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:
The Scullduggery
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 ...
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:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0ZUBMqMnWs
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.”)
YUP,
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 Court’s 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. Today’s 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?
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.