Skip to comments.Chief Justice Roberts, You Fox You
Posted on 07/05/2012 6:46:08 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
WASHINGTON -- I have a headache. I imagine you do too, if you have been trying to interpret the legalese employed by those legal sages who have pronounced on Thursday's Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. I would rather read the lyrics of a thousand rap composers than the anfractuous language of one legal sage.
Thanks, however, to Professor E. Donald Elliott of the Yale Law School I had a translator at my side, and I shall now hand down my judgment of the Court's decision on Obamacare, which all sensible Americans have abstained from reading in its entirety including B. H. Obama and the vast majority of denizens of Capitol Hill, including N. Pelosi. Some of these worthies even admitted as much. It fell to nine heroic souls garbed in black actually to read the law and to Chief Justice Roberts to write the decision for the exhausted majority.
As a result of his prestidigitation with prior precedents and with the famously vague English language, critics cannot dismiss Chief Justice Roberts as hyper-partisan. His fellow conservatives are highly agitated by his decision. His usual opponents, the Liberals, celebrate him. The Chief Justice dodged the bullet. I think you can call him crafty, as Chief Justice John Marshall was crafty all those years ago when he wrote the decision for Marbury v. Madison. Roberts' decision, the decision of the majority of the court, accomplished three things.
Firstly, it reiterated two earlier holdings of the Court that ended the expansion of the commerce clause. The expansion of the federal government's reach under the commerce clause is no longer a grave threat to limited government. This offends certain Liberals such as our friends at the New York Times. Well, you win some and lose some, indignados.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Nice try, Bob Tyrrell, but I’m not buying it. Perfume on a pig doesn’t make the pig a welcome guest at High Tea.
He must have an exemption.
I’m no attorney nor am I a constitutional scholar so I rely on my instincts and put my trust in certain people. Mark Levin says it’s “destructive to our republic” and “damaged the constitution severely”. After his “laymen terms” explanation last week, I’m satisfied with my understanding and would rather not live life with rose colored glasses.
Tyrell is being uncharacteristically stupid.
Roberts did nothing to enhance his credibility or the Court’s by rendering an incoherent decision.
All of the good things that that Tyrell describes could have just as easily come about from a 5-4 decision the other way, except minus the ObamaCare.
I have described this as going for the suicide squeeze in baseball instead of a home run.
Bob Tyrell is a genius, and American spectator is a great Conservative magazine.
Don’t dismiss him so quick. You don’t have to agree 100% with everything everyone says for them to be one your side.
anfractuous - definition of anfractuous by the Free Online Dictionary ...
an·frac·tu·ous ( n-fr k ch - s). adj. Full of twists and turns; tortuous. [From Late Latin anfractu sus, from Latin anfr ctus, winding :
According to anonymous sources, Chief Justice Roberts was for striking down the whole law before he was against it.
That sort of makes Chief Justice Roberts the John Kerry of the Supreme Court.
[What an honor.]
Didn’t “Beltway Bob” expose himself as a closeted RINO earlier this year? I can’t remember the issue.
Don’t worry — Tyrell was vague enough to be both right and wrong, simultaneously, depending on the circumstances of the future, unless, of course, someone in the future chooses, more or less, to ignore this nebulous, yet firm, precedent.
So .....His intentions were good when he stabbed us in the back!!!!
Very true but FR has already done its magisterial rush to judgment and quod scripsit, scripsit. The laws of the Medes and Frersians cannot be changed. From Mount Frolympus it has been decreed: John Roberts is the spawn of Satan and a demon straigt from hell. He is a traitor. He is evil incarnate.
From this rash judgment there can be no recourse. Anyone who suggests otherwise must be condemned as the spawn of Satan and a demon from hell. Worse than that, as a RINO.
FR locutus est. Causa finita est.
bullc*ap. In his writings he comes across as an elitist.
This article is another brainwashing attempt by the arrogant know-it-all elitists.
Levin clearly explained there is NO silver lining.
Almost every day since this ruling Levin specifically addressed the fools who commented upon the CC aspect. Levin rightfully says the CC was not touched.
Tyrell is simply FOS.
Not buying what he’s selling. The restraint on the Commerce Clause in particular is not the silver lining people have been clinging to. If I understand correctly (and I may not - this decision is so convoluted I wonder if anyone truly understands it or its ramifications), that was part of Roberts’ individual opinion, not the opinion of the court and therefore does not change a thing.
So, I’m wondering when that ‘consent of the governed’ thing kicks in?
First, liberals will continue to use the Commerce Clause as the basis for their socialistic policies. Liberal justices will simply ignore Roberts’ writings.
Second, there should be no need for the court to affirm state’s rights. The fact that we are having this discussion demonstrates how far away we have moved from constitutional order.
Third, affirming the right of Congress to tax the lack of activity is an insanity.
Just wait until the health secretary starts issuing edicts restricting firearm/ammunition sales and telling grocers what products they may and may not offer for sale.
I think we need to apply Occam’s Razor here.
Either Roberts’ decision was some sort of super-complex piece of 10-dimensional chess that he was playing while making the pieces move with his mind.
Or Roberts’ decision was simply another example of a typical method by which our government has been granting itself exemptions from constitutional and other limitations for over a century.
I’m thinking it’s the latter.
....why would Roberts go thru all the contortions of the law when simply striking down the whole OC law would have accomplished the same thing?
IMO, Roberts should be put on a suicide watch because in my 75 years, I can't remember anyone one man plunging the US into domestic chaos and misery as did Justice Roberts...he HAS to be embarrassed and ashamed.
If he has any honor or integrity he will resign the day after Romney takes the oath of office...in an attempt to rescue his reputation and more importantly,.....make amends.
Is that the “happy dead pig in the sunshine” that I have heard so much about?
I was deemed even at a very young age to be not only illiterate but quite prone to delusions and believed strongly that Howdy Doodys puppet was real.
I even thought that perhaps he would grow up some day to be a Supreme Court Justice and uphold an African Presidents health care law, which would finally put an end to the Constitution of the United States. Even now I believe it to be true though I must be mistaken!
>> Causa finita est. <<
A brilliant post!
(In fact, if you hadn’t used the novel spelling “straigt” I might have called it the best POST to date about the recent SCOTUS ruling!)
Another conservative decides to eat the poop cake.
If it takes that much mental contortion to find the good in this horrendous decision, then there is no good.
It is destructive to our liberty. Period.
Ironic, no, that it was issued right before “Independence Day”?
Hey Bob, what if we all go to the polls and Obama still wins? Sorry, Roberts screwed us.
Little Tommy Daschle must be so proud of Bob for this hugh and series effort to get that bright red lipstick on this pig and its consort, Roberts. But then globalists of a feather ... have their useful idiot sycophants.
The Medicaid part of the ruling is not warranted as the law had no severability clause (and the anti-injunction law was turned on it's ear (it should be unconstitutional anyway)).
"Congress can now tax us for not doing something" - This is the worst affront to logic and personal Liberty in a long time. Roberts needs to resign for this alone.
No, he's in Malta teaching a course. Methinks he should just stay there and apply for asylum.
Ben Arnold may have had more cause to be a deadly traitor to his country but John Roberts had no real cause other than self inflated self esteem yet with more real power to finish Ben's hate America agenda--God Damn his soul!!!
The real determination of whether Roberts was crafty or sold us out will never be made if we succeed in taking the White House and both houses of Congress and the folks in Congress have the stones to pass a full repeal by using reconciliation to get it though the Senate (or mirable dictu we get 60 Senate seats), so in way, I hope we never find out.
But, while Obamacare is law, there are is still a manifestly unconstitutional provision lurking in it, but one not addressed in the suits the SCOTUS ruled on a week ago: the IPAB provision which attempts to bind future Congresses, and thus is prima facia unconstitutional. The same provision could also be challenged on the basis of the precedent in (of all things) Roe v. Wade, where the “reasoning” had nothing to do with abortion per se, but with government intrusion into the “private” patient-physician relationship. The IPAB is nothing but one huge intrusion of government into the “private” patient-physician relationship.
If a suit on either basis reaches the SCOTUS and Roberts leads a majority to invalidate Obamacare, notes it contains no severability clause and tosses the whole thing into the ashbin of history, he would indeed have out-foxed the left by establishing a precedent that limits Federal coercion of the states and the expansion of the Commerce Clause.
I’m surprised that none of the source article commenters have ripped Tyrrell for buying Roberts’ dicta re: the Commerce Clause as binding precedent.
Very well put!
Not only that, it's all W's fault. I'm not kidding.
Brilliant! That reminds me of Octavia Spencer’s chocolate pie in The Help.
—So .....His intentions were good when he stabbed us in the back!!!!—
I think of it as shooting a lame horse. We’ll thank him later for offing us more quickly.
Exactly! Especially considering his third point.
“Thirdly, the Congress can now tax us for not doing something, but this power is not nearly so dangerous ....”
Tell me again, how teh “I WON” president and “We have to pass it to read it” Pelosi cheat, lie and bribe the whole time to get the bill passed against the consent of majority citizens?
And Mr. Tyrrell think they will somehow be more restrained in the future?
1. The case before the Supreme Court was probably brought prematurely, since the most destructive provisions of ObamaCare aren't even in force yet (and therefore can't legally be contested).
2. The Court's ruling is actually problematic for ObamaCare in other areas. The ruling is filled with landmines that can be exploited by individuals or groups in future legal challenges. For one thing, if ObamaCare is a "tax" then by definition there are enormous loopholes that would likely apply to tax-exempt organizations (religious or not).
3. As more and more provisions of ObamaCare are implemented, there will be additional legal disputes related to specific provisions (First Amendment grounds, the ability of HHS to grant waivers in an arbitraty fashion, etc.).
4. ObamaCare is not likely to remain in its current form by 2014 anyway, since the financial numbers aren't going to work and too many members of Congress are going to be running away from it.
It’s the latter I think too. Its as simple as this - Roberts was cowed by Obama’s threats. Period.
Not only that, it's all W's fault. I'm not kidding.
Your mere existence may now be taxed. As a "tax", ObamaCare's "individual mandate" now demands ~$3000 of you just for breathing. That the tax is curtailed in light of low income is a matter of the whim of the state; once computed, inability to pay a tax is never grounds for non-payment, a transgression where your freedom - or your life - is demanded in lieu thereof.
Bravo for limiting the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause.
Fie upon those who open the door to unlimited power through other means.
The pattern emerges: identify the key players, and ask them “how can I make you an offer you can’t refuse?”
Spare us the exotic words, Bob. That’s Buckley’s schtick.
Agree, but why isn’t anyone commenting on the fact that government is now allowed to take away (shorten) my life? Roberts could have done the country a great favor by striking down the law. Instead we will now have decades of debate, higher taxation, a growing government, a more polarized congress, a shortage of physicians, and an economic system that will remain in turmoil. In the end I think SCOTUS will be held responsible for damages inflicted on all of us by virtue of a bad decision rather than a bad law forcefully passed by Democrats.
They may be unwilling to feed the dragon, but they are unwilling to slay it as well.
The nice thing about rap lyrics is that the vocabularies are small and there is much repitition.
Romney is now saying that this is a tax. Because it was decreed by the Supreme Court to be a tax.
I think he’s right to say this because it being revealed (or decreed) as a tax will hurt Obama.
However, one wonders if the Supreme Court says grass is red, is it red? Or is it still green?
Then George Straigt, I mean Strait, can write a song for the Court: "All My Exes teach in Malta."
Justice Roberts was right when he said that it's not the Court's job to protect Americans from the consequences of their political choices. The Supreme Court isn't the problem here. The real problem is that we've grown complacent with a government where a dingbat like Nancy Pelosi can rise to a prominent position of power.
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.