Posted on 06/29/2012 7:31:50 AM PDT by madprof98
I’ve read all the arguments, some ingenious, for why the Roberts majority opinion is actually “good” in the long run. I don’t buy that at all, and worry that rationalizing defeats is no way to learn from them. From now on, the precedent has been established that U.S. citizens can be forced to buy a product that government deems necessary — period. Who cares what a particular president on occasion deems to call it — tax, mandate, whatever — at any given expedient time, or what a justice does to finesse that definition to protect implementation of the law?
The same is true with the Arizona decision. I don’t see how that decision is such great news either: We now live in a country where a state that tries to follow and enforce federal law is seen as a usurping power, while those government entities, such as the sanctuary cities, which deliberately seek to undermine federal immigration law are, for all practical purposes, exempt. Add that Arizona is now supposedly acting unconstitutionally in trying to close its borders, and the president is apparently acting constitutionally as he sidesteps Congress and implements de facto amnesty by fiat, doing far more damage to the notion of federal law than any conceivable action by Arizona. That is surreal.
As for the culture of the Court, we must accept that when four liberal judges vote in typically liberal fashion they are open-minded, and when conservative judges do the same they are partisan and small-minded, putting enormous pressure, apparently, on the latter to now and then vote in liberal fashion, and none at all on the former to do anything but remain orthodox. There is no conservative majority, but rather a 4/3/2 court, with absolutely predictably liberal justices and those inclined often to join them becoming a reliable majority.
As for the Holder contempt charge, nothing much will come of it. Holder will not release the required documents any time soon; the matter will be manufactured into an illiberal assault on an African-American attorney general who has already shamelessly used the race card in his defense; and there will be, as planned, stalling and stasis until after the election and little knowledge about or justice given to a slain American officer.
Meanwhile, after a “disastrous” May and June, Obama is edging up again in the polls. For all the reports of his fundraising problems or his existential election crises, he seems to have many millions in key swing states to run class-warfare hits against Romney. The serial “Swiss bank accounts” and “shipping jobs overseas” don’t seem to be countered, and so are having some effect. If Obama is where he is after a disastrous 60 days, where will he be after a so-so next two months? Conservatives should not listen to themselves and their ingenious rationalization about how things are “really” swinging their way, and instead accept that the presidency, the courts, and much of Congress are doing all they can, as quickly as they can, with enormous powers at their disposal, to change the fundamental nature of the United States — and so far are mostly winning. All of the above should mobilize conservatives in 2012 as never before and open their eyes to the resources and zealotry pledged against them: November is really a sort of last-ditch effort in a way prior elections were not.
How fast can we get an Amendment through the states?
I don't see how this is possible. When have they been able to tax anyone/everyone just for living and breathing? I agree with the other assessments, but this one (and you're not the only one who's said this) makes no sense to me.
Yeah. The cute part is that the media have two years to spin it before the hammer comes down.
This is no different than me driving past a federal park that has a $5 admission fee and being told I must pay $4 for not entering. No one in their right mind could reasonably argue that I was not being punished for failing to enter the park.
Victor David Hanson sees things as I do. I am as appalled as he that people are busily polishing the turds we have been presented, and calling them shiny.
“There was nothing good about yesterday’s ruling.”
I don’t buy into this theory totally, I agree this decision doesn’t make sense no matter how I view it, but there is one salient point, and that is the fact that if you are going to try and force people to do what you want through the tax code, then at least it will be out in the open as a tax, and not hidden under the false pretense of a mandate.
Do you think Obamacare would have passed as a tax increase?
The very term Tax Increase, for whatever reason, will be a hard battle to win in any congress.
You brought some clarity I had not seen. Thank you very much. The only thing you mentioned that I had seen, and I really appreciated, was this statement by you:
“Roberts took the opportunity to slap down the voting public, rightfully telling US that it is our responsibility to elect people that represent our views. He is 100% correct on this count.”
And his statements to that effect within the decision itself was the truly sweet part of this.
It's unbelievable, I suppose it's a coping mechanism.
bttt
When all other rights are taken away, the right of rebellion is made perfect. - Thomas Paine
This just depresses the hell out of me...again.
they were granted and have always had this power. The only reason they do no use it is we the people would throw them out on their collective asses.
Now that they have to call a spade a spade (taxes) they will be even more heistant to pass anything that includes extra taxes... hence, transparency.
