Posted on 12/15/2016 11:43:40 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
By leaving it for Congress to dismantle, the Chief Justice ultimately set the stage for a better solution
I’m not going to lie to you. I was as mad as anyone at Chief Justice Roberts when he - not once but twice - saved ObamaCare by engaging in legal gymnastics to avoid finding it unconstitutional - which it clearly was. First he pretended individual mandate fine was a tax, even after the Obama Administration had explicitly said it was not while trying to sell it to the public. Then he ignored clear language about who had to run the exchanges in order for them to be eligible for subsidies.
The other conservative Justices (even Anthony Kennedy) were ready to throw out the entire law on the grounds that it exceeded the authority of Congress. We thought Chief Justice Roberts saw the law the same way, and we suspected when he decided otherwise that he was worried about his “legacy” as Chief Justice and about how he would be pilloried by the media and by liberal historians.
It’s not about what we end up with for federal law on this one issue; it’s about the rule of law. The Constitution is supposed to be the “supreme law of the land”, and Obamacare violates that Constitution.
Chief Justice Roberts should have written that Obamacare was well outside the scope of enumerated powers and thus unconstitutional. Anything less leaves open the possibility of further federal intrusions into our private lives and into our economic lives. I hope and pray that President Trump will think tactically and go for wins that make it harder for mission creep in the future to expand FedGov’s role in our lives.
I agree. It looks like it’s going to work out for the better, but it could have been a disaster. Roberts did us no deliberate favors (and his reasoning was absurd). It’s just that with Republican control of the presidency, House, and Senate and with Obamacare becoming more and more unpopular, we are in a great position now to reform health care in ways that conservatives have long wanted.
His job was to flush the toilet, not help clean it.
It is entirely irrelevant if anything good were to come from John Roberts activism from the bench (and I suspect that any such good would be qualified and ephemeral).
He had a job to do; he did not do it.
He betrayed the Constitution and the Electorate, and compromised even further the so-called integrity of the Supreme Court.
(And, by the bye, I do not for one moment trust even that he had a high motive for what he did.)
Cruz was my guy...and in hindsight, I agree with you!
Chief Justice John Roberts deserves nothing less than being removed from the Supreme Court. He actually deserves to be indicted for Racketeering and Collusion with the illegal alien currently in the WH
There’s more to being a SCOTUS justice than making decisions that some people approve of or that are good in the long run. Roberts twisted himself into knots to explain that Obamacare was a tax that wan’t a tax. In doing so, he showed himself incapable of ruling on the constitutionality of a law.
I heard the same argument. Its just not enough for me to accept. Even if rules were bent/broken, his children were not smuggled in shipping containers, and besides In today's political environment and the statist corruption all around us, anyone trying to place blame in an attempt to be a loving parent seems ridiculous. Moreover, if Roberts is so "upstanding" then he would either admit it, or fight such a petty charge, rather than submit all of America to a fascist political scheme like Obamacare.
” If the batter is out, you don’t rule him safe to set up the double play.”
—
I wish that my mind worked the way yours does.
.
Roberts deserves no sympathy, no benefit of the doubt, no quarter. He is an enemy of strict constitutionalism. Another Bushie NWO stooge who must be purged from the halls of government.
I guess you’re right.
Can’t wait for Jan 20th.
Donald Trump should require every citizen to purchase a firearm for health safety or pay a fine. The precedent is set. Thank you, Mr Roberts.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but he reason the Supremes get lifetime appointments is so they have no reason to be political. They can rule as they see fit without fear of personal or professional retribution.
That swamp is wide and deep.
John Roberts and Earl Warren are examples of why Trump should be extra careful in screening potential nominees to the Court.
I would suggest Trump write up maybe 50 different questions to ask nominees.
Examples:
Is a fetus an independent human life?
Should states have the power to protect that human life?
Does the Second Amendment guarantee the right of an ordinary citizen like one of his children to own a gun? buy a gun? even in NYC?
What are some current problems regarding the current interpretation of Amendment IV by the Court?
Is the PPACA Constitutional?
Was the subsidy case correctly decided?
I’m still bitter about it and believe he was presented with a “carrot or a stick,” or both.
No, there is no reasoning here. It is patently unconstitutional and despite the fact that congress may dismantle or amend it, it should NEVER have passed constitutional muster. No, John Roberts did no one a favor and forever relegated himself to the dustbin of American jurisprudence.
Still trying to rationalize Roberts on Obamacare? The man is pretty well reviled on the right and will never be a hero to the left, so “legacy” was a silly reason if so. Seems pretty clear to me that his motivation was externally applied and it’s more than just those kids he adopted.
Yeah. Just like the executioner does the condemned a favor by wiping the skin with alcohol when they stick the lethal injection IV in his vein.
John Roberts has demonstrated that the Supreme Court is nothing but a bunch of political hacks. The Convention of the States needs to make the judges stand in elections for continuance in their positions.
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.