The Roberts Opinion: It's Not All Bad

Townhall.com ^ | 6/29/2012 | Kate Hicks

[Servant of the Cross]

John Roberts is not a “traitor to his philosophy.” He is not a liberal. He is, above all else, a very strict originalist, and the Chief Justice of a Court that is acutely aware – and wary – of its role in politics. Understand that his opinion, though certainly not ideal for the Right, contains more good news for conservatives in its pages than it does on its face.

So let’s take a look at his surprising opinion – the controlling opinion, as it’s called, which sets precedent and “say[s] what the law is,” as Marshall said so long ago.

The Good News

First: let’s give credit where it’s due. Roberts made it abundantly clear that he’s not a fan of the actual policy. Moreover, he shifted responsibility for this policy back to the American people, and revealed his respect for the separation of powers:

“Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

Unhappy with the ruling though you may be, the wisdom contained in that paragraph alone ought to cheer you. And I promise, there’s more!

Now then. What hath he wrought?

“Commerce Clause” is everywhere in the news today, and if you’ll recall, that was considered the basis for both upholding and striking down the mandate. Roberts threw out the government’s argument that it could regulate inactivity because of the “substantial effect” abstention from the market would have on the market as a whole. This, he said, was way too much power:

“Allowing Congress to justify federal regulation by pointing to the effect of inaction on commerce would bring countless decisions an individual could potentially make within the scope of federal regulation, and—under the Government’s theory—empower Congress to make those decisions for him. […] Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.”

Moreover, he created a new precedent in Commerce Clause jurisprudence that limits its scope significantly, by accepting the distinction between activity and inactivity. In so doing, he created a concrete definition of Federal power that will influence the way Congress makes law in the future, and the way the Court interprets future Commerce Clause cases. Here’s the key passage to that effect:

“People, for reasons of their own, often fail to do things that would be good for them or good for society. Those failures—joined with the similar failures of others—can readily have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. Under the Government’s logic, that authorizes Congress to use its commerce power to compel citizens to act as the Government would have them act. […] The Government’s theory would erode those limits [on the Commerce Clause], permitting Congress to reach beyond the natural extent of its authority, ‘everywhere extending the sphere of its activity and drawing all power into its impetuous vortex.’ The Federalist No. 48, at 309 9 (J. Madison). Congress already enjoys vast power to regulate much of what we do. Accepting the Government’s theory would give Congress the same license to regulate what we do not do, fundamentally changing the relation between the citizen and the Federal Government.”

It’s hard to see at first glance why we should celebrate this ruling, especially because it was evidently not enough for Roberts to overturn the mandate. But what Roberts did here was establish a defining limit on the Commerce Clause, which had heretofore not really existed. Congress is now restricted in its ability to use this very broad power, in that it cannot compel individuals to participate in the market. Consider, also, the wide array of tools at Congress’ disposal under the Commerce Clause to ensure compliance. Roberts has ruled that Congress can’t criminalize not buying something because of the effect abstention will have on the market. Indeed, that was at issue in this case; the fact that it’s unconstitutional is a win for liberty.

Furthermore, Roberts narrowed the definition of “substantially effects” to encompass activity that is already occurring, and curtailed Congress’ power to presuppose, and then regulate, activity.

“The proposition that congress may dictate the conduct of an individual today because of prophesied future activity finds no support in our precedent. We have said that Congress can anticipate the effects on commerce of an economic activity. […] But we have never permitted Congress to anticipate that activity itself in order to regulate individuals not currently engaged in commerce.”

Now, think back to the time when constitutional challenges to the mandate first began to surface: every legal scholar worth his salt, conservative or liberal, believed the Court would kill the activity/inactivity distinction. Yet that was the major victory the conservatives won in this case, and it’s now legal precedent. The mandate itself lives on, but Congress may never apply the full force of the U.S. government to compel anyone to make a purchase. This, the fight for the Commerce Clause, was the real war. And the right won it. Perhaps the fruit isn’t ripe yet, but it will prove juicy in time.

