The Dangerous Self-Delusion of Some Conservatives

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.

There is a time to realize the fight that's been fought by Conservatives in the past decades has failed to even stop liberalism, and the unconstitutional expansion of the federal government. We can't reverse a damn thing when we are constantly fighting as hard as we can to stop new problems. The government is too out of control to reverse. There is no evidence we can even stop it's progression, so you can forget about reversing it. That's just a fact.
Many of us forget we were in the same hopeless position before we ever even heard of Obama. He just stepped it up to a new level making our collapse seem imminent, instead of something happening down the road. Reversing the tyranny of Obama’s rule is just a tiny step back when you look at the whole picture. It's time to accept the truth, and start looking at individual states and elections for our future.

The federal government is collapsing soon, and that's actually the only way to get rid of the unconstitutional powers it holds now. We let it go too far, and now it must be destroyed and rebuilt from the ground up. Our current government will never again be a constitutional government. I'm not saying it's a good end, but it's the only realistic outlook. I wish it was reversed back when it was still possible, but that time has long passed.

I use to read the opinions of Conservatives in the media who I respect, just to see if they could see a different outcome that was more positive; looking for anything a little brighter to hold on to, but it became obvious they saw the same bleak future as clear as me, or anyone else, could see. They don't have any idea how we are going to survive while ridding ourselves of this tyranny. They say elect Romney right now, and then they admit they have no idea what comes after that. They don't like looking that far into the future because it's depressing. We are fighting tooth and nail only to get back to the hopeless mess we were in before Obama. Our future is obvious to anyone who realistically looks at it, and who can accept the path our nation is going to take regardless of their acceptance. It is sad, but it's happening.

You don't fight a terminal illness all the way to death. There comes a time you have to realize it's pointless and cope with the truth. That's where we are now, and we need to be planning for the inevitable on a personal level, but also planning for the big picture with ideas to go own afterwords. It's coming, and hopefully the transition will go as smoothly as possible. States better be prepared for what is coming because it's not going to surprise most people. We can't change our federal government back to a constitutional government while working inside the corrupt system. It's time to ask our state leaders to demand freedom, and help elect those who will do so. It's a very minor risk when compared to the odds against our founding fathers who all put their lives on the line for what many thought was a doomed revolution. If only we could get anything similar whatsoever when it comes to character, intelligence, and bravery in a modern leader. I know things may end up even worse when it comes to our liberty, but I'm not going to pretend I'm living free now either. We are living under tyranny now, and I won't accept it just because things might get a lot worse fighting it.

It's a time for revolution. We have a constitutional right to refuse to live under tyranny. Our founding fathers made that clear. Anyone who thinks that it's untrue that we are living under tyranny should look at the situation closer. We are dealing with a tyranny that's far greater, and clear for everyone to see, than that we faced the first time around for god sake. I'm not talking about an armed revolution, but one where states just stop obeying the demands of our federal government. States should work together, bypassing the federal government, while coming up with plans to confront the federal government by refusing their unconstitutional authority. Once they do this they should not back down under any measures. All the way to letting the federal government know they can't regain power over the state without spilling blood. I don't think it would ever come to that in today's world, but the federal government has to know their is a big escalation, and consequences if it tries to take any step toward that. Draw a clear line in the sand and you won't get in an accidental situation that could end up bad for everyone. If they know the consequences they are less likely to take it there considering any order to occupy a state could easily just be ignored by any federal force.

