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.
Because, anybody in the GOP slot would have been better than Obama.
But at the moment Romney's our only chance to get ABO.
Obama wears the scarier mask, but the end results of Obama OR Romney are seeing our rights and freedoms trampled under amoral government tyranny. Whether or not Obama or Romney wins is not the point; one of them is going to win and many of us understand that those who demand we "choose" one or the other are along the lines of those who insist there's a profound difference between Coke and Pepsi that surely any wise consumer should be mindful of in "choosing."
Kneejerk reaction, after decades of thinking Republican = friend, Democrat = enemy, is to shrink back and say, "Why, you can't say that! They're totally different!" But I am sad to say, that is mistaken in 2012. Witness those otherwise moral folks willing to vote FOR a politician who has been responsible, for one example, for forcing adoption agencies to relinquish the innocents in their care to homosexual couples, as Romney has, because that is somehow "better" than voting for Obama. They are in essence arguing that there's a big difference between Coke and Pepsi.
We cannot vote against either Obama or Romney because in elections, you cannot vote "against" -- you can only vote FOR.
I will vote FOR making whichever guy wins as weak as possible, and I will do that by voting third party, my vote FOR weakening the mandate of the victor by splitting the vote into a plurality. Indeed, it is the only way I can in good conscience to God and America, vote in 2012. That it may or may not work is a Hail Mary Pass, but from where I'm sitting, it's the only option, and as it happens, the best one due to the unusual circumstances of extreme low regard for Obama among those who supported him four years ago.
Please ponder seriously the real world consequences of a Romney landslide, and ask yourself: Which has a better chance of preserving liberty -- an embattled, humiliated Obama against an empowered Republican/conserative Congress, or a "popular mandate" landslide progressive Romney supported by moderate Republicans, the GOP-E, and Democrats against Republicans who are conservative?
You are thinking in terms of ABO. I am thinking in terms of doing whatever it takes to prevent a Romney landslide, because ABOers' votes "against" Obama wouldn't mean a damned thing -- they would only be votes FOR Romney, and that referendum "against" Obama would very quickly morph into a popular-demand mandate FOR Romney's progressivism. What you vote FOR is the ONLY thing that counts.
Now is a time of choosing slavery for temporary pseudo peace or Freedom. We are in the same position our Founders were in and found intolerable. Both parties have their hands in the cookie jar, and do not have the interest of the USA at heart. Only their own greed and interest.
We voted the RINOS in because we drank the gop koolaide that the lesser of 2 EVILS was the better choice. A slower loss of Freedom and death panels, maybe, but NOT the better choice. EVIL is never the better choice. 2 Evils is still EVIL.
“Every step we take towards making the State our Caretaker of our lives, by that much we move toward making the State our Master.”
Dwight D. Eisenhower
“I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever.”
Thomas Jefferson
He's a wonderful preacher. I've seen brave, manly, gnarled, rough old veterans covertly wiping away tears during his sermons.
You appear to be smoking crack if you think that worshiping Myth Romney on your knees and even VOTING for your leftist baby-killing, marriage destroying, gun grabbing, government expanding, tax-raping, job-destroying, $$$ obsessive, elitist idjit POS Romney will do ANYTHING positive for the babies, for "small government," for Western Civilization, for actual conservatism or even for any genuine form of libertarianism (other than Myth being a confirmed social revolutionary enemy of Western Civilization which often seems to be a "libertarian" priority).
Let's brush the foam off the beer. You are what and whom you support. You lust for Myth Romney and persistently proclaim your enthusiasm to vote for him. As my wise old grandmother (and probably yours) used to say: Show me your friends and I'll tell you what you are.
Cowering in a dark corner somewhere and being horrified and terrified of the incumbent POS is no excuse for actively supporting your leftist babykilling, church persecuting, faggot everything coddling, gun grabbing, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum ad nauseam pseudo-"Republican" POS Myth Romney. If and when he may be elected, have your supply of asbestos undies available for each and every instance in which your sorry SOB makes a policy decision of ANY sort because the actual conservatives here will NEVER let you forget that you are personally responsible as a Myth Romney sycophant.
My position is that NEITHER Obozo nor Myth Romney should be elected. Both have a tried and true track record for persecuting Roman Catholicism (the Church to which I belong) and each and every other pro-life and socially conservative religion. That's quite enough for me and trumps the thousands of other issues on which BOTH of them are utterly unacceptable. If you don't agree, you are part of the problem and not part of the solution whatever it may please you to hallucinate.
Therefore, whatever you may hallucinate, I want each and every Catholic, each and every member of each and every other socially conservative and pro-life church, and, indeed, each and every freedom-loving and conservative citizen to vote against BOTH of them. You are sucking up to Romney. I hate both of them equally.
I will not vote for Caligula even if his opponent is Nero or Diocletian or Hitler or Stalin or Chairman Mao and vice versa across the board.
IF either of these two enemies of God and of the human race and of Western Civilization is said to have been elected, the other will be finished and then we will RESIST the winner to the max until he is finished.
RESISTING Obozo is easier than resisting Romney because such renowned cowards and spaghetti spines as McConnell, Cornyn, Graham, McCain, Corker, Alexander, Cochrane, Chambliss, Isakson, Boehner, Cantor, McCarthy and a host of other "Republicans" in Congress have to and will not justify RESISTING the GOP potential $$$ King Romney and they would be far more likely to resist Obozo (not that you can depend upon ANY of them any more than actual conservatives can in futuro depend on this election season's other Romneybots for anything of importance).
>> You appear to be smoking crack
And you really expect me to take you seriously?
>> You lust for Myth Romney
You recklessly spread falsehoods.
Your tacit support for the Marxist Obama stands.
You're right, we should write a nice letter to our non-representative representatives. Then go vote for all these fine conservatives who've done such a good job over the past 10 years.
>> those who insist there’s a profound difference between Coke and Pepsi
Curious analogy. I used to drink Pepsi up until I learned it was doing business with a firm that uses aborted fetal taste receptors in research. I hope you’re not consuming Pepsi products.
>> Please ponder seriously the real world consequences of a Romney landslide, and ask yourself: Which has a better chance of preserving liberty
It’s an interesting strategy, and I appreciate the candor and detail. Ultimately, however, others will be deciding who gets seated, so I’m confused about the effective value of the third party vote other than providing a sense of involvement. If a deadlock is the goal, then one should vote for Obama according to plan.
I don’t completely agree with your thinking, Finny, but I hope you continue to evangelize your strategy; it’s worthy of our attention.
If Mitt really, truly wanted to be less liberal then why in blazes did he run for governor of Gaytaxachusetts?
Your Ron Paul, or Virgil Goode, or whoever, “oar” won’t even tickle the “ship of state” as though, as in European systems, the vote were for a party which will get proportional representation.
Pepsi jettisoned the Semtyx (?) fetal kidney cell “taste testing.” It sounded like an oversold, immature technology anyhow — none of these cells are going to be able to report back that yes, this sample tastes like authentic Pepsi or no, it doesn’t. Try culturing some taste buds if you want to get closer to that....
So I drink Pepsi products again sans guilt.
Good to know.
Uh...because he lived there for decades, had his business there, and raised his family there?
Salve
My dear friends, so many discussions, so many disagreements, I would like to make one very important statement: God is more conservative then we are, why?
Because he created us, and in funny way created other beautiful thing too, (Hold my drink, Brother :}}})
In serious note, this is chess game, much smarter, more elusive and more .. it acts as normal, yes friends I am talking absolute fight of fight.
True Conservative is humble, meek, God is his way of life, family is his feet, morality is his eyes, love is heart, and fight is his sword. Who lives by rules of rules, true conservative doesn’t cry, is not pessimistic, is not hinge by obstacles, true conservative lives and learns from history, of course for some is still Samson option, at the end what the outcome is? Once true conservative is pushed to a limit, then it is fight for life. At the end true Conservatives gives life to God in absolute trust. Why? Who is like God?
If soldiers or others were debating, should we fight, should we ask lawyers or should we know if this in proper way of doing things, therefore no intent of shall be giving, or will judge think that I am in content, rather should I explain to use my gear not to offend my enemy, or did I just fort, is that legal, or should I asked some blond fake bimbo on TV of suppose legal expert what she thinks? Please, give it rest o.k friends. Enemy is using your emotions, laws against you, what enemy doesn’t like is – being hit back, they living on fear, soon you have to realize things are going out of the bond. Not only in your country, it is all over the place, like hell gates are just wide open.
True conservative or any person with logic, doesn’t divide your own house, but stands up and moves accordingly. I can’t tell you what to do , I am in this distress that enemy is reading your divisions, and calculated their moves..
Bring enemy on your turf, and hit it hard, not in words, actions. While many believe it is sinking ship, some out of blue will step in to safe those they can. As I have written, fighter doesn’t give up, believes and moves on in chess game for check mate. We are all adults, this is your house, I can only give you scenario of analogy, what you will do with it, only you can do it. Don’t divide yourselves.
There is one thing in this life I despise totally – pessimism and apathy. Debates are great, once they are in emotions then is no debate, for it is abated. Logic has left the building.
Merci.
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.