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 didnt 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 thats probably the case, Im 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 doesnt 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 hadnt 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 Ive 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. Levins critique of the decision mirrors most of my own, and indeed, there was one aspect I hadnt considered until Levin led me to it. That premise led me to yet another that I dont 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 doesnt fit the definition of any of them. In dispensing with that issue, Roberts held that it didnt matter, and that words dont matter, and that plain-written legislative language doesnt 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 didnt 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 its 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. Youve 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. Youve 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.
Id 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 youve been handed. Dont 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 doesnt 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 dont 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 Romneys 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 dont 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 weve permitted our country to lose its roots in reverence for the Constitution. We cannot defeat the statists by pretending this isnt 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. Theyre 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 its all okay. It will be fine.
This simple logic completely escapes the Mitt Haters.
Indeed, Finny, that is still another excellent reason for voting third party.
Whenever we do what we know to be right, God thanks and assures us by showing us the many different paths which lead to the proper result.
I trust God.
Do you know, I've been trying for awhile now to find the words to say just that, and ... you found them for me! EXACTLY RIGHT!
If ABO stands for anybody but Obama, why are you not satisfied unless the person votes for Romney?
You should really just change the label to RNO, which can mean two things:
Romney not Obama, and;
Republican - Name Only!
Both are accurate.
“vote for a plurality to weaken the victory of whichever menace wins, as either way a menace is going to be in the White House. That is what I will be doing by voting third party at the top of the ticket in order to help all the conservatives I’ll be voting for down-ticket.”
Oh how I wised all 50 states were required, in both primaries and general elections, to have “none of the above” as a tabulated choice. To me, that would send the clearest message! Unfortunately, this is not so. Therefore, what you propose sounds like a good COA to me.
We have 2 choices : Obama or no Obama(Romney). That is our lot in life now because the media controls the U.S.A and the world. We don't have a 3rd choice . so what would you want Obama or no Obama?
What is it that you like about Obama?
Obamacare that transforms the U.S.A. into a socialist country? Obama taking away our freedom.
Obama passing the Dream Act by decree against the will of Congress and of the people?
Obama suing Arizona?
Obama heaping upon us 5 trillion in debt.
Obama unconstitutionally growing government and government power with czars etc and a million other ways as with the EPA?
A milion other crimes against freedom ,America and the American people, too numerous to list here. this is just the beginning : This marxist POS Obama will do even worse to us in the 2nd term as it now has more flexibility.
I want to see Obama and the media defeated and humiliated. I guess you all don't care if Obama wins then the media and Obama gloat?
We have 2 choices : Obama or no Obama(Romney). That is our lot in life now because the media controls the U.S.A and the world. We don't have a 3rd choice . so what would you want Obama or no Obama?
What is it that anti-Romneys like about Obama?
Obamacare that transforms the U.S.A. into a socialist country? Obama taking away our freedom.
Obama passing the Dream Act by decree against the will of Congress and of the people?
Obama suing Arizona?
Obama heaping upon us 5 trillion in debt.
Obama unconstitutionally growing government and government power with czars etc and a million other ways as with the EPA?
A million other crimes against freedom ,America and the American people, too numerous to list here. this is just the beginning : This marxist POS Obama will do even worse to us in the 2nd term as it now has more flexibility.
I want to see Obama and the media defeated and humiliated. I guess you all don't care if Obama wins then the media and Obama gloat?
However, the Robert decision has done away with the phrase by Lincoln: "government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
and changed it to:
people of the government, by the government, for the government.
And, eventually it will perish from this earth.
Opposition to Romney means that some mushball faux "conservative" contributors will be replaced by many more actual conservatives appreciative of this website, its founder and proprietor, its conservative principles, and of the actual conservatives who post here.
BTW, is it some sort of crime in your eyes to agree with the man who provides you the hospitality to allow you to make an obvious fool of yourself here. Romney or JimRob??? No brainer, I am going with JimRob and against Romneycare and all of Myth's other ideological crimes against conservatism and against our way of life.
Before the lightning strikes, you might want to create a site with a name like "Cowardly mushballs terrified by Obozo.com" and take your spineless pals with you. That will happen a lot sooner than this website of JimRob's genuflecting before the degenerates who bring us Romney, including the GOP National Committee.
What I REALLY like to do is to KICK certain people's (that would be the likes of you and the Romney pom pom girls) asses. I don't just disagree with the likes of you. I despise the likes of you and your poster boy and hero Myth Romney for precisely the same reasons that I despise Obozo.
To wit:
You said in post 398 on this thread The Dangerous Self-Delusion of Some Conservatives, Romney was not a conservative, using the term I disagree when referring someone same he is a pretend conservative.
This is pretty much incoherent, but the fact is the poster to whom I replied implied that he thought Romney's "default shape" is leftist. That is what I disagree with. I do not think that, generally speaking, Romney is an ideological leftist.
In post 39 in this thread A Conservative's Despair of a Romney Republican Ticket, some one said Romney is a liberal you called them a liar.
You must mean some post other than post 39. Be less sloppy, will ya?
Those are just two examples where I gleaned you believe Romney is not a liberal.
Well, the count stands at one, but what's your point?
