Help FR Continue the Conservative Fight!
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
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 ...
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.
WRONG!
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.
Roberts did a 180 on his original line of thought without consulting anyone. He knew damn well what his new "take" would do to the country.
The ACA was already unconstitutional on two counts. How can you find it OK on the third, when the third was never argued?
John Roberts belongs in a cell. The anguish that the American population is going through could have been completely avoided.
Maybe the executive and legislative branches can and/or should play games like that, and worry about the long game vs the short game. For example, maybe we should just go along with a debt limit increase right now and avoid taking attention away from Obamacare, so that we can win the Senate in the fall. Or not.
But should the Chief Justice of SCOTUS play that game? His job is to uphold the Constitution. Completely. Always. Period. Regardless of the cost or consequences. If he fears the Office of the President then he shouldn’t have take the job. A coward just like CEHughes. His job required him to say NO! And be a bulwark for liberty. He failed.
if roberts decision was based on the idea that:
“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”
he was wrong
because the Constitution REQUIRES the Supreme court to PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION, and to do so even if and when the “political choices” of the legislature is trying to subvert Constitutional limitations
for the sentiments of the argument that the authors are puting out to be germane it would mean that the progressives should not have needded a Constitutional amendment to get an income tax, legislation alone would have been enough
Brilliant Schemes is not in the job description of the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. How about “uphold the Constitution”, and doing so with a spine?
All this blackmail / double-bluff business seems like a reach to me. Is it too simplistic to assume Roberts is just a fickle, unprincipled jerk like Anthony Kennedy?
Whoops! pinged you because I was going to link to your thread—then I fgorgot.
Ditto. According to the author of this article, Roberts failed at his office.
Does it matter what we think of why and his elaborate theory?
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.
Ireland? Yes. It seems the children were said (by whom is unclear) to be of Latin American origin. Their fair complexions and blonde hair, however, suggested to some that a northern European origin was more likely. Two sets of circumstances to keep in mind: One is that during Roberts's confirmation battle almost nine years ago (he was nominated by George W. Bush), the New York Times was hot on the trail of anything untoward in the nominee's past. Seven years later, in the weeks immediately preceding the ObamaCare ruling, the Obama White House was doing its own digging, and the president himself was out in public decrying a possible ruling against his signature accomplishment.
Now, a question: Which European country makes both private adoptions and out-of-country adoptions illegal? Yep. Ireland. Therefore, as the rumor has it, the Roberts children must have been born in the Emerald Isle and therefore their adoptions in America must have been illegal. Clearly the chief justice was ripe for blackmail if there were facts to back it up. Be a shame to see your family broken up over ObamaCare, wouldn't it, Chief? Then there's that impeachment thing.
Lol
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.