Why is this pig smiling?
Because of John Benedict Arnold Roberts.
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 ...
As I have posed several times here about Robert’s decision:
Before I join any group and dump all over Roberts, I think I will wait and see how this plays out as we approach the elections. I just have a gut feeling that Roberts is playing a back game and his naysayers will be caught with their embarrassment showing. I think, in the end, Roberts will be exonerated.
I could be wrong, but for now I will just wait this one out before condemning him.
Mark Levin SHREDDED this line of thought today. I am going with Mark. Roberts ruled based on politics not on Constitutionality. He is a traitor, IMO!
If a study of world history reveals anything at all, it’s that those power-hungry souls who are attracted to government work will gradually accrue more and more power to themselves until a dictatorship/oligarchy by a governing elite becomes inevitable.
The Founding Fathers did their level best to take that into account and design a “fool proof” republic. Alas, clearly they failed.
Mark Levin SHREDDED this line of thought today. I am going with Mark. Roberts ruled based on politics not on Constitutionality. He is a traitor, IMO!
Bullshit. Roberts, in an attempt to de-politicize his court in the public opinion, cemented himself as an activist judge with the most political decision of the century.
The suggested Bork Amendment (a supermajority of both houses of Congress can overturn any court decision) looks interesting, but couldn’t help here. The Senate is a long, long way from being Republican enough.
“I could be wrong...”
Sorry, and I don’t blame you for hoping, but I have no doubt that you are.
ANOTHER one who is trying to make excuses for treason. Probably another guy who KNOWS Roberts. Sheesh. When in doubt, I take the side of Mark Levin as well. BTW, Mark has known Roberts for a long time, and he didn’t hold his fire. God bless Mark Levin for putting his freedom over friendship! Bob
He and the Gang of Four did not abide by the usual court principle of tax law cases, which is not to intervene until somebody actually gets dinged for the tax. They jumped down Alice in Wonderland’s rabbit hole here.
How could it possibly work out for the best??? Even if this helps the Republicans in November's elections, which it probably will, and even if this is first crop of Republicans in decades with the political will and testicular fortitude to repeal this shit (and how likely is THAT?), it still doesn't repeal the ruling! IOW, a federal program as large, as wrong, and as intrusive as O-Care is Constitutionally hunky-dory, not just for health care, but in any other area as well! The only way to fix THAT now is with a Constitutional amendment and what are the odds of that???
And yet I could be right.
IMO, what ought to be considered more was the regard Roberts showed for his friendship with Levin. AFAICS, if you play politics with leftists, you are yourself leftist. Roberts’ convoluted views on abortion (another one who claims it is unconstitutional yet Roe v. Wade is “settled law”) spoke to his true nature back when he was first confirmed.
Why is this pig smiling?
Because of John Benedict Arnold Roberts.
I agree. Roberts trying not to be political and his decision was political. Not using the commerce clause to tax inactitivty by calling the penalty or mandate a Tax to tax inactivity. I feel like I am Alice in Wonderland having tea with the Mad Hatter. Up is down , bad is good
Any thing posted on what he said?
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.