As a side note I had forgot all the times you called people insane, deranged or delusional who do not support your candidate and nearly always say directly either support Romney or you are campaigning for BHO.
I have never said that all who do not support Romney are campaigning for Obama; I have said that some who hate Romney are. Also, I have never described someone as "insane, deranged or delusional" merely for not supporting Romney.
Just to make it very clear - I do not support Romney OR BHO. I want neither to be president.
One of the two will win the election in November. Everyone knows this.
So see sweetie I am neither stupid or despicable or a liar.
Opinions differ.
You beleive Romney is conservative apparently.
False.
You further beleive apparently that anyone who disagrees with your position is a liar, stupid or despicable as evidenced by your many posts.
False.
Many statements, each of them false, incoherent, or irrelevant.
Total fail.
Ok, what ever you say.
You say it’s ok if we disagree - right.
You support Romney, I do not.
I say Romney is a liberal, you say he is not.
I say I do not support BHO or Romney for president.
And you will say what?
The hatred and abuse directed at Romney and at those who have made a political decision to support the GOP nominee for President in November exhibit all of the rationality and respect for the truth that one would expect from a cult. Weeks ago I dubbed them the FR He-Man Mitt Haters Club because they were so childish and short-sighted. Tantrum troops works too.
Mitt Romney is nobody's idea of an across-the-board ideological conservative but there were never any of those who ran for the GOP nomination this time. Romney beat all of the others and now we must choose between him and Obama, or else sit this one out.
The fact remains that no candidate is perfect, every candidate is a compromise, every vote is a vote for the lesser of evils, and the only thing that categorically distinguishes Romney from McCain, GWB, and Bob Dole is his Mormonism.
That is the plain truth of this ugly situation.
I absolutely will not reward Myth Romney for his disgusting tactics and I am quite surprised and disappointed in you who I have always seen as a consistent pro-lifer here but, if you can vote for an abject serial liar and babykiller on autokill on the subject like Myth Romney, I guess I misjudged you.
Your position on all or nothing proves the thesis of your unreliability. Tell us how many babies it is OK to see killed by the policies of Myth and his appointments who will just know better than to pay any attention whatsoever to thee much less to me on the subject since, as his ideological twin Obozo has said, we are "bitter clingers" and are therefore beneath being paid attention except insofar as outright lies might corral the votes of Pollyannas and gullibles. The death toll of the unborn will reach 60 million in the next term under Obozo or under Romney. If you hallucinate that Myth is reliable to save so much as one baby, you are in way over your head, politics is not your thing and you should find new hobbies. How many babies is it OK for Myth and the Junior Leaguers and polo players to arrange to be murdered?
BTW, take the late term abortions off the table and they are no more common than abortions resulting from rape and you accept the argument of the death cult that some babies (the overwhelming majority) need not be saved. The SCOTUS case of Webster vs, Planned Barrenhood resulted from EXACTLY this accommodationist (Can't we all just get along???) slimeball mentality and resulted in a ratification of Roe vs. Wade as "settled law" around which American women had arranged their lives and their was no going back on baby-killing, at least according to Sandra Day O'Kennedy, Sandra Day O'Connor and, I believe, David "Swish" Souter each and every one a "Republican" appointed by better men than Myth Romney. Now we can add Sandra Day O'Roberts as a new swivel-hipped treasonweasel to the cause for which he was appointed.
Do you actually think Romney is less of a globalist than Obozo??? Or that he will have an Attorney General who will not persecute churches and support baby-killing? Your proof is????
The day will come when you will hang your head in shame for believing Myth Romney any more worthy of support than is Obozo. Cristo was another "all or nothing man." Or do you think He had an "acceptable" quota of sliced, diced and hamburgerized innocent infants in utero in mind??? When I say I am pro-life, I REALLY mean it.
“and changed it to:
people of the government, by the government, for the government.”
Means we are slaves, our masters just haven't fully exposed the depth of their ownership yet. We have a small window to fix this, or at least slow it down....and I believe we can if we work hard enough.
MOgirl
Do you think --I'm not asking for proof-- how many alive unborn children are alive today after being born because partial birth abortion got banned by the Congress and signed into law? Your hero, Eternal Vigilance opposed that law because it did not ban ALL abortions.
You can denegrate my pro-life creeds all you want because being irrational is not subject to censorship.
Have nice day
We know what Obama has done to this Country. We can only speculate the effects of Romney. You appear to be rooting for Obama if by default. Good luck pushing that rope.
>> By posting on FR, you pose as a conservative. You may even imagine that you are a conservative
I’m a small govt, Pro-Life, Conservative Libertarian. So you can now forgo the clever innuendo.
What are you hoping for with another Obama term?
Perot gave us two terms of Clinton. McCain himself gave us Obama. And then Romney.
It seems weak GOP candidates reliably produce Leftwing CICs by virtue of the split on the Right. The effect would no doubt repeat itself for as long as it’s tried.
I appreciate your point of view, and it’s a tempting proposition, but a difficult one believing it would yield to Obama.
Something of a conundrum.
>> You can denegrate my pro-life creeds
It’s fun having one’s concern for Life called into question, isn’t it?
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.