Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Roberts Did It
National Review Online ^ | 28 June 2012 | Charles Krauthammer

Posted on 06/28/2012 1:47:53 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the Court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

snip

Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the Court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5–4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: johnroberts; krauthammer; obamacare; obamacaretax; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last
Krauthammer thinks Roberts upheld ObamaCare and thereby gave the federal government the power to control health care so that the Left wouldn't call the SCOTUS partisan.

They do it anyway, John. Trying to curry favor from liberals never works.

It's not a tax, it is by its own terms a mandate and a punishment.

1 posted on 06/28/2012 1:48:00 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nutmeg

bookmark


2 posted on 06/28/2012 1:49:49 PM PDT by nutmeg (I'm with Sarah Palin: Anybody But Obama 2012)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #3 Removed by Moderator

To: Meet the New Boss

So Roberts made Marxism the law of the land, because he wanted to seem “fair.”

How noble. NOT.


4 posted on 06/28/2012 1:51:27 PM PDT by Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears (Anyone who thinks we can sit home, then survive four more years of Obama, is a damned fool.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Because our government no longer respects We the People....Kraut is being too silly here...


5 posted on 06/28/2012 1:52:43 PM PDT by mo (If you understand, no explanation is needed. If you don't understand, no explanation is possible.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
Kraut's conclusion pretty much nails it....
Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.
But what worries me is.... How will Romney care be any different?

We are screwed.

6 posted on 06/28/2012 1:52:48 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
Of course ...

One's professional reputation is VASTLY more important than the well being of a nation and laws !

7 posted on 06/28/2012 1:52:48 PM PDT by SecondAmendment (Restoring our Republic at 9.8357x10^8 FPS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Trying to ensure that the SCOTUS is or is not perceived in any particularly partisan way is NEVER any way to rule on a decision. Its the CONSTITUTION, STUPID!

Roberts has appeared as a strict constitutionalist to me in the past so I’m willing to give him the benefit of a doubt. However, what I don’t understand, is how the other’s on the court whom I consider constitutionalist voted differently than Roberts. I just can’t get my head around it.


8 posted on 06/28/2012 1:53:25 PM PDT by Sopater (...where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. - 2 COR 3:17b)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzar

If the conservative dissent had agreed it was a tax, then I think even they would have upheld it.

The idea that the government can use the taxing power to affect people’s decision to purchase something - that bridge was crossed long ago.

It’s why people who buy a government motors battery-powered car pay less taxes than people who don’t.


9 posted on 06/28/2012 1:55:09 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Maybe Obama was planning on running against the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. If obamacare was overturned by “Bush’s guys,” Obama would use this as a pretext to dissolve the institution.


10 posted on 06/28/2012 1:57:00 PM PDT by ari-freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

“Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you. “

Then who needs the Constitution? Let Congress vote on whatever they want and if they want to bring back slavery, take away guns, etc just let them and then we could vote them out again.


11 posted on 06/28/2012 2:00:26 PM PDT by ari-freedom
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a partisan Court overturned duly passed legislation. And yet at the same time the Commerce Clause is reined in.

This is just nonsensical, pseudo-intellectual babble. Roberts did what he did because he is not an originalist, and he wanted Obamacare to stand for whatever his reasons might be.

If we have justices voting because they fear the court will be called partisan by the partisan opposition, then we are far worse off than I ever imagined.

12 posted on 06/28/2012 2:00:29 PM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

The four leftist puppets have no problem, their “votes” are always predictable, and well in advance. You think it’s surprising that Kagan voted with the majority? The Wise Latina? The Over The Hill Bag? Breyer? These are the partisans on the Court, never an original thought, just puppets on a string.


13 posted on 06/28/2012 2:00:34 PM PDT by A_Former_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #14 Removed by Moderator

To: Sopater

We don’t respect the Court, the Congress, or the President. So what? If the court suddenly needs to present itself like politicians, then we should give them term limits too. The only point of giving them lifetime appointments is to help them remain apolitical. Well, they’ve given that up, so lets limit the amount of time they can keep screwing up.

