Posted on 06/29/2012 2:02:48 PM PDT by OldNavyVet
"Conservatives won a substantial victory on Thursday. The physics of American politics - actions provoking reactions - continues to move the crucial debate about the nature of the American regime, toward conservativism. Chief Justice Roberts has served this cause."
(Excerpt) Read more at ocregister.com ...
I agree with you. Will's article shows good thinking
Roberts' vote and his written drivel represent a huge failure of his 'conservatism.' He too proved that he is indeed an idiot or senile. (If not compromised through some sexual misbehavior being held over his head.)
Perhaps it will motivate us to fight, and we'll win the next battle. With luck and a little bit of learning, we may stay serious long enough to take our country back and win this war against communism, socialism, and other variants of big government fascism, but yesterday was a major defeat for freedom.
I already did. It doesn’t matter the machinations of a beltway excuse for a Conservative. This is an unmitigated disaster in every aspect for the country. Every Aspect! Even if Romney takes the White House and the Republicans Take the Senate by 61 seats, Does anyone believe that they will have the guts to actually get rid of this monstrosity? We are now stuck in the universe of tinkering with Government run health care for the foreseeable future. We would be better off to have been taken over by the Soviets, at least they dole out copious amounts Vodka and Cigarettes!
Unfortunately it continues to turn the ratchet of American government towards leftism. The best the Republicans can do when the Democrats tell us to drink a glass of poison is to negotiate it down to a half glass now and a half glass later.
Striking the thing down completely would have been the best decision, obviously. But then Obama wouldn’t have had to defend it during the campaign. He would have said that he needs to be re-elected so he could appoint even more liberals to the court to insure Obamacare would get passed, “next time”.
But this decision gives Romney, and the rest of the GOP, a big opportunity to fire up the base, and it looks like it’s already happening, with Romney collecting 4.3M bucks in the last 24 hours. This could make 2010 look like a walk in the park IF the pubbies can effectively take advantage of the situation.
But Romney has to come up with a lot more than, “If I’m elected, I’ll get rid of Obamacare”. He has to present a plan to vastly improve healthcare with free-market competitive solutions and ideas. Because the Dems are going to say, “What would you replace it with?” And he’s got to have a very good, and convincing, answer.
George Will lives in South Carolina.
That might easily be said to fit Justice Roberts now.
What he did, in voting as he did, was hand this socialist government a huge win. He could have voted with the other conservatives and killed this monster in its tracks - but NO... HE TRIED TO GET CUTE, AND HAND THE DEMOCRATS A WIN!
As it is, I think Ginsberg has a photo of him naked in his office with a cute little staffer, to blackmail him with!
Nonsense. It certainly was not obvious to everyone. Look, I'm as disappointed as anyone that Obamacare stands, but Roberts's opinion on the Commerce Clause is earth-shattering to liberals. Will's analysis, as always, is very good.
Attempts by Sophists such as Will to spin this into a "win" are nearly as amateurish, silly, ill-reasoned and internally inconsistent as Roberts' opinion for the Majority.
Nearly.
The decision is predicated upon a notion that the authority to tax may be based on nothing more than Congress' Constitutional authority to tax under the first article of the Constitution. However, the authority itself derives from a requirement that Congress may only raise taxes to achieve what is "necessary and proper" in the pursuit of its specifically enumerated powers. This is made clear in Article I, which adds a further requirement: that the enumerated powers are further restricted to only those things which promote the "general welfare."
Example: Congress is granted the specific authority to create post offices. Therefore, it may raise taxes to obtain that effect (necessary and proper) but it may not create a post office just for the benefit of Fred Zarguna (because it would be solely for my benefit and a few of my friends, and would not promote the general welfare of the United States.)
Therefore, it was incumbent upon proponents of this law to place their finger upon some part of the Constitution wherein an authority to regulate health insurance companies was granted. Grasping at a legal straw, the liberals reverted to an old favorite: the Commerce Clause. But the Court ridiculed that notion, and Roberts himself made it clear that theauthority for the mandate could not come from that source. Nor could it come from the "necessary and proper" advancement of the whole act, as again, Roberts himself argued.
But now, we have a larger problem than we had before, because Roberts -- writing on behalf of his liberal majority -- has claimed that the authority to tax for any purpose whatsoever is contained in the Constitution, a laughable position that even the most rabid liberal has never (until now) advanced as a legal theory. The argument is either circular (you have the authority to tax because taxation itself is necessary and proper) or advances a claim concerning implied powers under general welfare which has never before been proposed.
In effect, all restrictions on the legislative power have been swept away by this decision. Any law is now Constitutional provided only that a fine, penalty or tax is imposed.
Yes, it's that bad. But it actually gets worse...
Because hitherto, the Court would not even have granted Cert in a tax case until someone with standing came forward to challenge the law. In fact, the Court could not do so even if it wanted to, because of the Anti-Injunction Act, and no one will actually be "taxed" by the mandate until 2014. In the instant case, the Court has used thoroughly tortured logic to claim that: 1) Even though the mandate is a tax 2) the AIA doesn't apply, because Congress did not believe it was a tax when it was passed.
Howzzat again?
That's right, the majority has not only destroyed the concept of limited government with this ruling, but the Court itself actually broke the law in even allowing the case to be heard.
But wait, it gets even worse...
Because Roberts' opinion also holds that even though the "tax" is not the kind of tax permitted in the first article of the Constitution, and even though the "tax" is also not a tax on incomes covered by Amendment XVI, it is a valid tax (of what kind he does not say) and the existing case law already permits it.
This is an entirely new doctrine: preemptive Constitutionality. No Court has ever ruled in the past that the provisions of a law which as yet affects no one is Constitutional/Unconstitutional. Roberts' opinion signals exactly that. (See my previous posts for a quote from the majority.)
Bottom line: this is the Dred Scott/Roe v. Wade of the 21st Century. June 28th, 2012: A date which shall live in Infamy.
It's really that bad.
Just like a football team that loses by 50+ points is a win because next week they will try harder. /sarcasm
If Will thinks this is a win, maybe he is a closet Democrat?
Nonsense. It certainly was not obvious to everyone. Look, I'm as disappointed as anyone that Obamacare stands, but Roberts's opinion on the Commerce Clause is earth-shattering to liberals.
Since the thirties, the Commerce Clause has been the catch-all justification for every single expansion of the federal government's power. If it's ever tried again, this new precedent will be the crux of any legal argument against it.
Will's analysis is, as always, very good.
” A Substantial Crock of Crap!”
"I have great respect for George Will, but his assertion that the Supreme Court decision is a "huge victory" that will "help revive a venerable tradition" of "viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint" and lead to a "sharpening" of "many Americans' constitutional consciousness" is sufficiently delusional that one trusts mental health is not grounds for priority check-in at the death panel."
High faluten language is not needed and instead of impressing coveys a sense of snobbery unless done in the style of WJB
Back up george and try again. Establishment Repubs are the biggest liars around. No one believes you twits any longer!!!
I think of the Alamo as a victory, it created the win of the war with the loss of a 185 men or so, their personal loss in battle accomplished more than they could have known.
If the reasoning had been used in support of overturning the law, it would be useful. Since it is used in support of an argument that the it can't be used to overturn the law (because the law is upheld for a different reason altogether) it is nothing more than obiter dicta.
Not bone-crushing argument. Not precedent. And not binding on any future or any lower court. Roberts' knew full well that this was the case, and added those throw-away lines to mollify self-deluding "conservatives."
This is a devastating betrayal and an absolute disaster for the Republic. The far reaching consequences of tax-based legal justification will actually be -- if it's possible to imagine -- WORSE than 0bamacare.
George, those are your guts there on the floor...
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.