Posted on 06/29/2012 9:40:43 AM PDT by neverdem
Conservatives won a substantial victory on Thursday. The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John Roberts has served this cause.
The health care legislation’s expansion of the federal government’s purview has improved our civic health by rekindling interest in what this expansion threatens — the Framers’ design for limited government. Conservatives distraught about the survival of the individual mandate are missing the considerable consolation prize they won when the Supreme Court rejected a constitutional...
--snip--
When Nancy Pelosi, asked where the Constitution authorized the mandate, exclaimed “Are you serious? Are you serious?” she was utterly ingenuous. People steeped in Congress’ culture of unbridled power find it incomprehensible that the Framers fashioned the Constitution as a bridle. Now, Thursday’s episode in the continuing debate about the mandate will reverberate to conservatism’s advantage. By sharpening many Americans’ constitutional consciousness, the debate has resuscitated the salutary practice of asking what was, until the mid-1960s, the threshold question regarding legislation. It concerned what James Q. Wilson called the “legitimacy barrier”: Is it proper for the federal government to do this? Conservatives can rekindle the public’s interest in this barrier by building upon the victory Roberts gave them in positioning the court for stricter scrutiny of congressional actions under the Commerce Clause.
Any democracy, even one with a written and revered constitution, ultimately rests on public opinion, which is shiftable sand. Conservatives understand the patience requisite for the politics of democracy — the politics of persuasion. Elections matter most; only they can end Obamacare. But in Roberts’ decision, conservatives can see the court has been persuaded to think more as they do about the constitutional language that has most enabled the promiscuous expansion of government.
(Excerpt) Read more at humanevents.com ...
What a pile of CRAP!!!!! Only RINO elites talk about consolation prizes. Other notable winners of consolation prizes: Hitler, Kaiser Wilhelm; Jeff Davis; Custer; Cornwallis and Al Gore. Will is trying to make chicken salad out of chicken shit and the chicken shit is Roberts. He got rolled. Maybe Kagan, the old hag and the Latina; maybe Obama’s rhetoric did it. Maybe he’s an idiot. After all, Arlen Specter had man love for him.
Let’s face the fact that repeal will never happen. Even if the GOP gets control of all three branches, does anyone think McCain, Collins, Graham and Kyl would support repeal? It’s over folks!
This old Texan is 64, Mrs is 61 and we have no kids. We’ll be dead when the end of the USA really comes - momentum will keep things going awhile. Election Day in November? I’ll be out driving my mules. My voting days are over.
Ditto on #16. Well Said.
In all bad decisions (by that I mean wrong decisions) the courts set precedent that is skewed and used for future arguments. In Row V Wade, the SCOTUS should have rejected the premise that abortion was a privacy issue. It would have been tossed out and kicked back to the states to decide independently how they wanted abortion regulated. That precedent would have really been helpful in that the court could have argued, "The premise that abortion is a personal privacy issue is rejected by this court. Since there is nothing in the constitution to provide proper guidance as this case was presented. It is this courts opinion that the federal government shall have no jurisdiction over laws pertaining to abortion."
Had the court ruled that way, several cases that have followed since would have required a narrower argument and better constitutional standing to give the justices reference opinions to the actual constitution. If they really wanted to stretch, they could have ruled that abortion infringes on a baby's right to pursue life and liberty.
Bookmark
Well Lah Dee Freakin' Dah!!!
The SCOTUS decision hasn't settled anything. It will invite more scrutiny, more arguments, and likely more SCOTUS rulings in the future. I don't see Roberts' decision as an end to anything, but a beginning.
"Any democracy, even one with a written and revered constitution, ultimately rests on public opinion, which is shiftable sand. Conservatives understand the patience requisite for the politics of democracy — the politics of persuasion. Elections matter most; only they can end Obamacare. But in Roberts’ decision, conservatives can see the court has been persuaded to think more as they do about the constitutional language that has most enabled the promiscuous expansion of government."
The dissent states,
"“Finally, we must observe that rewriting §5000A as a tax in order to sustain its constitutionality would force us to confront a difficult constitutional question: whether this is a direct tax that must be apportioned among the States according to their population. Art. I, §9, cl. 4. Perhaps it is not (we have no need to address the point); but the meaning of the Direct Tax Clause is famously unclear, and its application here is a question of first impression that deserves more thoughtful consideration.”
Well put. The only hope for the country now is for governors of conservative states to stand up and say no to the feds. Nullify this bill and other federal mandates.
As for Roberts, perhaps he was blackmailed. I firmly believe this is a possibility. Either that, or he’s just nuts.
So... let’s say Will is right. Jurisprudence surrounding the Commerce Clause will be significantly narrowed in the future, and the power of the Federal Gov’t on this basis becomes significantly diminished.
Who cares. This decision essentially says that the power of the Federal Gov’t is unlimited as long as every bill comes with a tax attached. If you can be taxed for doing nothing, you can be taxed for anything, and the Feds now have unlimited power to make us do whatever they like.
As long as it’s not, you know, blatently illegal. At least we still have that...
I stopped reading when Will said we are a democracy. So much for our republic.
Joey, please send ME a pair of your rose-colored glasses. All Chief Kangaroo Roberts did was recognize that the commerce clause could not be used to uphold THIS rotting pile of feces. But, as will happen in other cases in his lawless court, they will simply dig for other rationales to uphold progressivism when it’s deemed necessary. Bob
I love what you said, and I too am pessimistic. No one with a shred of honesty (or intelligence) is defending the despicable Chief Kangaroo. BUT still, we all must do our part to rid ourselves of every Democrat possible in November. Bob
Reversing a SCOTUS decision is much harder than repealing a statute. SCOTUS would rather have a civil war than reverse Dred Scott! Remember how quicky that law which required seniors to have catastophic insurance was repealed in the late 1980s.
House Panel Leader Jeered by Elderly in Chicago
The NY Times is referring to Dan Rostenkowski. AARP mobilized seniors. IIRC, it was repealed in less than a year.
If he was he caved badly. Founding Father material, he ain't.
Either that, or he’s just nuts.
If nuts, he needs removed.
I think he's a progressive and this helps his agenda, but I've never liked him.
I hadn’t thought of that, but you are right, and that is scary.
Don’t they keep machine guns out of individuals hands now with a tax?
The alleged limitation of Congressional power under the commerce clause that George Will attributes to Roberts' opinion isn't there. Roberts doesn't have any explanation nor does he discuss why the individual mandate in ObamaCare exceeds the commerce clause authority. He wheedled his way out of having to discuss limits on the commerce clause by fraudulently creating the fiction that the individual mandate penalty was a "tax." Of course, the word tax was not used in the statute nor by any of its proponents in public discussions.
Then, after creating the "tax" concept from whole cloth, he duplicitously backed off the very same "tax" notion when he later said that the Anti-Injunction Act does not apply to the case because the individual mandate penalty was not a tax when analyzed with respect to the Anti-Injunction Act.
So Roberts could have his cake and eat it too while being secure in the knowledge that he and his family would be exempt from ObamaCare when implemented, while just about everyone else would be harmed because of his irrational approach. (Was he made an offer he couldn't refuse?)
T’was a time I would have agreed. But after 23 years of “Read my lips”... “No Child Left Unfunded”....John McCain, Bob Dole, Graham, Snow, Collins, Roberts and blah, blah, blah I’m done. Perhaps the next generation will rise up and rebuild the republic but my generation of conservatives has lost its fight. The great days of the USA really are in the rear view mirror. It was fun to be around for part of them, even if it was during the twilight.
T’was a time I would have agreed. But after 23 years of “Read my lips”... “No Child Left Unfunded”....John McCain, Bob Dole, Graham, Snow, Collins, Roberts and blah, blah, blah I’m done. Perhaps the next generation will rise up and rebuild the republic but my generation of conservatives has lost its fight. The great days of the USA really are in the rear view mirror. It was fun to be around for part of them, even if it was during the twilight.
I suppose I should not be surprised It was a Republican president who gave us Souter. We only have 1 party - the Demopublicans.
Well Donkey, I hope that you decide to buck up and do what you can do anyway. We have some really good candidates in my Scranton area, and all our non-participation does is cede America to our enemies. Romney is not MY kind of guy, but he has a measure of human decency that the Marxist Failure in the WH lacks. It looked very dark in other times in America, but people fought down to their final breath. Bob
Bingo. You can't listen to what they say. You have to look at their individual records. And most voters won't do that.
THIS PIECE BY will IS THE WORST ARTICLE OF HIS THAT I HAVE EVER READ”.
Mark Levin 6-28-2012
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.