The Republican Media is suddenly in love with their new found “silver linings” from this case. Every pundit wants to invent their own silver lining. Boehner has scheduled a repeal vote for 7/9/2012. I’m betting that if the establishment keeps medicating itself with silver linings there will never be another repeal vote; not in 2012, not in 2013.


15 posted on 06/28/2012 2:00:44 PM PDT by Windy City Conservative (Kyle Smith)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Sorry folks—I’m beginning to think, more and more, that SOMEONE HAS SOMETHING on Roberts and/or someone in his family. And he’s being coerced. And, unfortunately, once you’ve given in to blackmail or coercion “they” own you.

This is all VERY sad for both Roberts and our country.


16 posted on 06/28/2012 2:02:25 PM PDT by House Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

You’re right on Krauthammer’s take on Robert’s decision. But I’m not sure you’re right on Romney. He’s already come out and said he would ask for revocation if elected. If he goes back on that, he nullifies his most important campaign promise. Even for Romney, I have trouble seeing that happen.


17 posted on 06/28/2012 2:02:44 PM PDT by bcsco
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

Comment #18 Removed by Moderator

To: Responsibility2nd

“There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine.”

That is ridiculous logic; it will be extremely difficult to overturn, and if already found constitutional then the overturning of it may be found unconstitutional - whether or not something is constitutional shouldn’t swing back & forth depending on how the political winds are blowing. Before anyone applies logic to this, consider what happened today: our government is no different than the Red Chinese government, and the “degrees” by which we were separating are fast disappearing. We have one-party rule, posing as two parties; it is an absolute hoax.


19 posted on 06/28/2012 2:03:24 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Chicago Way.
“We’d like to have a quiet chat with you about what it would take to make you an offer you can’t refuse...”


20 posted on 06/28/2012 2:04:08 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

So Roberts weighed the “feelings” of liberals versus the constitution and found the constitution wanting? What utter and complete bullshit. Roberts rewrote the legislation to pass constitutional muster. WTF does he get this power from. I am so sick of DC elites who think the rest of us are rubes. Condescending pricks.


21 posted on 06/28/2012 2:04:15 PM PDT by jwalsh07 (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Put the bath salts down, Chuck. We got screwed by a turncoat.


22 posted on 06/28/2012 2:06:08 PM PDT by tumblindice (*Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

Why is it so hard to admit that the guy IS NOT Conservative.
With all the conspiracy theories flying around FR, you would think Alex jones created 100 sock puppets.

GWB screwed us again, 3-1/2 years after he left office.
It’s as simple as that.


23 posted on 06/28/2012 2:06:21 PM PDT by JerseyDvl (Cogito Ergo Doleo Soetoro, ABO and of course FUBO!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

Comment #24 Removed by Moderator

To: tumblindice; altura; All

PS On second thought I’m thinking we need altura or some other hysterical Rahmnoid to chime in and explain for us the Kraut’s reasoning: How getting a McCain-like butt-reaming—but one that will hurt us all badly financially, not just an insult—how that disgraceful and hurtful act of treachery by someone we trusted is actually a good thing.


25 posted on 06/28/2012 2:12:07 PM PDT by tumblindice (*Sic Semper Tyrannis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
Whatever anyone's view of Roberts, the mandate has been declared a TAX.

Last time I looked, "a TAX can be REPEALED by Congress" at any point in time.

26 posted on 06/28/2012 2:12:25 PM PDT by VideoDoctor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Mr. Krauthamer, you miss the point sir. It is not just about respect for each individual branch. I know you inside the Beltway guys like to compartmentalize things. But for us folks on the outside, we see all three branches as one thing, as government. Today, all Mr. Roberts preserved was the increasing, if not total, view amongst a majority of Americans that our government is a complete and total failure.

The vehicle by which the integrity and function of our government is supposed to be maintained is the Constitution. Mr. Roberts had a larger duty today to uphold that Constitution. Instead, he decided that his duty was to his legacy, or worse, his popularity. He, like the rest of our government, failed us. He is no better than a congressman who can be lobbied, bought and paid for. He is a coward and disgrace and I regret that he is anywhere near a position of power over me and my family.

