Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The Case for John Roberts
The Weekly Standard ^ | 6:00 AM, Jun 29, 2012 | JAY COST

Posted on 06/29/2012 9:04:57 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach

Many conservatives are feeling betrayed by the chief justice's vote to uphold Obamacare. But there's a counterintuitive case to be made that John Roberts's decision is largely a victory for conservatives.

Every time I visit Washington, D.C., I am struck by a single, terrible thought: It is not just that conservatives are losing the various battles over big government, but they have been losing the war for generations. The most conservatives are ever able to do is tinker at the margins – and celebrating small victories like lowering marginal tax rates is a sign of just how low our sights are set.

Why has this happened? After all, this was a country founded in direct opposition to unlimited governmental power. How have we arrived at a point when the feds can do just about anything they want?

It is because, at critical moments in the nation’s history, the advocates of limited government were on the losing side of the political equation, and the opposition was very effective at consolidating its victory. Not only did big government advocates implement policy changes, they also brought about huge structural innovations to the way the government functions.

The progressives of the early 1900s managed this with the 16th Amendment, legalizing the income tax and opening up whole avenues of power that had been previously off limits. The political genius of that move must be admired: The left got its hands on the government for a relatively short period of time, but it sure made hay while the sun was out. We’re still paying the price today -- quite literally. Similarly, the New Deal took advantage of a national emergency to ram through ......

(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; benedictroberts; deathpanels; jaycost; obamacare; scotus; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last

1 posted on 06/29/2012 9:05:02 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

As I have posed several times here about Robert’s decision:

Before I join any group and dump all over Roberts, I think I will wait and see how this plays out as we approach the elections. I just have a gut feeling that Roberts is playing a back game and his naysayers will be caught with their embarrassment showing. I think, in the end, Roberts will be exonerated.

I could be wrong, but for now I will just wait this one out before condemning him.


2 posted on 06/29/2012 9:09:01 PM PDT by doc1019 (Voting for the better of two evils is still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Mark Levin SHREDDED this line of thought today. I am going with Mark. Roberts ruled based on politics not on Constitutionality. He is a traitor, IMO!


3 posted on 06/29/2012 9:09:13 PM PDT by Anti-Hillary (Under Romney's Governorship, MA. was the birthplace of gay marriage & socialized medicine in America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

If a study of world history reveals anything at all, it’s that those power-hungry souls who are attracted to government work will gradually accrue more and more power to themselves until a dictatorship/oligarchy by a governing elite becomes inevitable.

The Founding Fathers did their level best to take that into account and design a “fool proof” republic. Alas, clearly they failed.


4 posted on 06/29/2012 9:09:34 PM PDT by Jack Hammer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Mark Levin SHREDDED this line of thought today. I am going with Mark. Roberts ruled based on politics not on Constitutionality. He is a traitor, IMO!


5 posted on 06/29/2012 9:10:29 PM PDT by Anti-Hillary (Barry, Barry quite contrary, how does your government grow?...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Bullshit. Roberts, in an attempt to de-politicize his court in the public opinion, cemented himself as an activist judge with the most political decision of the century.


6 posted on 06/29/2012 9:10:32 PM PDT by Flightdeck (If you hear me yell "Eject, Eject, Eject!" the last two will be echos...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer

The suggested Bork Amendment (a supermajority of both houses of Congress can overturn any court decision) looks interesting, but couldn’t help here. The Senate is a long, long way from being Republican enough.


7 posted on 06/29/2012 9:11:07 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (let me ABOs run loose, lew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
Jay Cost is a staff writer for THE WEEKLY STANDARD and the author of Spoiled Rotten: How the Politics of Patronage Corrupted the Once Noble Democratic Party and Now Threatens the American Republic, available now wherever books are sold.
8 posted on 06/29/2012 9:12:05 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The Global Warming Hoax was a Criminal Act....where is Al Gore?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

“I could be wrong...”

Sorry, and I don’t blame you for hoping, but I have no doubt that you are.


9 posted on 06/29/2012 9:12:15 PM PDT by Flightdeck (If you hear me yell "Eject, Eject, Eject!" the last two will be echos...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

ANOTHER one who is trying to make excuses for treason. Probably another guy who KNOWS Roberts. Sheesh. When in doubt, I take the side of Mark Levin as well. BTW, Mark has known Roberts for a long time, and he didn’t hold his fire. God bless Mark Levin for putting his freedom over friendship! Bob


10 posted on 06/29/2012 9:12:56 PM PDT by alstewartfan (Two broken Tigers on fire in the night Flicker their souls to the wind. Al Stewart "Roads to Moscow")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck

He and the Gang of Four did not abide by the usual court principle of tax law cases, which is not to intervene until somebody actually gets dinged for the tax. They jumped down Alice in Wonderland’s rabbit hole here.


