Mark Levin: Not-So-Fast on Commerce Clause

http://www.nationalreview.com/ ^ | June 29 2012 | By Kathryn Jean Lopez

[trebb]

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the idea that the mandate was a tax also written "for himself"? The four liberals wanted to allow OC under the Commerce Clause and were only in the "majority" because it upheld the ruling, not because they concurred about the tax issue (hence Justice Ginsberg's "dissent".) The entire opinion was a one man show.

Correct - what Roberts did is tantamount to a Judge switching the murder weapon for a fake one and allowing a perp to go free.

[Sudetenland]

"On the other hand, one could claim that Roberts is now the more dangerous of the two. Because he actually has some authority, whereas Paul will never again have any."

True enough. Of course, you realize the intent was more to smack down Paul than to uplift John "Souter II" Roberts.

[EBH]

This guy? http://youtu.be/IzxRDsBtXrM

[Sudetenland]

John Roberts in one fell swoop has eviscerated GWB's single greatest claim to success. Instead of having appointed two strong conservative justices, he has joined his father in leaving America with a Supreme Court legacy of "0" . . . -1, for a liberal posing as a conservative (Roberts) and +1, for one apparently true conservative (Alito).

Conservatives once more find themselves sandbagged by a weak Justice who allowed himself to be portrayed and understood as more conservative than he is, and who is more concerned about his and the Court's legacy than about doing his assigned duties. First it was GWHB with Souter and now we find out GWB has duplicated his father's mistake.

The innate dishonesty of liberals makes it very difficult to guarantee that the conservative justice you appoint will remain so. It's interesting that liberals NEVER have that problem. There hasn't been a "liberal" justice appointed to the court who has switched sides the way conservative appointees have.

It's very frustrating.

[okie01]

I understand, exactly.