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 ...
He has a cracked brain ~ that’s how he gets his seizures.
I think we would be much better off keeping them on edge regarding our willingness to exsanguinate them as necessary.
It's a big nothing burger.
Repubs need to sue to get a clear definition of this act. If it is a tax, we can repeal it with a simple majority (and prove Zero lied all along to get it passed). If it’s not a tax, then it cannot meet traitor Roberts constitutional approval (and then Roberts lied, or at least proved he is not Supreme Court material - not that that has ever stopped anyone...).
It's worse than that. Now the Dems know they can sell a proposal to the people by calling the tax a "penalty" and deny that it's really a tax. They then let SCOTUS take all the blame by approving it as a tax, letting the Dems off the hook ("We never called it a tax! Blame SCOTUS! But it's law now and we'll take it").
George Will’s job is to spin. He’s trying to spin this as a victory. I doubt he actually believes this.
You make it sound so...Banana Republicish....
Do I really need a sarc tag?
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...
Check comment# 31. Any pubbie trying to raise taxes will get primaried. Rats will be hit with another wave in November, IMHO, from which it will take a long time to recover, if ever.
The Washington elite clearly wanted this case decided on the commerce clause argument. The Four Stooges wanted it. Obama wanted it. Nanzi barked, “Are you Serious?” to a reporter who suggested otherwise. Roberts threw it back into the political arena, where it belongs. It is not the court’s job to protect the voters from foolish political decisions, even reckless ones. That’s what the ballot box is for. The Tea Party drove the agenda in 2010 and tossed Nanzi out on her ass. This decision is a challenge to all of us to do the same to Obama and the rest of the statist scum that support him.
Thanks justiceseeker93.
You don’t think that Pelosi is laughing diabolically now? The Commerce Clause caveat is irrelevant. The Marsupial simply invented another phony line of argument on which to base his decision. YES, it is incumbent upon each line of defense to do its job in protecting freedom. Roberts has proved himself worthless this week. He ran for the tall grass before the first shot was fired.
I do agree that it is up to the electorate to remedy this madness. But, that doesn’t excuse Roberts from making a decision that will negatively impact the freedoms of millions of people. He torched our cherished documents, and I’ll never forgive him for it. He could have killed it. I hope his martinis at his Washington cocktail parties are extra delicious. Bob
>> This old Texan is 64, Mrs is 61 and we have no kids. My voting days are over.
Unfortunately, we can’t vote more than once to pick up the slack.
I hope you change your mind.
I wish I could buy into this, but I think it’s either wishful thinking, or utter nonsense.
What makes Roberts, or Will, or anyone else think a future Court will care one bit what Roberts said about the Commerce Clause in this case? Precedent only matters to liberals when it is a liberal precdent to be protected.
If Obama wins (which seems more likely now) he will definitely get to replace Ginsburg and maybe Breyer, thus protecting those liberal votes for decades to come. And he may get to replace Kenney and/or Scalia too. If that happens, then any restraint that people think Roberts has placed on Congressional power here will be jettisoned without hesitation.
Thanks for the ping!
His observations about the inapplicability of the Commerce Clause here is not a part of his ultimate opinion. It is what lawyers call dicta, general opinings which are NOT a part of the decision and which DO NOT serve as basis for precedent.
The Roberts opinion was based on the taxing power of Congress--no more, no less. Stupidly and wrongly, but that is all. The commerce clause is irrelevant to this opinion, and not affected by it.
Sorry, but that's the facts.
That's a real thigh slapper!
The Death Panel has ruled on my political life: it’s done. Here’s why: imagine if, in 1954, the Supreme Court would have ruled that “separate but equal” was unconstitutional as racial segregation but was OK if it was used as a way to make use of government property. Roberts did the equivalent. If there is a USA in a couple of centuries history will record that Roberts has replaced Justice Taney of Dred Scott fame as the greatest judicial pinhead of all time. It’s that big a deal.
I understand your point, but we’re here today because of the lackluster interest in electing McCain. If the Republicans were serious about the Country, we wouldn’t have Obama, Kagan, nor Sotomayor. And it all began/begins individually at the booth. Those that do not cast a ballot obviously have little influence over the process.
We bitch about the candidates often forced upon us but do little to promote the right candidates at the local level that inevitably affect the political structure and resources available nationally. We shouldn’t defer the responsibility of local politics to the political, town nerds.
Things cannot be fixed overnight given the time it takes to change the hierarchy, but if we’re serious and willing to commit for the long haul, this mess can be turned around. I am absolutely confident of that.
Sometimes we have no choice but to work with the crappy tools at our disposal. Hell, we all had to work with those soft metal wrenches at one point in our lives. But we didn’t refuse the repair because we were afraid to shred some knuckles. McCain, Romney; the crappy tools. They both drive me nuts, but I cannot stand by and do nothing. It’s a pragmatic choice at this point.
Furthermore, not to question one’s respect for the Military, but I’m arriving at the opinion that able voters who choose not to vote should also refrain from endorsing military combat actions. The vote for POTUS is also the vote for the CIC.
Been working with crappy tools since Reagan. I’m done. Don’t give a damn anymore.
Than why are you wasting your time here discussing the issue? Wouldn’t it make sense to completely tune out, and enjoy the rest of life without contemplating all this crap?
Seriously, if you don’t care, then tune out. Things are grim, and I could understand why someone would take that path. On the other hand, to continuously remind us about the lack of interest and participation is frustrating for those of us still willing and trying. Many of us have children and grandchildren to look after. We don’t have options.
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.