I continue to believe that, all other things considered, removing ObamaCare via repeal rather than court decision is the preferable small-d democratic thing to do, and is ultimately better for the country. Forty years plus of judicial activism have shown than when courts legislate, they divide and do damage to the nation. Roe v Wade for instance did not settle anything, but has set off decades of intractable social war.
But as reports emerge of the twists that led Chief Justice John Roberts to switch his vote and uphold ObamaCare on the ground that the individual mandate is a tax, an unsettling truth comes clear: The Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is a reed in the political wind.
I hate to be so critical of a man I admired but have never met, but if the reports are accurate, then here is what happened. Roberts was among the justices who wanted to strike ObamaCare down on the constitutionality of the individual mandate as it relates to Congress’ powers under the commerce clause. Those justices constituted a majority but they may have disagreed over whether the mandate was severable from the rest of the law. At the same time, a campaign of media pressure from the left got to Roberts, and as the pressure mounted, he caved and switched his vote to uphold the law.
The campaign against overturning ObamaCare was always nakedly political. It was always about saving the tattered legacy of a failed president. It was about saving that president’s signature legislation, which was an unpopular and partisan power grab predicated on a false premise: That our health care system is in some kind of crisis. It is not. It never was. The majority of Americans who have coverage like it and want to keep it. If there is a crisis, it is in health insurance costs, not health care itself. ObamaCare has, instead of alleviating a crisis (which doesn’t exist), exacerbated a bad economic environment and fundamentally changed the nation. We’re subjects of the IRS and DHS now, instead of sovereign citizens. ObamaCare also threatens to bankrupt state budgets.
Anyone who paid any attention at all could see that the likes of Bob Beckel and Alan Colmes would defend President Obama and his health care law no matter what. They did not even bother to read it before supporting it. The same was always true for the editorial pages at the New York Times and the Washington Post. They never cared what the Affordable Care Act meant for our constitutional republic or what it would actually do to the economy. Democrats supported it because it empowered government and shifted American politics seismically to the left. Democrats supported ObamaCare because it was their bill and did what they wanted.
But the chief justice, apparently, did not see this. He paid attention to the political election year criticisms of his court, and he caved.
If that is the truth, then John Roberts lacks the intestinal fortitude of the average conservative soccer mom who gets slammed with liberals and liberalism by the local loudmouth at the kids’ practice and stands her ground. He lacks the political judgement of the average conservative county commissioner who manages to resist everyday moonbattery at the local level. If it’s true that Roberts buckled to media pressure, then he will bend in the direction of the loudest mouths and will do very great damage to the Constitution in the coming years.
It’s one thing to see a formerly conservative justice “grow” in office as his jurisprudential instincts get tugged left. It’s frustrating, but feels like less of a sucker punch. If Roberts buckled to such obvious political bluster as was thrown at him in this case, then Chief Justice John Roberts is a chicken and a coward. He will spend decades on the court treating what’s left of American liberty to a thousand deaths. We may as well dub him “Brave Sir Robin” and get used to the idea of a Quisling on the court controlled by the most vicious liberal mouths and the monolithic leftist bloc on the court itself. We might as well admit that James Carville and David Axelrod have the “conservative” chief justice on their leash and can make him roll over with a voice command.
File suit to have the decision overturned now. Newsweek is not an acceptable legal precendent upon which to base a proper decision.
“I hate to be so critical of a man I admired but have never met”
Mr. Preston,
Always remember that respect must be earned and can be taken away in one moment.
Indeed.
It is dangerous to admire any living person. Only the dead should be candidates for canonization. The dead can no longer do anything to shame or disappoint us. And even then, it is all too easy for us to make a mistake.
Off Topic but – speaking of the dead for canonization (aka sainthood) I’d love it if there were a policy that no public item can be named after a living person except for living Medal of Honor winners. If a person is so great then after that person dies, his or her name can be lent to buildings, bridges, roads, stadiums, schools etc. If a person wishes to have a building named after himself while alive, he can build or buy it himself with his own monies, not tax monies
I’m glad I’m not one the only one willing to use the word “coward” in public to describe Roberts. Thanks, Preston. We’re of one mind on this subject.
Bingo.
The cowardice.
Roberts is Souter in loafers.
Boosh 41:Souter
Boosh 43:Roberts
No More Booshes. No More Cowards.
And here is the most horrible aspect of it all … if this man would clearly see (initially) that this law was unconstitutional (egregiously unconstitutional) and flop to his coward’s knees at the hint of criticism by the Obama/Chicago gangstah politicians, then what is to be his next surrender? And the one after that? And so on? Because we have to live with this guy for a very, very long time.
We’re F’ed.
Thanks Boosh(es). No one in American history has been more consistent in saddling the American people with freedom-thieves as your family.
On a broader scale, the Clintons (first Bill, and now Hillary) are equally adept at stealing the freedom of the rest of the world, by turning it over to our enemies in the Muslim Brotherhood.
I’m amazed at Roberts’ helpful attitude of calling it a tax so it could stay alive. Is that a judge’s job – helping someone redefine the question so it can affect the outcome?
That’s like going before a judge on the question of a murder and having the judge grin, wink and say, “You tripped and fell on him with the knife – right? Am I right? It was an accident, right?” You say, “Um… OK, sure.” Judge: “Alright, then. Manslaughter. Sentence suspended. Have a nice day, and be careful in the future, huh?”
Sure, that could happen in Dodge City 150 years ago, but this is the Supreme Court. Wow.
