Chief Justice Roberts, You Fox You

The American spectator ^ | 7-5-12 | R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.

[afraidfortherepublic]

WASHINGTON -- I have a headache. I imagine you do too, if you have been trying to interpret the legalese employed by those legal sages who have pronounced on Thursday's Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. I would rather read the lyrics of a thousand rap composers than the anfractuous language of one legal sage.

Thanks, however, to Professor E. Donald Elliott of the Yale Law School I had a translator at my side, and I shall now hand down my judgment of the Court's decision on Obamacare, which all sensible Americans have abstained from reading in its entirety including B. H. Obama and the vast majority of denizens of Capitol Hill, including N. Pelosi. Some of these worthies even admitted as much. It fell to nine heroic souls garbed in black actually to read the law and to Chief Justice Roberts to write the decision for the exhausted majority.

As a result of his prestidigitation with prior precedents and with the famously vague English language, critics cannot dismiss Chief Justice Roberts as hyper-partisan. His fellow conservatives are highly agitated by his decision. His usual opponents, the Liberals, celebrate him. The Chief Justice dodged the bullet. I think you can call him crafty, as Chief Justice John Marshall was crafty all those years ago when he wrote the decision for Marbury v. Madison. Roberts' decision, the decision of the majority of the court, accomplished three things.

Firstly, it reiterated two earlier holdings of the Court that ended the expansion of the commerce clause. The expansion of the federal government's reach under the commerce clause is no longer a grave threat to limited government. This offends certain Liberals such as our friends at the New York Times. Well, you win some and lose some, indignados.

[atc23]

It’s the latter I think too. Its as simple as this - Roberts was cowed by Obama’s threats. Period.

[Paladin2]

"John Roberts is the spawn of Satan and a demon straigt from hell. He is a traitor. He is evil incarnate."

Not only that, it's all W's fault. I'm not kidding.

[ctdonath2]

Thirdly, the Congress can now tax us for not doing something, but this power is not nearly so dangerous as the power that the Court limited, namely, the commerce power. Laws passed under Congress's power to tax and spend may only take our money.

"Only".

Your mere existence may now be taxed. As a "tax", ObamaCare's "individual mandate" now demands ~$3000 of you just for breathing. That the tax is curtailed in light of low income is a matter of the whim of the state; once computed, inability to pay a tax is never grounds for non-payment, a transgression where your freedom - or your life - is demanded in lieu thereof.

Bravo for limiting the Commerce Clause and General Welfare Clause.
Fie upon those who open the door to unlimited power through other means.

[ctdonath2]

The pattern emerges: identify the key players, and ask them “how can I make you an offer you can’t refuse?”

[Yardstick]

Spare us the exotic words, Bob. That’s Buckley’s schtick.

[Boomer One]

Agree, but why isn’t anyone commenting on the fact that government is now allowed to take away (shorten) my life? Roberts could have done the country a great favor by striking down the law. Instead we will now have decades of debate, higher taxation, a growing government, a more polarized congress, a shortage of physicians, and an economic system that will remain in turmoil. In the end I think SCOTUS will be held responsible for damages inflicted on all of us by virtue of a bad decision rather than a bad law forcefully passed by Democrats.

[ctdonath2]

too many members of Congress are going to be running away from it.

They may be unwilling to feed the dragon, but they are unwilling to slay it as well.

[altura]

The nice thing about rap lyrics is that the vocabularies are small and there is much repitition.

Romney is now saying that this is a tax. Because it was decreed by the Supreme Court to be a tax.

I think he’s right to say this because it being revealed (or decreed) as a tax will hurt Obama.

However, one wonders if the Supreme Court says grass is red, is it red? Or is it still green?

[Verginius Rufus]

As soon as there is a solidly conservative President of the United States to pick his replacement, John Roberts should resign and move to Malta where he can teach law at the University of Malta. Then he needs to convince Sotomayor and Kagan that it's so nice there that they should follow his example.

Then George Straigt, I mean Strait, can write a song for the Court: "All My Exes teach in Malta."

[Alberta's Child]

If I were sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court when this case came up, I would have refused to hear it at all. There's no reason for a Federal judge to waste a moment of his time reading a single legal brief in a legal challenge that is brought against a Federal statute when the Speaker of the House of Representatives openly acknowledges that she didn't even read the damn thing before voting on it.

Justice Roberts was right when he said that it's not the Court's job to protect Americans from the consequences of their political choices. The Supreme Court isn't the problem here. The real problem is that we've grown complacent with a government where a dingbat like Nancy Pelosi can rise to a prominent position of power.

[80sReaganite]

This article is nonsense.
1) My understanding of the way the majority decision way written with regard to the commerce clause was that it was incidental to the argument that it cannot be used as precedence for future cases. [It's called dicta: n United States legal terminology, a dictum (plural dicta) is a statement of opinion or belief considered authoritative though not binding, because of the authority of the person making it.] As such, it does nothing to limit the commerce clause, as we will find out in future cases.
2) On this he does get it correct. This will have far reaching effects (think highway funding being held until state speed limits or seat belt laws are brought in line with “federal guidelines”.
3) His 3rd reason is a circular reference to back to #1. Therefore it is invalid.

When he states we did not come out to badly, he is simply in denial.
1) John Roberts gave THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT THE POWER TO “TAX” US FOR SOMETHING WE DID NOT DO.
2)THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT CAN FORCE US TO BUY A PRODUCT FROM A PRIVATE COMPANY.

This law was unconstitutional from the day is was jammed down our throat. The only thing good about this decision is that it'll force conservatives into action. I will go door-to-door if I have to in order to register and turnout voters for the Senate and President.

Let's face the facts. We face an uphill battle. We have to get control of the senate and the presidency. THEN we have to force them to repeal this monstrosity. This is no small feat, given the GOP’s propensity for spending when holding all the legislature and presidency....

[TexasCajun]

...rush to judgement?

Is not ObamaCare the law of the land today?

[Lady Lucky]

How art thou fallen, Tyrrell. You got somebody fluent in Yalese to explain it to you, and now you tie it up with a ribbon and an unsplit infinitive and pass it along to the great unwashed brains.

[afraidfortherepublic]

However, one wonders if the Supreme Court says grass is red, is it red? Or is it still green?

Depends on the definition of "is"!

[Paladin2]

"In the end I think SCOTUS will be held responsible for damages inflicted on all of us by virtue of a bad decision rather than a bad law forcefully passed by Democrats."

Yep, if Roberts had to issue a political decision that looks, walks and talks like a pretzel, he should have at least sided with The People rather than The W0n.

[altura]

I am so sick of this discussion. It is a weird, horrible decision.

Rick Perry was right. Judges should not have lifetime appointments. Long ones, yes, but not lifetime.

I couldn’t even listen to Rush Tuesday, he is so obsessed by this.

I’m focusing on electing Romney, electing conservative senators and congresspeople and wresting our country from Obama and his assorted crooked minions.

[afraidfortherepublic]

Brilliant! LOLOLOL

[DSH]

More wishful thinking from another Roberts apologist.

Not even that, I don't think. Tyrrell is neither a fool nor an idiot, and so he has to understand, by this late date, that the "Commerce Clause silver-lining" thing has been exposed as a red-herring.

No, Tyrrell is carrying somebody's water here, for some reason. Whose, and for what purpose, I don't know. But this column is an "as-told-to" recitation by somebody whose opinions are on offer.

[Alberta's Child]

Those are all good points, but all of things you mention are pretty much inevitable in any sector of the economy where third-party payment is the normal course of affairs.

[kidd]

Firstly, it reiterated two earlier holdings of the Court that ended the expansion of the commerce clause. The expansion of the federal government's reach under the commerce clause is no longer a grave threat to limited government.

No, it didn't.

It disallowed the application of the commerce clause for THIS particular piece of legislation. Expansion of the misuse of the commerce clause may continue.