Why Roberts Did It

National Review Online ^ | 28 June 2012 | Charles Krauthammer

[Meet the New Boss]

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the Court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

snip

Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the Court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5–4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.

[jesseam]

Re: So Roberts made Marxism the law of the land, because he wanted to seem “fair.

So long Constitutional Republic, hello marxcist dictatorship

[eddie willers]

I always feel good when me and Krauthammer agree.

Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There's only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed -- elect a new president and a new Congress. That's undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine

I've been saying that all afternoon.

[Mountain Mary]

What do you mean you can’t undertand how the other Constitutionalist judges voted differently than Roberts? There were four conservative judges who wanted to completely repeal the law: Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy.
Where Kennedy was the one we were worried about bailing..it was actually the Chief justice himself who failed us and joined the lib judges to make it a five four decision.

The others, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagen and Breyer are card carrying Libs and voted for for all things anti American/anti Constitution as they always do.

[tanknetter]

He could have voted down the mandate AND Obamacare as tax, right?

I don't think so - I think that in order to have standing before the Court on the tax issue a plaintiff needs to have actually been taxed. That hasn't happened ... yet.

[USS Alaska]

Sorry folks—I’m beginning to think, more and more, that SOMEONE HAS SOMETHING on Roberts

Someone said that Roberts has Sandusky eyes, I dunno.

I would like to meet him on the range.

[Terry Mross]

From Rush today: “You could say that a tax on having more than one child would now be constitutional.”

[GailA]

Ecc12:13-14

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.

For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether [it be] good, or whether [it be] evil.

Since when did 2 evils make a good? Twins in thinking, signing legislation, etc. Trading one d socialist for an r socialist does not compute.

When bad seed is sowed on bad soil it produces a bad crop. For all those who complain of Snowe, Graham, Collins and the former Specter this is what you will get if you go ahead and drink the GOP koolaide in Nov.

[Terry Mross]

Roberts to Kennedy: “Okay, I’ll vote for it so you can vote against it.”

[varina davis]

If there was a covert reason for Roberts’ vote, I would think it might be a salve to the left for them voting to wreck the Arizona immigration bill.

[formosa]

Actually Roberts just proved the Supreme Court for all intents and purposes is useless or at least he is. The supreme court makes the wrong decisions when it counts. They side with murderous abortionists and now demand the tax payers finance those killing fields making us all complicit in evil.

[uncbob]

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China:

And that was a disaster also

[RoadTest]

Then people like Roberts are frozen immobile in fear of what the media will say. That’s bondage!

[eddie willers]

I think that in order to have standing before the Court on the tax issue a plaintiff needs to have actually been taxed

Good point.

[uncbob]

Does this all really matter

The country is broke

Ain’t gonna be any $$$ for Obamacare

We will be lucky if we are eating 2 years from now

[eddie willers]

From Rush today: “You could say that a tax on having more than one child would now be constitutional.”

Yes...but now it would have to pass Congress and no longer can be found under "penumbras".

Liberals will no linger have the courts skirt to hide behind to make, instead of legislate, laws.

Do you not think that you can convince your fellow countrymen that laying a tax for having more than one child is a bad thing?

[Terry Mross]

I know lots of conservatives who wouldn’t mind seeing some people limited in how many children they have. Not me.

[Chode]

it it is now declared a TAX... it can be repealed, right???

[FrdmLvr]

No. His job is to find it constitutional or unconstitutional. It was clearly unconstitutional. He went out of his way to do what he did.

[Nip]

To quote a zebra stripped SF Sergent from the late 1960’s

“Sir, don't you go worrying about your creditability. By the time you get around to worrying about it you ain't got none!

You start each day with a little piece of creditability, a little smaller than those bars you wear. You add or subtract from that by every act you do during the day - large or small.

And if you are lucky the creditability you start tomorrow with will be a little bit larger than that you started today with.”

I mean no dishonor to the man by not remembering his name for he taught me that afternoon the greatest leadership lesson I have ever learned.

To be a good leader you have to the right thing every time, every day. Don't worry about tomorrow for it will be here soon enough with its own challenges. If you start worrying what others will think of you you had better leave - you'll be killing your men needlessly shortly after that thought becomes part of you.

If Roberts was worried about how “his” court will be remembered he can forget about it. It will be forever defined by today's ruling; and, it ain't good.

[bgill]

There is no why. There is no spin. There is no wiggling out of it. He did it. He aided and abetted the destruction of America.