Here on PJMedia, a day or so ago, someone was calling out the Administration because they continue to insist that this *isn’t* a tax, but the Solicitor General argued in front of the Supremes that if they couldn’t see any other way for them to uphold the law, then calling it a tax would be OK with the Administration. In fact he said it was their duty to consider this, if they could come up with no other logic to uphold the law. Frankly, I think the Solicitor General is more or less right, and while I’m firmly opposed to the law itself, Roberts’ decision, in the narrow sense anyway, is intelligent. There isn’t (and can’t be) an *mandate* to buy insurance or pay a penalty, but there can be a tax on uninsured individuals.
Put another way, he essentially said, “If you want this thing overturned, do it yourself in the Congress. I’m not going to do Congress’s job for it, just because no one there wants to take the heat for voting to overturn this thing.”
The trick now will be to pin down the Obama people on their tax increase, and get them to own up to what it is, and that they like it. If we do that, then he’s Bush ’41, but a Democrat. If the Administration gets away with this, then we could be in trouble…
Stop redefining stuff. That’s how the left got us where we are. It is high time to learn how to speak the truth and the Devil take the hindmost.
Unless you’re a pussy like Roberts, judgement is not a dirty word.
Right is right and wrong is wrong, and it’s high time someone started mentioning the difference.
Thanks again, Booshies!
Thanks for that, JohnJ! You’ve got my vote for Senate Majority Leader, unless you’d prefer Speaker of the House!
“… I’m not going to do Congress’s job for it …”
But he did.
And that was wrong.
The Court has no authority to make changes in the law as it was voted upon — which was as a Mandate under the Commerce Clause — which is Unconstitutional.
What Roberts actually said was “How can I put enough mustard on this sh__ sandwich to get people to swallow it?”
At first, the liberal pundits ganged up behind Roberts repeating the mantra that “the conservatives, predictably, are attacking him”.
When it became clearer that the right was quite divided on the issue – this blog is criticizing the Chief Justice, but guys like Will and Krauthammer admired his course of action – THEN the liberals began bashing Roberts.
I don´t mind the decision. Roberts avoided yet another expansion of the commerce clause, and avoided the backlash conservatives would get if Obamacare was struck by a divided court. Now Barack will have to face the eventual disaster of his legislation – the decision already points that out.
Nonsensical bluster.
Roberts is a liar, a coward, and a traitor.
Associating Roberts with some piece of political theatre akin to a GrandMaster chess player is absurd; he caved to the pressures of the current media/admin. bloc who have not one whit of remorse or fear at making plain threats toward a sitting USSC justice. Their temerity is without equal, they have no fear, and because there is no repercussion they shall continue to act in the same fashion. Roberts is a Judas, and a lowlife who has betrayed not only his fellow Citizens, but worse, the Constitution which afforded him the “authority,” to mock us all.
Roberts job was to cast a vote and adhere to the rule of the Constitution, not to redefine either English language or the wording of the bill to prevent any unwanted character assassination against himself. Roberts is no more a political mastermind than my dog; although, in further stark contrast, my dog can display courage, should the need arise.
He who prevaricates when a threat is small allows that threat to grow until it can engulf the sturdiest. Carter did that vis-à-vis Iran. Many good people don’t want to exacerbate a tense situation and back down rather than stand up to what they know is right. In acquiescing to the Democrats threat to de-legitimize the Court, Roberts brings to mind Churchill’s statement following Munich: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war”. Likewise Roberts will rue the damage he has done to the United States and to our Constitution.
Brave Sir Roberts?
I concur that this man is a squish of the squishiest kind. I’ve seen 85 year old/85 pound grandmothers verbally assailing leftists at rallies that have more puckishness than Chief Justice Jello.
It’s pathetic.
And another unfortunate legacy of George W. Bush, who was afraid to nominate iron ribbed conservatives to the Court.
Just ask Art Chance, rock-ribbed conservatives are a horrible idea.
To paraphrase that man whose worked so many decades in the GOP, who is not in the country club elite because they don’t exist–and he’s said every word, just no in this order–the GOP is not the conservative party, and it’s job is to put winning elections before principles.
Well, duh! We already knew that. That’s why the last few years we’ve been trying to take them over like the commies took over the democrat party.
We only have a two party system – we have to work with what we’ve got. If the republicans want to fund someone and a “tea party” person is running – vote tea because you don’t want the guy they are funding.
Yeah, the NRSC keeps on calling me. I don’t know why. Romney so far has a clue.
You could say I’m unilaterally disintermediating.
Yes, and when Bush appointed Roberts the Republicans controlled the Senate. He could have nominated a solid originalist. This is perhaps the most frustrating of the GOP’s many frustrations — their failure to recognize that we are engaged in a full blown war with the Left. They continue to inexplicably behave as if it’s all a gentlemanly parlor game with give-and-take in equal measure from both sides. It’s like the champion boxer who receives a solid beat down in a street fight, he simply had no idea who he was tangling with outside the ring.
The Left labor under no such misapprehensions. They know it’s a war because they’re the ones who started it. Look at all the Democrat appointees to the Court. When do you ever, ever hear of one of them drifting ideologically to the right? When do you ever, ever hear of a court case reported like this: “In a surprise to everyone, Justice Ginsburg joined with the Court’s conservatives”? Never. In the run up to this recent decision, all the punditry was speculating on the possibility of Kennedy or Roberts “doing the right thing for the country and the Court” by upholding the act; no one even considered the reverse possibility from the Court’s liberals. Everyone knows they are dogmatically ideological and intractable, and the telling thing is that no one bats an eye or wastes their breath questioning it.