You should be able to differentiate between estimable NR contributors such as Mssrs. Hanson and Steyn—and the NRO lily-livered editorial staff.
And his statements to that effect within the decision itself was the truly sweet part of this.
"
This argument is specious.
The 2010 elections were a direct result of 0bama/Roberts Care. Had the SCOTUS sent the bill back to Congress for a do-over, it would not come out of the current representation anywhere close to where it is now. The people did speak at the ballot box and Roberts vetoed their input. Roberts is constitutionally retarded.
I think playing the Obama video with Stephonopolis, adamantly saying this was not a tax, followed by showing his attorneys arguing that it IS a tax before the SCOTUS will, itself be enough to get him out of office, especially if used to amplify and support all the other arguments that he is duplicitous in his governing style.
I’ve said since about late 2009 that he is either the amateur he appears to be, and will go down hard, or he is the beast in Revelation and it will take God’s overt action to deal with him. I suspect we will find out sometime in the next 3.5 to 4 years.
(to the good old Ben)
No, Sir. We can not keep it a Republic.
At least it was a glorious run for some > 200 years.
I think you have a very good point. The people do need to take responsibility for the trash they elect to office. At the same time, I suspect that Judge Roberts has either by nefarious intention or by his wish to drop the ball back in our laps, has handed us the tools to reshape our government and nation, but only if we are willing to do the work ourselves. If we choose to pout, cry and whine about how unfair it is to have bad government rather than take back our government; so be it. We can be subjects.
I very much enjoyed reading your post and your reasoning. I am trying to find some positives in Roberts’ ruling. Sometimes I wish some of the wiser legal beagle Freepers could do a point-counterpoint.
For example, Freeper Buckwheat surely does not see your sliver (I meant sliver not silver) of linings, and I’d like to hear your point counterpoint to his argument which is also substantial regarding limitations on the commerce clause.
I agree with his point that you just can’t tax everything. Doesn’t it have to have some constitutional basis otherwise we are just paying 9 black robes to sit in black robes ?
Taxing power or commerce clause - does it really make any difference if we still wind up screwed and constitutionally violated?
Here is Buckwheat’s argument to be digested and compared to your equally astute observations.
“The Roberts opinion is the Wickard of our generation.
You will recall that Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111 (1942) “vividly re-imagined” the Commerce Clause so that it covered a farmer growing a crop for his private use on his own land. In this case the fact that he was growing grain to feed to his own livestock and because he was not going to put that grain on the market, he was somehow possibly going to have an effect on interestate commerce and that gave the federal government the nexus for regulating the crop.
Wickard plagues us today. Most recently in Gonzales v. Raich (2005), where a the Court ruled that a person, growing marijuana on her own property with her own soil somehow was engaged in interestate commerce.
In Raich, the court said, “Congress can regulate purely intrastate activity that is not itself ‘commercial,’ in that it is not produced for sale, if it concludes that failure to regulate that class of activity would undercut the regulation of the interstate market in that commodity.”
Now we have an expansion of this treasonous logic, for if government can wrap anything in an activity that can be taxed, then it too is legitimate, no matter how extreme.
I would point out that taxes must only be levied for legitimate government functions, and those come from the enumerated powers. In this ruling, the Court stated that ObamaCare could not be justified under the ever-elastic Commerce Clause. In doing so, they admitted it was not found in the enumerated powers. But since it was suddenly a tax, the tax could be levied and the law could stand.
So, in my opinion, this ruling is treasonous because it devises an end run around the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.”
“Freedom is dead. I really don’t feel like celebrating the 4th next week. To me, it’s become a hollow joke.”
I agree. In fact I just had an exchange with the 1 democrat remaining in my group of friends and she wished us all a “happy 4th of July.”
I replied to all with, “I agree, it is no longer independence day, just the 4th.”
She replied, “Smart ass CSM, you don’t hold the market on patriotism.”
I replied, “It is now precedent that we can be taxed for INACTIVITY. We are no longer an independent people.”
I find it disgusting that anyone could claim this legislation was “patriotic.” Personally, I am angry that I made any sacrifice in my life to protect our freedoms when all it took was a black robe to steal them anyway. I am very angry and depressed, almost more so than after 9-11. Maybe more so......I am trying to decide between foreign enemies and domestic enemies.
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.