Skip to comments.When GOP-Appointed Court Picks Become Darth Vaders
Posted on 06/28/2012 5:51:39 PM PDT by Kaslin
Separation Of Powers: Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, chose the case of the century to turn to the left. The lesson is loud and clear: Only elections can stop Big Government.
In the coming weeks, the Supreme Court's monumental 5-4 decision preserving ObamaCare will be parsed and picked to death by everyone from constitutional scholars to irate Tea Party activists. But however extensive the faults within the chief justice's ruling are, it's right on the money in issuing this warning to the nation:
"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
As explained in today's lead editorial, Roberts, who with the two Clinton-appointed justices and the two Obama appointees held that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is constitutional, fell down on the job by refusing to defend the Constitution against a power grab by the other branches of the federal government.
How wrong we in the 21st century now know Alexander Hamilton was in assuring Americans that of the three branches of government, the judiciary "will always be the least dangerous to the political rights of the Constitution," with "neither force nor will, but merely judgment."
For months, it was unjustifiably assumed that the high court would deal a huge blow to the president this election year. Instead, far from receiving "merely judgment," Obama has been given a huge political boon just when he needed it.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.investors.com ...
We slam those who elected obama. Yet we elected Bush.
I gotta’ go watch ANGER MANAGEMENT. Seriously!
Roberts is an Earl Warren. Roberts should be impeached.
Maybe he's gay. (Kidding. I think.)
“Conservative” justices seem to shift left with monotonous regularity. The leftist justices always stay on the plantation.
Another reason why those who think GWB walked on water should step back and reevaluate their thinking. Add this to his pushing for amnesty and we have a pseudo conservative.
Somehow I think you’re maligning Darth Vader.
Out of nine Ivy-League justices, you can always find five to agree to go left with monotonous regularity.
Sandra Day OConner
Does no one remember the stinging remarks and threats by 0bama earlier this year, or the ‘visit’ by Administration lawyers AFTER oral arguments? Or...the HORRIBLE arguments presented by the Administration at oral arguments?
Does anyone remember what the Administration attorneys presented late/after arguments? Is that legal?
Amen to that!
I listened to Savage today and CJ Felcher, as I now call him, needs to be removed immediately. His medical condition has affected his judgment.
It's long past time the Pubbies recognize we're in a war of survival here.
Three guesses on how Earl Roberts will rule on “gay” marriage...
I'm beginning to think "Harvard Law" should be an immediate disqualifier for future candidates.
It’s long past time the Pubbies recognize we’re in a war of survival here.
Some Pubbies must think themselves immune to the absolute disaster we are facing.
Works that way in Congress, too.
Dems had a 60-40 in the Senate and not one of them bucked the liberal majority. No way that happens if the situation was reversed.
I agree. I'm not angered because the SC didn't stop socialists from enacting more socialism. These socialists in power can do that anytime they want.
I'm angered because I expect and demand that the Supreme Court uphold the Constitution and they failed to do that today.
Well, one thing is certain. As of today, there is now precedence for the Federal Government to tax us for not being gay.
Good point to make...
All the lib appointed judging stay consistently lib, lock-step, never stray from the lib way of looking at things.
Our “side” on the other hand gets doofuses like Souter, Kennedy (historically)’and now it seems Roberts...why, why, WHY?
I am so sick of this crap...
I usually don;t get shocked, but this shocked me.
CJ Felcher needs to be impeached ASAP.
Maybe the f**k will have to wait to get his meds...and it will be too late.
God forgive me for saying it, but it’s what I feel.
Power corrupts. I tend to observe once a “Conservative” has been in DC, they tend to spoil (go native and/or become part of the problem) at or around 6 years in office. Roberts will have served as Chief Justice for 7 years as of September. Predictably right on schedule.
Two words: Litmus Tests.
Liberals claim to hate ‘em but use ‘em.
Conservatives claim to love ‘em but don’t use ‘em.
Members of the Oligarchy never run out of medicine.
No kidding, right?!?!
Like the old Soviet ‘Nomenclatura’.
Remember the screaming from conservatives, like Ann Coulter when Bush dared to nominate someone who was NOT an Ivy league law school graduate?
We know exactly where the traitors learned from.
Communism is insidious.
Yes, and we’re seeing it unfold before our eyes...