I’m afraid we are too late in this war to expect Republicans to somehow learn how to fight it. The only thing we can now take solace in is that the Left’s real enemy is reality. Ultimately it will be reality that undoes their machinations, and like a bloated carcass rotting into the soil its undoing will enable liberty to germinate again for some future generation.
Miss, you state that:
“Ultimately it will be reality that undoes their machinations, and like a bloated carcass rotting into the soil its undoing will enable liberty to germinate again for some future generation.”
There is a fundamental flaw here. Not that reality is the ultimate assailant for any of the life stages of communism; that is a given. The problem here is that the failures of communism in all of its forms and evolutions have been apparent for better than 100 years, and reality STILL has not killed this particular Hydra. Right now, we stand at four to five generations (give or take) of people who have watched communism fail, have killed and died to prevent its infiltration of our beloved Nation, and have railed against it at every corner…we likely have three generations of conservatives on this very board who have all engaged in verbal or other contest with the dolts in the liberal bloc. THE BEAST DOES NOT DIE.
Herein lies the fault of the whole matter: no matter what the circumstances are, there’ll always be somebody who would like to do “the nice thing,” for another person. This is not unwarranted, nor is it unwise. However, conservatives are a people who believe that liberty is the greater gift, for it cannot be bartered, bargained, or applied only by condition of the Grantor. With those who would try to appease or otherwise assist the “downtrodden,” by corporeal means, there always exists the plan, or machination if you will, of evil men to distort the intended goodwill to their own wicked purposes. This, I believe, is why the Beast does not die; indeed, it is the inherent goodness of a few misguided folks, and the inherent evil of those that know how to exploit them. The misguided eschew reality, because reality dictates winners and losers, haves and have-nots. Since they refuse to accept that basic reality, there can be no hope in reality destroying the Beast.
Sorry to carry on for so long….
Cowardice yes, but it is also betrayal. CJ Roberts during the Senate Confirmation Hearings said he would call balls and strikes, in the end the pitch was a strike and he called a ball. You have shown your true colors as a progressive.
He interpreted the law based on the liberal media, not on the US Constitution. Enjoy those fancy DC parties CJ Roberts while those of us in the “Ignored Majority” continue the work from the 2010 elections and hope November 2012 results lead to the full repeal of the “Unaffordable Care Act”
– perhaps his Knights of Malta friends will persuade him to retreat and retire to Elba.
Well, people make mistakes. What matters is if they learn from them.
The problem I put before Mr. Roberts is that one-half of the nation now has to fundamentally conclude that the Supreme Court is in no way a protector of liberty as they define liberty (and are often able to win electoral majorities, county, state, nation, so doing). It apparently only subscribes to liberal definitions of the word now.
It is a fraud.
All in all, it seems the phrase “evolving sensibilities of a people” really is code for what the 20% who are hard liberal thinks. Nice to know.
Roberts is beyond hope. Putting any problem in front of him is no better than rolling the dice.
Here’s the REAL issue: If neither the President nor our US Senators and Representatives abide by their oaths to uphold the Constitution, why are we stupid enough to expect the SCOTUS to do any better?
Certainly in one week he screwed over Arizona and told them they have no right to defend themselves from invasion and then he screwed over the rest of America. Busy week to dismantle the Union for Judge Roberts.
Lack of intestinal fortitude nails it Bryan. That is precisely the problem with Roberts.
I would say the lack of fortitude is located somewhat lower on Roberts’ anatomy.
Penalty or tax, it’s the same thing. If you take money out of your IRA before retirement age there is an early withdrawal penalty. It’s a punitive tax, just like the healthcare penalty in Obamacare.
Someone finally hit my nail on the head. A penalty or a tax? I’m just too old to entertain silly semantic arguments. A total waste of time. Hurry November… hurry.
So, we’ve gone from Marbury vs Madison in establishing that the Judicial branch has the authority to strike down a law as unconstitutional, to a modern Justice Roberts who bends over backwards to find any possible way, by hook or crook, to uphold any congressional law that comes down the pike.
This is progress?
Since Roberts has shown himself to be so deferential to congressional authority, how about the next president and congress (hopefully Republican!), seat a new Chief Justice?
After all, if Ginsburg or Breyer retire or croak in the next year or so, then we just demote Roberts and seat a new Chief Justice. Or heck, just demote him and seat Scalia as Chief Justice and set a new, more conservative, justice in Salia’s old seat.
Supreme Court justices can be impeached, and should be if they don’t abide by their oaths to uphold the US Constitution.
Looking for farfetched excuses to rule Obamacare to be constitutional when it egregiously isn’t constitutional, is as good a reason as any.
If Roberts genuinely thinks that he’s right – which I don’t believe for an instant – then it would be time to question his mental competence. We’ve had people on the bench (and presidents, including Woodrow Wilson) remain in place long after their capability of serving had departed. We can’t afford that any more.
Furthermore, if there is any evidence that someone improperly influenced this decision by threats or blackmail against any of the Supreme Court justices, the perp should be impeached (if an officeholder) or indicted (if not).
If an office holder, he should be impeached AND indicted. FIFY.
Remember that the obamabill was passed illegally anyway. It was never passed in the House – The Senate DEEMED it passed and sent it up to Maobama to sign – which he did. It became LAW illegally. I’m surprised the SP didn’t step in in the first place to say – Whoa! You can’t DO that! They certainly did with Bush’s legaleze concerning how we treated terrorists.
Actually, this opinion is quite consistent with Roberts’ judicial philosophy. And due to the backlash, it may have required more courage than at first blush we might see.