So now, to turn to the legal reasoning for why the mandate remains law. In other words…

The Bad News

Here’s Roberts: “And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.”

You may keep your law, he says. But let me redefine it for you.

In the opinion, Roberts applies a test from an earlier case, Drexel Furniture, to determine whether the “penalty” meets all the requirements of a tax. It’s another long excerpt, but worth reading, as he’s very clear:

“The same analysis here suggests that the shared responsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insurance, and, by statute, it can never be more. It may often be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance… Second, the individual mandate contains no scienter requirement [i.e. it’s not punitive for breaking the law]. Third, the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation—except that the Service is not allowed to use those means most suggestive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution.”

So here’s how it’s going to work from now on: the mandate is now just the “tax on not having healthcare,” which I’m sure will get a snappier name in the coming days, something akin to the “gas tax,” or the “income tax,” which most of us pay. Roberts says as much:

“[A]ccording to the Government…the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition—not owning health insurance—that triggers a tax—the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earning income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”

So after he invalidated the Commerce Clause justification, he determined that really, the “penalty” doesn’t force participation in the market; hence, why he didn’t throw out the mandate with the Commerce logic. It’s not really forcing people into the market; after all, it didn’t criminalize not owning insurance. It just puts a tax on it, and Roberts notes that taxes are often used to induce certain behavior:

“But taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. […] Today, federal and state taxes can compose more than half the retail price of cigarettes, not just to raise money, but to encourage people to quit smoking. […] That Sec5000A seeks to shape decisions about whether to buy health insurance does not mean that it cannot be a valid exercise of the taxing power.”

Frankly, this doesn’t look like an expansion of the taxing power. Perhaps he’s articulating more clearly the intent behind so-called “sin taxes,” and other behaviorally-motivated taxes, but he’s not handing Congress more power. He’s just explaining a power they already had, and use.

Remember—he never said it was good policy, and in fact made it clear that he feels otherwise. What he did was invalidate an unconstitutional argument in defense of the policy, thereby banning it from future use, and then uphold a bad, but not unconstitutional statute, because it adhered to a permissible exercise of power. Congress passed a tax, he says, and it’s a bad one, and he doesn’t like it, but that doesn’t make it impermissible.

So, is this what the right really wanted to hear? Heck no! We like the dissent, where the whole thing goes. But Roberts is dumb like a fox, and it’s worth looking at the effects this ruling will have on the future, both near and far.

The Upshot

Over, and over, and over, President Obama assured us that this was not a tax. He was not raising taxes on the middle class (that’s what the Republicans were doing, remember?). Nope, says the CJ: ya raised our taxes. Politically, that’s going to prove troublesome for Obama this fall, and in a much more substantial way than having his “signature legislative accomplishment” overturned altogether.

For one, Roberts took away Obama’s ability to campaign against the Court. They upheld his law; he can’t do as he did after Citizens United and construe the ACA ruling as a massively political attack on the little guy and his uninsured plight. He has nothing to blame on the Justices. All they did was recharacterize the “penalty” as constitutional under the taxing power. Roberts robbed Obama of a scapegoat, and stuck Obama with an unpopular law in an election year. Ouch.

Second, Roberts has literally forced Obama to acknowledged that he broke a promise, and raised taxes. And tax increases don’t resonate well with the voters. Now, it’s doubtful Obama will assume responsibility for raising taxes – note that in his speech today, he didn’t acknowledge the Court’s reasoning for the ruling, only that they ruled in his favor. But the GOP has just added a major weapon to its arsenal: want to lower taxes? Then don’t reelect Obama.

This third observation is one that isn’t immediately eminent, but nonetheless just as important as those prior two, if not more so. Roberts has made it substantially easier to repeal Obamacare, and substantially harder to pass anything like it in the future. As noted above, Americans don’t like taxes. And thanks to the fact that many will opt to pay the tax rather than buy insurance (as that will cost less), the insurance problem in this country hasn’t been solved. The fact that we’ve settled the question of the mandate’s constitutionality means we can turn to the rest of the law, and address the flaws contained therein, and perhaps find a real solution to the healthcare crisis. As for future laws, Democrats lost the ability to hide behind “penalty” language. Roberts saw that the mandate waddled and quacked, and gave it the appropriate name. (He also forbade Congress from actually “mandating” anything, so that name isn’t even correct anymore.) The ACA barely passed the first time; future iterations of this theory are destined to fail, because Congress will have to stand up and say, “We propose to enact a new tax so as to influence your behavior.” If that isn’t the proverbial lead balloon, I don’t know what is.

So there you have it: it’s really not all bad. It’s not what we wanted, but then – as I suspect Obama will learn in the coming months – we must remember to be careful what we wish for.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Read this: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/justice_roberts_pleads_lie_to_me.html

I am very deep into the public discourse on this issue, beyond what I respond to your posts. For the record, those who agree with my point of view include Rush, Levin, Steyn, Scalia. They are all way beyond this little Town Hall writer ette.

[P-Marlowe]

This is a huge recognition and defense of individual liberty against encroachment by the federal government. This is now a SCOTUS precedent that must be followed by all lower courts, and also by all members of the Executive and Congressional branches of government.

Betty, I don't know where you got your law degree, but you should ask for a refund on your tuition. Roberts' commerce clause diatribe sets NO LEGAL PRECENDENT whatsoever. It was all dicta and will not be followed by anyone. It is his tax clause statements that have set the legal precedent and what he basically said in his tax clause argument was that whatever Congress may not due under the Commerce Clause they can do under the Tax Clause. In other words, Congress has unlimited power to regulate every aspect of our lives through the imposition of tax penalties for failure to follow the dictates of congress. And failure to pay taxes can lead to jail if you deliberately avoid paying the tax or you try to evade the tax.

Roberts stripped every American of all the liberty they had left before Obama took office. The precendent has been set that there is NOTHING that Congress can't regulate as long as they do it by imposing tax penalties instead of non-monetary sanctions.

Roberts drove a stake into the very heart of this line of thinking.

No he drove a stake through the heart of the Constitution. The Constitution is dead thanks to John Roberts.

Thank you, Chief Justice Roberts for this pivotal ruling.

You have got to be kidding me. Betty, did someone steal your Freeper account? I can't believe the stuff you are writing. Betty, where are you?

[C. Edmund Wright]

If in fact Robert’s comments on the Commerce Clause is merely dicta, then it was totally meaningless.

If it was central to the decision, it was still unnecessary for him to find for the ACA under the taxing authority.

In other words, Robert’s decision is abysmal or even worse.

[P-Marlowe]

Although Roberts indicated that he thought that the mandate failed under the Commerce Clause, the concurring opinions did not agree on that point so the only actual holding that has any precedent whatsoever is the holding that Congress has the Authority under the Taxing Clause to force all Americans to buy Health insurance or pay a “TAX”.

It would only have been precedent on the Commerce Clause if the Statute were thrown out on the Commerce Clause. It wasn’t thrown out. It was upheld.

There is no silver lining. Mark Levin’s analysis was right on the money and anyone who hasn’t heard it needs to go onto his website and listen to the show on the day the decision came down.

[C. Edmund Wright]

Levin has been right on the money with this one. Here is another take I happen to like....
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/justice_roberts_pleads_lie_to_me.html

[Alamo-Girl]

Thank you for sharing your insights, dear siblings in Christ!

I find it ironic that while Roberts basically said the court shouldn't touch political matters, his actions have a profound impact on this general election.

For one thing, Romney is lackluster and Goode/Johnson are mostly unknown. None seem to have the charisma to get people enthusiastic about voting. But Roberts now has the Tea Party and Republican conservative base angry and fired up, ready to vote - today if they could - and not just them but more Independents want it gone than want it to survive which is a plus for all non-Democrats running.

For another, Roberts effectively smeared Obama as the worst tax-and-spend president ever and a liar to boot.

As for the rest of it, I don't think that Roberts has "stripped every American of all the liberty they had left before Obama took office." Or that the Constitution is now dead.

Of course I feel hurt and betrayed the way it came down. But it is not the end. We now have to kill the beastly law the old-fashioned way.

[betty boop]

I, too, felt "hurt and betrayed the way this ruling came down." And I also note the irony "that while Roberts basically said the court shouldn't touch political matters, his actions have a profound impact on this general election."

CJ Roberts basically tossed the issue back to the political bodies of our nation, evidently believing that the Supreme Court is not the place to resolve what are essentially political disputes. I actually find that view refreshing.

C. Edmund Wright; P-Marlowe; xzins have slammed me for my naivete in confusing a precedent with a dictum WRT the Commerce Clause in this ruling. I am not a lawyer, and thus defer to P-Marlowe's judgment, who is. I'd have much rather had Justice Kennedy's line of argument prevail; but that did not happen.

Forgive me for looking for a "silver lining" in this complex ruling. The above-named trio says that this ruling really doesn't affect the way future courts can construe the Commerce Clause. It seems clear for whatever reason, Chief Justice Roberts wanted to find the ACA constitutional on some ground; but it looks to me like he was saying that he could not find any constitutional authority for it based on the Commerce Clause; which is why he "found" its constitutionality under the federal taxing power. (Which is confusing to me, because the tax is not imposed equally — but then, neither is the federal income tax.)

But still seeking a silver lining, would it be reasonable to say that by calling the Individual Mandate a "tax," it would be easier to repeal it under the Senate budget reconciliation rules? To repeal a tax requires only a simple majority vote — 51 (no filibustering allowed!) — not a supermajority of 60 votes. Lots of incentive there to elect Republicans to the Senate....

Plus I agree with you, dearest sister in Christ, that "Roberts effectively smeared Obama as the worst tax-and-spend president ever and a liar to boot." And that Robert's majority opinion has stirred up the base....

But will that base vote for Romney? Romney has promised to repeal the ACA, and some people must believe him, for contributions to his campaign have skyrocketed, post-Thursday's ruling.

But will Americans vote for Romney, in order to get rid of the Affordable Care Act?

One in five Americans declare that they will not vote for a Mormon presidential candidate — even if that candidate were a member of their own party. There is no other religious group that comes close to inspiring that kind of widespread hostility in U.S. voters. Seven percent of Americans say they would not vote for a Catholic, 9 percent would oppose a Jew. Five percent would oppose a black candidate, 6 percent a female candidate. Twenty-two percent would oppose a Mormon. The only groups with higher negatives are homosexuals and atheists, and their numbers are improving. — Kevin D. Williamson, National Review, April 2, 2012

The thick plottens — it gets curiouser and curiouser....

Anyhoot, I continue to believe there is a "silver lining" somewhere in this decision. It must be so because, according to my reasoning, Justice Ginsburg is exceedingly unhappy with it. Might this have something to do with the decision's holding that the individual states may not be compelled by the federal government to cooperate with/implement the Medicaid expansion — one of the two pillars on which Obamacare rests, the other being the Individual Mandate? Let's hear it for the Court's acknowledgement of the Tenth Amendment here.

I just watched Fox New Sunday with Chris Wallace, during which it was opined that Chief Justice Roberts is a "Chess player," while most of the rest of us believe this is a game of Checkers. I personally believe there is great merit in that view.

Back to Romney, and his electoral prospects. Some of my correspondent friends here do not believe that Romney is sincere about repealing Obamacare, because Romneycare in Massachusetts is thought by many to be the very model of Obamacare, especially WRT the Individual Mandate.

But look at the matter more closely. There are two ways in which Romneycare is profoundly different from Obamacare. In the first place, Romneycare was designed to be implemented through private sector resources — i.e., private insurance companies. In the second place, Romneycare never envisioned as its tacit endgame a single-payer, European-style socialized medicine system. Romneycare was the "solution" that got support from the people of Massachusetts. It could have been a lot worse than it is, but isn't because it never branded itself as a solution for any other jurisdiction, and did not seek to implement a single-payer government insurance scheme.

In the end, a vote for Romney is a vote to repeal Obamacare. If Obama is reelected, we're stuck with this nefarious, liberty-killing law. For even if the GOP wins majorities in both Houses of Congress, and votes to repeal Obamacare, the President can veto it. And then it would take 60 votes in the Senate to overrule him. Lots to think about here — and pray over.

Thank you ever so much, dearest sister in Christ, for your heartfelt and wise essay/post!

[xzins]

For one thing, Romney is lackluster and Goode/Johnson are mostly unknown. None seem to have the charisma to get people enthusiastic about voting. But Roberts now has the Tea Party and Republican conservative base angry and fired up, ready to vote - today if they could - and not just them but more Independents want it gone than want it to survive which is a plus for all non-Democrats running.

For another, Roberts effectively smeared Obama as the worst tax-and-spend president ever and a liar to boot.

As for the rest of it, I don't think that Roberts has "stripped every American of all the liberty they had left before Obama took office." Or that the Constitution is now dead.

Of course I feel hurt and betrayed the way it came down. But it is not the end. We now have to kill the beastly law the old-fashioned way.

Some very good stuff in this, Sister, and some more that sets my teeth on edge.

I agree that some day a dictionary will define lackluster by simply posting pictures of Romney, Goode, and Johnson. Not 4th of July rockets from these guys. (Of course, Goode IS the only conservative in the mix...)

I agree, as well, that Roberts has the conservative base fired up. Sad thing that it's out of rage toward him, but I do confess that they are fired up.

I suppose I'm getting used to being hurt and betrayed by republicans, but I do agree that hurt and betrayal is on the face of every conservative I met at church today.

That's where we disagree. The chair of our local Republican Party said about Roberts, "There's no way to put lipstick on that pig. I've even heard," he said, "Conservatives who are actually trying to justify this. There's no way that can be done."

I agree with him. That dog don't hunt.

Those who believe that Roberts is some great genius with an earth-shattering master-plan that will someday be obvious to us all have been spending too much time with PollyAnna. The same for those who, conspiracy theorists in their own right, who excitedly explain how Roberts sided with the liberals in issuing a liberal decision that is actually a great conservative victory.

There's no genius, no master plan, and no great conservative victory in what Roberts has done.

It is simply as it appears to be. Roberts has ruled in favor of massive, invasive government.

[P-Marlowe]

In the end, a vote for Romney is a vote to repeal Obamacare.

Romney and the GOP-E have been using the term "Repeal AND REPLACE". Do they have a plan in place to replace it? If not then how can we be assured that Romney will do anything other than tweak it?

If they are going to use the term "AND REPLACE" then they'd better have their 2500 page replacement bill up and running on their website before November.

I don't trust Romney at all. He sticks his finger in the air to determine his position on each and every issue. He has no core beliefs other than the belief that he will someday go to Kolob and become a God.

[betty boop]

It is simply as it appears to be. Roberts has ruled in favor of massive, invasive government.

Appearance and reality need not be he same thing, dear brother in Christ. Indeed, they rarely seem to correspond nowadays.

Obama's main political technique is to supplant Reality with Rhetoric. But his Rhetoric does not describe any Reality known to man. Not to put too fine a point on it, but a man who attempts to do such a thing can be correctly described as a systematic, pathological liar against the Truth of Reality.

I do not believe that Chief Justice Roberts, in this decision, was trying to throw the God-given liberties of We the People under the bus.

He was in effect saying that the people themselves must defend their constitutional liberties. And that's what elections are for.

I gather he was saying he's sick and tired of having the Supreme Court used by elements of the political Left to get their politics enacted in American life, against the Will of the People. SCOTUS' role under Article III of the federal Constitution is to construe and apply constitutional law, not to make political policy decisions that affect all Americans, with or without their consent.

He has the dignity of the Court to uphold, in its proper role within our constitutional system of separated and equal powers.

The chief power of which — if you understand what the Preamble says — resides with the sovereign people.

And they make their will directly felt only through the electoral process. That is the problem WRT the upcoming presidential election. Which to me, no matter how you slice it, finally boils down to the proposition: Will individual Liberty under God survive in America?

