Skip to comments."The Chief Justice Done Good"
Posted on 07/02/2012 5:06:03 PM PDT by lyby
Chief Justice John Roberts has handed a remarkable victory to American conservatives by threading the judicial needle with perfect precision. The initial disappointment collectively felt by Americans who had hoped for a Supreme Court ruling that would overturn Obamacare soon will be replaced, upon further reflection, by the excitement that will come with a fuller appreciation of what the Chief Justice has wrought.
Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/the_chief_justice_done_good.html#ixzz1zVtA34HQ
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
PLEASE read the ENTIRE commentary!
I don’t buy it. Roberts has redefined the ability of the govt to use taxation as a means of social engineering while doing nothing to limit the commerce clause. His ruling is an unmitigated disaster.
All of this spin is ridiculous. He screwed us. There's no two ways about it.
Read it. Still do not see the upside. Americans, for the most part, don’t think in legal terms. The do, however, understand taxes and the connection with their ability to pay there bills and feed their children. This is a power grab by the government to garner the unlimited right to tax you for anything they please and in this case they are making a new army of IRS agents.
As far as the commerce clause goes, I’ve read several other legal opinions which inform me that this ruling will in no way affect the courts power to use it to justify future rulings.
This was the wrong decision period for whatever good intentions Roberts might have had. He could have still cut down the Commerce Clause and ObamaCare. Now the Republicans have to clean up this mess and does anyone REALLY think they’re capable?
And Roberts gave Congress the power to regulate everything we do or say or think by axing it including the power to regulate what we buy by taxing it or by taxing the act of nonbuying of something the Congress wants you to have, like maybe surveillance cameras in every room of your house with two way communication. Combine that with the Financial Reform power of the government to suck money -in any amount at any time for whatever reason the government decides to use- out of your bank account.
The insane Tom Lantos said it best:
At least Admiral Boorda had the decency to commit suicide,
False! not one court in the country is going to rely on this dicta. It was not a finding and has absolutely no weight.
By Thomas Sowell:
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?
Oh good, Roberts restricted power on the Commerce Clause....he opened the FLOOD GATES on the tax clause!
Wait till the environmentalists figure out that they can REQUIRE us to buy electric cars, solar panels, etc.
It’s exactly this type of conservative intelligensia thinking that got us Obamacare! Maybe if the intelligensia spent LESS time fluffing their egos and trying to act like the smartest people in the room and MORE time fighting for the freedoms this nation was founded upon we wouldn’t be in this position.
The Supreme Court just declared us all serfs - how is that a win????????????
Any tiny political upside is vastly overwhelmed by his opening up a deadly new avenue for tyranny to march down.
Roberts is excrement.
He punted when he had the ball with first and 10 and a completely open field in front of him. That kind of play is usually good enough to get one kicked off the team.
Roberts woke up with horses head next to him and got the message.
Nothing he said about the Commerce Clause has any force of law or precedent.
This type of thinking is exactly why we have Obamacare....
It was "too smart by half". Meaning a halfwit trying to sound intelligent.
This guy actually thinks that the Pubbie sare going to get 60 seats this election? He is smoking some powerful stuff.
I am not a lawyer, but I can see a multitude of lawsuits coming out of this decision that may keep Obamacare in courts for years to come.
My decision is to keep my powder dry and wait for chips to fall.
I don’t give him that benefit of the doubt. He was put on the court to wait for a moment to step up and save the statist momentum.
What Roberts was supposed to do is determine whether the law was constitutional. If he did anything else, then he violated his oath of office, to the country’s great detriment.
I fear that he was somehow convinced that the credibility of the Supreme Court would be undermined if he did his job. The left would have said “how can it be that nothing Obama is doing is constitutional?” or some variation of that. If Roberts had some idea of “compromise” on his mind, or of “saving his political capital for bigger fights,” then he has totally destroyed his credibility. He has shown that he can be rolled by a few nasty editorials from the New York Times. The other side will just pass twenty horrifically unconstitutional laws, and then plead with Roberts (through the media) to be “non-partisan” and allow at least a few of them.
To me, Roberts seems a very, very weak and craven man.
References to Pontius Pilate seem very appropriate.
I take Mark Levin understanding of this Roberts POS over this moron tooth fairy understanding any day. There is no good in this decision there is no limitation on the commerce clause and new limitless taxing powers implied. This article isn’t worth wiping Roberts ass with.
If you really want to understand this matter dial into Mark or hit his web. You can down load the last few days of his program.
This guy writes this stuff one week after Obama kicked Arizona in the butt. Does he think the feds can't play hard ball with the States in countless other ways?
It is not John Roberts' job to place items on the political table. It is John Roberts' job to correctly interpret the United States Constitution.
It's inarguable that he failed to do this. Calling any part of this monstrosity Constitutional is an open-handed slap to the face of any of the Framers.
Vivat Imperialis Washington
Some people get excited when the get a gold colored turd for Christmas.
If this was Roberts' Machiavellian plan, and this adjunct professor thinks he can explain it conclusively to a bunch of internet dumbos, why is it that Roberts was unable to provide a coherent explanation to his learned colleagues when confronted by Justice Kennedy?
The GOP could win it all this Fall only to go weak in the knees in 2013. We've seen it before so why should we expect anything different this time?.
Let’s look at this rationally. If the commerce clause has indeed been slapped down, this is likely far bigger victory than just defeating Obamacare.
With the advent of the New Deal, the powers of the federal government expanded into new realms: the regulation of in-state industrial production and worker hours and wages, that state activity was commerce if it had a “substantial economic effect” on interstate commerce or if the cumulative effect of one act could have an effect on such commerce.
Literally, if an elevator operator in a high rise building *might* transport someone from out of state, his job could be regulated by the federal government.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed segregation and prohibited discrimination against African-Americans, was passed under the Commerce Clause in order to allow the federal government to charge non-state actors with Equal Protection violations, which it had been unable to do up to that point because of the Fourteenth Amendments limited application to state actors.
The Supreme Court found that Congress had the authority to regulate a business that served mostly interstate travelers, and also ruled that the federal civil rights legislation could be used to regulate a restaurant, though most of its customers were local, because the restaurant served food which had previously crossed state lines.
US agriculture has been effectively nationalized since the New Deal, and much of that was done under the auspices of the commerce clause, even if what farmers produced was consumed entirely within a state. The federal government, in one Supreme Court case, was allowed to prohibit a farmer for growing wheat on his land for his own use.
Why do manufacturers have to sell low flush toilets and light bulbs that don’t work? Because if the ICC. A huge amount of federal intrusion into our lives and the products and services we buy is because of the ICC.
If indeed John Roberts has killed that monster, he may not only have shot down Obamacare, but taken out much of the last 70 years worth of progressive agenda.
Let us all hope so.
I read the article in its ENTIRETY and found I wasted my time. It is identical to what has been written and spoken from 200 sources.
Brilliant Mr. Roberts crushed the Commerce Clause and then helped Conservatives rally the troops for November, leading to an almost certain president Romney.
And like the other 200 sources, it is flat WRONG.
The treasonous idiot Roberts has created a massive new Congressional taxing authority on INACTIVITY out of whole cloth.
Don’t you have a clue why this ruling is so dangerous?
Furthermore, had he struck down the entire law in accordance with Kennedy’s opinion, he still could have written his ruling opinion about the Commerce Clause identically.
In other words, if he joined the 5 Conservatives to overturn Obamacare as unconstitutional, he could have offered his Commerce Clause opinion identically, and still insured that Obamacare is not the law of the land.
Furthermore, it is NOT THE JOB of the USA Chief Justice to drive voter turnout in either political party. It is not.
It is his job to insure that the members of his court adjudicated cases on the merits of the supreme law of the land, the US Constitution.
In this, Benedict Roberts failed miserably, abdicated his duty, sold his soul, and assisted in the rapid destruction of our once free nation.
“PLEASE read the ENTIRE commentary!”
“It is understandable that most Americans, who are not law school graduates, do not think in these terms, nor do most pundits outside the legal community who interpret news. However, attorneys and certainly law professors get it.”
I’m a lawyer. I have an undergraduate degree in political
science and a masters in public administration. I get it.
After giving this article more consideration than it
deserved, my considered opinion is, “We got boned.”
On first down.....
That is the single best evaluation of Benedict Roberts’s treason that I have yet read.
Thank you. Every syllable of that read was exactly dead spot on. Sowell nails it again.
THANKS. Not that it makes this dagger plunged in my back and sticking out through the front of my heart any less painful, of course.
I agree...it makes sense....
I would add that the political gain is for one brief cycle. The damage done will be forever as long as the USA is a nation.
Not a good trade. Benedict Roberts sold his soul to the enemies of liberty.
It's up to you to get to the voting booth....And that means rocking your state, too.
We're dealing with Bloomberg and a bunch of communists in NYS.
Most Americans think more in terms of benefits: what does the law give me and mine. It will be years before they have to pay for them.
Most Americans think more in terms of benefits: what does the law give me and mine. It will be years before they have to pay for them.
Truth spoken here.
For non-lawyers let me explain:
Dicta is an expression in a court's opinion that goes beyond the facts before the court and therefore are individual views of the author of the opinion and not binding in subsequent cases as legal precedent.
Anyone who claims that Roberts will restrain the use of the commerce clause is unaware of the legal meaning of dicta or they are flat out lying.
Even if the law is overturned the ruling still stands. The ruling opens the taxation floodgates.
If Roberts really has hamstrung the governments power under the Commerce Clause, why did he have to uphold Obamacare under taxation?
Why could he not have sided with the Kennedy and the conservatives, struck down Obamacare, and STILL issued his opinion on the Commerce Clause?
I suppose we must be speaking of different segments of the population. My responses are based on the people I see and speak with daily. Sometimes that leaves me out of touch with those who make demands on my pocketbook.
I hear you and totally agree.
Here's the thread with many comments if you're interested.
My Grandma had a saying that fits too....wish in one hand and _hit in the other and see which one fills up first.
I did scan it and it is more of the same crap.
I’ve spent enough years in the pasture to know what Bull Spit is without reading some highbrow bowl of verbal diarrhea from some spinmaster looking for ways to put a happy face on a dire situation. Crap.
Is the Rabbi Dov Fischer? He has a lot of time to write doesn’t he? What else does he do?
I think we have enough sense to sort Spit from Shinola.
Roberts screwed us all. No ifs, ands or buts.