After reading the article, I believe the author is saying that Roberts knew the law was unconstitutional. But Roberts ruled in the law's favor anyway because he feared the backlash that would follow.
And the author seems to be okay with that.
If that theory is correct, then Roberts has violated his oath of office and should be impeached.
And the author seems to be okay with that.
If that theory is correct, then Roberts has violated his oath of office and should be impeached.”
Totally agree.
His dismissal on the blackmail theory is only based on the adoption of his children. I think there is a far more obvious blackmail angle that has been discussed all over the Internet. The author didn't even mention other possibilities.
YUP,
Roberts contorted,spun and twisted logic, and the constitution, to make the ACA fit into it by saying it was unconstitutional and constitutional at the same time.
Justice Kennedy, destroying Roberts` gymnastics:
” For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it…
Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry….
What the Government would have us believe in these cases is that the very same textual indications that show this is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act show that it is a tax under the Constitution. That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists….
The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax….
The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions,
The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty…
The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.”
Ditto. According to the author of this article, Roberts failed at his office.
Does it matter what we think of why and his elaborate theory?