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.
Fixed it.
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 ...
www.thefreedictionary.com/anfractuous
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.
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.