When the history of this day is written, the cowardice of Chief Justice Roberts will be shown to be as traitorous as Benedict Arnold. He will be shown to be one of the worst Justices that the Court has ever had. How does a "steady conservative" turn the law on its head and vote for the most liberal legislation since Social Security?
As we counted heads on the court, Justice Kennedy was always thought to be the swing vote that would make the law either live or die. Not many, we dare say none, would have predicted that Roberts would vote for the law and unleash the many terrible results which result from its imposition.
Kathleen Parker writes in the Washington Post on May 22 "Speaking in the Rose Garden, Obama said: “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”" (The article is http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-put-john-roberts-on-trial/2012/05/22/gIQAijq8iU_story.html)
Obama's real point was that the Supreme Court should never overturn any law passed by Congress! So Mr. President, if that is the correct analysis, Congress should be able to overturn the entire Constitution, if it so desired. That does not make any sense to us, however, if you believe you are the final arbiter of how a government should run, that is what you would say. On the contrary, we would bet that if Congress passed something he did not like (ala Arizona's immigration law,) he would be first in line condemning it and demanding that the Supreme Court do something about it.
By the way Obama is wrong on the vote. The law was not passed by a strong majority it was 219 voting yea and 212 saying no in the House and only 60 Democrats in the Senate. NO Republican voted for it. Additionally, the giveaways ("Cornhusker Kickback") to Senator Bill Nelson from Nebraska and the lying to conservative Democrats (Stupack of Michigan) on abortion funding were examples of the underhanded way the legislation was passed.
We know that Obama is out of touch with average Americans who have consistently expressed the opinion that they do not want ObamaCare. Over 60% have said that the legislation is bad even though they liked some of the lesser parts like the children being able to stay on their parents plans to 26, children under 19 not having pre-existing limitations and the elimination of the cap on the amount of insurance. However, what happened to Roberts?
John McDonough writes the following Robert's quote in his blog blog "Health Stew" today: http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/health_stew/2012/06/chief_justice_john_roberts_sav.html
"We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation's elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions."
In other words, any "challenged provision" can only be wrong only if Congress does not to have the authority to pass it. So, Congress can tax, right? Therefore it is only a small jump to other atrocities. Can Congress tax you if you did not eat the right food and were heavier than government tables say you should be? Or that you choose to drive a pickup truck rather than an electric? (It doesn't matter that you are a plumber and need the vehicle to do your work.) Or that your family of three lives in a 2400 square foot house which exceeds the government mandated occupant load? Or that you took three vacations last year which exceeded the government allowed number of days you should have been working?
Or, Or, Or--it makes no difference if Congress mandates something and you do not meet the requirements, you are taxed. Sounds like freedom to me! Wrong!
There has been a steady drum beat by the Democrats to telegraph the message to Roberts that he should not overturn the law as it is Congressional prerogative to pass laws they feel are necessary to run the US. Senator Lehey said so a couple days ago. Did he cave to the pressure or are there other reasons.
We believe that Roberts caved potentially from the pressure, possibily that he wanted the law's validity to be determined by the elections in November and least likely, from Chicago gangland tactics. Or maybe it is a combination of all three.
The pressure and fallout from an unconstitutional report would have been tremendous from the left and the Administration. Did Roberts think that it would be bad for the Court, so he found another answer, if so the answer is wrong. Robert Reich wrote today that if the law was not overturned the Court would be viewed as partisan. Here is a link to his article http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2012/0628/The-Supreme-Court-will-uphold-Obamacare.-Here-s-why. This article is an example of the venom which would have been expressed against the court.
If he thought that by allowing the elections in November to determine the future of the legislation, he is saying that the Supreme Court should not arbitrate legislation and that should be left up to a plebiscite. He is therefore abandoning the right of the court to determine the Unconstitutionality of any Congress passed legislation. This is not a good idea as a rule by the masses is the rule of the mob. If the mob says its good, it is.
Should you like conspiracies, the gangland option will be your cup of tea. Combine a "steady conservative" Justice, unpopular legislation, a very liberal President and Chicago tactics, you come up with a stew that would make any fiction writer dream of twists and turns. Could the muckrakers found something dirty on Roberts and made him their stooge?
Regardless of the reason, Roberts has not distinguished himself as the type of man we thought he was. To say the least, we are disappointed. We had expected much more of him.
There is a silver lining to this very dark cloud. Conservatives and like minded independents have the opportunity to elect Republicans who can vote to overturn this law in January. We believe it will galvanize our forces and will not energize the opposition.
Go out and work your street. Get the word out that the only way to avoid the catastrophe of ObamaCare, is to have those who voted for it in the first place, to be retired. The country is counting on you!
Conservative Tom
As we counted heads on the court, Justice Kennedy was always thought to be the swing vote that would make the law either live or die. Not many, we dare say none, would have predicted that Roberts would vote for the law and unleash the many terrible results which result from its imposition.
Kathleen Parker writes in the Washington Post on May 22 "Speaking in the Rose Garden, Obama said: “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”" (The article is http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/democrats-put-john-roberts-on-trial/2012/05/22/gIQAijq8iU_story.html)
Obama's real point was that the Supreme Court should never overturn any law passed by Congress! So Mr. President, if that is the correct analysis, Congress should be able to overturn the entire Constitution, if it so desired. That does not make any sense to us, however, if you believe you are the final arbiter of how a government should run, that is what you would say. On the contrary, we would bet that if Congress passed something he did not like (ala Arizona's immigration law,) he would be first in line condemning it and demanding that the Supreme Court do something about it.
By the way Obama is wrong on the vote. The law was not passed by a strong majority it was 219 voting yea and 212 saying no in the House and only 60 Democrats in the Senate. NO Republican voted for it. Additionally, the giveaways ("Cornhusker Kickback") to Senator Bill Nelson from Nebraska and the lying to conservative Democrats (Stupack of Michigan) on abortion funding were examples of the underhanded way the legislation was passed.
We know that Obama is out of touch with average Americans who have consistently expressed the opinion that they do not want ObamaCare. Over 60% have said that the legislation is bad even though they liked some of the lesser parts like the children being able to stay on their parents plans to 26, children under 19 not having pre-existing limitations and the elimination of the cap on the amount of insurance. However, what happened to Roberts?
John McDonough writes the following Robert's quote in his blog blog "Health Stew" today: http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/health/health_stew/2012/06/chief_justice_john_roberts_sav.html
"We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation's elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions."
In other words, any "challenged provision" can only be wrong only if Congress does not to have the authority to pass it. So, Congress can tax, right? Therefore it is only a small jump to other atrocities. Can Congress tax you if you did not eat the right food and were heavier than government tables say you should be? Or that you choose to drive a pickup truck rather than an electric? (It doesn't matter that you are a plumber and need the vehicle to do your work.) Or that your family of three lives in a 2400 square foot house which exceeds the government mandated occupant load? Or that you took three vacations last year which exceeded the government allowed number of days you should have been working?
Or, Or, Or--it makes no difference if Congress mandates something and you do not meet the requirements, you are taxed. Sounds like freedom to me! Wrong!
There has been a steady drum beat by the Democrats to telegraph the message to Roberts that he should not overturn the law as it is Congressional prerogative to pass laws they feel are necessary to run the US. Senator Lehey said so a couple days ago. Did he cave to the pressure or are there other reasons.
We believe that Roberts caved potentially from the pressure, possibily that he wanted the law's validity to be determined by the elections in November and least likely, from Chicago gangland tactics. Or maybe it is a combination of all three.
The pressure and fallout from an unconstitutional report would have been tremendous from the left and the Administration. Did Roberts think that it would be bad for the Court, so he found another answer, if so the answer is wrong. Robert Reich wrote today that if the law was not overturned the Court would be viewed as partisan. Here is a link to his article http://www.csmonitor.com/Business/Robert-Reich/2012/0628/The-Supreme-Court-will-uphold-Obamacare.-Here-s-why. This article is an example of the venom which would have been expressed against the court.
If he thought that by allowing the elections in November to determine the future of the legislation, he is saying that the Supreme Court should not arbitrate legislation and that should be left up to a plebiscite. He is therefore abandoning the right of the court to determine the Unconstitutionality of any Congress passed legislation. This is not a good idea as a rule by the masses is the rule of the mob. If the mob says its good, it is.
Should you like conspiracies, the gangland option will be your cup of tea. Combine a "steady conservative" Justice, unpopular legislation, a very liberal President and Chicago tactics, you come up with a stew that would make any fiction writer dream of twists and turns. Could the muckrakers found something dirty on Roberts and made him their stooge?
Regardless of the reason, Roberts has not distinguished himself as the type of man we thought he was. To say the least, we are disappointed. We had expected much more of him.
There is a silver lining to this very dark cloud. Conservatives and like minded independents have the opportunity to elect Republicans who can vote to overturn this law in January. We believe it will galvanize our forces and will not energize the opposition.
Go out and work your street. Get the word out that the only way to avoid the catastrophe of ObamaCare, is to have those who voted for it in the first place, to be retired. The country is counting on you!
Conservative Tom
I have not read the whole thing yet, but I will note that Roberts was on the conservative side in the 5-4 split as to the application of the commerce clause. That will have no practical effect as far as the ACA getting implemented in 2014 (to the benefit of 30 million Americans), but does bode for how future Roberts court opinions of congressional power under the commerce clause will probably go.
ReplyDeleteAs for the questions you raise about the limits of congressional taxing power, Roberts anticipated all of them. Read section "C" pages 33-44. Probably his simplest counter-argument is that the constitution specifically authorizes the government to tax you for doing nothing. As he says, there are limits to that under prior Supreme Court decisions, but the ACA doesn't even come close on any of the relevant criteria for limitation.
--David