Posted on 05/03/2012 1:17:18 PM PDT by AtlasStalled
J. Harvie Wilkinson, the federal appeals judge from Charlottesville, Va., long has carried a contrarian streak.
* * *
And last month, receiving the Federalist Society’s Lifetime Service Award at Georgetown University, Judge Wilkinson hinted that the high court he nearly joined should think twice before striking down the symbol of everything contemporary conservatives revile—the health care overhaul President Barack Obama signed into law over near-unanimous Republican opposition.
* * *
The framers envisioned not only individual rights, but democratic ones that could impose duties upon the individual, he said. “We are neglecting the code of personal responsibility that has long been the source of our national strength,” he says, echoing language in the Affordable Care Act requiring citizens to carry health insurance.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
Gaydar is going off the charts. :)
But We the People KNOW ...ObamaCare has NOTHING to do with “healthcare” and everything to do with bureaucratic perpetual Ivy League employment machines telling each of us every little thing we think , do and spend all our lives.
“...stop paying the medical bills for free-loading morons that don’t care about personal responsibility.
Then stop regulating the hell out of insurance companies and let them sell us products ala cart and across state lines.”
But that’s no fun at all!!
Oh yes. It’s right there in Amendment 10a isn’t it?
“Accept the duties I impose or it is off to the Gulag with you!”
What an effing monster.
As mandated by mob rules and or judicial fiat?
I would think if this black robed argument was correct then what the judge actually refers to is better termed "collective responsibility" versus the historically accurate and legitimate "personal responsibility"
This judge seems to be another leftist preaching about government granted collective salvation under a regime devoid of God; a regime devoid of individual rights; and as such, a regime devoid of the self determination premising the very choices that establish personal responsibility's existence...
It is quite simple to point out the judge's detour from reality by asking a simple question: If an individual cannot decide to be irresponsible THEN how can responsibility be considered personal?
Getting something out of committee isn’t necessarily support.
Recall when the Republicans made the Democrats vote down their own bill to reinstate the draft while Bush was President.
If the female dog did not vote it out of committee it wouldn't have happened. Why would you vote something out of committee if you don't support and know it still might pass. That is the difference.
1 Peter 5:8 “Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil walks about like a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour.”
Rip that “Award” away from him!
The very propose of the Constitution of a free republic is to limit government to preserve individual liberty. You know so that “majorities” can’t vote that liberty away with whatever burden of taxation or “forced service” they like.
If this man is a “judge” he is a truly sick example.
“This judge seems to be another leftist preaching about government granted collective salvation under a regime devoid of God; a regime devoid of individual rights; and as such, a regime devoid of the self determination premising the very choices that establish personal responsibility’s existence...
It is quite simple to point out the judge’s detour from reality by asking a simple question: If an individual cannot decide to be irresponsible THEN how can responsibility be considered personal?”
Outstanding way of putting it! This bares repeating to every leftist and “moderate” alike. This “judge” is off his rocker, and need to have that fake award ripped from he who believed men have the right to simply vote away the rights of other men.
“This judge seems to be another leftist preaching about government granted collective salvation under a regime devoid of God; a regime devoid of individual rights; and as such, a regime devoid of the self determination premising the very choices that establish personal responsibility’s existence...
It is quite simple to point out the judge’s detour from reality by asking a simple question: If an individual cannot decide to be irresponsible THEN how can responsibility be considered personal?”
Outstanding way of putting it! This bares repeating to every leftist and “moderate” alike. This “judge” is off his rocker, and need to have that fake award ripped from he who believed men have the right to simply vote away the rights of other men.
Are theses the same framers that despised the idea of democracy as the most evil and self-destructive form of government imaginable?
Seriously this “judge” is a lunatic, he needs to be removed from the bench on the grounds of historical, and constitutional ignorance.
If the so called “Federalist Society” gave this man an award he has seriously embarrassed them.
Agreed.
Are theses the same framers that despised the idea of democracy as the most evil and self-destructive form of government imaginable?
Ans. The US is NOT a democracy. Just because of that.
Seriously this “judge” is a lunatic, he needs to be removed from the bench on the grounds of historical, and constitutional ignorance.
Ans. I agree. Sounds like dementia, to me.
If the so called “Federalist Society” gave this man an award he has seriously embarrassed them.
True, True.
Gee, we only thought Reagan made two dreadful mistakes in judicial appointments, O’Connor and Kennedy. But there was Wilkinson too.
At pone time, was Wilkinson under serious consideration for a seat on SCOTUS?
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.