Unfortunately their are a lot of Conservatives who will always refuse any measures outside of the current unconstitutional government, no matter how bad it gets. They can't accept the word revolution, or any talk of dissent against the government in any serious manner, based on ignorance that those ideas no longer apply. If they don't accept those ideas then they should admit they have agreed to accept tyranny. We literally have no more of a chance to reverse all the unconstitutional parts of our government from within that system, than Iraqis had in voting Saddam out of power back in those “elections” he use to get 100% in. Those who don't realize that what many, including me, thought was unthinkable not all that long ago is happening sooner than many thought, or maybe just hoped, would happen will be the same people wondering why everything fell apart around them when it does. These conservatives may have always talked about the unsustainable of the governments socialized spending, but they will still be surprised when they see what even they predicted, because it's not suppose to fall apart in their lifetime. They may say they have great respect and admiration of our founding fathers, but will dismiss many of their ideas because they see them in some fictional fantasized world instead of as the men who risked everything for freedom.

It's the same way so many Conservatives talk about our WW2 veterans being our greatest generation, and have such admiration for many of the leaders of that time, but then completely refuse supporting that type of war now based on moral issues. It's contradictory, and shows how little thought many put into forming their views. When you think about achieving total victory in a war extensively enough you realize you are glad you didn't have to make those decisions even though you know they were the right ones.

You think our founding fathers wouldn't oppose our current government? You think they would waste years trying to get things changed within a ststyem that makes it futile? The government would seem even more monstrous, and out of control to them than it does to us. Conservatives who rule out those options of revolution can't even comprehend a right given to us by our founding fathers to be used if needed.

The things that happened when our nation was being built may play out in a totally different manner, but they are just as valid today. We can accept to live in tyranny, or we can reject it. They are the ones who are left with the decision to commit violence against us, or to allow our freedom when we just refuse their demands. I don't think there is any excuses for most conservatives to stay inside what is a corrupt unconstitutional system that is obviously impossible to achieve victory within. Not for much longer anyway.

You just don't ever say anything honest, do you?

I try to be honest, rogue yam, I do try.

If you live in California, I honestly don't think it will matter (in terms of the outcome of the election) who you vote for in the presidential election. And, I honestly think you agree with that and that you know your vote won't mean anything to anyone but you.

Given that fact, I honestly think that you will vote for the candidate you like best, the candidate with a philosophy most like your own. I honestly think that you should vote for the candidate you like best.

I honestly think that you should take pride in your candidate and tell others what you most like about him. I honestly think that you should try to avoid feeling shame about your choice. If you do feel some shame about your choice, I honestly believe you should consider voting for someone you would be proud to vote for this November. And, since your vote can't affect the outcome, I honestly think you should avoid trying to justify your vote in terms of any need to try to affect the outcome because I honestly think no one will ever treat that claim seriously.

Finally, I honestly think you should be honest about your reasons for supporting Romney. You're entitled to have an opinion and there isn't any obvious reason why you should feel any shame about your feelings. I honestly want to see you take greater pride in your opinions.

Beyond that, I honestly don't think I can help you. ;-)

“Did any of that change this week?”

Nope! .. and I just keep wondering if Roberts sacrificed his reputation in order to save the Republic ..??

Sometimes America needs a shock treatment in order to get it’s act together. I think that’s exactly what Roberts did.

For years the dems have tried to tell us that the Supremes are the be all end all - once the court says whatever - then it’s sealed forever. WRONG!

According to the Constitution, the govt is composed of 3 separate - but equal - branches of govt. Meaning .. if the Supremes rule isn’t palatable, then the Congress has the right to rewrite the law and try again.

Since we can’t read Roberts’ mind - we have only his writings to tell us how he sees the court’s role. I’ve read enough of his transcripts to believe Roberts is a died in the wool conservative - so my only explanation for his actions is - he wanted to send a shockwave into the electorate to tell them - you hold all the cards - it’s up to you to select somebody who will uphold your beliefs. When you make a mistake - you simply re-elect someone else.

The ball’s in OUR court - it’s up to us to change all this bad policy. If we decide to sit on our hands like many did in 2006 - then we’ll get exactly what we voted for - NOTHING! I hope we are a lot smarter this election. Romney may not be the perfect choice (but nobody is the “perfect” choice); whatever things we might dislike about him have to be put aside because if we don’t - this country is doomed.

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.