Skip to comments.The Chief Justice's Gambit (Not as bad as we think??)
Posted on 06/28/2012 2:37:54 PM PDT by Hojczyk
But I think if you scratch the surface here, Roberts embarked upon a gambit much like Marshall did 200 years ago. For the results-oriented -- which is to say, most observers on both sides who have been ranting about the Constitution for the past few months -- this is a clear win for the Obama administration, at least in the short term. By removing most legal impediments to the implementation of the law, the odds that the presidents signature legislation will eventually be implemented have risen.
1. The law still has a good chance of not being implemented.
2. Doctrinally, The Federalist Society got everything it wanted.
But judicial conservatives who are not just concerned about the outcome got more than they could have reasonably hoped for. Doctrinally speaking, this case will likely be remembered as a watershed decision for conservatives.
Five justices just signaled to lower courts that, but for the unique taxation power argument, they were prepared to rule that a major act of Congress that plainly touched upon economic activity exceeded Congress commerce powers. Right now, liberals are seemingly too busy celebrating their win, and conservatives bemoaning their loss, to realize the significance of this.
3. The chief justice has built up some political capital.
Roberts has basically done what John Marshall did: Insulate the court from criticism of bald partisan bias and infidelity to, as he once put it, calling balls and strikes. Hes earning plaudits from the left. Though the right is grumbling, I suspect they wont be doing so for long
4. This matters in the long run -- a lot.
All told, it is easier for the conservative wing of the court to make some significant rulings in some other policy areas.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
Reagan never lied to me. Men of honor do not lie... but then I am a relic of a bygone era... but I am still here and until I die... that is what I shall remain. I am not perfect... far from it... but I do not lie and I love GOD and our Republic.
As usual... clear of mind and vision.
--H.L. Mencken, The Baltimore Evening Sun, July 26, 1920
“...then why wouldnt Thomas join in the fun?”
Justice Thomas was needed to join he minority which flately stated that Obamacare was unconstitutional.
Clearly something more than just this one decision is at work here....exactly what it is I’m not entirely sure, though I have some suspecions.
Local radio station in liberal Sacramento ran a poll about the USSC decision. Right now it’s 98.5% no 1.5% yes. lolololol. Sorry, not a laughing matter.
Vote ‘em out. Vote ‘em all out!
I don’t want to rationalize anything. By either side.
This is my area. History and Law and Education. I’m very tuned into it.
I’ve had to tamp down on my emotional response, since I disagree with the decision. And unlike St. Sarah, yes St. Sarah, I’m not playing to worshippers who hang on my every word as if it’s given from God himself.
This isn’t anything new. Since the Great Depression, FDR, our rights have been chipped away. My Father, who fought in WWII unlike most posters on here, who put his life where his mouth is, said this was going to happen 40+ yrs ago. I grew up hearing about how the media was going to kill us all, how unAmerican they were. How the so called race issues were all about power and nothing to do with race. And I grew up in philly so I saw that first hand. So the race baiters can KMA.
If you were Speaker....hell if i were a billionaire I wouldn’t be so concerned about this tax that is going to make us a third world country. Hell, if I were a princess, I’d have royal blood. Bah.
If you had the power, what exactly would you do, besides being commando on some internet forum? You want to go after Roberts? He’s the least of our problems and that someone as smart as you doesn’t see that is disturbing.
We are a war, culturally and politically. The extreme on each side doesn’t seem to get it.
I consider the Left morons, even though they know how to organzie and get their issues in the media and succeed in turning the tide. I have four kids...I watch what they watch and listen to what they listen to. The right, on our side, continually shoots themself. Part of it is fighting the media and everything else. As far as Im concerned, we aren’t anywhere fighting it on that level.
The comparison with Marbury is apt.
Robert’s asserted a principle but then didnt use it to fully decide the case.
Obamacare won on a technicality.
But the bigger point is that this bill is hugely consequential, more so than one man’s commission. The principles and the reasoning will be of far less consequence than whether this bill stands in the coming years. It’s obama’s legacy.
I have a dumb question. Is there absolutely *no* constitutional mechanism for having a referendum re 0bamacare on the November ballot?”
NO, there is none.
You want ot get rid of Obamacare?
REPEAL AND REPLACE OBAMA.
“Let’s talk about Roberts. I’m going to tell you something that you’re not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It’s well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts’ writings you can the cognitive disassociation in what he is saying.” ~ Michael Savage
Just adding that since this is a tax, it can be defunded under reconciliation w/only 51 Senators.
Making it a tax gave us a way to get rid of it.
That is nothing new. If they would have just called this a tax, it is almost assured all earlier courts would have ruled the law constitutional.
YET AGAIN, THE TAXATION IS NOT NEW POWER.
Virtually every single legal scholar agrees that all courts from the bottom up would have upheld the law if Congress had explicitly called it a tax.
Roberts did not expand government at all with the decision, actually dramatically restricting it and daring people to elect those to will repeal the bill when he wrote in his opinion that it is the job of the people to fix policy abuses by Congress, not the court.
LOCKING YOUR CAPS WON'T MAKE THIS A GOOD DECISION, AND IT DOESN'T IMPROVE YOUR "ARGUMENT."
And throw-away dicta about the Commerce Clause will have no bearing on any future decision.
I'm sorry, but throwing out this unconstitutional law with the same “reasoning” would have done the exact same thing to the abuse of the commerce clause, so this rationale is nonsense.
It's really quite simple. We have been betrayed by another coward who was afraid to do his job, ie “the right thing”.
Anyone here understand why? I believe I understand exactly why this shit is happening, but I'm wondering if anyone else really “gets it”.
But it will limit the use of the Commerce Clause. In fact, it makes the Commerce Clause superfluous. All future Congresses will now simply pass previously unconstitutional acts as tax legislation.
Well Lah Dee Freakin' Dah!
Maybe you should read my entire post before sharing your incisive commentary. It is, after all, only three sentences long.
Sorry, I did read it all, I know you were being sarcastic, I guess I just felt like piling on.
I know the feeling. Believe me.
Bush is not just a RINO, he is a globalist like Dad.