You and several of your colleagues have made it crystal clear that you will not, cannot, vote for a Mormon.

And yet it appears crystal clear to me that if we do not support this Mormon, then our individual liberties, endued in us by God Himself, will perish from this earth. The American Experiment of a "free, sovereign people under God" will die.

That is the clear challenge We the People under God face in this pivotal election year.

So stay tuned to the outcome of November 6th.... What is decided on that day, We the People will have to live with, possibly forevermore.

Think — and above all, pray — over that.

Then vote your conscience, as a Christian, as an American.

All the rest is up to God.

[P-Marlowe]

He was in effect saying that the people themselves must defend their constitutional liberties. And that's what elections are for.

Then we don't need either a Supreme Court or a Constitution. Just elections. The Tyranny of the Majority. Long live Democracy.

Betty, you can't put lipstick on this pig. Chief JUDAS Roberts sold America down the river. The only question is, how much was he paid? Was it 30 pieces of silver or was it something even more sinister?

[xzins]

You ... have made it crystal clear that you will not, cannot, vote for a Mormon.

We have corresponded so many times, Sister Betty, and I have made clear so many times that religion plays absolutely no role in my decision to support Goode for the presidency.

I have said this so many times that I'm compelled to see your words as a diversion. If that's the way you wish others to see me, then fine, go for it. It's simply not so. I do not support Romney because Romney is not a conservative. In fact, he's a radical liberal. I have NEVER said otherwise.

Now, as to the simple and the apparent. It has a great track record for being correct. It is Occam's Razor on steroids.

Roberts, with absolutely zero constitutional reason to do so, IMAGINED a law in front of him that was not in front of him. He, in "his theory", saw "tax" every time he read the word "mandate".

Well, Heck, Sister, every time you see me write "liberal" you see the word "mormon".

Re-writing others words must be in vogue this year.

Roberts, out of thin air, went out of his way to come up with a ruling that makes government far more massive and far more intrusive. On both Monday and Thursday.

He is no genius. He is a toadie.

[betty boop]

Then we don't need either a Supreme Court or a Constitution. Just elections. The Tyranny of the Majority. Long live Democracy.

Okay dear brother in Christ, if you say so.

But I don't think that was what Chief Justice Roberts said.

We evidently shall have to agree to simply disagree — hopefully without being disagreeable about it.

Vote your conscience. Go in peace,

[betty boop]

I have made clear so many times that religion plays absolutely no role in my decision to support Goode for the presidency.

Yes. You keep saying that.

I won't contradict you here, our of sheer respect for you.

Vote your conscience, dear brother In Christ — and go in peace.

[xzins]

Yes. You keep saying that. I won't contradict you here, our of sheer respect for you.

If I keep saying it, then why did you accuse me of that which obviously is not part of my basis for not choosing Romney.

You won't contradict me here, Sister, because you CANNOT contradict me anyplace on this.

Two months ago Mitt Romney was endorsing gay couples and affirming they should be able at the state level to adopt children.

You choose that over what you know about me, and it saddens me that I am the villain in your eyes. Straining at gnats and swallowing camels."

[betty boop]

I haven't accused you personally of anything, dear brother in Christ. Though evidently you impute some sort of an "accusation," made by me, as arising in me, specifically against you for some reason.

Can we just cut through this, er, murk? May I simply ask you: What accusation have I launched against you?

You wrote:

If I keep saying it, then why did you accuse me of that which obviously is not part of my basis for not choosing Romney.

Because I strongly suspect — despite your disclaimer — that you would not accept, let alone vote for, Romney as your candidate, based on "objective 'political' measures?"

According to recent information I have reviewed, just given your geographic location within the country, and the religious traditions that have historically prevailed in those environs, I gather that you, an ordained Christian pastor, represent, admonish, and try to save the one-fifth of the American people who would never even consider voting for Romney (because his theodicy is well beyond the pale of Reformed Church doctrine).

I'm sure other people can find other explanations, based on their own legitimate insight and experience, for what I attempt to describe here....

