Judicial Betrayal (Thomas Sowell on John Roberts)

Creators Syndicate ^ | July 3, 2012 | Thomas Sowell

[jazusamo]

Betrayal is hard to take, whether in our personal lives or in the political life of the nation. Yet there are people in Washington — too often, Republicans — who start living in the Beltway atmosphere, and start forgetting those hundreds of millions of Americans beyond the Beltway who trusted them to do right by them, to use their wisdom instead of their cleverness. President Bush 41 epitomized these betrayals when he broke his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. He paid the price when he quickly went from high approval ratings as president to someone defeated for reelection by a little known governor from Arkansas. Chief Justice John Roberts need fear no such fate because he has lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court. But conscience can be a more implacable and inescapable punisher — and should be. The Chief Justice probably made as good a case as could be made for upholding the constitutionality of ObamaCare by defining one of its key features as a "tax." The legislation didn't call it a tax and Chief Justice Roberts admitted that this might not be the most "natural" reading of the law. But he fell back on the long-standing principle of judicial interpretation that the courts should not declare a law unconstitutional if it can be reasonably read in a way that would make it constitutional, out of "deference" to the legislative branch of government. But this question, like so many questions in life, is a matter of degree. How far do you bend over backwards to avoid the obvious, that ObamaCare was an unprecedented extension of federal power over the lives of 300 million Americans today and of generations yet unborn? These are the people that Chief Justice Roberts betrayed when he declared constitutional something that is nowhere authorized in the Constitution of the United States. John Roberts is no doubt a brainy man, and that seems to carry a lot of weight among the intelligentsia — despite glaring lessons from history, showing very brainy men creating everything from absurdities to catastrophes. Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius. One of the Chief Justice's admirers said that when others are playing checkers, he is playing chess. How much consolation that will be as a footnote to the story of the decline of individual freedom in America, and the wrecking of the best medical care in the world, is another story. There are many speculations as to why Chief Justice Roberts did what he did, some attributing noble and far-sighted reasons, and others attributing petty and short-sighted reasons, including personal vanity. But all of that is ultimately irrelevant. What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States. Who he betrayed were the hundreds of millions of Americans — past, present and future — whole generations in the past who have fought and died for a freedom that he has put in jeopardy, in a moment of intellectual inspiration and moral forgetfulness, 300 million Americans today whose lives are to be regimented by Washington bureaucrats, and generations yet unborn who may never know the individual freedoms that their ancestors took for granted. Some claim that Chief Justice Roberts did what he did to save the Supreme Court as an institution from the wrath — and retaliation — of those in Congress who have been railing against Justices who invalidate the laws they have passed. Many in the media and in academia have joined the shrill chorus of those who claim that the Supreme Court does not show proper "deference" to the legislative branch of government. But what does the Bill of Rights seek to protect the ordinary citizen from? The government! To defer to those who expand government power beyond its constitutional limits is to betray those whose freedom depends on the Bill of Rights. Similar reasoning was used back in the 1970s to justify the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. Otherwise, it was said, Congress would destroy the Fed's independence, as it can also change the courts' jurisdiction. But is it better for an institution to undermine its own independence, and freedom along with it, while forfeiting the trust of the people in the process?

[jazusamo]

Thank you Dr. Sowell!

[jazusamo]

*PING*
Thomas Sowell

Recent columns
A Political Glossary: Part IV
A Political Glossary: Part III
A Political Glossary: Part II
A Political Glossary

Please FReepmail me if you would like to be added to or removed from the Thomas Sowell ping list…

[jazusamo]

SCOTUS Ping?

[nhwingut]

John Roberts is no doubt a brainy man, and that seems to carry a lot of weight among the intelligentsia — despite glaring lessons from history, showing very brainy men creating everything from absurdities to catastrophes. Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius.

[Lady Lucky]

In a just and sane world, Sowell would be on the Supreme Court.
And Ann Barnhardt would be PRESIDENT!!!

[Kaslin]

Thanks for the ping

[rockinqsranch]

Thanks for the ping jaz.

[MileHi]

But, but! Dr. Sowell, can't you see that silver lining?

[ILS21R]

There are many speculations as to why Chief Justice Roberts did what he did, some attributing noble and far-sighted reasons, and others attributing petty and short-sighted reasons, including personal vanity. But all of that is ultimately irrelevant. What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States.

Says it all.

[KC_Lion]

Would you please add me to the Thomas Sowell ping list?

I can honestly say, he is one of the smartest men on the face of the earth.

[jazusamo]

Please bump the Freepathon or click above and donate or become a monthly donor!

[ILS21R]

There are many speculations as to why Chief Justice Roberts did what he did, some attributing noble and far-sighted reasons, and others attributing petty and short-sighted reasons, including personal vanity. But all of that is ultimately irrelevant. What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States.

Says it all.

Fixed my tag.

[Graewoulf]

” - - - How far do you bend over backwards to avoid the obvious, that ObamaCare was an unprecedented extension of federal power over the lives of 300 million Americans today and of generations yet unborn?”

VERY well said!

Thank you, Dr. Sowell. In this one sentence, you have summarized all of my threads and thousands of comments that I have made in the past year.

[jazusamo]

Agreed, and welcome to the Sowell ping list, you’re on.

[Vigilanteman]

Dr. Sowell nails it again.

I am curious, however, if ObaMao's side even argued that it was a tax, in direct defiance of what they did when the law was implemented.

If they did not, then Robert's ruling is all the more absurd because it is being based on reasoning not even offered in ObaMao's power grab defense.

[loveliberty2]

Thank you for posting a most courageous statement by one of the great minds of our time!

Whatever legal justification may be used to allow this Administration and only one Party in the House and Senate to impose such a coercively oppressive government "taking" of "the People's" earnings, will go down in the history books of future generations as a major return to the government-over-people ideas which preceded 1776 and 1787! Make no mistake about it, future generations will see this as the period when the light of liberty was about to be extinguished.

"But how is ... legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals." - Frédéric Bastiat

Of the Administration, one might conclude:

"The person who used political power to force others to conform to his ideas seems inevitably to become corrupted by the power he holds. In due course he comes to believe that power and wisdom are the same thing and, since he has power, he must also have wisdom. At this point he begins to lose his ability to distinguish between what is morally right and what is politically expedient." - Ben Moreell

[sport]

Tom Sowell is my hero.

[atc23]

But, but, but wait!

Just wait’ll we hang the “it’s a tax” meme around the presidents neck in November! - that’ll show em!

Well, and the democrat state run media just need to keep hammering Joe and Judy SixPack with the “ it wasn’t a tax until the EVIL republican Chief Justice made it one” narrative.

How will Romney defend a false promise of repeal when all the democrats can rightly say that “Romneycare was first!”.

What a disaster. I cannot believe this happened in my lifetime. They got it without having to fire a single shot.

[Grampa Dave]

http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/06/nancy-pelosi-health-care-law-supreme-court-obamacare.php

El Dictator Obozo to John the traitor, "Hey Justice John, Nancy is really great in bed isn't she, and her pictures of you in bed with her are ready to go on You Tube if you don't vote for us!"

A question for all of us: "When and how did Pelosi know that her side would win?"

[WashingtonSource]

Excellent!

[houeto]

What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States.

[rarestia]

What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States.

If an oath is to be taken seriously, it needs to be upheld seriously. Almost every Congressman, Senator, members of the Executive branch, and a small majority of the USSC have breached their oaths, but we're all just sitting here accepting as "just another day in DC."

I'm tired of this. Oaths mean nothing. They're "just words," as Obama once said. A man's word is worthless in this day and age, sacrificed at the altar of political correctness and expediency.

At some point something has to give. Why bother taking any oaths or making any promises if it means that you'll just turn around and do the opposite at some point? This country is lost.

[Graewoulf]

” - - - Many in the media and in academia have joined the shrill chorus of those who claim that the Supreme Court does not show proper “deference” to the legislative branch of government.”

Hmmmmmm, - - - - this “shrill chorus” must not have been reading their own public opinion polls on what the public “deference” is to our sorry, incompetent, pathetic, public servants in the US Congress who have not even passed a Federal Budget in over 3 1/2 YEARS!

Hence, Traitor John Roberts was not licking the boots of The Liberal Agenda Media who owns these public opinion polls.

Traitor John just might, could be mentally unstable due to his frequent epilepsy seizures.

Traitor John had a seizure of the brain which resulted in Dictator “You Lie” Obama seizing 1/6 of the US Economy.

Have an early Fourth of July, everybody!

[LuvFreeRepublic]

Some people are looking so hard for the silver lining that they just missed freedom walking out the door. Others are looking so hard at the tax, they missed freedom walking out the door. Great piece by Sowell.

[BuckeyeTexan]

Yep!

[Monorprise]

Indeed a well written & articulated article Dr. Sowell.

[Abby4116]

You have FReepmail.

[BuckeyeTexan]

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[jazusamo]

Thanks, BT!!

[Sunshine Sister]

Couldn’t agree more! Sad times for America.

[txrangerette]

He betrayed is oath to the Constitution, but like Obama, he put the responsibility on others.

In his ruling he held the American people responsible for electing politicians who passed Obamacare.

He then held them responsible for getting rid of Obamacare by electing those who will get rid of it.

Some have seized on this clever twist and proclaimed, he’s right!

No, he’s wrong.

He had a responsibility to meet when it came before him in the office he now holds.

He tried to deflect his responsibility onto others who came first, or who will have the chance to act last.

It doesn’t work that way.

But how slimey to try that, Mr. Chief Justice Roberts.

How beneath the dignity of the office and the oath you swore.

[jazusamo]

How beneath the dignity of the office and the oath you swore.

Amen to that.

[popdonnelly]

“Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius.”

That’s a keeper.

[Sans-Culotte]

Wow. As usual, the good Dr. Sowell says all that needs to be said about a subject. I, too wish he were on the SCOTUS or in the White House.

[oldbrowser]

What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States.

By his timid, bureaucratic reasoning that it is not the courts job to overrule the poor choices our elected legislators have made, he has in fact rendered the court irrelevant and put the people on notice that they are on their own.

[dead]

John Roberts is no doubt a brainy man

When the battle came, his powerful brain was as useless as a gun in a French soldier's hands.

[Gator113]

Well thought piece, as always.

[Da Bilge Troll]

He tried to deflect his responsibility onto others

Exactly as Obama does. It's a new definition of liberalism.

Mr. Sowell says so eloquently what I've been trying to say since last Thursday, which by all rights, should henceforth be known as Black Thursday.

Between Thomas Sowell and Mark Levin, what else do I need to know?

[Revolting cat!]

Yes, but what about the bottom line of the silver lining?

[nerdgirl]

Great article, thanks for the post.

[Marcella]

bookmark

[wita]

“I am curious”

...and I can certainly understand your curiosity, however it appears that it is in part related to a desire to understand how a liberal making a truly absurd decision, arrives at the disastrous result.

I liken it to attempting to understand why a killer kills, or a Rapist Rapes. Who the hell cares. They have committed a punishable offense, and punishment is the next step, following the arrest and conviction, of course.

[RKBA Democrat]

Good article. I wonder if he is going to have the courage to follow up on this article with a realistic “so what do we do now?” Because anyone who looks at the totality of the situation we face is going to recognize that we’re the suckers at a game of political 3 card monte.

[wyowolf]

Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius.

Well, I guess we are totally safe from Zero!!!

[Vigilanteman]

We're supposed to be talking about judges, no killers are rapists. While I realize the boundary between the two is growing less distinct, judges are obliged to explain the legal basis for their ruling.

If, indeed, a tax bill cannot be ruled on until someone actually pays the tax, then SCOTUS had no grounds to even rule on this case from the basis of it being a tax.

[Vigilanteman]

We're supposed to be talking about judges, not killers or rapists. While I realize the boundary between the two is growing less distinct, judges are still obliged to explain the legal basis for their ruling.

If, indeed, a tax bill cannot be ruled on until someone actually pays the tax, then SCOTUS had no grounds to even rule on this case from the basis of it being a tax.

[wita]

“While I realize the boundary between the two is growing less distinct, judges are still obliged to explain the legal basis for their ruling”.

Did you hear Rush this morning mention one of the conservative justices asked Roberts to explain the ruling and he couldn’t, which was why none of the dissenting opinions even addressed Robert’s ruling.

I agree with your second sentence. This whole issue can only be understood by turning oneself into a pretzel.

[Fledermaus]

If a justice ignores his oath, he should be removed.

Maybe we need to amend the Constitution to that effect. But cowardly Republicans would cave on that too.

[loveliberty2]

With reference to your posts relative to the "oath of office," perhaps, for today's audiences, we might put into context the meaning of the "oath," as it was intended by the Framers of our Constitution. Below are some thoughts from that period and until the late 1800's on that subject:

The oath of office required for representatives of "the People" was intended to be sacred and binding, because that oath is a vow, according to their understanding, before the "Sovereign" of the Universe, and its violation carries penalities both human and Divine. President George Washington described it in this manner:

"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"

For an amazing history lesson and sermon by the Rev. Benjamin W. Arnett, readers might want to visit the Library of Congress and read the entire text of his 1876Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon, paying special note to the excerpts below which discuss and describe the nature of the oath:

From the Library of Congress: African American Perspectives: Pamphlets from the Daniel A.P.Murray Collection, 1818-1907

Centennial Thanksgiving sermon,: delivered by Rev. B.W. Arnett, B.D., at St. Paul A.M.E. Church, Urbana, Ohio

CENTENNIAL THANKSGIVING SERMON

Excerpt from P. 31, in which he is discussing the Declaration of Independence:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare: That these United Colonies are and of right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, and in a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." - JOHN HANCOCK.

Arnett continues:

"And the names of the whole Congress followed. You see that there is Divinity in this immortal document. Can we find in the "Articles of Confederation" anything to support the position that the founders of this government intended that it should be a nation for God, and that his religion should have a place in this land. It says: "Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual union." Thus we find this assembly thanking the Governor of the world for inclining the hearts of men. Who can move the hearts of men but God? But we find them in reverence bowing to the Governor of men.

"We now call your attention to the Constitution of the Nation and let us examine that instrument in the light of the men who formed it, and we will see that this was intended to be a Nation founded in Righteousness and Justice. What does the instrument say on this subject:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"Article VI says: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall be required as a Qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

On Page 37, Rev. Arnett described the nature of "oaths and affirmations" as follows:

"Oaths and affirmations are appeals to God, by him who makes them, that what he has said, or what he shall say, is the truth. It is the most solemn form under which one can assert or pronounce anything, and its violation is a crime of the darkest hue; one which God has declared he will punish; one that is made infamous and punishable by fine and imprisonment, by the laws of the land. Thus Christian obligation is required of every officer of the general Government, who fills any position of trust, honor or emolument. Many reports are required in the form and shape of affidavits."

[loveliberty2]

With reference to my Post #49, the Sermon by this truly outstanding Methodist Minister of the A.M.E. Church in the Bicentennial Year of the Declaration of Independence is a review of the history of governments, ancient and modern, the like of which few of us will ever have read.

Rev. Arnett was asked to deliver the Sermon in that Year of Celebration following the period of the Civil War, and his breadth of knowledge, his love for the Republic, and his insight into the ideas of liberty as incorporated into our documents of liberty should be read over this upcoming 4th of July Holiday.

On P. 47 of that Address, he begins a section on what he calls "Dangers to Our Country," listing the stated goals of what must have been the beginnings of what we call the "progressive" movement. Those goals, as he identified them in 1876, can be directly correlated with specific actions which most of us would recognize today.