Posted on 06/30/2012 10:23:54 AM PDT by EternalVigilance
In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling on the Affordable Care Act, I have noticed a curious phenomenon in which some conservative commentators seem to be so desperate to find a silver lining to the ruling that they have abandoned all logic. Consider George Will, who wrote a column in the aftermath of the ruling that actually puts forward the argument that we conservatives should take the fact that Roberts didn’t rely upon the commerce clause as evidence that there might be some constitutional limitation on the federal government after all. That would be a wonderful aspect of this ruling, if they had overturned the law! Instead, what we have is a monstrous precedent set in which the court re-writes a law in order to make it constitutional by imputing into the act a tax that had not existed in fact. This is an unmitigated disaster. I have heard a few who have noted hopefully that this ruling will energize the conservative base, and while that’s probably the case, I’m not certain I am so concerned about the political fall-out as I am about the long-run constitutional implications. You see, the political situation may permit us to repair the law, but it doesn’t permit us to immediately repair the damage done to the body of case law upon which future courts will rely as precedents in their own rulings.
The other thing I have read is the bizarre notion put forward by the National Review that what Roberts did was more conservative because he exercised judicial restraint in not striking down the law. Balderdash! Once you realize the legal contortions through which Roberts arrived at this ruling, it makes no sense whatever to claim he hadn’t acted as an activist. The convoluted logic by which he found a tax in a law that plainly states it does not contain one is an onerous breech of any notion of strict construction. I cannot conceive of any intellectually rigorous examination of this ruling by which this can be seen as a positive by anybody who is in favor of strict construction. When it came to the Anti-Injunction section of the ruling, it was held not to have been a tax, but just a few pages later, as Roberts performed mental gymnastics, he declared it was a tax after all.
On Thursday evening, Mark Levin summarized the matter better than anybody I’ve heard speak to this matter, in part because he understands the legalities in question, his Landmark Legal Foundation having been a participant in this case, but also because he knew Justice Roberts years ago when they both worked in the Reagan administration. Levin’s critique of the decision mirrors most of my own, and indeed, there was one aspect I hadn’t considered until Levin led me to it. That premise led me to yet another that I don’t believe Levin has yet realized in full. What one must understand is that this ruling is an unmitigated disaster, and no search for some alleged silver lining can repair it.
What Justice Roberts actually did was to expand the definition of what constitutes a permissible tax . Congress is permitted to levy only certain forms of tax, and this one doesn’t fit the definition of any of them. In dispensing with that issue, Roberts held that it didn’t matter, and that words don’t matter, and that plain-written legislative language doesn’t matter. He also ignored the context of the law, and the intent of Congress. One version of this bill had an actual tax, but Congress could not pass it in that form, so Congress altered it to contain no tax. What John Roberts did was to ignore the actual text of the legislation, and to say that the labels didn’t matter: If it looks like a tax, it is one. The problem with this is that it does nothing to restrain Congress from levying new taxes, and ignores the definitions of what sort of taxes Congress may enact. This is a wholesale extension of Congressional taxing authority because what Roberts ruled with respect to the particular form of the tax, insofar as the question of whether Congress had met the constitutional limits on whether it could impose it was effectively: “Close enough.”
That is offered to us as evidence of John Roberts’ alleged strict construction? Close enough? What this means, effectively, is that if Congress enacts some tax that it has questionable constitutional authority to levy, smiling John will be there to tell us it’s “close enough,” with every leftist monster on the court standing behind him to uphold it.
Ladies and gentlemen, there exists no silver lining to this ruling. All of the crackpot, delusional happy-talk from some conservatives in media is designed to make you feel better. You’ve just lost both arms and legs in a brutal assault, but they tell you, you should consider this a happy opportunity to enjoy the comforts of a new wheelchair and mouth-controlled joystick. You’ve just lost your family to a violent home-invasion, but, they tell you, you should view this as a chance to start over. The intention here is to keep you calm. The intention now is to serve a political end, while your country is dying around you. Your most sacred law, the US Constitution, has been crumpled and tossed into the ash-bin of history, and you are told you should do a happy-dance to the calming sounds of “Oh Happy Days.”
