Posted on 06/29/2012 6:06:10 AM PDT by Servant of the Cross
You said: “ And so our hopes have been pinned on getting the right people elected and on taking control of our government.”
No, our hopes have not been pinned on that. But this was a political article, and therefore the discussion about this article in a political vein.
I too want to find the "silver lining" in this matter and in our present circumstance. As you say, Ginsburg's reaction suggests there is one.
Also, I agree there are big differences between RomneyCare and ObamaCare. Most importantly, Romney's solution does not oblige Texas, South Dakota, Alaska, etc. - each one having unique exigencies and complexities. And the IRS with its fearsome authority does not enforce it.
The quote from Williamson makes an important point, i.e. that 1 in 5 would not vote for a Mormon.
The LDS like Scientology has secret rites and keeps a tight rein on its members. Voters in the Bible Belt would probably bristle at either one for the same reason.
And sadly for Romney, the more LDS secrets see the light of day, the more he will be subjected to late-night ridicule by SNL, Letterman, etc.
However, I suspect there may be enough over-taxed, frustrated, ObamaCare-hating Independents and Democrats to make up the difference if 20% simply refuse to vote for Romney because he is a Mormon.
Nonsense! The Constitution was penned with the intent that taxes could only be raised for the limited expressed purposes indicated in the Document. Only a moron, or a complete nitwit would believe and claim otherwise.
"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
What a BS cop out fool.
I join in earnest, urgent prayer for our country!
At bottom politics answer the question, “how shall we live” thus are about morality. There is no such thing as a “neutral” body of knowledge distinct from morality, that notion is a Marxist Frankfurt School invention crafted to replace this nation’s Judeo-Christian moral law and thinking with socialistic thinking and inverted morality (political correctness) disguised as “politics.”
Americans have been propagandized so effectively that they themselves serve as gate-keepers (censors), as you are trying to do when you say, “But this was a political article, and therefore the discussion about this article in a political vein.”
Read: Cultural Marxism
http://www.americanthinker.com/2007/02/cultural_marxism.html
Your premise is totally wrong. Politics does NOT answer the question “how shall we live.” It only answers the question of “how shalt government say we shall live.” Two totally different concepts. I pity those who cannot tell the difference.
You comments about the neutral body of knowledge actually work in favor of my argument, not those who I was responding to.
As I’ve been reading and listening around the web, I find very few now who are willing to jump the shark with George Will and declare John Roberts an absolute genius.
Last night, Charles Krauthammer backpeddled and said basically he, as a psychiatrist, was attempting to explain why Roberts did what he did. His best bet was that Roberts thought Roberts was doing something good (to which O’Reilly interjected “that’s insane”), but that his analysis is only an attempt to explain. He thinks personally that it was a terrible decision.
Steyn thinks Roberts would be on the left in Dear Old Canada.
Rush thinks it’s deceitful betrayal.
Paul Ryan says it’s a terrible decision.
Against that are a few lightweights who would have us believe that by surrendering on the issue that Roberts has stepped into the realm of Eternity-Class Strategerists.
Let me suggest that Eisehower should have approached FDR with this plan: “Franklin, here’s what we’ll do. I will cross the channel and then surrender the entire army to the Bosch. That will so over-burden their prison system that they will topple from the inside.”
It’s called the “Unconditional Surrender” Strategy...the same that was used with tremendous success in....uh...and uh....
It only answers the question of “how shalt government say we shall live.”
Spirited: You are splitting hairs. Either government tells us how we shal live or people themselves do. Either way, politics is about morality. In fact, your accusation, “Your premise is totally wrong” is a moral judgement based on whatever serves as your moral barometer.
And so the question you need to answer is this: What is the source for your moral judgement? Is it God’s unchanging Moral Absolutes or is it yourself? If yourself, then your moral outrage at John Roberts as well as your moral judgement against me is nothing more than your personal opinion.
The statue in front of the Alamo (paraphrased) says:
Thank you for sharing your insights, dear spirited irish!
What is wrong with the America is the same thing that is wrong with the Roberts ruling, they are both spiritual in nature.
Roberts ruling indicates that he is in fact a statist, who does not believe in a higher power than the state, nor in the God given rights of man or in the three co-equal branches of government.
More polishing a turd.
All that is irrelevant to a judicial judgement.
The job is to interpret and uphold the law
I fail to see how that's better than Obama being forced to explain how he did all that despite the fact that it was illegal.
There's a big difference between "silver linings" and "trying to make the best of a bad situation."
First, there is nothing in the majority opinion which limits governmental power under the Commerce Clause beyond any existing precedents.
Second, even if there were, there is no reason that could not have been accomplished in a ruling which also overturned Obamacare. Roberts let stand the most vast expansion of government in our history, and if the ruling didn’t stop Obamacare, it is difficult to imagine anything at all that it would stop.
This is about as “strategic” as taking a deliberate safety instead of punting from your own goal-line when you’re only ahead by one point.
Therefore, he ruled, I shall grant exactly that power.
That Roberts guy. Man, he is a genius. So strategic.
There is nothing good in this health care ruling. Roberts is not an originalist. There is absolutely nothing good or right about this ruling or Roberts.
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.