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.
He failed to perform his explicit duty and should be held accountable.
Exactly. Roberts just made the Pontius Pilate move and abbregated authority of the SCOTUS to the legislative and executiive branches to tax anyone for any reason.
Great quotes on your homepage, BTW.
If have read all the articles by supposed conservatives using twisted logic to explain to us why Roberts ruling is a good thing. They are perfect examples of what is wrong with Republicans and why we are getting our butts handed to us on a daily basis.
What if Ginsberg had ruled with Alito, Scalia, etc.? Does anyone actually think the Democrats would be talking about how good that is for their party? They would be screaming from the rooftops about the illegitimacy of the court and would vow to rewrite the law and pass it again. Remember how they passed the law and Nancy Pelosi with her huge gavel shoving it in the face of the American people. They didn’t care that the law was blatantly unconstitutional.
Yesterdays ruling had nothing good in it for us and until conservatives and Republicans start fighting like the Dems they will continue to beat us.
You are delusional. Roberts usurped congressional authority to write tax code. He called a penalty ( a fijne if you will) a tax. A fine is imposed as punishment. The government MUST prove that I broke the law before they can fine me (impose a penalty). I get a day in court. Ruleas of law apply. A tax is levied and if I believe it is unfair or unjust I MUST prove that I am innocent. I may or may not get a day in court. Moreover I have to pay the tax before I can appeal the tax. What the court has done is to allow the government to force you to do whatever they want or they wil impose a fine that can now by called a tax. The Constitution is very specific about taxing authority and what can and cannot be taxed. This violates that portion of the Constitution which apparently does not to bother Roberts.
We are so screwed. Do not delude yourself there is NOTHING good from this. With Roberts implied taxation ability the government no longer needs anything else to force compliance. Roberts has over turned 200 years of SCOTUS doctrine. The Marshall court settled this early on. The power to tax....etc
Victor Davis Hanson is a Greek historian by training. He probably remembers reading the tweets Xerxes sent his mother right after Salamis about how they suffered some losses but it was going to make the conquest of Greece more of a sure thing.
Here is the 16th amendment to the constitution... please list for me the restrictions...
The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.
Isn't it amusing that when liberals get a 5-4 decision that goes against them, they describe it as a "bitter, divisive, and partisan ruling..." with Justices ruling from the bench? And yet, when a 5-4 decision supports their cause, "justice has prevailed" in their eyes.
I think Roberts tried to get cute with yesterday's decision, and gave something to all sides--to Democrats, their law stands for now; for Republicans, the ability to describe the law as a giant tax; and for the citizens of this country, the lesson that elections have consequences, and if we vote for politicians who promise us things taken from others, we can eventually lose our republic. Sadly, that will be a lesson lost on many.
EXCEPT of course this was NOT written as tax law.Penalties are NOT taxes
You’re buying into this whole “it’s a tax!” bullsh!t. The function of a tax is to raise revenues to finance the legitimate functions of government. The ObamaCare penalty is no more a tax than is a speeding ticket. The penalty’s function is not revenue generation; the penalty is *strictly* punitive.
We’re f’d.
Hanson nailed it. Trying to spin this into something good is rather like calling Pearl Harbor a minor setback.
Roberts is a liberal/marxist.Roberts rewrote this unconstitutional,socialist, big government, monstrosity of a law to justify it. Roberts should be impeached. This moron ended freedom .And people are looking for silver linings. Enjoy paying 22 new huge taxes, turning a huge part of the economy over to the government, becoming slaves of government, losing our individual liberty? Nothing is worth that.Now we have to pay $3000 per year in new taxes.
Agreed.
No, I am buying into the constitution... I asked you to list the restrictions on taxation in article 16... I see you have found none..
As a side note, during the hearing at the supreme court, the joke of a lawyer presenting the case for fubo actually said, rather sheepishly, that it was a tax.
The big question that no one seems to be asking is, is this a fairly applied tax? With so many exemptions given out, the answer is a sound NO. This will not stand constitutional muster. Either it will fall in it’s entirety, or the ones given exemptions will lose them.
However, it cannot be challenged until it is actually applied, and someone actually has to pay it. That is in 2014 ( if it lasts that long ).
As another side note, romney did infact state that he wanted to keep parts of it. How does that line up for him signing a total repeal ( or the republican libs writing up a complete repeal )????
Why should I bother? The penalty is *not* a tax.
Tell me, is the function of the penalty to raise general revenues (like a tax), or is its function punitive (like a fine)?
Furthermore, am I to believe the authors of the Constitution -- who were by no means fans of either government coercion or taxation! -- framed the Constitution in such a way that there is no practical limit to Congress' power to tax? Or rather, is it far more likely that this perceived "unlimited" power of Congress to tax is pure bullsh!t, based on a gross distortion of original intent?
Roberts could have done all that and struck the bill down.
So, why did he give the bill Constitutional approval?
As you have done consistently, you overlook the vastly larger issue that historically has done far more damage - the willingness of Supreme Court justices to re-write the meaning of words to get the ruling they want. Interstate commerce is extended to include activities that involve neither commerce nor interstate movement. A right to abortion is found where none exists. And now this.
Obamacare is not a tax. It is a combination of mandate and penalty, under any sane reading of the law and the dictionary.
Roberts could only uphold Obamacare by engaging in judicial alchemy and making something into a tax that is not such. And if you have the power to change the meaning of words, then power is unlimited, because you can twist any section of the Constitution to fit the usurpation at hand.
Agree totally, and I'll also take the liberty of quoting the great Ann Barnhardt:
"Am I surprised at this morning's news? No. The only thing that is the least bit surprising is that it was Roberts, who was heretofore considered a "constructionist", and not Kennedy, who finally put the last nail in the coffin of the First American Republic. The corpse in the coffin has been dead for years. Let's call GWB's administration the terminal illness, Obama's usurpation in November of 2008 the actual moment of death of the First American Republic, the last 3.5 years as one long funeral dirge, and today as the final graveside interment service. The First American Republic done got low, and now is taking the long dirt nap. It's all over except for the rotten descendents sniping over the estate like buzzards."
I wish it wasn't so, but I can't argue with her. Even if we do get rid of Obama in November, and even if by some miracle we actually had a true patriot (IE: Palin) replacing him, I fear the damage that's already done would be too much to overcome.
Sorry to be such a Debbie Downer, but that's how I feel.
Complete nonsense. You are deluding yourself, IMO.
Roberts could have gotten across the exact same points while overturning this travesty, so your “silver linings” are nothing of the sort, IMO.
And you really believe they are terrified of being thrown out on their asses? Not a chance, at least for the bulk of them. Their agenda is all that matters, and they will be taken care of for the rest of their lives by those who are grateful for having their agenda advanced.
You couldn’t be more wrong with your analysis, IMO.
What terrifies them is violence, and violence directed at them personally. They have nothing to fear from this tangent as our current crop of patriots and “conservatives” are not violent in any meaningful way.
Demonstrate to these tyrants what is really in store for them if they do not do as we tell them, then they get the point, and the right thing gets done. Once upon a time our forefathers were very violent people who went to war to get their way. Thanks to them, we actually have this once free country. However, we no more are inclined to “tar and feather” those who wish to dictate to us, we simply write a strongly worded letter or post an angry diatribe. Yeah, they certainly have a whole lot to fear from that!
They get away with this because we allow them to. We simply bend over and take what’s coming, and they use this fact to advance their agenda. They have nothing to fear.
It's happening.
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.