Roberts was a wrestler, regional champion. He captained his football team. Was actually the Editor of Harvard Law Review and was accepted on merit, not politics. He’s not a fake.
So…what motivated him to put the Bait and Switch on the fires? I have an idea that could sound far-fetched, if you don’t know Roberts.
1)He was certain that the Commerce Clause claim and the violation against state’s rights were not going to survive. He despised both of those arguments by the government. They were going down.
2)The government sent it’s lawyers skulking into the Court to argue that it was a tax, not a penalty…blah, blah, blah. Roberts HAD TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.
3)On what grounds would they overturn the “taxation” of millions of people? That the government didn’t set it up as a tax? Good reason. But, where’s the best place to take that to the people?
It is clear that it was not sold as a tax. It isn’t even being sold as a tax at this very moment by the Fabian Socialists who deviously hid the taxation of our citizenry behind the veil of “health care for all”.
The debate about the WISDOM of the tax, belongs NOT to the Supreme Court. It belongs in the hands of the representatives who voted for it.
The debate about the appropriate FORMATION of the law to tax the citizenry, belongs back in the hands of the Congress that passed it.
It now IS back in their hands. And the best way to kill it, is to parade it around to ALL those impacted by it and tell them….THIS is a tax, it is ONLY a tax. YOUR representative hid it from you. What do you want to do about it?
Do you want to pay it? Put it up for referendum. Because it was not formulated properly as a tax…and it ONLY SURVIVES AS A TAX, the Republicans play here is to make a parliamentary move, not a political one.
Tell the people what this TAX will cost, in terms of jobs, deterioration of health care, remind them HOW it was passed, HOW it was hidden from them…and then….GIVE THEM THE ONLY REAL CHOICE THEY’VE EVER HAD. Support it, or let us kill it.
If Roberts did that…this top of the class honors student, regional wrestling champ…he pulled a reversal and the Marxists are primed to be pinned to the mat.
It’s a sophisticated gambit. Is the Republican Party smart enough to recognize it?
An interesting hypothesis, CFB. It’s possible and I’ve read that elsewhere. It is possible that Roberts is two steps ahead of everyone else and just did all of us a huge favor.
I am apparently not as bent as most. Since Obamacare was always a ruse masked as affordable health care and not a major power grab of 1/6th of our economy and huge tax increase, the decision is now where it belongs.
The people that are being asked to pay for it and live with its the consequences of the Unaffordable Healthcare Tax Increase Act will now have their say this November. It’s a gamble, no doubt.
You’ve missed the boat. As cleaver as you think he is, the point is that the argument posed to him and the other justices was that is was merely an expansion of the commerce clause and was NOT a tax. All he needed to do was to go with the majority and AGREE that it was NOT a legal expansion of the commerce clause. Done! Bill is dead. Plus, because there was no severability clause (intentionally) added, the ENTIRE bill could be tossed in total.
Now, I don’t believe that we will EVER get rid of this thing. It will be decades of sustained and graduated taxes that will CRUSH the middle class and kill off our economic engine – possibly for good.
I’ve heard this theory, or variations of it, as well.
It is the same kind of mindset that informed us of just how brilliant Obama is, and how even when he was losing he was winning.
I reject this theory about either man.
The simplest explanation is usually the most rational. Obama is no genius, and Roberts flipped on us.
We can do something about Obama in November, but what about Roberts?
He needs to be nuetered since he is going to be on the bench for a while yet – or at least until his next seizure results in more serious repercussions.
I’d feel better if it were someone other than Romney picking the next Justice, though. Then again, anyone he picks has to be a better choice than what Barack the Betrayer would select.
not even close.
besides being a fool Roberts may have been blackmailed. I would put nothing past the chicagoland people.
Roberts could have had the integrity to view the bill as presented ..which was patently unconstitutional and killed the bill and in doing so kill the linkage to the commerce clause.
NOW the retard has linked tax to be the way forward for any future marxist bill.
STOP trying to read anything into the actions of Roberts that we have no proof of.
WHAT we do have proof of is that he was on the left off most issues during his legal career. so it is no surprise he went left (who said he was a conservative …BUSH !!) bush was not conservative and neither is Roberts.
EVEN to view the argument as a tax is twisted and lacking rational. It is a penalty.
WHY do law schools turn out such idiots!
…..IN FACT I CAN NOT THINK OF A WORSE PRECEDENT THEN CALLING A PENALTY A TAX.
THIS NOW MEANS THAT CONGRESS CAN IMPOSE A PENALTY (read tax) ON ANYTHING ….AND ON NOTHING. YOU CAN NOW BE PENALIZED FOR DOING OR NOT DOING SOMETHING.
cfbleachers be careful you do not get he elitism virus that is spreading through the masses
“YOUR representative hid it from you. What do you want to do about it?”
That is the best pair of sentences I have read in the past week, CFL. I hope it becomes the basis for a real hurricane of voting against these guys that rammed it through and defend it now.
Oh drat, here we go. Classic CFB. Mainline injections of drug cocktails made from sophistry and hallucinogens.
You’re onto him for the most part; I figured you’d be.
What would have been the likely outcome if Roberts voted against this law? The media would have been all over the court, accusing it of being “activist” a la Bush vs Gore. Besides, he’s doubtless correct in labeling this thing as a tax, as it has all the attributes of a tax.
I think that historical perspectives will very likely look upon this decision favorably.
Nice try, but he could have said that all the while killing the ACA. This mental ju jitsu that you and other elite on the right are using to defend Roberts is why we are talking about this NOW. His siding with the dissent and sending the bill back to Congress-oh wait, it never made it through Congress nor did it originate in Congress would have made better justice for America.
I do though always respect your comments.
I don’t agree that Roberts did the right thing — not even a little.
He could have changed — saved — the course of our future — and done it legally and within the authority of the Supreme Court.
“1)He was certain that the Commerce Clause claim and the violation against state’s rights were not going to survive. He despised both of those arguments by the government. They were going down.”
Not going to survive? I wonder what you’re referring to. If The Supreme Court decided the Mandate under the Commerce Clause was Unconstitutional — how could that not survive? We still (for the moment, sort of) have three equal branches of government.
But, the following is a perfect — THE BEST — ROAD to take with this … for the Romney Campaign and for Republican Senators and Congressmen :
“… parade it around to ALL those impacted by it and tell them….
“THIS is a tax, it is ONLY a tax.
“YOUR representative hid it from you. What do you want to do about it?”
“Do you want to pay it? Put it up for referendum.
Because it was not formulated properly as a tax…and it ONLY SURVIVES AS A TAX …”
“Tell the people what this TAX will cost, in terms of jobs, deterioration of health care, remind them HOW it was passed,
“HOW it was hidden from them…”
I fully agree with you. I think that was the tactic – to publicly define it for what it is, a tax, – which the Obama Gang had publicly denied it was – and fling it back to the people. ALL taxation must be by the House and it was never passed as a tax.
IF Roberts had rejected it, then, the Obama Gang would have campaigned against the Supreme Court but not just the court, but set up the Court as aligned with the GOP and ‘out to get all the poor of the US’. That is, a rejection would have become a class war, a war which Obama has been developing and using all his first term.
Now, it is a tax. The GOP have to define it as a tax and define Obama as lying to Congress and to the people. Do the people want this tax? Vote on it.
it is a penalty. if it is a tax from a legal standing it gives congress more rights then it did through the commerce clause.
…how is the arab spring working out for you?
Sorry – I don’t understand your comment about ‘Arab Spring’. [And if you think that a tectonic infrastructural change from a tribal to a civic infrastructure is gradual, without conflict, without those wanting to retain tribalism fighting for it....you are naive and ignorant.]
My point, which you also failed to understand, was that the Independent Mandate was passed by Congress as a penalty; was touted by Obama as a penalty. Roberts said – it wasn’t; to do that is unconstitutional. It’s a tax.
BUT, Congress didn’t debate or pass it as a tax. Therefore, at the moment, Obama’s Law is ‘lifeless’, ie, without the Will of the People. Unpassed by the Will of the People, ie, Congress. So, Roberts booted it back; Vote Obama Out.
so far “we the people” have been unwilling to confront obama’s unethical and illegal acts.
not one impeachment. not one victory for conservatives.
the GOP has effectively silenced the TEA PARTY. ( I do expect some push back from the Tea Party and I hope they are successful but I am not optimistic)
arab spring and the muslim brotherhoods vehicle to domination. …unlike your democracy at work.
stop trying to be Krauthammer …he is wrong on this stuff too, but most eloquently (so at least he has that going for him).
he (Roberts) didn’t boot it back. he made an new and more disastrous precedent.
Roberts failed to treat the bill on it’s merits ..which was unconstitutional. He didn’t do his job. I can understand that from Snotameyer or Keg-gan since they are just party hacks.
from the blog
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ I agree with the blogger Lawrence Auster
The ultimate escapist conservative article
Steve McCann writing at American Thinker portrays every Obama victory over the last few weeks as “really” a victory for constitutional governance. Why? Because each of these Obama dictatorial victories “really” exposes what a dictator he is and assures that he will be voted out of office in November. In McCann’s mind, the idea that people now supposedly recognize how lawless Obama is, trumps the fact of Obama’s actual lawless government. In McCann’s mind, the more power the left seizes, the more conservatives are “really” winning. By McCann’s Adreno-Con reasoning, if Obama declared martial law tomorrow and began throwing conservatives in prison and seizing their property, that would represent the ultimate conservative victory.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at 09:49 AM
This is a fine, a punishment for not behaving in the way the Federal government wants you to. The legal justification by Roberts makes a mockery of languange. If the law SAYS XYZ, but the Supreme Court can suddenly say XYZ means ABC, respect for the law (while it’s still standing, while it’s being adjudicated, and after the adjudication) will plummet.
Our republic is built upon the citizenry’s respect for the rule of law. This ruling is a disaster, beccause it prevents citizens from even knowing the law. Laws are written using words, and Roberts has assigned an incorrect meaning to a perfectly good word that already has an unambiguous meaning.
Roberts’s reputation as a Supreme Court Justice will be MUD to future legal scholars, IMO.
Oh, yeah, don’t forget to eat your broccoli.
I could buy your argument but for one thing: he had the perfect out when he addressed the direct tax test. Without explanation or justification of his reasoning, he flatly said it is not a direct tax. Well, so sorry, Johnnie, but it meets the definition of a direct tax perfectly. The only direct tax that is permitted is tax on income. This is a tax on an individual’s behavior and choice – what could be more direct than that? So no, he twisted and contorted and hoped nobody would notice about the direct tax part, but there is no way he can pretend, having specifically addressed it, that he overlooked that point of law.
CFB,
You do not reward a lie by allowing it to stand. If the coward deemed it a tax, he should’ve held the liars accountable for their deception by striking down their law and telling them to resubmit it, written honestly. Instead, little johnny lost his mind and thought it was more important to look out for the interests of the court than it was for the American people. Obviously he is not courageous enough for the job, but is he even mentally stable enough?
