Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

John Yoo: Chief Justice Roberts and His Apologists
http://online.wsj.com/ ^ | June 29, 2012 | John Yoo

Posted on 06/30/2012 8:19:40 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45

Some conservatives see a silver lining in the ObamaCare ruling. But it's exactly the big-government disaster it appears to be.

Justice Roberts's opinion declared that the Constitution's Commerce Clause does not authorize Congress to regulate inactivity, which would have given the federal government a blank check to regulate any and all private conduct. The court also decided that Congress unconstitutionally coerced the states by threatening to cut off all Medicaid funds if they did not expand this program as far as President Obama wants.

All this is a hollow hope. The outer limit on the Commerce Clause in Sebelius does not put any other federal law in jeopardy and is undermined by its ruling on the tax power (discussed below). The limits on congressional coercion in the case of Medicaid may apply only because the amount of federal funds at risk in that program's expansion—more than 20% of most state budgets—was so great. If Congress threatens to cut off 5%-10% to force states to obey future federal mandates, will the court strike that down too? Doubtful.

(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; deathpanels; fff; johnyoo; johnyooapologists; obamacare; sourcetitlenoturl; zerocare
Worse still, Justice Roberts's opinion provides a constitutional road map for architects of the next great expansion of the welfare state. Congress may not be able to directly force us to buy electric cars, eat organic kale, or replace oil heaters with solar panels. But if it enforces the mandates with a financial penalty then suddenly, thanks to Justice Roberts's tortured reasoning in Sebelius, the mandate is transformed into a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to tax.

While some conservatives ( Krauthammer/Will)may think Justice Roberts was following in Justice Marshall's giant footsteps, the more apt comparison is to the Republican Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.

Hughes and Justice Owen J. Roberts began to switch their positions. They would vote to uphold the National Labor Relations Act, minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws, and the rest of the New Deal.

But Hughes sacrificed fidelity to the Constitution's original meaning in order to repel an attack on the court. Like Justice Roberts, Hughes blessed the modern welfare state's expansive powers and unaccountable bureaucracies—the very foundations for ObamaCare.

Hughes's great constitutional mistake was made for nothing.

Justice Roberts too may have sacrificed the Constitution's last remaining limits on federal power for very little—a little peace and quiet from attacks during a presidential election year.

Given the advancing age of several of the justices, an Obama second term may see the appointment of up to three new Supreme Court members. A new, solidified liberal majority will easily discard Sebelius's limits on the Commerce Clause and expand the taxing power even further. After the Hughes court switch, FDR replaced retiring Justices with a pro-New Deal majority, and the court upheld any and all expansions of federal power over the economy and society. The court did not overturn a piece of legislation under the Commerce Clause for 60 years.

(excerpt)

In layman's terms,

The USA is F***ed !

1 posted on 06/30/2012 8:19:43 AM PDT by Para-Ord.45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Roberts was blackmailed over the illegal adoption of his kids:

XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX

NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE’S CHILDREN

**Exclusive**

The DRUDGE REPORT has uncovered a plot in the NEW YORK TIMES’ newsroom to look into the adoption of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900724/posts


2 posted on 06/30/2012 8:23:38 AM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

JF’nRoberts.


3 posted on 06/30/2012 8:26:50 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

According to Roberts, if the Federal Government passes a law mandating participation in interstate commerce with no enforcement mechanism whatsoever, that violates the Commerce clause and is unconstitutional, but if the government adds a tax or penalty to force compliance with the directive now it becomes constitutional.

The fact that even the left isn’t laughing at Roberts proves that no one even expects the court to make sense. It is simply a policy making body with the last say on what government policy will be.


4 posted on 06/30/2012 8:29:57 AM PDT by NavVet ("You Lie!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

bfl


5 posted on 06/30/2012 8:34:43 AM PDT by TEXOKIE
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

$303 million is earmarked in this health care law to hire more gestapo to harass people it believes are not in compliance with the incomprehensible IRS laws. About 4,000 will be hired.

Remember, these gestapo pigs live in your neighborhoods.


6 posted on 06/30/2012 8:38:52 AM PDT by sergeantdave (Public unions exist to protect the unions from the taxpaying public)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

john roberts could have been a great American, now he is a great commie.


7 posted on 06/30/2012 8:40:08 AM PDT by biggredd1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

You’d better be very, very careful who you vote for in EVERY election from now on.

Those people can MAKE you do anything. As long as they call it a “tax”.


8 posted on 06/30/2012 8:43:34 AM PDT by Tzimisce (THIS SUCKS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

Thing is, we don’t need luminaries to tell us Roberts’ ruling (yes, I call it RULing over us) was a slippery road, and sets precedence for the future forever.

We don’t need Roberts’ nuance and others to tell us there is some ‘good’ in this looming disaster.

I just don’t get it, IF I know ObamaCare was a monstrous bill against the consent of US, the people, why would some ones way smarter than me not understand there is nothing CONSTITUTIONal at all about it?


9 posted on 06/30/2012 8:44:12 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Roberts does know the law is unconstitutional, but it didn’t matter to him. His goal was to find a way to make the law stand in any way that he could, regardless of how ridiculous the legal logic was. He succeeded in the same way the OJ jury succeeded. He made a finding that made absolutely no sense given the information before him, because he could.


10 posted on 06/30/2012 8:52:41 AM PDT by HerrBlucher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

Roberts apparently agrees with the guy who appointed him.


11 posted on 06/30/2012 8:55:39 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

When Roberts was nominated, he looked like an excellent choice. Who knew that he would turn out to be Neville Chamberlain reincarnated? He should know better than to think that appeasing a bully will solve any problems.


