Schumer: Roberts Broke His Promise On Commerce Clause

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo ^ | July 1 2012 | Kapur

[NoLibZone]

U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts’ swing vote to uphold ‘Obamacare’ under Congress’s taxing powers has drawn praise from his usual critics. One top Democratic senator lauded Roberts’ “judicial independence” in saving President Obama’s signature law, but also argued that the Bush-appointed jurist broke his promise by narrowing the scope of the Commerce Clause.

In his opinion, Roberts explained in detail why he believes his view is not inconsistent with precedent, siding with conservative architects of the legal challenge in the argument that Congress may not regulate inaction.

“In my view it certainly merited upholding under the Commerce Clause,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), his party’s leader on messaging. “I do worry, in the future, about the courts limiting the Commerce Clause as a way of limiting the ability of the federal government to help average

[NoLibZone]

If the left won, why is he so sad?

This is the largest Rope-a-dope in the history of mankind.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

What’s up with all the Schumer quotes today?

Sheesh.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Since when is a Supreme Court Justice allowed to make “promises” on future cases? If Roberts made a “promise” on a case before it was argued in his court, then he should be impeached.

[beethovenfan]

Shut up, putz head.

[moonshot925]

“We have three branches of government, we a house, we have a senate and we have a president.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fG0Jpu9geWY

[umgud]

I think Robert’s decision is wrong, but he sure put a crimp on furure Commerce Clause challenges.

[Norm Lenhart]

...Shroomer went on to explain that astronauts attempting to reach the moon by means of rocket propulsion were doomed to failure, recommending instead the green energy provided by wind turbines attached to the outer hull.

[nothingnew]

“In my view it certainly merited upholding under the Commerce Clause,” said Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), his party’s leader on messaging. “I do worry, in the future, about the courts limiting the Commerce Clause as a way of limiting the ability of the federal government to help average...

That's because you're a douchbag.

FMCDH(BITS)

[MileHi]

No. He didn’t.

[Clock King]

I still want to know what Roberts was threatened with, to force him to change his mind.

[CommieCutter]

This is the largest Rope-a-dope in the history of mankind.

I sure hope so.

[NoLibZone]

true conservatives™ like it when guys like Schumer are un happy .

Geez.

[musicman]

Hey Chuckie!!

[reefdiver]

impeach shoeless john roberts?

[NoLibZone]

And I hope that we don’t realize it until Nov 7th.

The passion this has stirred will help the conservative movement.

[Cringing Negativism Network]

Oh.

Carry on then. :D

[Emmett McCarthy]

A Democrat, especially a sleaze like Schumer, is going to hold someone to a “promise”? LOL

[Paladin2]

"he sure put a crimp on future Commerce Clause challenges. "

Only until there is a 5th true blue (actually red) lib on the panel. The four libs have no respect for CJR's opinion on the Commerce Clause - read Ginsburg's dissent.

[tobyhill]

Schumer is PO’ed because he knows that Obamcare can be repealed by a simple majority or funding blocked by the House and there's nothing he can do about it. He also knows that the State's won their case and don't have to expand Medicaid.

[Paladin2]

"This is the largest Rope-a-dope in the history of mankind. "

The only dope who got roped was Roberts.

[bruinbirdman]

"argued that the Bush-appointed jurist broke his promise by narrowing the scope of the Commerce Clause. "

And the four communist justices all agreed with Roberts.

yitbos

[MileHi]

And the four communist justices all agreed with Roberts.

They did not agree with Roberts on the Commerce issue. That is why this changes nothing on Commerce powers.

[Soul of the South]

“No. He didn’t.”

You are correct. As soon as the progressives have one more seat on the court they will reverse the opinions of the past they disagree with and will rewrite the Constitution to suit their wishes.

[MileHi]

They don’t need one more seat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dictum

[NoLibZone]

Does the stopping of Medicaid negate Obamacare?

[tflabo]

misChief inJustice John Robs US.

[Pearls Before Swine]

Schumer expected Roberts to observe precedents set by prior decisions. In Chuckie’s view, since Willard v. Filburn, there have been NO limits to government power under the Commerce Clause. As far as he, and prior courts, were concerned, the Commerce Clause was the green light to virtually unlimited Federal control and intervention.

So, for Roberts to posit some limits, in Chuckie’s twisted view, is a break with a precedent that he really likes.

[tflabo]

Chucky is a Schmucky and a Schleppy Rat he is,
A snarky, lefty commie, he serves trouble as his biz.

[NoLibZone]

Chuckie is lying.

He can’t produce the promise.

He is interpreting Roberts past decisions to arrive at a “promise”.

[Past Your Eyes]

I cannot think of another senator who I would like to be in the presence of any less than Chuck Schumer.
(Great sentence, eh?)

[xzins]

Roberts upheld the law and made some comments about the commerce clause. Since he upheld the law on the basis of something other than commerce, no matter how much he rails against the commerce application of mandates, all he has done is offer reasoning.

He has established no future path on commerce mandates that must be followed.

Roberts is too cute by half, and everyone trying to salvage something substantive out of his narcissistic theory is simply enabling a guy who is over-the-top in love with himself.

The bottom line is that Roberts upheld and strengthened massive government and massive government’s intrusion into our lives.

[sefarkas]

Left is trying to defuse Tea Party activist anger. the best way to motivate someone to come out and vote is to make them angry.

[Popman]

Chuck is no dummy....he knows the Roberts opinion will make the dem jobs much harder in the future by limiting the powers of Congress to rape the average citizen....

He just concerned they will actually have to sell their pablum in the harsh light of the law.... No more phony BS legislation tricks....

[newzjunkey]

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), his party’s leader on messaging.

No surprise there. This begs the question, do Republicans have a party leader on messaging?

[kushnejz]

I apologize for Schumer. I’m from NY so there is no one to blame but me and my fellow NY voters. What a dunderhead. He is embarrassing.

[nickcarraway]

This is such a joke. Roberts did not narrow the scope of the Commerce clause one bit. Since the ruling had the opposite effect, I don’t think his CYA will be recognized by any court.

[muleskinner]

Promise? What promise?

[D Rider]

In his opinion, Roberts explained in detail why he believes his view is not inconsistent with precedent, siding with conservative architects of the legal challenge in the argument that Congress may not regulate inaction.

That's nice. Does that mean that the commerce clause cannot be used to order us to get into cattle cars? /s

[tobyhill]

It could if congress refuses to fund the 30 million new Medicaid recipients.

[SERKIT]

What do LibDems like Chuck “U” Schumer and Mohammedans have in common? They are never happy until the other side is obliterated and they are easily upset.

[superloser]

This is the largest Rope-a-dope in the history of mankind.

Just wait, it will get better.

If this commerce clause prohibition had been in place when the EPA was going after the Sacketts, EPA would have been neutralized immediately.

Schumer is just now discovering he has lost the power to issue orders.

When the Courts start having to deal with this precedent, a whole lot of "regulatory agencies" are going to discover their wings have been not just clipped, but defeathered.

[Antoninus]

I think Robert’s decision is wrong, but he sure put a crimp on furure Commerce Clause challenges.

No he didn't. Future leftist courts (and that's what we're going to have into the foreseeable future) will just disregard Robert's bloviating nonsense and rule however they want. That's how it works now. We have no constitution. We have rule by whatever the elites want.

[NoLibZone]

Add the Medicaide ruling.

Yeah I hope that this is not digested until Nov 7th or it will sublimate the passion the ruling has stirred with in the conservative movement.

I hope Rush doesn’t discuss this.

Boooo!!!! Roberts!!!!

[webstersII]

“When the Courts start having to deal with this precedent, a whole lot of “regulatory agencies” are going to discover their wings have been not just clipped, but defeathered. “

Not sure I follow you.

Please explain further.

[superloser]

Please explain further.

By denying the Federal Government "police powers" -- agencies like EPA who try ordering landowners to make improvements to fallow land cannot.

The Roberts ruling restricts regulation to actual activity. Inactivity is not permitted to be regulated - compelled - or cajoled.

This should also put a knife into the endangered species act as well.

Assuming crafty lawyers can make use of this ruling, agencies can no longer just issue orders to people who are not engaged in activity.

Picture a situation where someone buys a plot of land. EPA comes on the scene and demands a bunch of improvements.

But wait -- merely owning land is not "activity" per se. If the landowner is doing nothing with the land, there is nothing to regulate.

That's how I see it. A crafty lawyer can likely make hay of this and it explains why Schumer is unhappy. When Schumer is unhappy, there has to be a reason for it and that reason is usually good for America.

[depressed in 06]

I still want to know what Roberts was threatened with, to force him to change his mind.

The fact that Roberts came around to Nanzi's thinking, Constitution, are your kidding, everything we do is Constitutional, makes me think he was Lewinskied by Nanzi, or the three broads on the court or Breyer. Scoff, if you will, but, it makes as much sense as he was following the Constitution.

[philman_36]

The other linked article is good as well...
@Anti-‘Obamacare’ Lawyer Celebrates Supreme Court RulingThough Barnett’s policy preferences weren’t vindicated Thursday, the crux of his legal theory is now the law of the land. The case against the healthcare law rested on Barnett’s argument that the Commerce Clause does not empower the government to regulate “inactivity” — Congress can not make idle people enter the health insurance market if they don’t want to enter it.

And yet aren't people saying the Commerce Clause argument is dicta?

But though the battle over ‘Obamacare’ is now confined to the trickier realm of politics, Barnett views the Court’s holding on the Commerce Clause as more than a consolation.
If it were dicta instead of a holding wouldn't this man be rather upset and quite vocal about it?

[webstersII]

“But wait — merely owning land is not “activity” per se. If the landowner is doing nothing with the land, there is nothing to regulate. “

Now I see what you mean.

Thanks for the explanation.

[philman_36]

How about hearing it from Randy Barnett himself...
@ We lost on health care. But the Constitution won.Lawmakers argued that this mandate was justified by the Constitution’s commerce and “necessary and proper” clauses. Had we not contested this power grab, Congress’s regulatory powers would have been rendered limitless.
They are not. On that point, we prevailed completely. Indeed, the case has put us ahead of where we were before Obamacare. The Supreme Court has definitively ruled that the commerce, necessary and proper clause, and spending power have limits; that the mandate to purchase private health insurance, as well as the threat to withhold Medicaid funding unless states agree to expand their coverage, exceeded these limits; and the court will enforce these limits.

Wouldn't this man know above all others if it was dicta or a ruling?

Are people already being led this early on to come to a false conclusion about dicta vs ruling?