I think, as I have observed over many years, that Roberts, like so many of his generation wanted to be liked more than he wanted to adhere to the construct of law.
It’s a horrible weakness that many humans possess. Often, they don’t even realize it when they are basing their decisions on that very thing. Or, if they do, the “value” of being liked outweighs the importance of making a truly difficult decision. That is, difficult personally, not professionally.
I see it in management. I see it with teens. I see it all the time. “Gee, if I decide to say this there will be people who are in authority who won’t like me. Oh…I can’t deal with that.”
Being liked (or popular or [ugh] “cool”) is more valuable in the short-term. The long-term damage caused by that desire is all around to see as an example.
It’s doubtful Roberts is an ideologue. It’s more likely, as Rush put it, that he’s a “DC establishment” type. Social calendar full, twitter account always busy, e-mailbox always full. Day-planner filled with lunch dates. His history reads as the cookie-cutter “dutiful catholic”. I have always had problems with such people. Living a life of imposed boundaries and coordinated activities.
This is not to minimize that which he has achieved but….I have often noticed in people with such backgrounds that they do not do well when they are required to decide independently on things. In other words, all their life they have had a “who to please” target. With such a decision in the court to be made, he struggled with choosing who to please. Like the HAL 9000 computer in “2001″, he malfunctioned.
Badly.
While working for Reagan he worked hard supporting the conservative argument. He wanted to please the authority figure, Reagan.
However, he has been consistent in the notion of the federal government making laws to deal with social issues, so I suppose I can partially understand his logic there, but I still disagree with him.
Of course his “to please dad” issue is only one theory. The others are that he was bribed, threatened or otherwise coerced.
His epilepsy is not confirmed though he has had two seizures. One in 1993 and one in 2007. Those are the ones that are known. He may be an epileptic.
In any case, he made a bad decision. It was not “politically brilliant”. It was shameful and denied the duty of the court as referee on matters otherwise insoluble. He let the nation down.
I think forever Roberts will be known as a weathervane, a weakling.
He should be interpreting the Constitution, not the editorial page of the New York Times.
As for his precedent…what is it worth? The Court no longer follows the Constitution; why should they, or anyone in the country, have any respect for the Court’s decisions. They just make it up as they go along.
I think a lot of people–and I am one of them–have lost all respect for the Supreme Court. I doubt they will regain their prestige in my lifetime.
Finally I agree with Obama on something–the Supreme Court is just a bunch of unelected guys with no moral authority.
Why do we give these jerks such a nice building. Aren’t there any outhouses left in Washington?
I’ll never forget the look on Roberts’ face when Obama called him out from the bully pulpit-sheer terror. At that moment I thought, we have another crying man. Darn. Where are the real men? At work 80 hours a week. Great plan, Marxists, it worked.
I thought the exact same thing.
Well, the issue is done with, only because little more constructive can be done. I do not think the man was trying to curry good opinion per se, for himself, but I do believe he let institutional concerns creep in when they were really the people’s job to look after. It’s their Republic, after all.
As a practical matter, the left is just going to bully where they can, so you can’t sustain their good opinion. As far as the right, the Court –never an object of affection–has probably made concrete people’s opinions about it for a generation. If a better alternative comes along, they will take it. The left will block it, of course, so we’ll get to have a huge to-do over that, absent other conditions.
It would have been a lot better if he had just gone the other way, for if nothing else he has made the idea of judicial independence to mean independence only when conservatives try to sway the court. But he didn’t go the other way. Pick up the pieces and move on, for we have very little choice anyway.
This nation, as far as its institutions, doesn’t give a damn what we say. That means if we ever have a chance to truly change things, we don’t listen to the objections when they get raised, for they never listened to ours.
I think it was Peter Finley Dunne’s Mr. Dooley who observed around the start of the 20th century: “Trade follows The Flag while the Supreme Court follows the election returns”.
If so, what’s new?
Best advice is to head into the election determined. There are NO appeals from the voters.
“Actually, this opinion is quite consistent with Roberts’ judicial philosophy”
–What, that the constitution gives the feds plenary police power?
“And due to the backlash, it may have required more courage than at first blush we might see.”
–I suspect the sucking up he expected from the Grey Lady will be lacking as compensation, but that isn’t courage.
“He’s not a fake.”
No, he’s the real deal, a too clever by half idiot at best.
“1)He was certain that the Commerce Clause claim and the violation against state’s rights were not going to survive. He despised both of those arguments by the government. They were going down.”
And that’s where he should have left the matter, and played it straight.
“2)The government sent it’s lawyers skulking into the Court to argue that it was a tax, not a penalty…blah, blah, blah. Roberts HAD TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE.”
No, he didn’t. Once the SC called it done, it was done.
“3)On what grounds would they overturn the “taxation” of millions of people? That the government didn’t set it up as a tax? Good reason. But, where’s the best place to take that to the people?”
The court’s job isn’t to take it the people–where it was already drastically unpopular–the SC’s job is to measure it against the constitution.
“It isn’t even being sold as a tax at this very moment by the Fabian Socialists who deviously hid the taxation of our citizenry behind the veil of “health care for all”. ”
It isn’t a tax, it is not even constitutionally assessed. Even if it were a tax, it is not predicated on for the exercise of a constitutionally defined power.
“The debate about the appropriate FORMATION of the law to tax the citizenry, belongs back in the hands of the Congress that passed it.”