12 posted on 06/30/2012 9:01:00 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

Roberts now has his legacy and his failed philosophy exposed.


13 posted on 06/30/2012 9:05:51 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

The apologists have to minimize the damage this man wrecked because he was appointed by a republican, and Bush in particular. Here is another in a long line of republican appointees who join the enemy.

Elections have consequences? Pfffttttt. Not when it comes to Supreme Court appointments.


14 posted on 06/30/2012 9:10:16 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus

“When Roberts was nominated, he looked like an excellent choice.”

This logic (and I’m not assailing you, we are all guilty of it at what time or another) has ever been the problem for human decision-making.


15 posted on 06/30/2012 9:10:16 AM PDT by MarDav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

If Roberts sees his job as one that needs to find a way possible to make laws Constitutional, then why didn’t he try to find a way to make Arizona’s Immigration law Constitutional?


16 posted on 06/30/2012 9:11:35 AM PDT by weston (As far as I'm concerned, it's Christ or nothing!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MarDav

“...at what time or another...”

Geez...should read, “...at one time or another...”

I gotta blame this one on global warming...


17 posted on 06/30/2012 9:17:30 AM PDT by MarDav
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
...the mandate is transformed into a constitutional exercise of Congress's power to tax.

Which simply means that 'We the People' must be diligent (and on the whole we have not been) to ensure that our representation reflects pro-freedom tax policies.

Sure - congress has the power to tax. But they also have the power to UN-tax.

It is up to us - we cannot coast. It is going to be a life-long struggle. Get used to it and stop whining...

18 posted on 06/30/2012 9:20:26 AM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: weston
then why didn’t he try to find a way to make Arizona’s Immigration law Constitutional?

Because SB1070 was a state law -- and was an embarrassment to the federal government. Obamacare is a federal law.

Evidently, Roberts' concern for bending the Constitution extends only to the maintenance of federal primacy.

19 posted on 06/30/2012 9:21:00 AM PDT by okie01 (+64)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: biggredd1
now he is a great commie.

Worse. Commies can, at least, be principled. Roberts is a stooge for the left. No different than the judges who presided over show trials in Mao's China or Soviet Russia.

20 posted on 06/30/2012 9:23:12 AM PDT by riri (Plannedopolis-look it up. It's how the elites plan for US to live.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

bookmark


21 posted on 06/30/2012 9:25:39 AM PDT by GOP Poet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45
Roberts fled for Malta, supposedly to teach a class for two weeks. Maybe he doesn't plan on coming back.

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joked that he'll spend some time on an "impregnable island fortress"

What an inappropriate joke. Americans aren't laughing.

22 posted on 06/30/2012 9:31:16 AM PDT by Ezekiel (The Obama-nation began with the Inauguration of Desolation.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ezekiel
Wittle justice Wobert changed his mind so as not to hurt the feelings of the “nice” Muslim President Obobo. Isn’t that so precious ?
23 posted on 06/30/2012 9:34:38 AM PDT by timestax (Why not drug tests for the President AND all White Hut staff ? ? ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Ezekiel
Malta. The Maltese Falcon. "The stuff that dreams are made of."

Defeating Obama and repealing Obamacare: "the stuff that dreams are made of."

24 posted on 06/30/2012 9:40:45 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Para-Ord.45

There’s a couple podcasts dealing with the Obamacare decision by John Yoo & libertarian legal superstar Richard Epstein that my fellow Freepers might be interested in. The first was done just hours after the Obamacare decision came down on 6/28; the second was done yesterday, 6/29, as part of a regular series that the two have done for Ricochet.com for some time:

1)(About the first half is with Epstein & Yoo on the decision; then other people join in.)
http://podcast.ricochet.com/ricochet-podcast-episode-125.mp3

2:
http://podcast.ricochet.com/law-talk-episode-27-kuhefaK4.mp3

And while I’m at it here’s the podcast done hours after the decision by David B. Rivkin, Jr. for the Federalist Society. He was one of the main lawyers involved in this case.

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/health-care-decision-nfib-v-sebelius-podcast

Epstein, Yoo & Rivkin are pretty unhappy. If you are too and you want to climb out of your deep despair, read this article by Randy Barnett, who is described by many as the intellectual architect of the case against Obamacare:

Randy Barnett says Roberts’ tax power argument is “lame” but “easily fixed”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2901281/posts

Barnett thinks that the wins on the Commerce Clause, Necessary & Proper Clause, and Spending Clause have greater staying power than does Roberts’ “lame” expansion of Congress’ taxing power.


25 posted on 06/30/2012 9:42:01 AM PDT by BCrago66
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ezekiel

Maybe John Roberts should follow St. Paul’s example and spend three months on Malta.


26 posted on 06/30/2012 9:50:24 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: HerrBlucher

You just explained why he chose to write the majority oppinion. It would look a lot worse if Roberts didn’t try to exlain his vote.


27 posted on 06/30/2012 10:20:38 AM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: sergeantdave

F***in’ Stazi.


28 posted on 06/30/2012 6:29:24 PM PDT by Clock King (Ellisworth Toohey was right: My head's gonna explode.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: timestax
Wittle justice Wobert changed his mind so as not to hurt the feelings of the “nice” Muslim President Obobo. Isn’t that so precious ? Prolly now wittle Wobert and his wife and two adopted children get a cool ride on a big ole jetliner called Airfarce One. awww,how cool is that.
29 posted on 07/01/2012 1:29:29 PM PDT by timestax (Why not drug tests for the President AND all White Hut staff ? ? ?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson