Skip to comments.The Ghost and John Roberts: The Plot Thickens on the Obamacare Decision
Posted on 02/05/2014 7:59:17 AM PST by SeekAndFind
The chief justice must have "gone off his meds." No, it was blackmail. No, it was cowardice. He caved. It was a perverse abdication of his fundamental responsibility.
Those are some of the many disputations that came in to American Thinker regarding my exploration of another possible explanation for why Chief Justice John Roberts chose, astonishingly, to keep the "Affordable Care Act" alive and kicking.("The Roberts Trap Is Sprung", American Thinker, Jan. 2)
Of the nearly 680 comments, roughly four out of five were against the thesis I advanced, which is that Roberts ruled as he did because he foresaw that if the Supreme Court were to kill the "Affordable Care Act" in its infancy, the ruling would ultimately backfire on the cause of constitutional governance. Further review, however, has led me to look upon that thesis as even more plausible, not less. Here's why.
Let's look first at the most popular counter-theory among the commenters, because it seems the simplest to dispense with, albeit the most sensational. Here's the gist of it:
John and Jane (nee Sullivan) Roberts were married in 1996 and about four years later they adopted their two children, both infants at the time, a boy and a girl, about four months apart in age. The adoptions were "private," meaning they were arranged through private parties without the involvement of any agencies. The notion of the Obama White House blackmailing Roberts arose with rumors that the adoptions may have been illegal under the laws of Ireland.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
bookmarking for later
VERY interesting theory and possibly very true.
hmmm... i don’t know...
Yes John Roberts, it IS your job to protect us from tyranny even if 51% of America votes for it. That’s the beauty of the design of our system .
If anyone has insiders knowledge of how incompetent and corrupt the current administration really is - you'd figure it to be the SC.
If the authors thesis is accurate, it would kind of be like setting out poison for rats to eat so they die.
He declares the blackmail theory to be the easiest to dispense with, but ultimately just dismisses it as suspicion and rumor. His only argument against it is the idea that the anti-Bush crowd would have dug this up during the nomination process and scuttled it. Yeah, because it would never occur to a Democratic operative that having such blackmail material in their back pocket against a Supreme Court justice would come in handy in the future.
Apart from that, the author doesn’t even attempt to refute the allegation that the adoptions were illegal. Maybe he can’t because the adoptions were private and he wouldn’t have access to any information that would settle the matter one way or the other, but by not even bothering to make that point, he’s not exactly steering anyone away from such speculation.
We will only know the thinking of Roberts when/if he writes a memoir. Right now he’s not talking, which demonstrates a degree of self-control on his part.
In the meantime, it seems a reach of fancy to hope that the collectivist Dems won’t like the dog food they served up in O Care. They are unable to learn from mistakes, and they believe the answer to their dog food is more dog food.
A pity the Slimes never had the same inclination to probe for a certain birth certificate, or college transcript or...
If Roberts had the balls why wouldn't he counter-blackmail Soetoro? There continues to be a mountain of crap available for Roberts to pursue to quash any attempt to neutralize him.
For there to be merit to that theory we have to credit Roberts with wide and forward thinking.
After reading the article, I believe the author is saying that Roberts knew the law was unconstitutional. But Roberts ruled in the law's favor anyway because he feared the backlash that would follow.
And the author seems to be okay with that.
If that theory is correct, then Roberts has violated his oath of office and should be impeached.
disinformation in order to say “experts have discredited.”
NOW what ?
You better believe the press would be all OVER this ... negatively, of course, but it would be super hot stuff.
The public would go wild over the government breaking up a family (those mexi kids didn't do this, their parents did, don't break up a family .. )
Let's go further ... The US deports the kids to ... wherever.
NOW we have some press, yoobetcha' !!
Johnboy ... TELL me ... do you REALLY want to stay in the US with a government that does that to you?
Would you and your wife at least buy a summer home in Ireland or wherever?
See ... Roberts couldn't go to jail for this, but the USGov't could be brought to task
And the author seems to be okay with that.
If that theory is correct, then Roberts has violated his oath of office and should be impeached.”
His dismissal on the blackmail theory is only based on the adoption of his children. I think there is a far more obvious blackmail angle that has been discussed all over the Internet. The author didn't even mention other possibilities.
Roberts is saving his own skin, at least temporarily. There will be another R president, and only then will Roberts dirt be shown the light of day.
As an aside, has anyone noticed you do not hear Rush say that anymore.
However, the thing that I wonder about, that this bad (and it was a BAD decision from a Constitutional perspective, as Justice Scalia so ably documented in his dissent) decision avoided, is the outcry from the LEFT. Just imagine the reaction by the LEFTIST government/media complex to a SCOTUS decision that overturned 0bamacare at its 'infancy'. And within a few months of a POTUS election. It would have made Roe v Wade and Bush v Gore look like pillow fights in comparison.
More than likely, IMO, Roberts has the typical sexual deviant crap in his closet. After all, we have all seen the birthday cake Village People picture floating around the internet.
All of our betters (elites) seem to have these issues. The crap floats to the top.
no matter the reasons - it is possible to see that from 2010 until 2020 conservatives have the BIGGEST OPPROTUNITY to show why government is not the solution. In 2010 hundreds of state legislators came into the process via the Tea Party. Even in 2012 people like Cruz and Lee got elected because of the Tea Party - the next WAVE in 2014 could be 8 senators and 15 house members. In 2016 the president will either be a Tea Party favorite or must face a congress made up of the Tea Party. IT’S ALL GOOD
Not much to all this. The trend is toward a social democratic society. The voters obviously know what they want and can and will vote for it.
You will hear much about Democratic Economic Populism like it’s a good thing.
Indeed, the original foundational rules (Constitution) are what (are supposed to) constrain the whims of the contemporary majority.
Sometimes, in other words, we just have to learn things the hard way. We can only hope that the learning is not coming too late.
If this guy is right, the pain America is experiencing will be worth the lesson. Although I also believe our spiritual health must needs experience a revival, too.
So little we know, so much we can speculate....and in the meanwhile, the peasants lose healthcare, get held up by higher premiums that deplete their savings and suffer for what?
So Roberts watches an episode of Decoded, verifies it with an episode of Conspiracy theory, turns around in a circle three times holding a stuffed owl, and we all go on double secret probation?
The author is correct that Roberts ruled the limit to using the Commerce Clause.
He ruled the Individual Mandate was a tax. If you don’t like the tax, vote your representative out.
RE: He ruled the Individual Mandate was a tax.
But what does the law say?
If it says its a penalty, a judge can’t just re-imagine it to be a tax...
The right thing to do would be to say that it will be constitutional when it is a tax, but it isn’t IN ITS PRESENT FORM, then THROW IT BACK TO CONGRESS FOR A REWRITE.
Even Obama declared the Mandate NOT to be a tax when he was interviewed by George Stephanopoulos. See here:
Ah. A new tagline.
A nice reference to H.L. Mencken’s definition of democracy: “the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”)
Roberts contorted,spun and twisted logic, and the constitution, to make the ACA fit into it by saying it was unconstitutional and constitutional at the same time.
Justice Kennedy, destroying Roberts` gymnastics:
” For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it
Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry .
What the Government would have us believe in these cases is that the very same textual indications that show this is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act show that it is a tax under the Constitution. That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists .
The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax .
The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions,
The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Courts ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty
The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Todays decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.”
Everybody feel safe with the SCOUS.
They may not be cheap but they are easy to control.
What connection has the NSA drawn between a professor of veterinary medicine (Dr Jim Murray, at UC Davis) and Johnny Roberts?
Thanks for this update on Traitor John Roberts.
Traitor John must now be very proud of the great harm he has caused to millions of Americans by illegally re-writing the Obamacare law as a favor to Obama.
Yeah..... I don’t buy it. Its blackmail of some sort.
The author failed to take into account Leahy’s veiled threat from the Senate floor.
I thought this was covered and pointed back then?
All of us are eating the dog food now.
Chief Justice John Roberts
Roberts blew it bigtime, and most still don’t know why.
He said Congress could do it under their power to tax.
First of all, a tax statute must plainly and unambiguously say:
What is being taxed and
Who is liable
Obamacare doesn’t do this.
Secondly, and most importantly, it is important to realize that as far as law goes, it IS NOT THE FORM OR PROCEDURE OR NOMENCLATURE they use.
It is THE SUBSTANCE of the thing at hand.
And the substance of this plan is this:
To tax young, healthy people in order to pay for unhealthy people.
It’s a tax on being healthy. It’s a tax ON LIFE ITSELF.
“to SECURE these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the CONSENT of the people...”
I have always thought that Roberts was brilliant - actually too brilliant - in his decision. If he had ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional, there would have been a tremendous backlash, claiming racism, hate of the poor, etc., etc., etc. By ruling it constitutional, but stating that the “penalties” had to be taxes, meant that the largest tax increase in history was about to be imposed.
This should have given the Republicans enough ammunition to defeat 0bama in 2012, but they were too slow on the uptake, and the now-taxes hadn’t taken effect, so most Americans (at least the low-information 0bama supporters) hadn’t felt the pain.
Now that the pain is being felt, even to a greater extent than anyone could have imagined, the ObamaCare detractors are being vindicated and the supporters are nowhere to be found.
Again, I still contend that Roberts was brilliant, but the Republicans’ slowness helped them snatch defeat from victory.
I don’t know why CJ Roberts voted the way he did. I do, however, agree with the sentiment that “the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.”
“We had to destroy the village in order to save it.”
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
Prayers said your thoughts are the correct ones. I shutter to think all may now be based on whom has the largest checkbook or pay scheme available, from under the table.
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.