Are We Being Too Hard On John Roberts?

CE.com ^ | July 5th, 2012 | Ken Connor

[Random_User_250]

Long answer? No.

[RKBA Democrat]

the CJ was responsible for a ruling that will likely result in dramatic consequences. He’s being called names as a result. He’s truly fortunate to live in a country where he’s only being called names.

[TChad]

Roberts, however, dismantled the government’s argument that the ACA represented an appropriate exercise of power under the Commerce Clause...

Here we go again with the Roberts Commerce Clause silver lining. It is not at all clear that it exists.

Mark Levin:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/304459/mark-levin-not-so-fast-commerce-clause-kathryn-jean-lopez

Cornell Law School Professor William Jacobson:

http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/what-if-that-huge-conservative-doctrinal-achievement-was-mere-dicta/

[Paladin2]

"If anyone thought he was a conservative, the veil has now been lifted. "

Roberts came out of the closet as a proud Federal Statist dispensing silver linings all 'round.

[RKBA Democrat]

the CJ was responsible for a ruling that will likely result in dramatic consequences. He’s being called names as a result. He’s truly fortunate to live in a country where he’s only being called names.

[PghBaldy]

Here's what John Roberts did (WARNING: bad language):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nizmrsFUxI

[Salvation]

I don’t think that will happen.

[skeeter]

Alito, Scalia & Thomas vs Ginsburg, Kagan, Beyer, Sotomayor - and Roberts.

'Nuff said.

[ponygirl]

What utter pablum. What an utter insult to our intelligence. This writer is arrogant in his attempt to push phoney c*rap down out throats.

Right on. This sort of tortured logic reminds me of something a wife beater would say. "I'm only bashing your face in because I love you so much!" I suggest that anyone who is buying this crap go seek therapy immediately.

[Tribune7]

No. (We are not being too hard on John Roberts)

[Drew68]

Elections have consequences, and John Roberts is absolutely right that it is not the role of the Court to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

This is the sad truth.

Obama campaigned on enacting Obamacare. Obama won the election. Obama enacted Obamacare. Gotta give the guy credit, he did what he said he was going to do.

Blame the voters who elected Obama, not Roberts for stepping aside and letting Obama do what a majority of our fellow Americans elected him to do, as ugly an uncomfortable as it is.

[GenXteacher]

“Sounds like he’s seeing the lack of thoughtful analysis on FR.”

Failing to accept a load of BS as the truth is hardly a lack of thoughtful analysis. Roberts’ decision was plainly wrong, and the attempts to paint it as some sort of grand legal strategy are just as plainly propaganda.

[Salvation]

Should not that have been

Kennedy, Alito, Scalia & Thomas vs Ginsburg, Kagan, Beyer, Sotomayor - and Roberts.

??

[Conscience of a Conservative]

The problem is, if Roberts is a liberal, then EVERY Supreme Court Justice is a liberal. If you read all of the decisions, you’ll see that EVERY Justice (even Scalia, Thomas. Alito and Kennedy) agreed that Congress would have had the power to impose a tax on people who did not buy health insurance. Where the majority and dissent disagreed is that the majority construed Obamacare as a tax, while the dissent did not. That’s a huge difference of statutory interpretation, of course, and it led to a dreadful result, but, in terms of the expansion of Congressional taxation power, there was no difference between any of the Justices.

[philman_36]

The intent of the law was for it to not be a tax. That was argued in the House, in the Senate, and by the President.

BS! You don't know what the hell you're talking about! Transcript...@Supreme Court: The Health Care Law And The Individual Mandate
It's got this little number in it...

GENERAL VERRILLI: I don't think that that's a fair characterization of the actions of Congress here, Justice Kagan. On the — December 23rd, a point of constitutional order was called to, in fact, with respect to this law. The floor sponsor, Senator Baucus, defended it as an exercise of the taxing power. In his response to the point of order, the Senate voted 60 to 39 on that proposition.

The legislative history is replete with members of Congress explaining that this law is constitutional as an exercise of the taxing power. It was attacked as a tax by its opponents. So I don't think this is a situation where you can say that Congress was avoiding any mention of the tax power.

It would be one thing if Congress explicitly disavowed an exercise of the tax power. But given that it hasn't done so, it seems to me that it's — not only is it fair to read this as an exercise of the tax power, but this Court has got an obligation to construe it as an exercise of the tax power, if it can be upheld on that basis.

Sounds to me like Congress knew it was a tax during debate. @It Was Always a Tax
In part...Mr. President, the bill before us is clearly an appropriate exercise of the commerce clause. We further believe Congress has power to enact this legislation pursuant to the taxing and spending powers.

Snip...House Democrats likewise argued that Obamacare is constitutionally justified as an exercise of Congress’s power to levy taxes and spend money. Thus, Rep. George Miller of California said:

The bill contains an individual mandate to either obtain health insurance or pay a penalty. This provision is grounded in Congress’s taxing power but is also necessary and proper–indeed, a critical linchpin–to the overall effort to reform the health care market and bring associated costs under control throughout interstate commerce.

A really good article, IMO.
Be sure to read this...

The brief that administration lawyers filed on behalf of President Obama argued at length that the mandate is a tax. At risk of boring our readers, I am going to reproduce that entire section of the brief. You shouldn’t feel obliged to read it all, but it is actually quite interesting:
II. THE MINIMUM COVERAGE PROVISION IS INDEPENDENTLY AUTHORIZED BY CONGRESS’S TAXING POWER
A. The Minimum Coverage Provision Operates As A Tax Law

Shall I go further and hunt it down for you from the Congressional Record so you don't continue making a fool of yourself?

[free me]

Yet another idiot opens his yap and so reveals his stupidity.

[Paladin2]

"...was no difference between any of the Justices."

Among or any pair?

[haircutter]

Both his children are adopted.
Could his personal, private life been threaten???

I truly believe Sarah Palin’s family has been used against her...JMO

[rbbeachkid]

No we are not.

[SgtBob]

Guilty!