and Republicans take the Senate by as little as one seat, they will have the ability to pass repeal legislation in the house, pass it in the Senate with a 51 vote simple majority instead of 60 votes to force cloture, and send it to Romney for signature, at which point this new Supreme Court authority will be water long under the bridge.
Roberts has stripped the Democrats of the filibuster on the PPACA, and given the Supreme Court a new power to contradict Congress and reassign the declared enumerated-power from which legislation stems, thus altering the balance of power between the Supreme Court and the Senate. I think that Roberts made a serious power play. How it turns out remains to be seen.
Donate money to Romney. I did two days ago. Everyone who wants to keep America should. You know the sayings about it….
Set a goal of convincing 10 people between now and election day to vote for Romney. Make the sales call and close the deal.
Go to Tea Party events. I am going to one here in Philly on July 4th. It will be hot. It’s will be tiring. They cameras will be on the Occupy Crowd next door, but I am going. I have nothing to give but a few bucks, a vote, an effort to convince others, and my two feet on the pavement somewhere in support of America.
What I fear almost more than anything is the idea that our generation will have been the generation that lost America. We were given the greatest country ever. If we lose it it will be to our eternal shame. Sodom and Gomorrah themselves will rise at Judgment Day to condemn us, as the story goes.
We have to start telling our fellow so-called citizens that they are degenerate free-loaders and are viciously irresponsible players. Public and private shame. Let people hear you. Talk loudly in restaurants. Call radio stations. Speak your minds bravely. Stop at nothing. Call Romney and tell him to stop at nothing.
It’s Thermopylae people. We have one last shot at this. Period.
…. he hopes the court will be remembered for “protecting equal justice under the law.” Roberts was speaking in Farmington, Pa., at a conference hosted by the Judicial Conference of the District of Columbia Circuit. (Friday, June 29, 2012)
Does anyone care to comment on Roberts’ own words in view of his recent rulings?
#118 always right
Does anyone care to comment on Roberts’ own words in view of his recent rulings?
At best he is a politician. At best. One does not judge politicians by their words. One judges them by their deeds. He just destroyed every protection in the Bill of Rights. He is an enemy of the Constitution and the Republic. Anything he says are the words of an enemy and not to be trusted.
I don’t listen to Kagan or Sotomayor. Why should I listen to him?
QED
Subotai Bahadur
Thank you, SB.
Which shots down the theory that Roberts was pressured to switch any of his votes. Because this shows he truly believed his decisions were the right ones. IMHO.
Maybe he’s being blackmailed.
An explanation of planet x and possibly Justice Roberts’ advisers. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PyZ42Csl4Xw