No, the original jurisdiction about whether it is constitutional belong to the SC. That’s right in the constitution, which is what you are ignoring to postulate your fabulations. Just like Roberts.
“YOUR representative hid it from you.”
No, they didn’t, calling it a tax is a patent fabrication and a dodge by Roberts. The question is whether the fedgov is allowed to spend any money to the purpose whatever the source, not whether the source is a tax or a penalty.
“he pulled a reversal and the Marxists are primed to be pinned to the mat.”
Bull feathers. Roberts has established a precedent that any measure passed by the majority in Congress is constitutional if they call it a tax. It’s a loophole for the left far larger than the Commerce Clause, which was rejected as a foundation for Obamacare where Roberts accepted the tax power as a constitutional foundation.
He just screwed it up, there is no deep plan.
I have a feeling that Roberts, by this time, is regretting what he did. He wound up getting exactly what he was trying to avoid — he exchanged being wrongly called “activist” by the biased and leftist MSM — for being called on his capitulation to them — while abandoning his duty.
“… removing ObamaCare via repeal rather than court decision is the preferable small-d democratic thing to do, and is ultimately better for the country.”
Constitutional or not Constitutional. That’s the Court’s job. The “Mandate” isn’t Constitutional — as it was voted upon — which was — as a Mandate under the Commerce Clause.
The People (represented by Congress) never “voted” for the law as a Tax (if he’s even correct that that sort of punitive “tax” is Constitutional — which he’s not).
The “d democratic” thing to do (at the very most–if the Tax was deemed Constitutional) would have been to send it back to the People (via Congress) to “vote” on again — as a Tax.
“… they may have disagreed over whether the mandate was severable from the rest of the law.”
The law itself said within it that it was NOT severable. The Court has no “authority” to change the law as it was written. That’s called “legislating.”
Roberts both behaved as an “activist” and “legislated” from the bench — and — at the same time — delegitimized the function of the Court by saying that it was for the People to vote on it.
If that’s the case — that all is left to “voting” (via Congress) — then what do we need a Court for?
Correction: 2nd from last paragraph, last line …
“by saying that it was for the People to vote on it”
should be
“by saying that it was for the People to vote against it via elections.”
Correction: 2nd from last paragraph, last line …
“by saying that it was for the People to vote on it”
should be
“by saying that it was for the People to vote against it via elections.”
I find myself wondering something…
I wonder if Roberts got a phone call, or a visit from someone, or otherwise got the message, “It would really be a shame if something happened to your wife, or child, or grandchild”. Given that we’re dealing with a “gangster government” in the Obama proto-dictatorship, is it possible that Roberts got an “offer he couldn’t refuse”?
I’m sure that thought has occurred to many. If so, if I were Roberts, I would have taken my family with me to Malta, or sent them to the family holdings in Ireland, and I would stay there, pleading illness (he has a history of seizures) until I had the opportunity to swear in a replacement to The Lawless One. And then, I would shout what had happened to the rooftops. Whether or not such an “offer” was made, there have been enough questionable doings in the last four years that it is probable this wasn’t the first time. Baracky is holding all the marbles right now, but once he’s out of office, I hope everyone starts singing. He won’t have the power then to eliminate those he has terrorized while in control of DHS, DOJ, the FBI, the military, and the Secret Service. We might yet see him do a perp walk.
WSJ just replenished its chips with me in a really big way with this one:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303561504577496603068605864.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Remember, anyone who believes that the Court is infallible needs to review the Dred Scott decision. The Obamacare decision by the liberals of the Supreme Court is comparable to the Dred Scott decision. The difference is instead of being physical slaves to a plantation owner we will become slaves to a government bureaucracy.
it seems that initially he was on the correct side of the ruling. the white house got to him somehow and he (Roberts) is/was weak enough or compromised enough to be coerced.
I think that obama’s minions in the supreme court have been communicating to the white house and co-coordinating strategy to turn the reluctant liberal Roberts
…I do not have any doubt he is a left leaning justice, but he also knows this is a crime against the people of the USA and he knows his legacy has been sealed as a traitor and coward.
there is no rule of law left.
It is probable that there is a mole on the SCOTUS staff. Does anyone else remember the eligibility case that was scheduled to be heard by the Supremes, and then was mysteriously and suddenly removed from the docket and all trace of it ever existing erased? Happened back in January 2009. Roberts was made personally aware of it, said he would investigate, and never did. Here’s the link: http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2009/03/14/chief-justice-john-roberts-orly-taitz-march-14-2009-idaho-lecture-taitz-met-roberts-university-of-idaho-roberts-agrees-read-documents-us-supreme-court-clerk-danny-bickle-lightfoot-v-bowen/
More recently, SCOTUS has refused to hear an eligibility case that has made its way up from appeals, despite Baracky’s own admission to having been born in Kenya, despite the exposure of the “official” BC as a forgery. Again, here’s the link: http://ranchosantamargarita.patch.com/articles/supreme-court-dismisses-illegitimate-presidency-claim
So yes, I would say that the overall behavior of SCOTUS when it comes to serious challenges to Barack’s authority and intimidation does not pass the smell test. And whatever CJ Roberts’ reasons, he will have to answer for his sins of omission sometime.
Really great article. I concur, roberts has soiled himself. He is unworthy of the appellation “justice”. He has betrayed his faith, his children, and his country. INjustice roberts is leaving a legacy totally contrary to the one he hoped to leave.
“If Roberts did that…this top of the class honors student, regional wrestling champ…he pulled a reversal and the Marxists are primed to be pinned to the mat.”