11 posted on 06/29/2012 9:13:41 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (let me ABOs run loose, lew)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
The Case for John Roberts....IMPEACHMENT
12 posted on 06/29/2012 9:14:05 PM PDT by goodnesswins (What has happened to America?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
Before I join any group and dump all over Roberts, I think I will wait and see how this plays out as we approach the elections. I just have a gut feeling that Roberts is playing a back game and his naysayers will be caught with their embarrassment showing. I think, in the end, Roberts will be exonerated.

How could it possibly work out for the best??? Even if this helps the Republicans in November's elections, which it probably will, and even if this is first crop of Republicans in decades with the political will and testicular fortitude to repeal this shit (and how likely is THAT?), it still doesn't repeal the ruling! IOW, a federal program as large, as wrong, and as intrusive as O-Care is Constitutionally hunky-dory, not just for health care, but in any other area as well! The only way to fix THAT now is with a Constitutional amendment and what are the odds of that???

13 posted on 06/29/2012 9:15:33 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

Jay Cost was pushing this line all day yesterday as well. He continues to do so in the face of evidence and reality. I’ve lost a great deal of respect for him and others who continue to attempt to rationalize Robert’s heinous act.


14 posted on 06/29/2012 9:15:58 PM PDT by wolf24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck

And yet I could be right.


15 posted on 06/29/2012 9:16:08 PM PDT by doc1019 (Voting for the better of two evils is still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

IMO, what ought to be considered more was the regard Roberts showed for his friendship with Levin. AFAICS, if you play politics with leftists, you are yourself leftist. Roberts’ convoluted views on abortion (another one who claims it is unconstitutional yet Roe v. Wade is “settled law”) spoke to his true nature back when he was first confirmed.


16 posted on 06/29/2012 9:16:35 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it is still a pig.

Why is this pig smiling?

Because of John Benedict Arnold Roberts.

17 posted on 06/29/2012 9:16:49 PM PDT by P-Marlowe (Roberts Care is Romney Care on Steroids)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck

I agree. Roberts trying not to be political and his decision was political. Not using the commerce clause to tax inactitivty by calling the penalty or mandate a Tax to tax inactivity. I feel like I am Alice in Wonderland having tea with the Mad Hatter. Up is down , bad is good


18 posted on 06/29/2012 9:17:12 PM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck
I agree. Roberts trying not to be political and his decision was political. Not using the commerce clause to tax inactivity by calling the penalty or mandate a Tax to tax inactivity. I feel like I am Alice in Wonderland having tea with the Mad Hatter. Up is down , bad is good
19 posted on 06/29/2012 9:17:31 PM PDT by funfan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

Any thing posted on what he said?


20 posted on 06/29/2012 9:17:42 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The Global Warming Hoax was a Criminal Act....where is Al Gore?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

21 posted on 06/29/2012 9:17:53 PM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
I could be wrong, but for now I will just wait this one out before condemning him.

Please listen to Mark Levin's show from yesterday and today. He is a Constitutional scholar.

Levin calls the decision horrible and very damaging to our Republic. He said there is no silver-lining.

Roberts is a very, very evil man. His unconstitutional decision will cause untold misery to millions upon millions of Americans.

Roberts willingly and knowingly took a position that will greatly increase the Power of the State over the Individual.

You can wait all the H*ll you want. In time everyone will see just how destructive was this evil man's decision.

I wish Injustice Roberts and long and miserable life. He is a traitor to our Founding principles.

22 posted on 06/29/2012 9:19:09 PM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Flightdeck
Bullshit. Roberts, in an attempt to de-politicize his court in the public opinion, cemented himself as an activist judge with the most political decision of the century.

Besides, you can't worry about public opinion. The left doesn't. Besides, public opinion would have been WITH him had he done the right thing (his freakin' JOBBBBB!)

23 posted on 06/29/2012 9:19:50 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: doc1019
As I have posed several times here about Robert’s decision:

Yes, you have. Please give it a rest.

24 posted on 06/29/2012 9:21:05 PM PDT by Jess79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Jack Hammer
The Founding Fathers did their level best to take that into account and design a “fool proof” republic.

Unfortunately, as is usually the case, we seem to have found better fools than they anticipated.

25 posted on 06/29/2012 9:21:14 PM PDT by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

F*** that, we were screwed over...can’t you feel it?
Please do not try to tell me this is good in any way shape or form...I am not stupid. I have come to the sad realization that our country is already gone. I can not see one iota of difference any more between the two parties...one just talks a good game. How many times do we get stabbed in the back before we wake up to the truth. The elites have taken over, and they play a game with us to make us believe they care about the country and constitution. It is a lie.


26 posted on 06/29/2012 9:21:21 PM PDT by astratt7 (obama,muslim,politics)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HiTech RedNeck
They jumped down Alice in Wonderland’s rabbit hole here

yep. Lincoln: "If you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?" Justice Roberts: "why, five I should say."

Lincoln: "No, you still have four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it one."

The Harvard einstein will never get the moral of this story.

27 posted on 06/29/2012 9:21:37 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: alstewartfan

I don’t think he said he’s known him for a long time. He said he was aware of him when they were both in the Reagan administration but that he didn’t really know him. It’s not like they’re friends or anything.


28 posted on 06/29/2012 9:21:58 PM PDT by jeltz25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

This tripe could have been called:

The Case for Elena Kagan

The Case for Ruth Bader Ginsburg

The Case for The Wise Latina

Because Roberts voted with these people.


29 posted on 06/29/2012 9:22:15 PM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

I can’t think of a good reason for not doing what he should have - thrown out this entire power grab on the grounds it is clearly unconstitutional. This is the role of the SCOTUS. Seems simple to me and no amount of tortured reasoning seems to make as much sense.


30 posted on 06/29/2012 9:22:15 PM PDT by Aria ( 2008 wasn't an election - it was a coup d'etat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
It was a strange thing for Roberts to do, because he's always been known as a strong federalist. This goes against everything he's ever believed. Because of that, people think there must be something wonderful behind it. Otherwise, why would he do it? A federalist would never advocate the government making our bodies - right down to the cellular level - the property of the state.

All I know right now is this. He sold us out. He sold the country out. I hope he proves me wrong someday.

31 posted on 06/29/2012 9:24:31 PM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

You might say that Roberts laid a fork in the road. One route leads to destruction, the other leads to survival. He just might wink at us after November 6, if not, we deserve the Hell we have created..


32 posted on 06/29/2012 9:24:41 PM PDT by oyez ( .Apparently The U.S. CONSTITUTION has been reduced to the consistency of quicksand.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Aria
This is the role of the SCOTUS. Seems simple to me and no amount of tortured reasoning seems to make as much sense.

You can't be right. After all, George Will, Jay Cost, and Charles Krauthammer said so....

sarcasm

33 posted on 06/29/2012 9:24:50 PM PDT by wolf24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Why are they circling the wagons around Roberts trying to make the same kind of subversive judgements made from the court in the past into something that it isn’t. We should just be proud it was a conservative doing it instead of a liberal??

Thomas Jefferson said Roberts is wrong in his dissent on the Bank of the United States. In it he said that the general powers must be construed so that they give meaning to the rest of the document, otherwise there would be no purpose for enumerated powers, and the 10th amendment would have no meaning. The government cannot just tax for the heck of it. It taxes to pay the debts which can only be incurred by exercising enumerated powers. It means that if ObamaCare is an invalid exercise under the commerce power there are no debts that can be legally incurred by it or a tax imposed for which to pay them.


34 posted on 06/29/2012 9:26:48 PM PDT by dajeeps
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jess79

Why? If I believe in something I will post as I see fit. Besides, every other post is about Roberts ... shouldn’t they quit?


35 posted on 06/29/2012 9:26:48 PM PDT by doc1019 (Voting for the better of two evils is still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Another republican elitist providing cover for Roberts and telling conseratives to bite down hard on the yummy s*#t sandwich offered up.


36 posted on 06/29/2012 9:29:15 PM PDT by TADSLOS (The Liberty Experiment is over. All aspects of your life will now be MANDATED.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

** Well, just maybe Chief Justice John Roberts showed the way yesterday. It’s all about taking opportunities as they present themselves, not over-reaching, and playing the long game. Just as Marshall advanced the Federalist agenda by forcing Jefferson to endorse a decision that was inimical to his long-term interests, maybe Roberts just did the same thing to Barack Obama and the liberal Democrats.**

Bingo!


37 posted on 06/29/2012 9:29:47 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

Did you read the entire article?

It might prove the opposite.


38 posted on 06/29/2012 9:30:55 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Anti-Hillary

39 posted on 06/29/2012 9:30:55 PM PDT by Baynative (REMEMBER: Without America there is no free world!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
This is now the law, courtesy of J. Roberts...

Congress may also “lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States.” U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1. Put simply, Congress may tax and spend.

This grant gives the Federal Government considerable influence even in areas where it cannot directly regulate. The Federal Government may enact a tax on an activity that it cannot authorize, forbid, or otherwise control.

Justice Roberts

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/11-393

40 posted on 06/29/2012 9:31:10 PM PDT by Ken H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: doc1019

When you copy and paste from one thread to the next, it’s trolling not posting.


41 posted on 06/29/2012 9:32:37 PM PDT by Jess79
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

Judges can’t be impeached as far as I know.

BTW, did you read the whole article?

It talks about how Roberts is really for smaller government.


42 posted on 06/29/2012 9:32:56 PM PDT by Salvation ("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

*IF* Roberts was trying to be clever and achieve for constitutionalists everywhere a pyrrhic victory, then after he had a discussion with one or more of {Alito, Thomas, Scalia... even Kennedy}, his superior intellect and conniving for the rule of law would have brought a conservative(s) over to his side of {breyer, old-hag, wise-latina, commiecare-cheerleader}. By going by himself, with no other conservative, to join the leftists that would vote YES no matter what, he shows his true statist tendencies.


43 posted on 06/29/2012 9:32:59 PM PDT by C210N ("ask not what the candidate can do for you, ask what you can do for the candidate" (Breitbart, 2012))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I hate to burst any bubbles but no matter what happens in November, CommieCare is here to stay. It is a done deal because the “Chief Justice” played politics from the SCOTUS bench.


44 posted on 06/29/2012 9:33:09 PM PDT by FlingWingFlyer (Dude! Where's my Constitution?!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

This is great. We now have 3 Card Monte as established Supreme Court precedent. Congress will never pass another tax increase again. Anything remotely close to being a tax will be declared a regulation and passed pursuant to the Commerce Clause. The courts will then reinterpret such ‘regulations’ as they see fit and declare them taxes to the extent they don’t pass muster under the Commerce Clause.


45 posted on 06/29/2012 9:37:29 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Roberts made a career defining decision. No doubt he cast himself permanently in the category of useful idiot. A decision so dopey it is beyond comprehension. Also don’t fool yourselves with polls that suggest the American people disagree with the decision. Roberts has given this monstrosity which will further bankrupt the country and ruin American medicine legitimacy. There is simply no silver lining to this disaster. But the American people voted for Obama and the Democratic clown parade. Elections do matter. Conservatives must win at the ballot box and not depend on judges to correct bad policies however destructive. It would be enough if judges restrained from making policy such as abortion and gay marriage.


46 posted on 06/29/2012 9:37:43 PM PDT by allendale
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
But there's a counterintuitive case to be made that John Roberts's decision is largely a victory for conservatives.

Not one that would make sense.

47 posted on 06/29/2012 9:38:15 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Salvation

I hold my original post as my position ... strong and fast, until proven wrong. Only time will tell whether I’m right or wrong.


48 posted on 06/29/2012 9:38:33 PM PDT by doc1019 (Voting for the better of two evils is still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Still Thinking

The question, which those like Mark Levin who do know the Constitution asks, is where in the Constitution is there the ability to tax nothing?

The Constitution recognizes four types of taxes: 1) “Duties, Imposts and Excises,” generally called indirect taxes, which must be uniform throughout the United States (Art. I, sec. 8, cl. 1); 2) capitation, or other direct taxes, which may only be imposed “in Proportion to the Census” among the states (Art 1, sec. 2, cl. 3; Art. 1, sec. 9, cl. 4); export taxes, which are prohibited (Art. 1, sec. 9, cl. 4); and the income tax, permitted by the 16th Amendment, which can be imposed without apportionment among the states. Where in any of these categories is there the permission to exact a tax on an individual for not doing something? Is this tax a drug induced hallucination?


49 posted on 06/29/2012 9:38:52 PM PDT by jonrick46 (Countdown to 11-06-2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Jay Cost joins the merry band of delusional idiots.


50 posted on 06/29/2012 9:39:19 PM PDT by comebacknewt (Newt (sigh) what could have been . . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-190 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson