Posted on 07/05/2012 6:46:08 AM PDT by 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.
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
That’s actually incorrect. Leftists have desperately been trying to claim that the commerce holding was not a holding, in reality it absolutely was.
Your understanding of dicta is incorrect.
Roberts explicitly stated: “without deciding the Commerce Clause question, I would find no basis to adopt such a saving construction.” Thus in order to reach the ultimate decision, he had to reach the Commerce grounds first. It’s a holding, despite the fact that leftists wish that is was not.
The title should actually read "J. Emmett Tyrrell, Chief Justice Roberts Outfoxed You!"
J. Emmett is generally not this stupid. But he had stupid with him, if I read the article correctly, because he wrote, "I had Yale Professor E. Donald Elliott at my side as my translator (of Robert's decision)".
'Nuff said. Stupid is as stupid translates.
Besides, who can trust a Yale law professor these days? Or who can ever trust anyone named "E. Donald Elliott" or "J. Emmett Tyrrell?
I guess I'll just have to consult with Professor E. Pluribus Unum translating at my side on all the burning questions about the Chief Justice. Prof. Unum is with the College Of Hard Knocks.....and is an expert at translating BS articles and analysis.
Leni
Oh look, another stupid blithering moron republican.
How shocking.
The secret sodomite scenario makes more sense every day.
I am confused by all of this. We argued for months that Obamacare violated the Commerce Clause. What Roberts did was take the Commerce Clause out of the equation in regards to Obamacare and called it a tax, and Congress decides taxes.
From a Commerce Clause persepctive, States are not forced to participate in accepting Medicaid funding, hence many states pulling out from accepting increased Medicaid financing.
So, basically what we need to do is take back the Whitehouse and majority in both houses, repeal this via laws and when the leftwing lunatics decide to sue and take this to SCOTUS, Roberts will turn around and say, “you got the ruling you wanted and this is why I voted they way I did.”
Today Obamacare is still meaningless. On November 7, we will finally know if what Roberts did actually matters.
Well written K
I read the decision as soon as it came out.
I was and still am in 100% agreement with this article.
And I have been called everything but a human being by people on this site for having this opinion.
Soooo.... those that have read the ruling, constitutional scholars and a great conservative author in a great conservative magazine agree that conservatism was handed a victory in this ruling.
But because rush, hannity, levin and other a.m. radioheads don’t like it, it just cannot be true.
and people on this site talk about the dems getting their talking points for the day....
c’mon people... shut off your a.m. radio, and start to think for yourselves
Simple really.
Slicing the baby up and giving trophies to all participants is Solomoronic.
“two earlier holdings of the Court that ended the expansion of the commerce clause”
Oh, it ended the expansion, did it? So the commerce clause grants only almost unlimited power. Hooray!
Didn’t they deem part of Obamacare involving Medicaid unconstitutional?
Yep, that’s the point.
After toiling through Tyrell’s own “anfractious” verbiage (usually entertaining) to his conclusion:
“This time around might Chief Justice Roberts have curtailed the pernicious commerce clause and pared back the federal government’s ability to coerce the states? Might he have returned Obamacare to another round of democratic process?”
Who cares about obiter dictum? He signed on to the socialists’ agenda.
So I am again drawn to my own inescapable conclusion:
Instead of all this fancy, foxy footwork—hopping the stream, backtracking, wading so the hounds lose his scent—might Roberts simply have ruled with the three and half conservatives and skipped all the bollocks?
And worth mentioning (again and again), did he ever take Kagan aside and ask, “Butch, you know by not recusing yourself, you are in violation of federal statute. It makes us look bad. We’re supreme court justices, you know, and expected to, um, adhere to the law and, oh, you don’t care. And do what with my gavel? Well, never mind ..... “.
Sadly, there were still many stupid people who were expecting the big bucket of shit they’d placed into the oven to come out tasting like fresh strawberries and vanilla frosting in 2014. So the recipe stayed.
Finally the supreme court of the land decided to look at the recipe. The supreme judge read it and said, “This isn’t cake. This is clearly poop. However, you stupid bastards voted for it, which ain’t our problem, so shut up and enjoy your poop cake.”"
Even a child can understand it when it's properly presented.
“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.”
This is an absolute lie. It is equally as dangerous as the commerce power. Either way, federalism and limited government is up. Congress can do whatever it wants, unless it runs afoul of the reserved rights the court has arbitrarily graced us with choosing to protect. And, no, the commerce power was not limited; it was only not extended. There’s a difference.
Tyrrell (like many others) is trying like Hell to convince everyone that Roberts pissing down our neck is actually liquid sunshine for which we should be grateful.
I call bullsh*t on THAT.
There are those who find that Roberts might actually enjoy that based on his priors.
“that was part of Roberts’ individual opinion, not the opinion of the court and therefore does not change a thing”
That’s called obiter dictum, and it doesn’t formally have legal power. But to be fair it can, if future decisions treat it like precedent. Which has happened often, most notoriously with the infamous and evil Footnote Four from US v Caroline Products.
Sorry my credulity is strained.
TS
≤}B^)
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.