Gee, I have a hard time with this theory. Instead of simply doing his job, making a decision about constitutionality, he gets out of the ring and subliminally calls upon conservatives in the Republican Party to get into the ring in his stead and wrestle those pesky and power-hungry Demunist pols to the mat.
Sorry, this was an intended as a reply to CFB at #15. You might see it as a stupid and careless mistake, but it was actually a Robertsian rhetorical device to sew confusion among the un-anointed.
Funny, but liberals who have been appointed to the Court never “grow” in office, only centrists and conservatives. Any doubt that it has much to do with caving to the media, think of Harry Blackmun or David Souter and J P Stevens
Remember during the Roberts confirmation hearings, the press went after his family, mocking his children.
They been softening him up from the start.
I know the type well, having seen them first in school then at work. They are all cowards, and by extension, bullies.
The Roman Republic chose leaders with a solid list of accomplishment, in administration, including military, and the law.
What do we get, men and women from academe whose only accomplishment is pleasing others.
I would say of those people, like ones at Hopkins bought medical deferments: I would not serve with them or choose to die in their presence.
I would say the same of Justice Roberts.
THere is no cowardice in Roberts.
It takes a LOT of courage – nerves of STEEL – to pretend to be a conservative for all these years, while waiting for the opportunity to strike a decisive blow, knowing that it will blow your cover.
He’s done very well for his side.
Look into his history.
What kind of man sits on the highest court in the land and bases his rulings on fear of what NPR, the New York Times, Newsweek, or some Holywood half wit might say about him?
An Eastern Establishment Republican who is a member of the Ruling Class that lives and works in the Washington/New York metroplex area and suburbs (Massachusetts, Maryland, Virginia, etc.) Someone who works and lives with Democrat Ruling Class members and wants to retain the “collegial” atmosphere of acceptance from his social circle. Someone who wants to retain his position on the social B list (Republicans can never really make it to the A list)! Someone who cares about the legacy of “his” Supreme Court (always defined by its Chief Justice); someone who reads and watches the Eastern mainstream media as his barometer of public opinion. Someone with a lifetime appointment who no longer has to be responsive to the voters, or to their elected representatives in Congress or in the White House. Someone who would hold the news of his betrayal of his oath of office until the last day of the court session, and immediately head off to an “impenetrable fortress” to hide out until it all blows over.
#20 Good Ole Charlie
Best advice is to head into the election determined. There are NO appeals from the voters.
That is of course, operating under the assumption that under this totally lawless administration that has ignored the law and the Constitution for 3 1/2 years and can be credibly considered to have possibly threatened the life of a sitting Supreme Court Chief Justice [and/or his loved ones] to extort a Constitutional ruling; that we will have elections, or that they will be honest with a valid vote count. Vote, by all means. But do not be sure that the voters will have the final say. Consider what you will do if they don’t.
Subotai Bahadur
The most instructive path for the country is to leave the bill in place. The slow steady destruction of the health care insurance industry in conjunction with the destruction of the medical industry, both in care and in research-innovation, is the path we are on. Americans like other nations are of people that refuse to believe that their decisions of today will insure great misery and failure tomorrow, let alone decades in the future. It is clear that this pathetic excuse of a man, Obama, has no blind hopes that his legacy will include reforming the US health care system for the better, as he would have to be the most unintelligent president ever to hold the office. No, what this man is to his core is a master of one thing and one thing only : harboring a vicious hatred for this country and for which it stands while speaking as if he is the composite of all the great presidents of the past.
For myself the ultimate misery will be in full force after I’m gone. For the young and middle aged, only a hellish future awaits them.
A legislative repeal, which deliciously attractive leaves a road apple on the kitchen floor. It is the new tax power that survives a repeal. The ruling held that government has a power to tax inactivity. The ruling is a statement that this power has always existed. It had to otherwise Roberts would have to admit he created a new power by judicial amendment; something he’ll never do. So Roberts woke up the government monster and showed it a power it always had but never knew it had till now.
As a constitutional power, congress cannot remove it legislatively. It will have to be removed by amendment. Until then the best we can hope for is that this monster government doesn’t decide to employ it for other purposes. Imagine being taxed for NOT turning in your guns. You don’t have to according to the pattern of this case. But if you don’t, you will pay a tax. Government can make the same claim over your rights to keep and bear arms that they did to claim a power over your right to abstain from a particular act of commerce. We’re so screwed.
So many people who present themselves as credentialed to address this completely skip over it.
Yes, but better that road apple than the dead horse AND his road apple!
You are correct about the danger of this new “authority” that Roberts invented, but that’s not a reason to leave Obamacare in place. No, removing Obamacare won’t solve the more fundamental problem, but it is a problem in its own right, which should be solved.
It is time for a constitutional convention. The choice is either the dangers inherent in a convention versus allowing the government to bring to full fruition the suicide pact we just got delivered to us.
The governors should begin the process and barr the Washington establishment. Keep the vipers out of the nest.
A Constitutional Convention?
With our current mal-educated, instant-gratification seeking populace?
Are you INSANE?!?!?
Or just ignorant?
We need a Constitutional Amendment that requires the people in all three branches of the Federal Government, from the White House, Congress, and SCOTUS on down, to be legally subject to their own Executive Orders, Legislation, and Judicial rulings.
This is now a clarion call to Patriots throughout the Nation. we have by this unholy decision, been cut off at the Knees…How can we not rebel? This one Man, has turned the Constitution into a Club to further beat us into Submission!
I say Resist! I say Repent! I Say repel This Invasion! Semper Fi