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 ...
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.