It’s taken them over 70 years to consolidate power to this extent and they will not go away easily.
They have infested and infected almost everything.
Instead, if Romney wins in November, the second thing he should do is publicly ask Roberts to step down because Romney has lost confidence in Roberts' judgement.
Roberts needs to be publicly humiliated and ostracized.
It's already tipped towards the liberals with Roberts, trust me, this will not be the last time he votes with the liberals.
You’re so right. And damn the fools that allowed them to infest and infect.
“Instead, if Romney wins in November, the second thing he should do is publicly ask Roberts to step down because Romney has lost confidence in Roberts’ judgement.”
Don’t you think it would be kind of awkward for a President Romney, who as governor massed Romneycare, to step aside for voting in favor of Obamacare?
Moreover, Romney has said that he would appoint more Justices like Roberts.
No, because Romney always said that a state's power to pass a state law that extends only to the state's boundaries is a lot different than passing a law that affects everyone in every state. The economies of scale are very different between a state and a nation. Also, Obamacare will cover all the illegal aliens in every state, and be paid for only by legal residents. Romneycare only covers residents of Massachusetts, and is paid for only by Massachusetts residents.
Romney has said that he would appoint more Justices like Roberts.
That was before today's ruling. That's the point of the "lost confidence" comment.
Then again, according to this -
Roberts’ ruling is a brilliant ploy that will destroy Obamacare by forcing those states that set up the “exchanges” to pay for it by taxing that states’ citizens to pay for it. In fact, this will be the mother-of-all-tax-increases and unaffordable.
At the same time the ruling prevents the feds from punishing states that do not adopt it.
Read that analysis again. The ruling said that states that refuse to participate cannot be penalized. The ruling *does not* say the Feds cannot funnel money to states that do participate.
Dont you think it would be kind of awkward for a President Romney, who as governor passed Romneycare...
“No, because Romney always said that a state’s power to pass a state law that extends only to the state’s boundaries is a lot different than passing a law that affects everyone in every state. The economies of scale are very different between a state and a nation. Also, Obamacare will cover all the illegal aliens in every state, and be paid for only by legal residents. Romneycare only covers residents of Massachusetts, and is paid for only by Massachusetts residents.”
~ ~ ~
The record is four times, Romney switched, supporting Abortion, the last, putting abortion in Romneycare.
Evil is being shown for what it is in more ways then one.
Pray for conversions, especially BHO and Romney, to the last moment, God is merciful.
Why didn't he just kill it?
It does not matter if it is on the federal, state or local level, both ObamaCare and RomnetCare are Socialized Medicine.
As Don Rumsfeld once said, "You go to war with the army you have, not the army might want or wish to have at a later time."
We have what we have. We have to make the best of it.
Not from states that don’t.
There is nothing in today’s ruling that would prevent the government from sending federal dollars to any state to help it pay for the implementation of ObamaCare.
So repealing Roe v. Wade doesn't matter? It won't stop abortion, but it will put it back to the individual states to decide for themselves.
How is that different from socializing medicine at a national level vs. letting individual states decide for themselves?
This really ties back to the dissenting opinion from the immigration ruling the other day -- why don't we just stop referring to "sovereign states" from now on?
Because there are states where a majority of citizens do want it. At least they think they do, but they won’t when they find out how much it costs them, and how it will cost them in the lower quality of medical care they get. The ruling forces them to recognize those costs. If he just killed it, these leftist states would never get the chance to find out for themselves and learn from their mistake.
“There is nothing in todays ruling that would prevent the government from sending federal dollars to any state to help it pay for the implementation of ObamaCare.”
There doen’t need to be.
Under the U.S. Constitution as amended by the Sixteenth Amendment, any federal tax that is a “direct tax” (which is not an “income tax”) must be apportioned among the states in accordance with the respective populations of the various states. Since the apportionment requirement can only apply inequitably across the nation, the correct labeling of any federal tax (other than an income tax) as a “direct tax” amounts to the proverbial “kiss of death,” as no such tax will be enacted.
Tax revenues are not “apportioned among the states in accordance with the respective populations of the various states” today. Every time some pork project bridge is built in one state and not in another, there is unequal apportionment.
I understand your theory, but being a liberal means never learning from mistakes.
You just forgot the distinction between income taxes and direct taxes in your example.
Money is fungible. So it is a distinction without a difference.