But this is the best I can do for now, and so I hope it's "good enuf" such that I don't have to come back here anytime soon.

Maybe it would be even better, were I to lose the power of speech altogether.

God's blessings be with you always, dear brother in Christ — May His Blessings ever be with you and all your dear ones!

[xzins]

You and several of your colleagues have made it crystal clear that you will not, cannot, vote for a Mormon.

That is a quote from you, and it clearly has you saying my basis for opposing Romney is his mormonism. That quote makes this one -- I haven't accused you personally of anything, dear brother in Christ. -- a head-scratcher.

[Yashcheritsiy]

In the end, a vote for Romney is a vote to repeal Obamacare.

Let's not kid ourselves here - a vote for Romney is no such thing.

Romney is the reason why we even have ObamaCare - he worked with Democrats in Massachusetts to put into place MassCare, which Obama and his minions have admitted was in large part the template for ObamaCare. Spin it all you like, BB, but facts remain facts - even when you find them inconvenient.

Romney is the grandfather of ObamaCare. There's no way he's going to kill his precious little boy in the cradle. No way at all.

Further, the MSM is already starting to crank out the bogus polls "showing" that ObamaCare is becoming more popular now that it has been "validated" by the SCOTUS. These will merely serve to give Romney political cover to start walking back this "I'll repeal ObamaCare on day one!" chest-thumping that he has never intended to keep anywise. Just watch, within a month, any trace of that will disappear from official campaign websites, and his line will instead be about finding ways to "improve" ObamaCare.

Yet, people like you and Agamemnon still come on here and act as if people standing on principles is a *bad* thing. Sorry, but following your and his approach is what has gotten us into this mess in the first place. It's time for a new paradigm. Yours is busted.

[spirited irish]

"I haven't accused you personally of anything, dear brother in Christ. Though evidently you impute some sort of an "accusation," made by me, as arising in me, specifically against you for some reason." Spirited: Not one good thing will come about from two friends at logger-heads, wounding each other. At the most important level of all, this thread revolves around the issue of salvation---for our society, Constitution, individual liberties, and of course our future. And so our hopes have been pinned on getting the right people elected and on taking control of our government.

But what is really wrong with Western society and America in particular is spiritual, not political. In this context, injury done to friendship over political issues is vain indeed.

Ecclesiastes is the book for our times. In brutally exposing the spiritual impoverishment of Western society, it shows us the futility of fighting over political fixes and points us in the right direction.

Excerpts from "Ecclesiates: Vanity of Vanities---Western Society is without Meaning" http://patriotsandliberty.com/?p=17723 For much too long now, Americans have been seeking meaning, purpose, and salvation in all the wrong places, resulting in growing fear, hopelessness, despair, anger, anxiety, cynicism, and disillusionment.

Conservatives and Liberals alike look to other men for salvation, and for meaning to wealth, personal power, status, education, prestige, privilege, elitism, power-politics, science, pornography, drugs, party life, finely-toned bodies, and accumulation of possessions.

Ultimately, all of this is vanity of vanity, said Solomon, for what does man gain by all the toil at which he toils under the sun?

As used by Solomon, vanity means useless, without profit, a chasing after wind. Ecclesiastes is the perennially up-to-date book. With clarity and brutal honesty it poses three of the most important of all ethical questions. First, what is the greatest good? Second, is there an afterlife or is there only death? Third, what then is the meaning of life?

Ecclesiates is an existential book about human existence in a spiritually-impoverished secular world.

Alone among premodern books, Ecclesiastes dares to ask the question, “suppose it has none?” observed Peter Kreeft, professor of philosophy at Boston College in his book, “Three Philosophies of Life.” Ecclesiastes is the book that exposes modernity’s greatest fear—the fear of meaninglessness, the dread of Nothingness.

Ecclesiastes addresses the final end, the meaning of life, which for modernity there is no answer but fear, confusion, lostness, nameless anxiety, a terrible sense of standing atop a yawning abyss.

