Posted on 06/29/2012 9:58:19 AM PDT by Red Badger
Chief Justice John Roberts is the most hated man in the United States of America today. He will be hated forever by strict constructionalists, but he will not be hated by conservatives reasonably versed in Supreme Court rulings, they will simply dislike him. After all, Justice Roberts is on solid Constitutional ground.
Most people have never heard of James Kent. He was a professor at Columbia University Law School after which he became chief justice of New York’s Supreme Court. Law students are introduced to him early in their schooling, then forget him as soon as possible. They shouldn’t, and it appears justice Roberts didn’t.
In his introduction to a lecture delivered in 1794, professor Kent stated, “It is regarded…as an undisputed principle in American Politics, that the different departments of Government should be kept as far as possible separate and distinct.” Which is another way of saying, in this country we have three branches of government which are supposed to keep out of each other’s fundamental business. The Legislature legislates while the Executive executes while the Judiciary adjudicates. Ever since John Marshall established the principal of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, the system has been such that the supposedly co-equal branches were expected to respect each other’s territory only to cross boundaries when one or the other seriously stepped out of line.
As onerous and offensive as Obamacare is, neither the President nor Congress stepped out of line in their fundamental duties when structuring and implementing it. One could argue they tested the limits of their respective authorities, but they were nevertheless doing their jobs. And though Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer can all be lumped into a category of political jurists who have little respect for the Constitution, Roberts’ decision cannot be held in so little regard as theirs.
The history and tradition of our American system of government is such that the Supreme Court has, for the most part, been loath to tamper with Congress’ primary function, a purely political one. That he forced a peculiar interpretation of arguably the worst legislation in Congress’ history is totally consistent with what the Court has done throughout its history. Justice Roberts merely reminded us that Congress’ authority is paramount, political and partisan, and that we get what we elect. In point of fact, he’s right, our remedy is not in his court, but in the election process.
Justice John Bannister Gibson wrote a dissenting opinion in Eakin v. Raub, 12 Sargeant & Rawle 330 (Pa., 1825) which speaks directly to the issue, “I am of [the] opinion that it rests with the people, in whom full and absolute sovereign power resides, to correct abuses in legislation, by instructing their representatives to repeal the obnoxious act.” To which should be added, “and if their representatives don’t, then it is incumbent on the people to roust them from office and elect representatives who will.” This is our fight, not John Roberts’, and we should accept the challenge without whining over his decision.
Throughout human history in law and politics, one thing is absolutely clear, when people have had enough, they act against their government, not with it. The United States of America was designed to facilitate, if not encourage that action. The Constitution assaults any contrary notion of our right to pursue a change in the way our government operates. Roberts did nothing more than remind us to use that right. If we do not, it’s our fault, not his.
Add me to the hate list.
I obviously would've understood had he sided instead with the 4 justices that dissented by stating that it is unconstitutional as written and should go back to Congress.
I find it unconscionable that he then 're-wrote' the key part by inserting the "tax" concept in order to find constitutionality where none existed prior.
Won’t answer your stupid question, but if you look online, you will see many on the left realize the danger in the ruling for them.
Not saying I support the law.
The mechanism of extracting the penalty is to draw money away from one's income. It's a tax, a burden, ON income. No taxable income means no payment.
Is there an article on that? Can’t find it.
If so, I will completely retract this. I am just basing it upon numerous other articles pointing out that this could (not definitely) but could have at least some good for us despite the horrible reality of the law staying.
The penalty will be the greater of a flat dollar amount per person, OR a percentage of your taxable income.
Flat dollar amount for individuals: $95 in 2014; $325 in 2015; and $695 in 2016; increases indexed to inflation after that, subject to a cap.
“The mechanism of extracting the penalty is to draw money away from one’s income. It’s a tax, a burden, ON income. No taxable income means no payment.”
Youn can’t actually believe that, can you? This is a wild shot in the dark to avoid thinking about the issue, isn’t it?
Republicans have a bad track record in recent decades: Eisenhower picked Earl Warren, Nixon picked Blackmun and Powell, Ford picked Stevens, Bush-41 picked Souter, and now Bush-43's brilliant pick has betrayed us.
“You could call it a non-sales tax.”
Call it a poll tax, because that’s what it is. It is a head tax directly laid on individuals without regard to their income. Poll taxes are illegal. Therefore, so is Obamacare. (It’s illegal for other reasons, too; this is just one.)
“He pulled a bigger wad of dreck out of his butt on this one than Blackmun did in Roe v Wade.”
Yes, because at least according to the 9th amendment there are such things as unspecified reserved rights. So the Roe argument is over whether abortion is or is not a right, not whether or not it’s in the Constitution. Obamacare, whether the penalty is a tax or not, goes against explicit portions of the Constitution, as well as its overall logic. Rewriting the law to make it constitutional goes against the most basic priciples of what it means to be a judge, as everyone understands it.
You won’t answer me, because you can’t.
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.