Judicial Betrayal (Thomas Sowell on John Roberts)

Creators Syndicate ^ | July 3, 2012 | Thomas Sowell

[jazusamo]

Betrayal is hard to take, whether in our personal lives or in the political life of the nation. Yet there are people in Washington — too often, Republicans — who start living in the Beltway atmosphere, and start forgetting those hundreds of millions of Americans beyond the Beltway who trusted them to do right by them, to use their wisdom instead of their cleverness. President Bush 41 epitomized these betrayals when he broke his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. He paid the price when he quickly went from high approval ratings as president to someone defeated for reelection by a little known governor from Arkansas. Chief Justice John Roberts need fear no such fate because he has lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court. But conscience can be a more implacable and inescapable punisher — and should be. The Chief Justice probably made as good a case as could be made for upholding the constitutionality of ObamaCare by defining one of its key features as a "tax." The legislation didn't call it a tax and Chief Justice Roberts admitted that this might not be the most "natural" reading of the law. But he fell back on the long-standing principle of judicial interpretation that the courts should not declare a law unconstitutional if it can be reasonably read in a way that would make it constitutional, out of "deference" to the legislative branch of government. But this question, like so many questions in life, is a matter of degree. How far do you bend over backwards to avoid the obvious, that ObamaCare was an unprecedented extension of federal power over the lives of 300 million Americans today and of generations yet unborn? These are the people that Chief Justice Roberts betrayed when he declared constitutional something that is nowhere authorized in the Constitution of the United States. John Roberts is no doubt a brainy man, and that seems to carry a lot of weight among the intelligentsia — despite glaring lessons from history, showing very brainy men creating everything from absurdities to catastrophes. Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius. One of the Chief Justice's admirers said that when others are playing checkers, he is playing chess. How much consolation that will be as a footnote to the story of the decline of individual freedom in America, and the wrecking of the best medical care in the world, is another story. There are many speculations as to why Chief Justice Roberts did what he did, some attributing noble and far-sighted reasons, and others attributing petty and short-sighted reasons, including personal vanity. But all of that is ultimately irrelevant. What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States. Who he betrayed were the hundreds of millions of Americans — past, present and future — whole generations in the past who have fought and died for a freedom that he has put in jeopardy, in a moment of intellectual inspiration and moral forgetfulness, 300 million Americans today whose lives are to be regimented by Washington bureaucrats, and generations yet unborn who may never know the individual freedoms that their ancestors took for granted. Some claim that Chief Justice Roberts did what he did to save the Supreme Court as an institution from the wrath — and retaliation — of those in Congress who have been railing against Justices who invalidate the laws they have passed. Many in the media and in academia have joined the shrill chorus of those who claim that the Supreme Court does not show proper "deference" to the legislative branch of government. But what does the Bill of Rights seek to protect the ordinary citizen from? The government! To defer to those who expand government power beyond its constitutional limits is to betray those whose freedom depends on the Bill of Rights. Similar reasoning was used back in the 1970s to justify the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. Otherwise, it was said, Congress would destroy the Fed's independence, as it can also change the courts' jurisdiction. But is it better for an institution to undermine its own independence, and freedom along with it, while forfeiting the trust of the people in the process?

[Marcella]

bookmark

[wita]

“I am curious”

...and I can certainly understand your curiosity, however it appears that it is in part related to a desire to understand how a liberal making a truly absurd decision, arrives at the disastrous result.

I liken it to attempting to understand why a killer kills, or a Rapist Rapes. Who the hell cares. They have committed a punishable offense, and punishment is the next step, following the arrest and conviction, of course.

[RKBA Democrat]

Good article. I wonder if he is going to have the courage to follow up on this article with a realistic “so what do we do now?” Because anyone who looks at the totality of the situation we face is going to recognize that we’re the suckers at a game of political 3 card monte.

[wyowolf]

Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius.

Well, I guess we are totally safe from Zero!!!

[Vigilanteman]

We're supposed to be talking about judges, no killers are rapists. While I realize the boundary between the two is growing less distinct, judges are obliged to explain the legal basis for their ruling.

If, indeed, a tax bill cannot be ruled on until someone actually pays the tax, then SCOTUS had no grounds to even rule on this case from the basis of it being a tax.

[Vigilanteman]

We're supposed to be talking about judges, not killers or rapists. While I realize the boundary between the two is growing less distinct, judges are still obliged to explain the legal basis for their ruling.

If, indeed, a tax bill cannot be ruled on until someone actually pays the tax, then SCOTUS had no grounds to even rule on this case from the basis of it being a tax.

[wita]

“While I realize the boundary between the two is growing less distinct, judges are still obliged to explain the legal basis for their ruling”.

Did you hear Rush this morning mention one of the conservative justices asked Roberts to explain the ruling and he couldn’t, which was why none of the dissenting opinions even addressed Robert’s ruling.

I agree with your second sentence. This whole issue can only be understood by turning oneself into a pretzel.

[Fledermaus]

If a justice ignores his oath, he should be removed.

Maybe we need to amend the Constitution to that effect. But cowardly Republicans would cave on that too.

[loveliberty2]

With reference to your posts relative to the "oath of office," perhaps, for today's audiences, we might put into context the meaning of the "oath," as it was intended by the Framers of our Constitution. Below are some thoughts from that period and until the late 1800's on that subject:

The oath of office required for representatives of "the People" was intended to be sacred and binding, because that oath is a vow, according to their understanding, before the "Sovereign" of the Universe, and its violation carries penalities both human and Divine. President George Washington described it in this manner:

"Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths?"

For an amazing history lesson and sermon by the Rev. Benjamin W. Arnett, readers might want to visit the Library of Congress and read the entire text of his 1876Centennial Thanksgiving Sermon, paying special note to the excerpts below which discuss and describe the nature of the oath:

From the Library of Congress: African American Perspectives: Pamphlets from the Daniel A.P.Murray Collection, 1818-1907

Centennial Thanksgiving sermon,: delivered by Rev. B.W. Arnett, B.D., at St. Paul A.M.E. Church, Urbana, Ohio

CENTENNIAL THANKSGIVING SERMON

Excerpt from P. 31, in which he is discussing the Declaration of Independence:

"We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare: That these United Colonies are and of right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved; and that, as Free and Independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, and in a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor." - JOHN HANCOCK.

Arnett continues:

"And the names of the whole Congress followed. You see that there is Divinity in this immortal document. Can we find in the "Articles of Confederation" anything to support the position that the founders of this government intended that it should be a nation for God, and that his religion should have a place in this land. It says: "Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual union." Thus we find this assembly thanking the Governor of the world for inclining the hearts of men. Who can move the hearts of men but God? But we find them in reverence bowing to the Governor of men.

"We now call your attention to the Constitution of the Nation and let us examine that instrument in the light of the men who formed it, and we will see that this was intended to be a Nation founded in Righteousness and Justice. What does the instrument say on this subject:

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

"Article VI says: "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall be required as a Qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

On Page 37, Rev. Arnett described the nature of "oaths and affirmations" as follows:

"Oaths and affirmations are appeals to God, by him who makes them, that what he has said, or what he shall say, is the truth. It is the most solemn form under which one can assert or pronounce anything, and its violation is a crime of the darkest hue; one which God has declared he will punish; one that is made infamous and punishable by fine and imprisonment, by the laws of the land. Thus Christian obligation is required of every officer of the general Government, who fills any position of trust, honor or emolument. Many reports are required in the form and shape of affidavits."

[loveliberty2]

With reference to my Post #49, the Sermon by this truly outstanding Methodist Minister of the A.M.E. Church in the Bicentennial Year of the Declaration of Independence is a review of the history of governments, ancient and modern, the like of which few of us will ever have read.

Rev. Arnett was asked to deliver the Sermon in that Year of Celebration following the period of the Civil War, and his breadth of knowledge, his love for the Republic, and his insight into the ideas of liberty as incorporated into our documents of liberty should be read over this upcoming 4th of July Holiday.

On P. 47 of that Address, he begins a section on what he calls "Dangers to Our Country," listing the stated goals of what must have been the beginnings of what we call the "progressive" movement. Those goals, as he identified them in 1876, can be directly correlated with specific actions which most of us would recognize today.

[scooby321]

Alberto Gonzales the third worst Atoorney General vetted him.

[jazusamo]

A most excellent post regarding Rev. Arnett and Oaths, thank you much.

[noiseman]

"At some point something has to give. Why bother taking any oaths or making any promises if it means that you'll just turn around and do the opposite at some point? This country is lost."

This is why every Republican who shies away from "social issues" is wrong to do so. What we refer to as the dominant culture in the country is really just a reflection of the moral state of the People in general. And as the Founders warned us, our system of self-government will implode if not manned by people of the right caliber. Take a system that grants unprecedented freedom to its citizens and populate it with morally apathetic people, and the result is guaranteed to be catastrophic.

Our system depends on being staffed with people of character and honor for it to work as intended. As we have seen, oaths are important and must be honored by those who take them. But if we simply ignore those uncomfortable "social issues", how do we expect to raise up generations of Americans who are morally fit to exercise their responsibilities as citizens, much less as officers of the government? Garbage in - Garbage out.

I am afraid we simply have precious few people today who are even remotely qualified to govern from a moral standpoint. And the only way to address this problem is not through tax policy or foreign policy (important as those are), but rather through social policy. If we don't start resisting the liberal social agenda without fail and without compromise, we will never have a prayer of setting the right course on taxes, or spending, or foreign affairs, or on anything else for that matter. We will just continue to churn out morally-confused people who cannot properly differentiate between right and wrong, and should not be surprised when they fail to see the significance of an oath.

In practical terms what I mean is that we must refuse to accept liberal premises. Refuse to go along at work or at school with "diversity" training. Refuse to be silent when someone promulgates the lie that America is a racist, empire-building evil country. Refuse to tolerate any portion of the homosexual agenda, because tolerance by those who were just trying to be polite and avoid conflict has now brought us to the point where we are seriously debating an oxymoron such as "gay marriage." We have to do more than just refuse to allow liberals to continue to make things worse, however. We must become involved in all facets of the culture that conservatives have traditionally avoided, from media, to art and film, to academia, to government, etc. In this way, we can begin to model moral courage and uprightness to our children and to any adults who aren't already too far gone.

We must rebuild the character of the People if we are to have any chance of reclaiming our nation.

[Chickensoup]

Please ping me

[jazusamo]

Welcome to the Sowell ping list, you’re on.

[MHGinTN]

Dr. Sowell, being the gentleman that he is, refers to perhaps a struggle with conscience in the pirate Roberts. But I'm not so much of a gentleman as he so I will say what I truly believe: Roberts is a globalist enabler, placed on the court —astonishingly at the head, which should have been a clue— to do just what he is accomplishing; he is ruling in ways which dismantle Our Constitution, removing the last vestiges of our we the people sovereignty.

[Standing Wolf]

I’m with Dr. Sowell.

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[GOPJ]

But this question, like so many questions in life, is a matter of degree. How far do you bend over backwards to avoid the obvious, These are the people that Chief Justice Roberts betrayed ...

I feel betrayed - how could he do this? Can't seem to shake the feeling that people like me don't matter.

[jazusamo]

Well said...I feel betrayed also and his decision makes it very clear he doesn't give a whit about us nor the millions like us nor the Constitution.