I’d like you to inventory the whole of the conservatives to whom you listen, or whose columns and opinions you read, and I want you to take care to note which of them are imploring you to consider some silver lining. They are lying. They have good intentions, many of them, and they have contorted themselves into a formless spaghetti of reasoning in order to find some good in this awful plate of refuse you’ve been handed. Don’t surrender your minds by sprinkling Parmesan on it and wolfing it down. Are there some limited political opportunities as a result of this decision? Yes, but they require the fulfillment of a whole laundry-list of “if-then” statements.
IF Mitt Romney is elected, and IF he doesn’t sell us out, and IF we hold the House, and IF we recapture the Senate(and at least 60 votes) and IF the moderates in either house don’t screw us, and IF Boehner and McConnell have the guts to do in repealing what the villains Reid and Pelosi did in passing the ACA, and IF they can deliver a bill to President Romney’s desk, and IF John Roberts and the other liberals on the court can be replaced, and IF Mitt Romney can replace them with actual strict constructionists, THEN you might have a chance to undo this damage. IF any of these don’t happen, your constitution is effectively dead as a restraint on government.
The danger of self-imposed delusions is that you come to believe them, like a pathological liar. It is by this form of self-delusion that we’ve permitted our country to lose its roots in reverence for the Constitution. We cannot defeat the statists by pretending this isn’t the disaster that it is, if we can defeat them at all. I believe some talking heads know this, but do not want to yield to what will come in the wake of such a monstrosity. They’re hanging on, stubbornly telling us that the stench of smoke reaching our nostrils is merely an air freshener of a novel scent. Rather than screaming “Fire,” and warning conservative Americans that the house is ablaze, the barn is wiped out, the surviving farm animals running loose in a frantic bid to stay ahead of the flames licking at their heels, many are now telling you that it’s all okay. It will be fine.
You can't tell me that any of those 5 scumbag justices actually believe that they voted according to our Constitution, or the way it's writers would have wanted. They want this, and they don't care about the Constitution. They can push things like this through easily and quick, something they could never dream of doing through amendments. It's time to tell them their ridiculous decisions have no meaning. There are some actual constitutional arguments that are valid, and not one of these obvious attempts to bypass the constitution with ridiculous arguments only used to give sympathetic political judges an easier path.
They are knowingly doing wrong. They can't play stupid. They aren't blind to the obvious anymore than us. It's just a matter of their view of government. After they have made their personal decision, without thought of the constitution, they think of the way they will justify it Constitutionally in a blatantly frivolous argument. They know as well as all of us Conservatives that many of the things they promote are unconstitutional. They just don't care.
Salve
Answer to all these is hedonism; not all; many think it will just go away, let other fights, doesn’t work that way. Only united.
Merci.
What does Win or Lose mean? If everybody follows your advice, we Lose and Obama Wins.
The only thing Tom Hoefling will have after this Election is a blip on his Resume that says he ran for President and received .000001% of the Vote.
Wish in one hand and spit in the other and see which one fills up first. That being said, it's your Vote to waste.
Salve
{So....what is the alternate plan to dismantle Obamacare?
You figure it out as one in one of your country. Only you together can hit it, if not, questions can be asked for centuries.
Merci.
Our preachers have sold their souls for the 501C3 tax exemption. All they preach is love, goodness, GIVING..No preaching about sin or Revelations..you just lost half the Bible. And the young do not learn what is right from wrong. As the Bible says right will become wrong, and wrong will become right...we are seeing that come to life before our eyes..it is what you get for voting for the lesser of 2 evils...you still get EVIL it just works slower.
The reality is, you're the one creating that reality.
The saving of the republic starts the day conservatives stop supporting what they say they hate. Not a moment sooner.
I agree.
I feel like I "win" when I can be proud of my vote.
I feel like I "lose" when I vote for something I don't believe in.
Salve
Truly I tell you as well, first apostles as well many others died for faith of Truth of God, for they stood in middle of nowhere, being ridicule and abstain from their rights. One thing they knew, One is One in One, and they knew under Holy Spirit grace, that in order to fight, you must make a choice. There is no grey friend, only yes or no.
Merci.
Excellent, now there a 2 of us!
Then candidates have to learn how to organize a campaign, raise their profile ,convince contributors..Running on the internet won’t do it.
Oops, I missed the word “October”, thus missing the entire point of your post.
I agree with what you are saying.
Maybe there’s a better way that you haven’t considered.
>> Do you think it appropriate to try to coerce people into violating their conscience?
Criticizing is not coercion. Nice try.
Romney is a crap shoot on Life. Obama is guaranteed Pro-Abort. So does your conscience prevent you from gambling too? You don’t think there’s any chance that Romney with both GOP Houses will sign anything positive into law? Are you that convinced he will legislate just like Obama? Is there any chance PP funding would be curtailed with the GOP controlling all 3 Houses? Is it really worth it to not take that chance, and consequently assist the Left by default?
A conscientious decision can look past personal repulsion if the outcome improves the odds on Life.
We need to take all 3 Houses if we hope to improve the situation. Not voting helps to make that improbable. Got conscience?
Salve
I agree Jim, but there is still some hope, you know. Not all is lost, according to what I am reading is 51 vote and that this has been not done right. You know more about this then I do.
As I have written, you need to have true conservatives in both Chambers in your Government then go after all those laws that jeopardizing your country. I know is not easy, but nothing is lost. Unless majority just give up to fight.
I don’t believe American people are willing to give up. I know many have wrote that Constitution is toilet now, well for politicians maybe, but not for you or many who love your country.
Keep your head high Friend, this is going to be hell of fight and you know this. Worst is, this apathy.
Merci.
Jim, this is an old, oft-repeated conversation, and you are deliberately not addressing the real issues of today.
I am not avoiding the truth. I am speaking directly and plainly. I'm afraid the same cannot be said about you.
It is almost certainly the case that either Romney or Obama will be President from 2013 to 2017. Between the two some prefer Romney, some prefer Obama, and some are genuinely indifferent.
I prefer Romney.
I am as smart, and well-informed, and realistic as just about anyone on this forum. I am well aware of the shape-shifting nature of our GOP nominee. But by my estimation America will be better served by a Romney first term than by an Obama second term.
Many on this site prefer that of the two, Obama win the election in November. I think this is likely your preference as well, but you have not chosen to state your preference.
Much of the campaigning for Obama that is being done here on FR these days is conducted in a way that I have thought to be irrational and dishonest. I have never found fault with anyone for preferring that Obama be re-elected in November, but I have objected strenuously to the unreason and falsehood contained in so many of the pro-Obama posts. Now, since the USSC Obamacare decision, we have the added elements of nihilism and despair in the mix. Well, I am opposed to these attitudes as well, and I forthrightly have said so and explained why on this thread.
The bottom line is that unreason, falsehood, nihilism, and despair are all perfectly antithetical to conservatism. Yet this once-conservative site is now a hotbed of these abhorent qualities.
It is still a good place to read the news, but there used to be an ethic of embodying conservatism, building community, and facilitating activism that is now lost. For example, since the USSC decision Thursday there has been a sharp upsurge in tea party movement activity nationwide, but not here on FR.
That is telling.
Unless one is delusional.
No, you don’t understand.
Romney, to this day, violates all of my my most important core non-negotiable principles.
He is a judicial supremacist, which means that he is anti-republican, anti-Constitution, and that his default position is in favor of the abortion status quo, which is abortion on demand.
He doesn’t believe what the founders of this free republic believed to be self-evident, or, to use the modern vernacular, as-plain-as-the-nose-on-your-face, that our rights are God-given and therefore unalienable. He thinks abortion should be decided by a vote of the people. In other words, he is, by definition, a pro-choice democrat.
And finally, his last fallback position is the moral equivalent of the Stephen A. Douglas Democrats, that states should decide whether or not they allow the killing of helpless, defenseless little boys and girls.
It prevents me from gambling with the self-evident truths of the republic's founding, the stated purposes of the Constitution, and its explicit, imperative requirements, yes.
But betting on Romney wouldn't be a gamble, it would be a sure thing. We already know what he will do, because his record, and his words right up until the present, tell us that plainly. That is, if we're honestly listening.
This is where you and I part company. I thought we were discussing MarkAmerica’s spiel that opened this thread, not discussing Romney at all.
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.