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.
Another damned lie.
You have no shame. The perfect little Romney Republican.
That's because the GOP has compromised to the point that NOW its current presidential canidate is anything BUT a conservative.
The DUmmies and the Obama campaign are laughing at us right now over this, as well they should be.
Finally you're right about something! They've succeeded in getting some here that call themselves "conservative" to defend a candidate that supports their progressive agenda!
I'll say this much for Mitt -- he's a bastard. He coldly eliminated every one of his competitors all without getting his hands bloody.
OK Mitt, you won.
So what what those of us who don't like Mitt should do is to be as supportive as we can to the true believers -- and yes there are conservatives who really like Mitt, I go to church with them, I go to Tea Party meetings with them -- and join them in firing 0, all the while doing our best to get the most conservative people elected down-ticket, and making sure that a President Romney would know he owes us.
What we can't do is get down, get negative and quit.
Just sayin'
Bears repeating...often.
My question is why are the accusatory posts against conservatives allowed to stand? If those of us so accused hit "abuse" are WE in danger of a time out?
I’m not a politician.
And I’m sick of the slanderous lies being spewed by these people at the only group of folks that represent any hope for this country: principled conservatives.
These days Free Republic is all about quitting.
That is a readily observed fact.
Nah. Folks like that aren’t going to be convinced of anything.
No one on earth is so stupid as to think that this is the only way to support Obama's re-election.
No one.
If you believe that they won't.
All I have to go on is experience.
What Roberts did yesterday was “FUNDAMENTALLY TRANSFORM’ the USA as we knew it.
Many people have no idea the disaster Roberts unleashed.
I thought the same thing. It sickens me that many Conservatives are trying to find a silver lining in what this Marxist, collectivist, socialist, statist, POS Roberts did. How can you sleep at night now Roberts you villain, you just helped enslave Americans, and ruin freedom in America and so the world, you freakin idiot.
“Republicans would never allow Obama to pass any of that”
Obama just passed the Dream Act Amnesty for illegals. It perpetrated this unlawful, unconstitutional act against the will of congress and against the will and interests of the American people. Congress rejected the Dream Act and every Amnesty for 20 years. Yet Obama just passes it by decree. And you think it won’t do this when it has “more flexibility” in its 2nd term? Would Romney have done this executive order to give illegals Amnesty?
There are indeed ways to support Obama, not being all in for Romney is not one of them.
But keep thinking it, the GOP is counting on that.
So you are accusing me of campaigning for Obama.
Fallacy at best, a damned lie in fact and reality.
If non sequitur is all you have to go on as a “conservative” it explains much of why we are at this point in History.
Now if you can point out any lie I have told, about Romney or otherwise then perhaps you could make your point. If you can exhibit any specific point where I have said I absolutely want Obama to gain reelection I will concede and you can go over to your buddies at True Blue Whiners and crow to your hearts content.
I’ll save you the trouble, it is not there.
So say mid 2015 or 2016 as the Republican (I hope) congress with the help of a very happy group of Dems votes in national Romneycare that is almost identical to the Obamacare they repealed in 2013 but couched in different terms, are you and yours who accused us of “supporting” Obama, of “lying” about Mitt going to come and apologize, are just sit back stunned in silence as many of us say “told you so”...
(Feel free to add any number of liberal wet dreams to that list as well...)
What you have not done is to address the film posted at #169 by JimRob showing Romney's unbroken track record of political heresies on the babies, guns, Ronaldus Maximus, global BS "warming," desire to tell our enemies in WAR when we are leaving so that they can wait to slaughter our allies without further interference, TARP, Porkulus, etc., etc., etc.
AND THEN, you have the unmitigated gall to make believe that the only actual issue in 2012 is your Captain Ahab imitation chasing Obozo in his role as the Great Whale. Remember what happened to Ahab.
AND THEN, for the piece de resistance of the heresies you share with Myth Romney and his brainless, spineless ABO love slaves, you come on here and accuse JimRob (on his own web site no less) of being a secret Obozo supporter AND of refusing to address your ABO obsession, which he certainly did in the primaries and ever since. See JR's #169 and #227 and #230.
AND FINALLY, you play make believe that the Tea Party exists to join YOU and others like you in the great Whale hunt.
BTW, when you have to engage in self-praise as though you were "as smart and well-informed and realistic as just about anyone on this forum," etc., it really gets pathetic. ANYONE who whines about his/her opinion being as good as anyone else's is inevitably wrong and it is an embarrassing excuse for an argument. Your chosen position stands or falls on its own and not upon your obviously inflated self-praise or hallucinations of competence.
Anyone not in an advanced state of despair but also an advanced state of rage over a "choice" between Obozo the Original and Obozo in whiteface has NO BUSINESS calling him/herself "conservative," "pro-life," "pro-family," "pro-military," "pro-fiscal responsibility," "pro-gun rights," or "pro-American."
If you are soooooo disappointed with this website, then don't let the door hit you in the backside as you flee in terror to DU or HP where you belong.
What is REALLY "telling" is your utter inability or refusal to oppose BOTH major party POS candidates who are BOTH enemies of the USA, Western Civilization, the Judaeo-Christian ethic and anything and everything worth supporting. Apparently, Myth Romney's apparent trustworthiness to protect Muffy's trust fund uber alles is enough for you.
If your POS wins, you should consider vacating FR immediately because you will be deemed responsible for his each and every heresy in office. Lay in an infinite supply of asbestos undies, FRiend, because you will need them. Pass the advice to your fellow Mythbots.
I had thought LSD had long since gone out of style and then I read your #216.
Time after time lately RY or some other ABO gets on a thread and makes every excuse under the sun to support their abandonment of conservative ideals.
Because that is what ABO represents whether it’s Rogue Yam, Mark Levin or Sarah Palin. Period.
To embrace a Romney presidency in ANY capacity is to admit 2 things. 1: Conservatism does not work, and 2: You practice situational ethics just like any other garden variety Democrat.
So just freaking admit it ABOers. Stop rehashing your copied Democrat talking points and admit what you are. A person willing to set aside what you claim to believe in as a matter of expidency. Because under no logical, historical, demonstratable or dictionary definition of ‘holding to what you believe in” can a conservative vote for a man with the record of Mitt Romney.
Unless you believe in Mitt Romney.
Further, having abandoned your beliefs in a misguided effort to support Mitt Romney, you cannot be considered by any rational person with integrity, to be trustworthy in any other political situation. Because your situational ethics may again rear it’s head in some other cause conservatives believe in.
You are what your actions are and there’s no getting around that.
Quit? We have not yet begun to fight!
But I’m sure as hell not going to vote for a big government abortionist/statist either.
We don’t retreat!!
We reload!!
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.