Posted on 07/04/2012 5:46:32 AM PDT by I-ambush
I apologize in advance for the fact this a vanity post.
As I have struggled to come to grips with the disastrous and, from a constitutional perspective, inexplicable Obamacare decision by John Roberts, I have read a wide spectrum of opinions, everything from the idea that the Chief Justice is a political genius, who wants to cement a Republican victory in November, to speculation that he was a closeted homosexual who was blackmailed into changing his opinion.
However, a thought occurred to me that I have not seen expressed so far (and I'm sure that someone here will correct me if it has), that Roberts may have been convinced to flip on Obamacare by the Catholic hierarchy. Consider that the healthcare law has been strongly backed by the Catholic bishops, and that Roberts is a devout Catholic. Could he have been contacted by American bishops, or even the Vatican, and pressed to "save" the law, even at the cost of betraying his conservative principles and the Constitution? This perspective may also help explain the constitutionally unacceptable opinion on the Arizona illegal immigrant law, which was also opposed by the Catholic hierarchy.
I write this from the perspective of a cradle Catholic and cradle conservative; two of my earliest memories are of the Latin mass and campaigning with my parents for Goldwater.
Nevertheless, they have called it a Fortnight for Freedom.
Red Herring. I won’t guess the exact offer, but I am positive he was given an offer he couldn’t refuse. Simple as that. I would also bet it was about something that he will not ever be able to reveal, even on his death-bed.
I am also positive the same happened to Palin.
Occam’s Razor.
The power and money behind the crushing of America is for all practical purposes...unlimited. Makes the Mafia look like cub scouts.
Or..He is playing tripple 3-D, hyper-space, time-travel chess cause he is so smart. Yea...right...
Um...no. Roberts is a big boy and thinks for himself. He simply believes the federal government can do what they want. See Arizona immigration law as well.
Now that’s true. The voting Catholics have a long way to go and they are mislead as well.
But the question was did the Hierarchy influence (i inferred lobby) the Chif Justice of the Supreme Court and that is another matter entirely.
OK. Works for me also.
Now,
How do you explain Palin?
If this was at the time of ObamaCare initially passing, I would be more open to believing this was the case. Since many of the murky issues from that time have been cleared up (none of which favor the Church), I seriously doubt it.
Government interference in healthcare has already shuttered many hospitals, and this law would shutter many other Catholic organizations.
I’ve been thinking the only tax that Roberts could be thinking of would be a church tax (though certainly not Roman Catholic), like they had in old Europe. This is the new Church of the Secular Elites. The mandate tax is forced compassion, support of same sex marriage is required, recognition of the sainthood of BO is enjoined, the beatification of Michelle, blessed be her name, is to be revered. Since most of the people who are opting out of buying health insurance currently (the “free loaders”—they only pay the Medicare payroll tax currently, which is probably only equivalent to what they spend on entertainment each month) are making a pretty good bet they won’t need health care in the next year, then the main perceived motivation for needing it is to bear the burden of others. If you happen to be a ZPGer who says,”Why don’t they all just die, and millions of others like them?” Well then, you need to be assessed this tax. The death panels will take care of your legitimate concerns anyway. Clearly, the next component of this compassion tax to be enacted is mandated life insurance, you pipsqueak who are not standing up to the responsibilities of your family should you die in an untimely way ( here, we can even invoke the founders, because didn’t Ben Franklin himself say, “nothing is sure but death and taxes.” Notice he didn’t say “sickness,” for which you would need the already mandated health insurance.) And none of that $1 million payout cheap stuff either. Your society needs at least $3 million per head to pay off the taxes you won’t be paying due to your early check-out (bug -out?); we need to pay those pensions to public employee early retirees who have self-sacrificed more by the time they’re fifty than you will if you work until you’re 85. Just call them compassion taxes.
Makes more sense than some of the things I’ve read.
It’s not clear, what you are saying.
Is the suggestion that the Churh ierarchy would step in and actively influence the Supreme Court?
If so, some instance (not merely accusation) of their having done this in the past is needed.
How does it make sense, exactly?
I don’t believe they did, because the financial ramifications for the Church itself had become apparent - they were going to get the same treatment as any business owner (Catholic or otherwise) was going to get.
Many in the hierarchy originally supported ObamaCare, ignoring the abortion issues involved (do you remember the bishops making the noise at the time that they are making now?). Now that their money (rather than human life) is on the line, apparently ObamaCare is something that our pastors can’t rail against enough.
LLS
My feelings too. "You have a nice family there judge. Be a shame if something happened to it".....Pure Chicago style.
Respect for healthNot a knock against the Catholic church. This is just a cultural difference that must be overcome with many Catholics who think that somehow government compulsion is 'help' (when, as we know, it is apathy towards one's individual duty).
2288 Life and physical health are precious gifts entrusted to us by God. We must take reasonable care of them, taking into account the needs of others and the common good.
Concern for the health of its citizens requires that society help in the attainment of living-conditions that allow them to grow and reach maturity: food and clothing, housing, health care, basic education, employment, and social assistance.
WE all know the Church favors “social justice” and is mislead when it favors government doing the job of the Church.
The question was ad is: Do you think the Church actually influences the Supreme Court, even the Chief Justice?
And if the answer is yes, then a former instance of such an accusation is needed otherwise it is sheer paranoia and libelous speculation making Free Republic look not so good.
Second, while the Catholic Church has generally favored some type of health care reform, the US Bishops were opposed to Obamacare even before it was passed.
Correct. The hierarchy and their minions initially viewed Obamacare as an opportunity to shift the operating costs of Catholic hospitals onto American taxpayers, and imagined they could pick and choose the services these hospitals provided by invoking the religious exemption. Our bishop was quoted in the local paper as supporting Obamacare, provided abortion and contraception were excluded.
I am a Roman Catholic in good standing with the Church; at this point it is a place I receive sacraments and little else. I certainly have little to help subsidize them.
Same here. My charitable support budget will now be forcibly diverted to the IRS coffers, in tribute to Obamacare, and unlike the US government, I'm forced to accept the reality of mathematical limits.
Can't get blood out of a stone.
As I’ve stated already, I do not believe the Church influenced the Supreme Court in its recent ruling. I don’t think less of anyone who believes they might have tried; their collusion with the Dems in getting Obama elected and ObamaCare initially passed warrants such cynical mistrust.
While the Republican Party is more in line with the ROMAN Catholic Church’s official positions on most issues, the hierarchy of the AMERICAN Catholic Church has lost all credibility while trying to convince American Catholics that they can vote for pro-abortion candidates without risking their immortal souls. In the past we were fortunate in having a Protestant (Bush) who was more “Catholic” than his Catholic opponent, Kerry; Bush won his elections for the most part by carrying the “Protestant” states, while his Dem opponents for the most part carried the “Catholic” states.
Anybody paying attention knows this.
Anyone paying attention knows catholics voted for OB 53% or so and Gore 49%.
The Question was die the Church Hierarchy influence (the use of the word Hierarchy implies active influence peddling; lobbying)the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
This thread has gone off this point making the New York Times pale in comparison to getting off point to curry an opinion.
My question, which has never been answered was and is: Do you think the Church Hierarchy actively sought out Roberts and told hime how to vote?
If you think so, what is the instance, not accusation, but instance where they ever did this before.
Sorry, I was away at daily Mass, so haven’t answered to any replies.
I’m not writing on the basis of any knowledge of what happened, just trying to make sense of the senseless.
It is true that the Bishops have strongly denounced the contraception and abortion requirements from HHS, but they continue to support the law in general.
I don’t buy the idea that a Chief Justice would be so concerned at the thought of bad press. I have heard speculation that he has suffered extortion of some sort, but is that really a more plausible possibility? What more could the administration offer him? He’s already the Chief Justice. Could he be a closet liberal? I could accept this as an explanation. However, it is apparent that he originally sided with the conservatives and someone influenced him to change.
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.