So you inside the Beltway boys raise a glass to splitting hairs and being smarter than the rest of us. We will raise hell.


27 posted on 06/28/2012 2:13:19 PM PDT by FlipWilson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress.

Then what do we need the USSC for???

28 posted on 06/28/2012 2:13:53 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress.

Then what do we need the USSC for???

29 posted on 06/28/2012 2:13:53 PM PDT by Uncle Chip
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
...a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the Court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration...

The left threatened to mau-mau the Court and Roberts caved. This spin to try to save Roberts' reputation won't wash. He dodged the issue of liberty vs. tyranny with a gutless sophistry.

30 posted on 06/28/2012 2:13:53 PM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Socialism consumes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A_Former_Democrat

Great point. We NEVER get surprised by votes from the leftist justices, only the ones appointed by conservatives. But this is a marxist mo, to infiltrate. They’ve done it with government, judicial, academia, they are in full swing doing it to Christian institutions. No conservative ever poses as a leftist to infiltrate anything. Tells me clearly who the congenital dishonest liars are.


31 posted on 06/28/2012 2:14:04 PM PDT by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Why are there people defending Roberts. It does not matter why he did what he did. He was wrong and took a match to the constitution. He is a destroyer.


32 posted on 06/28/2012 2:16:27 PM PDT by formosa (Formosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
Roberts "COWARD" t-shirt

http://glennbeck.shop.musictoday.com/Product.aspx?cp=29940&pc=BXCT094

33 posted on 06/28/2012 2:17:13 PM PDT by Jane Long (Soli Deo Gloria!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

How long before the government decides how many children you’re allowed to have? I know some of obama’s folks who ain’t gonna’ like that. Just a fact.


34 posted on 06/28/2012 2:17:23 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

Sorry Boss but you are wrong on many parts.
1. Now Obama canot issue get out of jail free cards to his dirty union thugs he must get permission from Congress

2. ERs for years have had to eat people with no insurance now even the illegals have to pay for insurance.

3. Now we can get Hospital districts off of our property tax rolls

4. Now the young and nieave have to pay for insurance.

The bad side is small business employees forget about raises from Jan 1 2012 onwards.......


35 posted on 06/28/2012 2:20:00 PM PDT by straps (Ex-Pan Amer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: bcsco
Romney's words, "Repeal and replace!"

"Replace" with what?

Besides, he alone can not "Repeal" the, now, law of the land. It would take a majority of the House and the Senate and I am not sure if it would take a super majority in the Senate or not.

Everyone seems to get chills running up their legs in the Romney camp about his saying he will repeal it, but chose not to opine on his saying "Repeal and replace!"

36 posted on 06/28/2012 2:21:26 PM PDT by ImpBill ("America, where are you now?" - Little "r" republican!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

John Roberts got it wrong. He doesn’t like to overturn laws unless it is by a big majority of the court? It should not matter.

His job is to make decisions based on the constitution. The law had a mandate...which is unconstitutional and it had no severability clause meaning the whole thing should have been thrown out. If I understand correctly, he wants to call it a tax? Who gives him that authority to change what the law says?


37 posted on 06/28/2012 2:21:39 PM PDT by packman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross

BJ Clinton (the first black president) already decided how many children obama’s folks could have with his welfare reform. Their birthrate fell immediately, and now they’ve been passed by Hispanics in numbers and importance.


38 posted on 06/28/2012 2:22:02 PM PDT by kearnyirish2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: VideoDoctor

Yes, congress can repeal a tax. IF it wants to. There would have to 51 true conservatives to get it through the senate. And there’d have to be 2/3 to over ride obama’s veto. If I understand the procedures correctly.


39 posted on 06/28/2012 2:23:32 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom
Then who needs the Constitution? Let Congress vote on whatever they want and if they want to bring back slavery, take away guns, etc just let them and then we could vote them out again.

