The Dangerous Self-Delusion of Some Conservatives

markamerica.com ^ | June 30. 2012 | Mark America

[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.

[aruanan]

The anti-Romney derangement is plain for all to see and you are one of the worst offenders.

Bump!

[sockmonkey]

We have our best and perhaps last opportunity to repeal Obamacare on November 6th.

Since Obamacare is my line in the sand, and I'm not looking forward to the consequences of my refusal to comply, you can be darned sure I will be voting for Romney on Nov. 6th, and I will be begging everyone I know to vote for him.

Romney wasn't my first choice, but it looks like he is going to be my only choice.

[Windflier]

Our God-given rights are NOT negotiable and that’s not subject to debate.

We are the resistance!!

We do not surrender, do not retreat. We reload!

Jim, you have no idea how refreshing and invigorating it is to hear your voice of clear conscience and rebellion again.

We are still on the same page. I refuse to sanction the election of a pro-homo 'marriage', big government statist, tax raising, left liberal appointing, gun grabbing, abortion mandating, lying ass liberal --- no matter WHAT party badge they wear.

Voting for Republicans In Name Only is what got us where we are today. Enough is enough. I refuse to be used like that ever again by the Republican party.

Too many frightened conservatives are ready to sell out their sacred principles to stop Obama from getting a second term. They're willing to hand over the White House to a man who is his virtual political twin, simply because he's sporting an R on his sleeve.

They fail to understand that more leftist legislation will get through a Republican dominated Congress with Romney in charge, than if the Democrats' man kept the job. They will fight Obama tooth and nail, but they're NOT going to stand up against the leader of their own party. They will give him everything he wants - just like they did for Bush.

If our nominee were simply a reliable Republican (let alone, a real conservative), I'd be waving my pom poms in full throated support right now, but the GOP expects me to do so for a documented big government liberal. WTF, over?

I'm sorry, but I won't be goaded, coerced, bullied, shamed, ridiculed, or shouted into voting for a man who has furthered the goals of the left for his entire political career.

[dragnet2]

Spelling and definition corrections? I’m confident even you got the initial message.~

By the way, voice recognition is good, but not yet perfect!

[Windflier]

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's 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.

[rogue yam]

They will give him everything he wants - just like they did for Bush.

The Congressional Republicans did not give Bush everything he wanted on immigration, on Harriet Miers, or on a number of other issues.

I don't recall having yet seen a Mitt hater stick to the facts for even a single post.

[Kazan]

As a matter of strategy, do you want Obama to retain the Presidency?

I don't want either Obama or Romney in the White House. But, I don't want Scott Walker or the equivalent in it in 2017. That isn't happening if Romney wins the election.

[Gene Eric]

>> I don’t want either Obama or Romney in the White House.

LOL, good luck with that, FRiend.

[Windflier]

The Congressional Republicans did not give Bush everything he wanted on immigration, on Harriet Miers, or on a number of other issues.

Try not to miss the central point, hm? I'm voicing my opinion on an internet forum, not attempting to precisely document George Bush's actual record.

The fact is, the Republican dominated Congress (with the help of the Democrats) gave Bush nearly everything he wanted during his two terms. On immigration and the Harriet Miers nomination, it was the people across America, burning up the phone lines to DC that stopped those things. Had we been silent, Congress would have likely given him those things too.

Bush never pushed a conservative agenda, and the Republicans in Congress never 'held his feet to the fire', like so many think they'll do with Romney.

And now that you mention it, yeah, I do hate Romney. The same way I hate all quisling traitors to our founding American ideals.

For all your pimping for Romney on this forum, I've yet to see you voice support for anything he's ever done in politics. I don't want to hear about things he's said. Words out of a politician's mouth aren't worth the air particles it takes to expel them. I want to know what he's DONE in his political career that you support.

[rogue yam]

For all your pimping for Romney on this forum, I've yet to see you voice support for anything he's ever done in politics.

You claim that I am "pimping for Romney on this forum" yet you admit that you've not yet seen me "voice support for anything he's ever done in politics".

You're going to have to explain that one yourself, pal.

[SoConPubbie]

The anti-Romney derangement is plain for all to see and you are one of the worst offenders.

I will not submit to your demands that I waste my time.

Got it!

So what you really are saying is that you can't find the necessary proof to back up YOUR false claim that:

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.

So all we have is hot air from you; a worthless false accusation

[rogue yam]

...it was the people across America, burning up the phone lines to DC that stopped those things.

My position is that we still have the option of doing this today, and that we are far better organized for it now given the rise of the tea party movement and the development of the conservative blogosphere and twitterverse.

My whole pro-GOP argument all along for this election is that we promote conservatives in the primaries, then get Republicans into office on November 6th, and then work to build conservative consciousness within the GOP caucus once we have control of Congress and the White House.

So what is the alternative plan?

[SoConPubbie]

For all your pimping for Romney on this forum, I've yet to see you voice support for anything he's ever done in politics.

You claim that I am "pimping for Romney on this forum" yet you admit that you've not yet seen me "voice support for anything he's ever done in politics".

You're going to have to explain that one yourself, pal.

What you left out in your post to Windflier is illuminating in showing the continuing duplicity and dishonesty of Mitt Romney Supporters. I guess we really can't expect much more of Mitt Romney supporters since he is so dishonest himself.

The part you left out of your re-post of Windflier's post is what provides the necessary context(The part you left out is bolded):

For all your pimping for Romney on this forum, I've yet to see you voice support for anything he's ever done in politics. I don't want to hear about things he's said. Words out of a politician's mouth aren't worth the air particles it takes to expel them. I want to know what he's DONE in his political career that you support.

[rogue yam]

I don't want either Obama or Romney in the White House.

That's why you're campaigning against Romney. Got it.

[rogue yam]

I can’t decide who’s the worst, you or Diogenesis, or EternalVigilance.

Who do you think is worst?

[SoConPubbie]

I can’t decide who’s the worst, you or Diogenesis, or EternalVigilance.

Who do you think is worst?

Well, I think your weakness is dealing with honest people who will not sell their principles or their souls based on fear.

You have also made the mistake of supporting a lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal on a conservative web-site devoted to defeating such candidates, even if they lie about being conservative. Their records always find them out as Romney's has here on FreeRepublic.

FreeRepublic is not a Republican website, unless the Republicans or Republican in question is actually a conservative.

You are pimping a defective product in Mitt Romney. His record proves him to be a lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal.

This is YOUR problem, not OURS!

[rogue yam]

You have also made the mistake of supporting a lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal

I do not believe that Mitt Romney is a left-wing, Progressive Liberal.

Neither do I think that he is an ideological conservative.

I think he is something else altogether, and that he previously pretended to be somewhat liberal in order to get ahead, just as he is now pretending to be somewhat conservative in order to get ahead.

Now Barack Obama, that guy is for sure a lying, left-wing, Progressive Liberal. That's why his Presidency has been such a disaster for America.

[SoConPubbie]

I think he is something else altogether, and that he previously pretended to be somewhat liberal in order to get ahead, just as he is now pretending to be somewhat conservative in order to get ahead.

Amazing...

Sorry, but his record LOUDLY proclaims him to be a Progressive Liberal whether or not you Hope that he will Change.

[itsahoot]

but the deed is done.

Right you are right. We come here and fall for the same tricks the WWE fans do every Saturday night.

It is a sad thing to see the country that won two world wars, fold up and die from within.

It was not one lousy Supreme Court judge that did us in, we have abandoned our God, now we have to answer up.

[rogue yam]

OK, you win.

You are the worst.