Posted on 07/05/2012 6:46:08 AM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
WASHINGTON -- I have a headache. I imagine you do too, if you have been trying to interpret the legalese employed by those legal sages who have pronounced on Thursday's Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. I would rather read the lyrics of a thousand rap composers than the anfractuous language of one legal sage.
Thanks, however, to Professor E. Donald Elliott of the Yale Law School I had a translator at my side, and I shall now hand down my judgment of the Court's decision on Obamacare, which all sensible Americans have abstained from reading in its entirety including B. H. Obama and the vast majority of denizens of Capitol Hill, including N. Pelosi. Some of these worthies even admitted as much. It fell to nine heroic souls garbed in black actually to read the law and to Chief Justice Roberts to write the decision for the exhausted majority.
As a result of his prestidigitation with prior precedents and with the famously vague English language, critics cannot dismiss Chief Justice Roberts as hyper-partisan. His fellow conservatives are highly agitated by his decision. His usual opponents, the Liberals, celebrate him. The Chief Justice dodged the bullet. I think you can call him crafty, as Chief Justice John Marshall was crafty all those years ago when he wrote the decision for Marbury v. Madison. Roberts' decision, the decision of the majority of the court, accomplished three things.
Firstly, it reiterated two earlier holdings of the Court that ended the expansion of the commerce clause. The expansion of the federal government's reach under the commerce clause is no longer a grave threat to limited government. This offends certain Liberals such as our friends at the New York Times. Well, you win some and lose some, indignados.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Is that the “happy dead pig in the sunshine” that I have heard so much about?
I was deemed even at a very young age to be not only illiterate but quite prone to delusions and believed strongly that Howdy Doody’s puppet was real.
I even thought that perhaps he would grow up some day to be a Supreme Court Justice and uphold an African President’s health care law, which would finally put an end to the Constitution of the United States. Even now I believe it to be true though I must be mistaken!
>> Causa finita est. <<
A brilliant post!
(In fact, if you hadn’t used the novel spelling “straigt” I might have called it the best POST to date about the recent SCOTUS ruling!)
Another conservative decides to eat the poop cake.
http://larrycorreia.wordpress.com/2012/07/02/shut-up-and-eat-your-poop-cake/
If it takes that much mental contortion to find the good in this horrendous decision, then there is no good.
It is destructive to our liberty. Period.
Ironic, no, that it was issued right before “Independence Day”?
Hey Bob, what if we all go to the polls and Obama still wins? Sorry, Roberts screwed us.
Little Tommy Daschle must be so proud of Bob for this hugh and series effort to get that bright red lipstick on this pig and its consort, Roberts. But then globalists of a feather ... have their useful idiot sycophants.
The Medicaid part of the ruling is not warranted as the law had no severability clause (and the anti-injunction law was turned on it's ear (it should be unconstitutional anyway)).
"Congress can now tax us for not doing something" - This is the worst affront to logic and personal Liberty in a long time. Roberts needs to resign for this alone.
No, he's in Malta teaching a course. Methinks he should just stay there and apply for asylum.
Ben Arnold may have had more cause to be a deadly traitor to his country but John Roberts had no real cause other than self inflated self esteem yet with more real power to finish Ben's hate America agenda--God Damn his soul!!!
The real determination of whether Roberts was crafty or sold us out will never be made if we succeed in taking the White House and both houses of Congress and the folks in Congress have the stones to pass a full repeal by using reconciliation to get it though the Senate (or mirable dictu we get 60 Senate seats), so in way, I hope we never find out.
But, while Obamacare is law, there are is still a manifestly unconstitutional provision lurking in it, but one not addressed in the suits the SCOTUS ruled on a week ago: the IPAB provision which attempts to bind future Congresses, and thus is prima facia unconstitutional. The same provision could also be challenged on the basis of the precedent in (of all things) Roe v. Wade, where the “reasoning” had nothing to do with abortion per se, but with government intrusion into the “private” patient-physician relationship. The IPAB is nothing but one huge intrusion of government into the “private” patient-physician relationship.
If a suit on either basis reaches the SCOTUS and Roberts leads a majority to invalidate Obamacare, notes it contains no severability clause and tosses the whole thing into the ashbin of history, he would indeed have out-foxed the left by establishing a precedent that limits Federal coercion of the states and the expansion of the Commerce Clause.
I’m surprised that none of the source article commenters have ripped Tyrrell for buying Roberts’ dicta re: the Commerce Clause as binding precedent.
Very well put!
Not only that, it's all W's fault. I'm not kidding.
Brilliant! That reminds me of Octavia Spencer’s chocolate pie in The Help.
—So .....His intentions were good when he stabbed us in the back!!!!—
I think of it as shooting a lame horse. We’ll thank him later for offing us more quickly.
Exactly! Especially considering his third point.
“Thirdly, the Congress can now tax us for not doing something, but this power is not nearly so dangerous ....”
Tell me again, how teh “I WON” president and “We have to pass it to read it” Pelosi cheat, lie and bribe the whole time to get the bill passed against the consent of majority citizens?
And Mr. Tyrrell think they will somehow be more restrained in the future?
1. The case before the Supreme Court was probably brought prematurely, since the most destructive provisions of ObamaCare aren't even in force yet (and therefore can't legally be contested).
2. The Court's ruling is actually problematic for ObamaCare in other areas. The ruling is filled with landmines that can be exploited by individuals or groups in future legal challenges. For one thing, if ObamaCare is a "tax" then by definition there are enormous loopholes that would likely apply to tax-exempt organizations (religious or not).
3. As more and more provisions of ObamaCare are implemented, there will be additional legal disputes related to specific provisions (First Amendment grounds, the ability of HHS to grant waivers in an arbitraty fashion, etc.).
4. ObamaCare is not likely to remain in its current form by 2014 anyway, since the financial numbers aren't going to work and too many members of Congress are going to be running away from it.
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.