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.
Best article yet on this crap
I cannot believe how stupid some folks are here pretending this is not a disaster that portends failure far beyond just national healthcare
A conservative court is now outta reach .....when we thought it so close
My wife knew watching Roberts when nominated he had a soft underbelly
Just get on this train there is a better life for you at the end, jobs food, happy times, right?
SoConPubbie left off that your Master, Myth Romney, not only
supports the 911 VICTORY MOSQUE but sold the
very property to them through BAIN. How DNC/Romney is THAT?
You do, too, right?
SoConPubbie also left off that Romney covered up
the BIG DIG for contributions. How DNC/Romney is THAT?
I mean really, how is that even logical? Do we see opposition to having Romney on the platform the same as being an active Obama fan? That is fallacy born and embraced out of desperation.
I would think that a reasoned person would see that neither man is preferred over the other by those here.
I know it sounds good for those who inside are conflicted with their support of Mitt to lash out irrationally at the rest of us who are still standing by conservative values in order to try and shame them into joining their numbers, misery loves company and all. But there will be many of us who will continue to make noise down to the wire. Many of us who do not even remotely share your faith in Romney's new found conservatism. Many who see the possibility of Romney, the father of Romneycare, with a Republican congress unwilling to go against a sitting Republican in the White House, to be problematic at best.
What will folks do when that dreaded day comes in November? What will they do when the inevitable choice is Obama and Romney? I do not know for sure but I can damn sure tell you there is not a single legitimate person on FreeRepublic that will pull the lever for Obama.
Accusing Freepers of doing such, of supporting such is stupid, foolish, desperate, ignorant and unbecoming of a conservative worthy of the term.
But if you want to look for reasons to keep fighting you can look at Wisconsin. You can look at Massachusetts where the anti-Ocare Republican is tied with the Democrat. You can look at New York City where an Republican actually won a Democrat congressional seat last summer.
And you want to quit.
Well, now that's the kind of honesty I was talking about. As I understand what you're saying here, either:
(1) Romney hasn't yet developed any political philosophy, or
(2) Romney may have developed a political philosophy, but that he has by his chameleon-like conduct made it necessary for us to simply guess as to the ingredients of that philosophy.
And, that's why you think he deserves more enthusiastic support from conservatives.
Note "might be" is better than "is".
But even if Romney "is" as bad as Obama -- which btw is something I don't think is possible -- we should still vote for him because Obama must be fired.
We are not picking a president this election. We are firing one. It's that simple.
“Jim, I have never seen anyone on FR describe Romney as being either more conservative than Reagan, equally as conservative as Reagan, or anything like a saint...
Are you sure that you’re not letting your intense antipathy toward Romney color your reading of posts by those who prefer that he defeat Obama in November?”
Your are wrong Rogue Yam. I have seen much posted by the ABO crowd saying “Romney is OK and conservative” by the ABO crowd that goes beyond merely saying “Anyone But Obama.” They are attempting to reinvent Romney into a Ronald Reagan. Jim Robinson has got this right. Romney is not, nor has ever been a conservative.
It is that last part that folks like me don't concede. I think Romney could easily be worse for conservatism and worse for our country than four more years of Obama. If Obama is elected, I think we face four years of gridlock because all Republicans in the Congress will resist his proposals. If Romney is elected and is actually a conservative or decides to pretend to be conservative (as rogue yam might put it), then we will probably have gridlock because of Democrat resistance in the Senate. However, if Romney is elected and he is a liberal or decides to pretend to be liberal, then he can count on RINO's and Democrats to enact any liberal proposals he might want to enact. He will be able to accomplish what Obama cannot.
For that reason, it is vital to a conservative voter to know now exactly what we can expect from a President Romney. And, speaking for myself only, when I view the videos linked in posts 169 and 172 above, I conclude that Romney probably is a liberal and that, at best, it is utterly impossible for me to know whether he is actually a liberal, a moderate, a conservative, or just a manipulative sociopath with no philosophy.
In addition, I believe that the only way to get the GOP to nominate a reliably conservative candidate is to make folks like Karl Rove understand that the GOP cannot count on conservative support without a conservative candidate. If Romney gets pounded in November, maybe that message will be a bit more clear to GOP leaders.
You're going to have to explain that one yourself, pal.
I'd normally express a measure of surprise at such a thick-headed statement as that, but I know you're really not that stupid. No, you're merely skilled at dodging the obvious, and skirting the simple logic of plain spoken questions and statements from others.
I'm sure you admire yourself for ducking straightforward questions and for returning fire with what you believe to be marvelous wit, but I assure you, you're one of the few around here who does. In actuality, you've cemented your reputation as a duplicitous shill for a documented fraud who shares nothing in common with conservatives and patriots.
You're no different than those Democrats who shilled for Barack Obama in 2008. They couldn't point to any substantive reasons to support their man either, but that didn't stop them from promoting him with a fervor bordering on the religious.
Actually, you're even worse. At least liberals and Dems could claim that Obama shared their ideological values and core agreements. You can't claim anything of the sort about Romney - yet you shill along anyway.
And so we come again to the meat of it. Tell us what it is you like about Romney. Tell us about some of his career accomplishments, and why you support them. Throw your best pitch and close the sale.
“We are not picking a president this election. We are firing one. It’s that simple.”
You are the ONLY ABO I have seen that clearly articulates their position. Although I see will not vote for Romney nor do I think what you are doing is wise. I cannot condemn/berate you for your choice because I understand where you are coming from, and you are not self deluding yourself. You are voting for Romney knowing he is screwed up...and you don’t pretend otherwise. Your disdain for and fear of Obama outweighs your knowledge that Romney is not an answer. You just want Obama fired - I can respect that and don’t find it offensive. However, please don’t denigrate those of us, who out of principle and values we won’t violate, cannot ever vote for Romney. That is where I get upset with the ABO crowd - berating persons of conservative principle that won’t be swayed by fear of Obama to make an equally bad choice in Romney.
I believe that anybody who thinks that mitt is not a left-wing progressive liberal is, them self, a liberal.
A pig covered in sh*t doesn't think other pigs covered in sh*t stink. mitt and barracky are sh*t covered pigs. It's why they support so many of the same things. And it's why their followers support them.
Yet you insist that we abandon any and all conservative principles at the bottom of the ninth, and throw all that prodigious effort toward electing a stealth Democrat.
It makes no sense. If we have that sort of power, then we ought to be ripping control of the process from the degraded and morally compromised tools who run the Republican party, and forcing the nomination of a better standard bearer to challenge Obama.
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.
If you fight to elect liberals and squish moderates, that's what the GOP will continue to give you. We've been doing it your way for over half a century, and it's done nothing but encourage and sanction the Republican party's leftward evolution.
The liberal Democrats at least stay true to their convictions. You won't find them operating under the same flawed logic as we do. Where do you ever see them compromising their principles to vote for center-right Democrat candidates? You don't. They'd rather lose by a landslide than back up a single inch on their ideological beliefs, and they demand candidates who are unbending in their allegiance to their shared ideals.
But on our side, we're told that we have to compromise to 'win'. If you continue to promote or agree with that computation, eventually you wind up voting for the other side's agenda. Whether you realize it or not - and that is exactly what is happening in this race.
The reason you're seeing so much push back against Romney on this forum, is because he's such a blatant example of the compromise I speak of. If he were simply a reliable Republican, it would be much easier to sell him to conservatives. It would be easier for him to obscure his real agenda, and gain our trust. He can't though, because his record is so clearly liberal.
Conservatives need to do more than simply hold their noses to vote for him, they need heavy drugs and electroshock therapy to blind themselves to what he truly is.
If I may, I would like to contribute to your thoughts on, "States should work together, bypassing the federal government, while coming up with plans to confront the federal government by refusing their unconstitutional authority."
Our founders in their foresight and genius created in the Constitution, a number of safeguards against a tyrannical central government seizing total control. Prominent among these safeguards is the ability of often ignored States governments to call a Constitutional Convention.
NOW is the time for just such an action, while we still have a proper majority of "Red States", to repeal the sixteenth Amendment which gives the Federal beast its great power over the individual and ultimately the States through redistribution of tax collections.
Repealing the sixteenth, as was prohibition, is the easiest and least bloody option available to us in putting the Federal beast back in its cage.
I do think I still feel some frustration from the attacks on my guy Perry which I think were unfair and who I think had best chance of beating Romney in the final stretch.
If you can't vote for Mitt you can't vote for Mitt and I can respect that.
OTOH, those of us who want Obama fired are going to have support Mitt and say nice things about him even if it means keeping our fingers crossed -- and by that I don't mean that we are lying, I mean that we are hoping that what we are saying (overturning Ocare, appointing sane judges etc) turns out to be true. I hope you can respect that.
I'm also concerned about too much Mitt bashing discouraging turnout for the down-ticket races. That is something we really can't afford.
As conservatives we really have to start thinking two or three moves ahead. The left is very good at this. We, OTOH, have a habit of reacting emotionally to matters that had been in the works for years or decades and losing in frustration.
I mean really, how is that even logical? Do we see opposition to having Romney on the platform the same as being an active Obama fan? That is fallacy born and embraced out of desperation.
I would think that a reasoned person would see that neither man is preferred over the other by those here.
You are campaigning for Obama with this very post.
Others are campaigning for Obama within the last 15 posts of this thread, and further upthread as well.
Your denial is part of it, and as I've explained directly numerous times, the lying and irrationality are the only things I have ever objected to.
If you all would admit you want Obama re-elected and explain why in honest rational terms, I would just rebut your arguments and be done. But instead we have had months of repetitive, false, histrionic, and abusive spewage directed at Romney and at any who prefer that he win in November rather than Obama.
None of this is conservative, all of it is a disgrace, and it is exactly what you all are doing.
Again, the denials are just part of the lying tactics to support Obama's re-election.
I couldn't disagree more, but you do make a very important point about complacency and becoming emotionally invested in Romney and endorsing him as a conservative.
The beauty of creating a philosophy about firing presidents means that, hey, in four years it can be dusted off again.
I'm very much afraid of the message that would be sent if we don't fire 0.
I'm also concerned about too much Mitt bashing discouraging turnout for the down-ticket races. That is something we really can't afford.
This close to the election, a sane, smart, conservative web forum should be an optimistic, energized, cohesive beehive of grassroots political activity supporting GOP candidates up and down the ballot.
This is what FR has always been in previous elections since its founding.
But not this year.
And this is by deliberate decision. A small but committed and influential group of Mitt haters have decided that America will be best served by Obama's re-election.
In pursuing this agenda (which the overwhelming majority of conservatives nationwide find abhorrent) the FR He-Man Mitt Haters Club has succeeded in taking America's premier conservative news discussion forum right out of the game.
The DUmmies and the Obama campaign are laughing at us right now over this, as well they should be.
And still, you’re supporting a pro-choice democrat socialist on America’s premiere conservative forum.
And spewing out the grossest sort of insults at principled conservatives day after day after day.
Somehow I doubt you’ll even be here a month from now.
And still, you’re supporting a pro-choice democrat socialist on America’s premiere conservative forum.
And spewing out the grossest sort of insults at principled conservatives day after day after day.
Somehow I doubt you’ll even be here a month from now.
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.