Posted on 06/29/2012 9:58:19 AM PDT by Red Badger
Chief Justice John Roberts is the most hated man in the United States of America today. He will be hated forever by strict constructionalists, but he will not be hated by conservatives reasonably versed in Supreme Court rulings, they will simply dislike him. After all, Justice Roberts is on solid Constitutional ground.
Most people have never heard of James Kent. He was a professor at Columbia University Law School after which he became chief justice of New York’s Supreme Court. Law students are introduced to him early in their schooling, then forget him as soon as possible. They shouldn’t, and it appears justice Roberts didn’t.
In his introduction to a lecture delivered in 1794, professor Kent stated, “It is regarded…as an undisputed principle in American Politics, that the different departments of Government should be kept as far as possible separate and distinct.” Which is another way of saying, in this country we have three branches of government which are supposed to keep out of each other’s fundamental business. The Legislature legislates while the Executive executes while the Judiciary adjudicates. Ever since John Marshall established the principal of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, the system has been such that the supposedly co-equal branches were expected to respect each other’s territory only to cross boundaries when one or the other seriously stepped out of line.
As onerous and offensive as Obamacare is, neither the President nor Congress stepped out of line in their fundamental duties when structuring and implementing it. One could argue they tested the limits of their respective authorities, but they were nevertheless doing their jobs. And though Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer can all be lumped into a category of political jurists who have little respect for the Constitution, Roberts’ decision cannot be held in so little regard as theirs.
The history and tradition of our American system of government is such that the Supreme Court has, for the most part, been loath to tamper with Congress’ primary function, a purely political one. That he forced a peculiar interpretation of arguably the worst legislation in Congress’ history is totally consistent with what the Court has done throughout its history. Justice Roberts merely reminded us that Congress’ authority is paramount, political and partisan, and that we get what we elect. In point of fact, he’s right, our remedy is not in his court, but in the election process.
Justice John Bannister Gibson wrote a dissenting opinion in Eakin v. Raub, 12 Sargeant & Rawle 330 (Pa., 1825) which speaks directly to the issue, “I am of [the] opinion that it rests with the people, in whom full and absolute sovereign power resides, to correct abuses in legislation, by instructing their representatives to repeal the obnoxious act.” To which should be added, “and if their representatives don’t, then it is incumbent on the people to roust them from office and elect representatives who will.” This is our fight, not John Roberts’, and we should accept the challenge without whining over his decision.
Throughout human history in law and politics, one thing is absolutely clear, when people have had enough, they act against their government, not with it. The United States of America was designed to facilitate, if not encourage that action. The Constitution assaults any contrary notion of our right to pursue a change in the way our government operates. Roberts did nothing more than remind us to use that right. If we do not, it’s our fault, not his.
If it were a Tax bill, it would have stated as such. If it were a Tax bill, Roberts could have not ruled on it. Bovine Scat !
the author claims he gives the news in black and white no color added
that is impossible today
so you know when they say that they have no culture war leanings to the right
you can always tell
the beltway disease
Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Alito, and all patriotic Americans disagree with any suggestion that Roberts reached a defensible opinion.
Roberts rewrote a law supposedly passed by Congress to be a Constitutional tax rather than an unconstitutional fine, while allowing the government to argue that it was not a tax, and therefore Constitutional.
All of these acts are contrary to the Constitution and require such an act and arguments to be struck down.
Thank You...that’s the bottom line.....Roberts voted with Kagan, Ginsburg and the Wise Latina....think about that!!
I'm going to ask you one last time, and then I'm going to have to ask you to stop lying: WHAT SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED POWER IS THIS "TAX" NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT IN THE mandate of the ACA?
You can't say "the ACA itself." Because that would mean that Congress's power to tax justifies a law with no other necessary enumerated power being involved. In that case Roberts' decision is the most sweeping power-grab in history. You can't say "the mandate" because that would be circular.
Please answer the question, or stop posting nonsense.
Glad I read your comment before commenting as I would have said nearly the same thing. I’m just sick.