Whereas the Christian West knew and took comfort from the answer to the questions of why men exist and what happens after death, it no longer does because it has fallen into ignorance induced by unbelief. Kreeft notes that as modern Western society grows,

“…it knows more and more about less and less. It knows about the little things and less about the big things. It knows more about every thing and less about Everything.” ( Kreeft, pp. 20-21)

Erroneously believing themselves enlightened, scientific and progressive, spiritually impoverished modern Westerners make light of the living God and higher things, and deliberately disregarding what they know to be true, futilely root around in the lower realm, the natural dimension, for meaning and power. And said Solomon, this is vanity of vanity!

The practical result of spiritual impoverishment is a void in which men vainly seek for meaning and purpose. Always seeking but never finding. When higher things disappear, only the despair of meaninglessness, the pleasure principle, hectic diversions, personal power, and toys remain. And all of this said Solomon, is vanity, for it ends only in death. There is always a grinning skull behind everything we do, including both the Conservative and Liberal struggle for control of secular society.

Ecclesiates is modern in the most important way of all. It is wholly secular, empirical, and scientific. The author knows nothing about Jesus Christ and heaven. He is a secular reporter for earth’s universal newspaper. His God said Kreeft,

“…is simply ‘nature and nature’s God,’ the God of our modern establishmentarian religion. He is an empiricist.” (p. 22)

Though Ecclesiastes is inspired monologue, God does not speak directly:

“God in his providence has arranged for this one book of mere rational philosophy to be included in the canon of Scripture because this too is divine revelation. It is what Fulton Sheen calls ‘black grace’ instead of ‘white grace;’ revelation by darkness rather than by light. In this book God reveals to us exactly what life is when God does not reveal to us what life is. Ecclesiastes frames the Bible as death frames life.” (p. 23)

The whole point of Ecclesiastes is stated five times in the first verse (Eccl. 1:2) and thereafter exemplified for twelve chapters. The whole point is this: without Jesus Christ and higher things, there is no purpose, nor can we know what Truth is. There is only meaninglessness, which itself is death. In this context, all toil is “under the sun” (here in the lower realm) and since everything in this lower realm is “under the sun,” then ultimately, our toils are vain because life is meaningless; it always ends in death. What we need more than anything else in the world, a reason to live and a reson to die, does not exist, therefore our toils under the sun are vanity of vanity.

Ernest Hemingway’s classic story, “A Clean, Well-Lighted Place,” paints a terrifying portait of the Nothingness of our spiritually-impoverished society “under the sun:”

“It was not fear or dread. It was a Nothing that he knew too well. It was all a Nothing and a man was Nothing too….Some lived in it and never felt it but he knew it all was nada y pues nada y pues nada. Our nada, who are in nada, nada be thy name thy kingdom nada thy will be nada in nada as it is nada. Give us this nada our daily nada and nada us our nada as we nada our nadas and nada us not into nada but deliver us from nada; pues nada. Hail nothing, full of nothing, nothing is with thee.” (pp. 26-27)

Without the living God Jesus Christ and higher things there is Nothing. Life has no purpose and no meaning, nor do our toils under the sun, and this is vanity of vanity!

Ecclesiates is the book we moderns fear more than any other said Kreeft. For it is a,

“…mirror that shows us a great hole, a black spot where our heart ought to be. The microcosm of the self has a Black Hole just like the macrocosm of the universe. What could be more terrifying than this?—to find that there at our heart, where the source of life ought to be (is) instead the source of death?” (p. 31)

Ecclesiastes is the first necessary step toward salvation for our secularized modern world. But the world will not go to the “Great Physician until it admits that it is desperately sick.”

Vanity is meaninglessness, the source of death. Eternalized it is Hell. Mystics and resuscitated patients who have caught a glimpse of Hell do not report seeing physical fire and demons with torture-devices but rather “lost souls wandering nowhere in the darkness, with no direction, hope or purpose.” And this is both a portrait of our spiritually impoverished society and a far more “terrifying picture of Hell than fire and brimstone.” (pp. 31-32)

[MileHi]

You got it.

Servant of the Cross, your post #22 is nonsense.