Posted on 04/23/2014 11:21:08 AM PDT by Oldpuppymax
Though Coach is Right published this piece in early January, the subject matter may be even more pertinent today as countless doctors refuse to treat ObamaCare patients, hospitals deny them admittance and the negative impact of the law has moved from talking point to reality.
When Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Supreme Court’s Marxist bloc in ruling the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate constitutional, stunned conservatives immediately accused him of committing an “act of judicial cowardice.” “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” wrote the supremely hypocritical Roberts as he shattered one of the first rules of judicial restraint by rewriting sections of ObamaCare from the bench. Although he refused to “protect” the people, it seems he was more than willing to protect DC lawmakers from the consequences of passing unconstitutional legislation.
But did Roberts manufacture his creative penalty-is-really-a-tax revision of ObamaCare for the purpose of bailing out the lawmakers who wrote the Act? Or was it actually his intention to...
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
the fact that the question needs to be asked is the answer.
More importantly than any partisan spin, it was a CURSE for the country.
A Curse to the people of America.
As it turns out, after new policies require higher monthly premiums along with substantial co-payments before accessing the paying portions of the insurance, obamacare has become almost like catastrophic insurance, which the administration told us was unworkable and insufficient as insurance. The difference, of course, is that catastrophic insurance wasn't nearly as expensive before government intervention.
When you hear a gunshot on the street, your brain tries to rationalize it into something it understands—like a fire cracker or a board dropping on a construction site. But it is still a vile criminal act just the same.
Thus we try to rationalize the crime of Roberts by imputing some secret motive. There was none. It was a heinous act of murder of the constitution. Tax my ass.
In my estimation, Roberts’ decision was a disgraceful exhibition of wanton cowardice.
It was and remains and always will be a bloody CURSE.
It doesn’t matter who it helps or hurts. It is manifestly unconstitutional.
...and it’s because government intervention, in this case, required that men have mammogram and ob coverage, etc. But maybe the Obamanation’s ultimate goal is to force all men to become tranny’s. That would be par for the course for the first homosexual “president.”
If Justice Roberts had done his job we might be well into something like a normal economic recovery right now (I know, Obama would have found another way to toss a wrench into things).
In any case it’s not for Justices of the Supreme Court to be playing political footsie with either of the major political parties. Sotomayor, I’m talking to you.
He is supposed to rule based on the US CONSTITUTION!
Not on how his rulings will affect the political fortunes
of one party or the other.
It was a curse for Americans.
A curse.
IIRC, Obama said that if it didn’t get through the court, he’d make it go through via Executive Order.
I am still disgusted that Roberts wrote those words. The 51% of takers have no constitutional authority to expand FedGov outside the enumerated powers. It is the responsibility of the Supreme Court to identify when FedGov has exceeded their authority and to restrain FedGov, regardless of the greed or irresponsibility of a majority of voters at any time. Even when the 49% (now 58%) who disapprove are not a voting majority on election day, the Supremes are still charged with restraining FedGov. ObamaCare was clearly and unequivocally outside the scope of the enumerated powers and Roberts had a legal and moral obligation to overturn that law. [I was there for the ObamaCare oral arguments, read all the briefs, was there for the opinion, and read both the opinion and the dissent - Roberts was absolutely, flat-out wrong, and I suspect he knew it.]
If 51% of voters decided to revoke the constitutional rights of black, or Jews, Roberts would be wrong to suggest taht the remedy was at the ballot box, and he's just as wrong when he suggests that the Christians of Hobby Lobby and the other private citizens who don't want to be compelled to waste their money or to spend their money in immoral ways must submit to the 51%.
There are a fair number of FReepers who attempt to rationalize Roberts’ decision into being something desirable for conservatives, but I suspect the rationalization is more along the lines of personally identifying with Roberts rather than a belief that the decision was a good one.
It was and is a curse!
Roberts has no authority to change the legislation. He found it unconstitutional in the form that it was passed. It had no severability clause. That means that if any part is unconstitutional, then ALL of the law is dead.
Obamacare was born dead. We are under no obligation to comply with an unconstitutional, dead law.
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.