Skip to comments.John Roberts' Arrogance
Posted on 07/03/2012 2:01:57 PM PDT by nerdgirl
But judges are also not hired as political philosophers, Burkean or otherwise. Their legitimacy comes from a credible application of the law. And the outcome of the health care case came down to one point of law: Roberts' interpretation of the statute as a constitutional tax rather than an unconstitutional mandate. In his ruling, Roberts admits this view is hardly the most obvious one. "The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a 'fairly possible' one."
The problem is that Roberts' interpretation is not fairly, or even remotely, possible. If the law had been written in the Roberts version -- as a regressive federal tax on the uninsured -- there is no chance it would have passed Congress. More to the point, the law that Roberts describes would have covered a different number of the uninsured. Academic studies indicate that people respond differently to tax penalties than they do the legal mandates. "When the imperative to buy insurance," notes Yuval Levin, "is instead presented as a choice between two options, more people will likely choose the cheaper option (which, for almost everyone, will be paying the tax rather than buying the coverage)."
Why did Roberts not account for this policy distinction? The most natural interpretation is that he didn't know anything about it. Which is precisely the point. Roberts is not a health policy expert. His clever reinterpretation of the health law would actually change its outcome. This is not an alternate reading but an alternate universe.
(Excerpt) Read more at realclearpolitics.com ...
I had thought better of him!
Roberts is simply another bad bit of beef in an entire sea of vomit that we euphemistically call the judiciary. Bob
"The only real security of liberty, in any country, is the jealousy and circumspection of the people themselves. Let them be watchful over their rulers. Should they find a combination against their liberties, and all other methods appear insufficient to preserve them, they have, thank God, an ultimate remedy. . . . .Should the government, on trial, be found to want amendments, those amendments can be made in a regular method, in a mode prescribed by the Constitution itself [...]. We have [this] watchfulness of the people, which I hope will never be found wanting." - James Iredell, NC, and Justice of Supreme Court (Debates) Elliot, 4:130
IMPEACH ROBERTS NOW!
Roberts is just another member of the permanent Washington ruling class.
Am beginning to believe that the two party system is just kabuki. Both “parties” work together on the big things so as to become our rulers.
The path to government slavery just advanced another step.
Yes, me too. I still wonder if he just made a really bad decision, and will come to regret it?
Roberts has destroyed himself. In his quest to be liked by the Establishment, he has caused everyone to lose all respect for him. Even the Establishment doesn’t respect him, it just finds him useful... for now.
It seems that Roberts defenders have become rather scarce today. Where did they go?
Nonsense. Ask Arizonans. Federal courts discard state laws like they were unwanted lint. The people who vote for Federal Reps and Senators are the same who send legislators to state capitals. Scotus defers to Leftism, not to federalism.
Federalism and our republic are gone.
Actually Ken, some people saw me as a Roberts defender :) I have been trying to understand why he did it, and in particular the Atlantic 2007 interview article answered that for me. I still don’t think he is a liberal, a “marxist”, or anything of the sort - but I think his decision was awful, and he may come to realize that someday.
A lot of that has to do with the kinds of laws these are. The court doesn't strike at big government programs so much as at smaller restrictions on individual liberty. The former are usually federal, the latter are more often state or local.
Ideology is also involved, I suppose, as is the fact that the Supreme Court is a federal institution located in Washington. It's also easier to push aside a law made by one of fifty states, rather than one that was made by representatives from all the states.
Roberts's argument for judicial restraint is one that conservatives have often made -- the argument that states should be free to legislate as they saw fit without unecessary judicial interference.
In this case, Roberts is applying that argument to the federal government. It's controversial. Roberts apparently sees a logic in applying a similar standard to both federal and state governments. Others would argue that the federal government's power should be more restricted than the states (or vice versa).
Putting Roberts and judicial restraint in the same sentence is hilarious. Rewriting statutes at SCOTUS so that they may pass constitutional muster, no matter the motive or lack thereof, is the antithesis of restraint. Thanks for the chuckle.
This is what I have been saying all along, that Roberts “legislated” from the bench. He has betrayed his own principles out of fear from his steady diet of the NY Times ans Wapo. His reputation is forever tarnished. His colleagues will now look upon him as suspect. So, Obama has now divided the Congress, the Court, the races, the religions.
That a poor man can exist in this country without fear of the government coming down on him for money he does not have just died. Thanks in full to Chief Justice Roberts who decided that Obama could tax people making less than $250,000 for not buying health insurance that they could not afford in the first place to shore up somebody else’s health insurance. If people could not afford it in the first place, how can fining them make sense when they need health care, make them pay for it and the fine involved. He’s a slob!
Judicial restraint is the idea that judges should defer to the will of lawmakers whenever possible, turning to the U.S. Constitution on only the rarest of occasions in order to nullify a duly-enacted law.
Roberts may have made the wrong decision. You can argue about whether he really was restrained in his ruling, but compared to throwing the entire law out, reinterpreting its basis probably qualifies as judicial restraint. That doesn't make it a good decision, but overturning the law would not have been an exercise of judicial restraint in the way that judges use the phrase.
Well, you see, it's actually a tax, not a fine, so it's okay. At least according to John "Please Like Me" Roberts, the most emotionally insecure Justice in American history.
You are just now seeing the parties are bunk? Conservatives need to quit trying to take over the GOP, it’s obviously impossible.
It’s time to go after the RINO’s from the grassroots and take counties and states and then grow so big a “Republican” would be a dinosaur.
It’s clear we can’t take the party from the top down. We’ve tried for 32 years and get jerks like Boehner and McConnell (and sometimes Speaker Newt in his day, and Bill Frist and Trent Lott) that keep stabbing us in the back over and over.
Where is ‘judicial restraint’ mentioned in the Constitution?
Right which is why I did not say that nor do I think it. There are many laws that have passed constitutional scrutiny that I do not like. Such is life.
But to my knowledge never has a tax bill originated in the office of the CJ of the SCOTUS. Nor should it have and the sophists who regard this as restraint are fooling nobody with a brain. And it does not even take much of a brain to see Roberts for what he is, a political animal with no regard for the US Constitution who has no business being on the SCOTUS.
BTW, I am not trying to convince anybody of anything, just stating the facts as I see them.
“...no business being on the SCOTUS.”
Thats what impeachin’s for....
The liberals are the A list and the conservatives are the B list. The liberals have put on their snobish airs for so long that many people have bought into their sense of superiority.
Not really except where he finally discovered some of injustice Roberts many contradictions and just begins to understand the inherit problem with what he calls “institutionalism”.
Michael Gerson before that had it backwards in presuming that the ideological ratchet only goes one way because of Constitutionalism rather than institutionalism. If one of them is to allow ideology to go anyway it is institutionalism which on face value admits to “preserving” the institution by way of compromise with political forces(if the predominate force is leftist activism than your institution will do nothing but move left).
Constitutionalism sticks to the firm and anchored foundation of a written constitution, it sways nether left nor right, only back toward the point of anchor after being pulled.
Furthermore Constitutionalism does not necessarily include any kind of “humility” following a “period of liberal activism”.(When is there not liberal activism?) That is a trate of how people deal(or fail to deal) with the activism of others. Frankly I agree being humble with insane leftist ideas is flirting with deaster & enslavement.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.