 

It's not Congress that is trampling the Constitution. Nor can we blame the SCOTUS. We have only ourselves as a country to blame for deteriorating down to the 546 idiots in DC that have (bleeped) over the Constitution.

40 posted on 06/28/2012 2:23:51 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Really amazing that I never hear of the SCOTUS being partisan when it overturns laws conservatives like. I think it’s a safe bet that DOMA will be overturned but I will damn surprised if the word “partisan” comes up when the MSM goes crazy. Heads I win tales you lose situation.


41 posted on 06/28/2012 2:24:10 PM PDT by C19fan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Legislating from the bench is not finesse.

If SCOTUS wanted to give Congress direction as to how to pass a version of the law they would regard as Constitutional, they should have struck this version down, and said rewrite it and instead of calling it a penalty, call it a tax.

Instead they have to ignore the fact the writers of the legislation argued to SCOTUS it WAS NOT A TAX, ignoring lawmakers’ intent, and rewriting it for them. They do not have the power to rewrite legislation. It should have been sent back to Congress to re-do.


42 posted on 06/28/2012 2:24:10 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tzar
What are they taxing? Is it a head tax where you are exempted only if you have insurance?

The dissent did chide the majority for the breezy way they addressed this question, but they did not go so far as to say that they believed the tax was unconstitutional as a non-apportioned head tax.

Apparently they were in such a hurry to get the decision out the door they didn't deliberate sufficiently on this question.

43 posted on 06/28/2012 2:25:24 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

If Clinton decided how many children one can have, how are the Hispanics having so many?


44 posted on 06/28/2012 2:26:03 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Congress has the authority to repeal its own laws. Think Prohibition. That was a Constitutional Amendment reversal. If they can do that, they can repeal a lower law.

If they repeal it there’s no basis to say they can’t repeal a law they passed prior.


45 posted on 06/28/2012 2:27:00 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

If I was Ford Motor Company I would be concerned with the Congress taxing every non-GMC vehicle owner since the gubmint owns GM.

What is the difference between that and Obamacare where now a person can be taxed until they submit to buy gubmint health insurance...


46 posted on 06/28/2012 2:27:09 PM PDT by shotgun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: bcsco

You’re right on Krauthammer’s take on Robert’s decision. But I’m not sure you’re right on Romney. He’s already come out and said he would ask for revocation if elected. If he goes back on that, he nullifies his most important campaign promise. Even for Romney, I have trouble seeing that happen.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I’ve seen thousands of threads that list the similarities between Obamacare and Romneycare. Sure, Mittens would revoke Obama’s forced mandates.

Only to replace them with more of the SOS.


47 posted on 06/28/2012 2:27:26 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (NO LIBS. This Means Liberals and (L)libertarians! Same Thing. NO LIBS!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

Congress has the authority to repeal its own laws. Think Prohibition. That was a Constitutional Amendment reversal. If they can do that, they can repeal a lower law.

If they repeal it there’s no basis to say they can’t repeal a law they passed prior.

Our system of laws is NOT the Medes and Persians, where once a law is on the books, it can’t be changed. Laws are modified and sections are taken away and replaced with NOTHING equivalent all the time.


48 posted on 06/28/2012 2:28:06 PM PDT by Secret Agent Man (I can neither confirm or deny that; even if I could, I couldn't - it's classified.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: bcsco; Responsibility2nd
But I’m not sure you’re right on Romney. He’s already come out and said he would ask for revocation if elected. If he goes back on that, he nullifies his most important campaign promise

You're hilarious.

It's like telling somebody that Gumby won't bend anymore.

(Oh well, At least you inspired a new tagline)

49 posted on 06/28/2012 2:28:41 PM PDT by Colofornian (Saying Mitt would keep past political promises is like prophesying that Gumby won't bend anymore)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
So Roberts made Marxism the law of the land, because he wanted to seem “fair.”

Why not? He rendered the 10th amendment null and void just 2 says earlier.

Oh good, now we have no reason to respect congress, the executive, and now the courts. Nothing left of our formerly great country.

50 posted on 06/28/2012 2:29:48 PM PDT by McGavin999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-105 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson