Posted on 06/29/2012 9:04:57 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Many conservatives are feeling betrayed by the chief justice's vote to uphold Obamacare. But there's a counterintuitive case to be made that John Roberts's decision is largely a victory for conservatives.
Every time I visit Washington, D.C., I am struck by a single, terrible thought: It is not just that conservatives are losing the various battles over big government, but they have been losing the war for generations. The most conservatives are ever able to do is tinker at the margins – and celebrating small victories like lowering marginal tax rates is a sign of just how low our sights are set.
Why has this happened? After all, this was a country founded in direct opposition to unlimited governmental power. How have we arrived at a point when the feds can do just about anything they want?
It is because, at critical moments in the nation’s history, the advocates of limited government were on the losing side of the political equation, and the opposition was very effective at consolidating its victory. Not only did big government advocates implement policy changes, they also brought about huge structural innovations to the way the government functions.
The progressives of the early 1900s managed this with the 16th Amendment, legalizing the income tax and opening up whole avenues of power that had been previously off limits. The political genius of that move must be admired: The left got its hands on the government for a relatively short period of time, but it sure made hay while the sun was out. We’re still paying the price today -- quite literally. Similarly, the New Deal took advantage of a national emergency to ram through ......
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
It was not necessary for Roberts to interpret the mandate as a tax vehicle in order to gut the commerce clause. That was an arbitrary decision on his part.
My tagline stays as is.
LLS
However, if he is to redeem himself, and if Tea Party patriots really want to stake this new central government power that Roberts created through the heart, then We The People need to put forward a Constitutional Amendment with a clause prohibiting mandated commerce and another clause prohibiting fines, fees, and taxation of non-activity.
We need one of FRs lawyer types to frame the language so that it is both clear, and leaves no wiggle room.
We need to amass enough signatures so that the Anti-Indenture Amendment goes viral.
We will see if the American People really value their freedom and oppose obamneycare as much at the polls suggest.
And for all you mitt backers who keep claiming that you're going to somehow hold mitt's feet to the fire, this is the foolproof way to do it - mitt has to make passage of this Anti-Indenture part of his platform.
Spamming....
We only need to follow Jefferson’s remedy of Nullification. Study the Alien and Sedition act.
LLS
Either Roberts is who he appeared in these two rulings, and we’re stuck with a narcissist who thinks he’s the knower and purveryor of all, or he’s a liberal, or they have something on him.
I’m afraid of all 3 of those. I think, though, that Obama might prefer a chief justice he had dirt on to a Hillary who has her own avenues of power.
I think Roberts was compromised and someone has some dirt on him. He was probably told that if Kennedy didn't swing left that he was going to have to do it himself... or else! Or else what? We will probably never know.
My prediction is that he will decide to resign this summer because of some medical or family problem and that Obama will name Kagan as the Chief Justice and will nominate Hillary Clinton to replace Roberts. She will get 50 votes and Biden will cast the deciding vote to put her on the bench. It has all been pre-determined.
Occam's Razor.
Lol, very funny pm. Wouldn’t Occam’s Razor more likely lead us to the fact that Roberts just isn’t Conservative?
What you posted is an extremely convoluted conspiracy theory.
Any idiot HAS to know that when they accept a position on the SC, a tremendous amount of pressure will be applied. If he couldn't handle it, then he should never have accepted the position, especially as Chief Justice.
The Occam's Razor explains the opinion that he was compromised. I take it you didn't read the opinion. It starts out coherent as if he had written it in order to strike down the law on the grounds of the commerce clause and then suddenly, in legal language not fitting a first year law school student he launches into a diatribe about the taxing authority of Congress and then to top it off he writes an exception to the anti-injuction rules regarding challenges to taxes.
Now IF Roberts was compromised and was forced to write this weird and convoluted last minute opinion, then whatever Eric Holder has on him would be serious enough that he could be compelled to resign in order to give Obama a shot at creating a majority of liberals on the bench.
Now who would be the least likely candidate to be voted down by the Senate? That would be Hillary. The Republican libs like Snowe and Collins would be thrilled to have Hillary on the bench and McConnell would NEVER call a filibuster against a former first lady.
Watch it happen my FRiend. It shall come to pass.
If you happened to read his opinion you would have to conclude that Roberts isn't just "any" idiot. He is in a class by himself.
Actually, that would be a tough argument to make. Every conservative writer in America and the entire conservative base was convinced that John Roberts was a conservative, and that based on his record, his testimony, his early votes, etc.
EVERYONE....that is why the shock at this.
So, I'd have to agree that Occam's Razor is on Marlowe's side, at a minimum in terms of Roberts never having presented in the past as a liberal.
SOMETHING took him to liberal-land...and that's what Marlowe is "Occam's Razoring" about.
It's entirely possible he woke up one day and said to himself, "John...darn...they're right. Those darn liberals are right. I'm signing on right now as of today."
I guess that's a possibility, too.
Thanks for the detailed response FRiend, we will have to stay tuned. If however, you’re correct, I will forever amend my tagline to “P-Marlowe: Most prescient FReeper in the history of this great website”. For I will be stunningly impressed.
Obama the most corrupt president in the history of the Republic.
Eric Holder, the most corrupt Attorney General in the history of the Republic.
Saul Alinsky, Valerie Jarrett, Chicago...
Do you think these guys are not capable of getting the goods on the conservative members of the court and then using those goods to extract whatever "favors" they might want at some point?
Do you think all these Justices are immune from the human foibles that we all have? Do not these justices have secrets in their closets like all of us little people? Do you not think that Eric Holder and the FBI and all his little bureaucrats in high places are not capable of getting the scoop on these little secrets and using them to get their agendas moved forward?
My FRiend, we are witnessing the most corrupt administration of all time. When something like this decision comes down, the only explanation is that somebody got to Roberts. They tapped his phones, they sifted his garbage, they hacked his computer.
Nothing else adequately explains this decision. The rest of my analysis is just simple logic.
Bear with me as I propose this Chicago/Obama scenario.
As Roberts is speaking the majority opinion he is also watching a live videocast from his home where his children are tied together back to back and a gun is being held to his wife’s head.
This would explain the red eyes that were apparent.
Or was Roberts blackmailed about something?
There is a lot more to this story than we now know, but Roberts, in giving his pro-Obamacare opinion, limited the government via the Commerce Clause, putting control in the states to opy out, labeling it as a tax and putting it back in the lap of the House for a repal on those grounds, and showing that Obama pulled a lot of strings via Reid to get this passed.
I believe the ones to be impeached for improper behavior are Reid and Obama.
Stay tuned. Roberts played the long game, in my opinion.
BTW, are you an attorney? How do you know what goes on during deliberations at the Supreme Court?
Yes
How do you know what goes on during deliberations at the Supreme Court?
I don't know, but I know what goes on in Chicago style politics.
Kagan for her conflict of interest. Ginsburg for health reasons and Sotomeyor for stupidity and being a hack!
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.