It is what it is. Move on.
The end game is always the same - elect the right people politically - especially Congress. Elect fighters. Elect conservatives with a “get the gov’t out of my life slant”.
We are where we are today because we have a House and Senate filled with eunuchs.
SURELY, there must be some candidates with balls we can elect??
Mitt? No reason yet to think he ever owned a pair. I am not counting on him for much of anything.
I read a piece by Krauthammer which was in the very same vein, early this morning. I had an initial reaction very similar to the posts that I see here.
I was on a road trip and headed home. I climbed into the truck and chewed on what Mr. Krauthammer had said for the next five hours.
By the time I reached home, I came to the conclusion that Chief Justice Roberts had just done an incredibly brave thing. He fulfilled his duty as Chief Justice, he upheld the separation of powers, and the neutrality of the Supreme Court, despite how he is being slandered t the moment.
As nauseating as this horrible sh*t sandwich is, it was dully passed by both houses of Congress. It was signed by the President into law. Both of these actions were performed in conjunction with the Constitional authority granted to these respective, and separate, branches of our Federal Government.
Roberts decision was based on the fact that defining what is and what is not a sh*t sandwich was not a responsibility of the court, but was relegated to the ultimate authority in this country, we the voters. This is our responsibility to resolve.
It is now incumbent on us, the voters to petition our representatives to repeal this terrible piece of legislation. It is now our job to let them know that anything less than immediate action will result in their removal from office upon the very next election.
If our congress refuses to act, we must elect a new one. A new President, a new House and Senate. If we are too self-involved, lazy, or stupid to do this thing, we truly deserve the government we have.
I think that Chief Justice Roberts looks at the occasions where one branch of government steps outside the boundaries of their authority, and intrudes into territory where it has no business being. The decision of the Warren Court in Roe vs. Wade comes to mind, invalidating abortion law in 46 states in one fell swoop.
Of Roberts, we can now ask: “What did GWB know about him and when did he known it?”
It is now incumbent on us, the voters to throw Commander A$$wipe out of the white house!
Roberts sold us out.
I have often railed against the fact that the nine in black are our real rulers, with lifetime terms and no way to blunt them short of a constitutional amendment which is the same as to say no way to blunt them at all.
It appears that based on this ruling and the Arizona one that Roberts has decided his court is going to be a do-nothing court, deferring to the people's elected representatives in congress. In many ways, this is good and long overdue. However, if when presented with unconstitutional legislative overreaches Roberts is so determined to uphold them that he unilaterally grants congress new powers then he is a dangerous character indeed, and has set himself as the real king of America.
Alas, America, you had a good run.
John Roberts: the Bill Buckner of the judicial branch.
Buckner didn't intend to make that error, Roberts MEANT to do what he did.
“Justice Roberts merely reminded us that Congress’ authority is paramount, political and partisan, and that we get what we elect.”
Utter BS! We are not a democracy. We do not let pass whatever the mob on capitol hill declares. I’ve long thought conservatives were wrong to fetishize judicial restraint. For judicial review is among the fundamental and necessary tasks of the court. What’s improper is when they act like Congress and unilaterally rewrite laws (as with busing) or invent rights that don’t exist (as with abortion). Striking down laws that violate the Constitution is not such an overreach, nor is asserting the existence of rights that do exist.
This tradition that’s grown up of deferring to the wisdom of Congress and not even looking into whether laws are constitutional or not unless they prima facie threaten the parts of the Constitution SCOTUS has arbitrarily decided it likes to defend (strict scrutiny, rational basis, and all that nonsense) is just plain wrong. It’s wrong, wrong, wrong. There’s no reason in law or morality, in heaven or on earth, to defer to Congress. There’s no reason to give the constitutionality of laws the benefit of the doubt.
There’s no reason whatsoever for Roberts to rewrite the law (it may be a penalty, but *if* it were a tax, then it’d be okay) in order to rule in favor of it. There’s no reason to pretend that the taxing power is unlimited.
There’s just plain no reason to this decision.
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.