Posted on 06/29/2012 9:04:57 PM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach
Many conservatives are feeling betrayed by the chief justice's vote to uphold Obamacare. But there's a counterintuitive case to be made that John Roberts's decision is largely a victory for conservatives.
Every time I visit Washington, D.C., I am struck by a single, terrible thought: It is not just that conservatives are losing the various battles over big government, but they have been losing the war for generations. The most conservatives are ever able to do is tinker at the margins – and celebrating small victories like lowering marginal tax rates is a sign of just how low our sights are set.
Why has this happened? After all, this was a country founded in direct opposition to unlimited governmental power. How have we arrived at a point when the feds can do just about anything they want?
It is because, at critical moments in the nation’s history, the advocates of limited government were on the losing side of the political equation, and the opposition was very effective at consolidating its victory. Not only did big government advocates implement policy changes, they also brought about huge structural innovations to the way the government functions.
The progressives of the early 1900s managed this with the 16th Amendment, legalizing the income tax and opening up whole avenues of power that had been previously off limits. The political genius of that move must be admired: The left got its hands on the government for a relatively short period of time, but it sure made hay while the sun was out. We’re still paying the price today -- quite literally. Similarly, the New Deal took advantage of a national emergency to ram through ......
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
Reminds me of a quote from a famous thespian named Charlie Sheen. "WINNING!"
How did the left get Roberts? Drugs,sex maybe a gambling debt was fixed.
perhaps he is promised a private meeting with Sarah Jessica...
Remember the Chicago machine is at work.
Roberts is a back stabbing, piece of shit who pissed on all Americans with his traitorous and duplicious ruling. His is total scum.
“But there’s a counterintuitive case to be made that John Roberts’s decision is largely a victory for conservatives.”
???????????????????????????????????????
The man set a precedent for allowing the SCOTUS to REWRITE a Federal Statue under review IN A FASHION DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED to what even its SUPPORTERS claim, in order to approve it!!!
Further, he helped write a decision which effectively ERASES the 10th Amendment!!
The bastard needs to be impeached!!
Muchas Gracias Jorge El Segundo!!
Ok, what's this back game Robert's is playing? No matter HOW you look at this Robert's is completely wrong and has dealt a huge blow to this nation. Judging from the 4.6m in donations Romney received in a 24 hour period after the decision I'd say people are POed!
The only way this country survives I believe is a majority of the American people have to TROUNCE Obama and his ilk in November. Then congress has to muster enough votes to repeal this travesty!
In essence this is what Robert's would be counting on if this was his plan, however idiotic it may be. The fact would still remain he usurped the constitution!
The majority of people, smart or dumb, want to be liked. Roberts despite his credentials made this decision with a high school mentality. He wants to be liked by those in his social circle. He wants to be invited to the cool parties. In DC that means if you are a conservative you must “evolve”. We have seen this time after time. In the future we must nominate conservative justices that not only have shown conservative views but also have the personality that just does not give a damn about being liked.
“But there’s a counterintuitive case to be made that John Roberts’s decision is largely a victory for conservatives.”
Counterintuitive because it lacks honesty and reason.
In good fiction Roberts decision would be a sly back game, but in the real world it is more likely to be the result of the application of the Chicago way.
How in the hell, and in what form of sanity, could a supposedly conservative, Chief Judge of SCOTUS, rewrite a key point in an un-Constitutional bill, expand the power of the government to tax anything it can possibly conceive of, in order to force the People into acquiescing to un-Constitutional demands, be considered a brilliant end-game?
That's like saying Holder and Obama will be vindicated when it becomes obvious that they were trying to screw us and we caught on to their atrocity...
I just have a gut feeling that Roberts is playing a back game and his naysayers will be caught with their embarrassment showing.
A back game that involves unconstitutional rulings. He could have ruled that there are limits to the use of the interstate commerce clause, but he didn’t.
The Founding Fathers did their level best to take that into account and design a “fool proof” republic. Alas, clearly they failed.
What killed the constitution was eliminating the possibility of states leaving the union when things became intolerable.
jay cost... you and roberts are both liars, cheaters and thieves. There is no VICTORY in DEFEAT and no excuse that can cover the treason of john roberts. We are not angry... we are at WAR with you!
LLS
He doesn’t have to worry about health care,or having to
die on reduced Medicare for the glory of the state!
Under normal circumstances, a Supreme Court justice is awarded a lifetime commission.
A Supreme Court Justice may be impeached by the House of Representatives and removed from office if convicted in a Senate trial, but only for the same types of offenses that would trigger impeachment proceedings for any other government official under Articles I and II of the Constitution.
Article III, Section 1 states that judges of Article III courts shall hold their offices “during good behavior.” “The phrase “good behavior” has been interpreted by the courts to equate to the same level of seriousness ‘high crimes and misdemeanors” encompasses.
In addition, any federal judge may prosecuted in the criminal courts for criminal activity. If found guilty of a crime in a federal district court, the justice would face the same type of sentencing any other criminal defendant would. The district court could not remove him/her from the Bench. However, any justice found guilty in the criminal courts of any felony would certainly be impeached and, if found guilty, removed from office.
In the United States, impeachment is most often used to remove corrupt lower-court federal judges from office, but it’s not unusual to find disgruntled special interest groups circulating petitions on the internet calling for the impeachment of one or all members of the High Court.
If that was the case he could have convinced one of the others that aren’t leftists. Didn’t happen.
There is no pony.
It is the Vision of the Warren Court all over again. It’s that simple. Some are made to ride — some are made to be ridden.
In my opinion, Justice Roberts, who is a very intelligent man, allowed this issue to pass the Supreme Court for a significant reason. He knows that this country needs to defeat Obama in November, and with the approval of this healthcare item, the voter’s who now are labeled as independents and voter’s who are undecided who to vote for, now are at the point where they’ve had enough of BOZO and will vote for Romney in November. I am holding judgement on Justice Roberts for now, but that’s my opinion.
LLS
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.