The Dread Coward Roberts
If reports are to be believed, the Chief Justice Roberts decision just went from worse to worser.
CBS reports that not only did Roberts change his vote on the healthcare mandate from overturning to upholding, he did so for fear of the liberal media.
Roberts’ change of heart was driven by left-wing media anger around the possibility that the law would be overturned. Roberts reads the papers, and is very concerned about the Court’s image.So the Chief Justice knew the right thing to do but instead chose the easy thing to do.
This is the most despicable kind of cowardice. He sold our liberty for his own temporary approval and comfort.
I didn't think I could feel worse about this turn of events. I was wrong.
Even worse? The conservative stalwart who pulled out all the stops to overturn the mandate? Justice Kennedy. We had Justice Kennedy and we lost because Roberts wants the cool kids to like him.
If Roberts real concern is the legitimacy of the Court in the eyes of the public, his cowardice is a death blow to it. Now that the liberal media know that their tactics work, it will be employed every single time. Truth is, we will never really know when it influences a decision and when it doesn't but we do know that sometimes it does.
You don't get more illegitimate than that.
That is the Roberts legacy.
25 comments:
This is crap if you don't include a hyperlink. It is a ridiculous assertion unless there was an interview with Roberts.
Colleen,
There is a link to an NRO story which links to the CBS source. And I included all the necessary caveats. What is the problem?
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7413568n&tag=cbsnewsMainColumnArea
I missed that link I think. I found this video that Jan Crawford's writing it based on a leak or leaks. I guess I just think coward is harsh without having heard from Roberts or one of the other dissenting justices.
Shedid mention there were leaks prior resulting in pressure on Roberts and her leak or leaks was angry about that since attributing that to the switch by Roberts.
Best article of the morning on this http://www.forbes.com/sites/aroy/2012/07/01/the-supreme-courts-john-roberts-changed-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/
Crawford's actual article http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/
I don't think that anonymous sources are of much value here. It is just too easy to make up such a story. I think we should all refrain from thinking angry or uncharitable thoughts about Justice Roberts unless we have more reliable evidence.
If it is true, it isn't surprising that God punishes us with the same cowardice that we, His children, have exhibited all these years in letting these ungodly creatures take over. We didn't fight them with the tools that God has given us, we decided to do it their way,....."dialogue until we surrender".
Barb
I don't know, the more I hear about this whole thing, the more I think Roberts was actually acting against the liberals in a shadowy, roundabout way. Since this law's penalty is considered a tax, it on;y needs 51% of a congressional vote to be overturned, instead of 2/3. I also am wondering if the continued existence of the law will allow the Catholic lawsuits to come to court, which could actually strengthen religious freedom if the court rules in our favor. Furthermore, the morning day after the announcement of the ruling, massive funds were raised by the Romney campaign; Obama can't use the argument that a Republic Pres. would appoint "partisan" judges to the supreme court since Roberts apparently sided with "the constitution" instead of his "cronies" (not that Obamacare is really constitutional, but you know Obama would say something like that if the law had been struck down.)
So although the law stands, I think it will actually help conservatism in the long run. I also think that once people experience how expensive the law will be, they might lose their taste for government hand outs. Perhaps Roberts knew what he was doing.
John Marshall's Ghost - how much money has been raised every time "prolife" and "promarriage" groups are DEFEATED by the courts or the legislture or bart pukepac? It's like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson raising money off Trayvon. What do I care how much money some freakin' millionaire raises so when he gets into office he can do exactly what John Roberts did (obamacare is based on romney care - don't you remember all the bows he took in 2008 - where did he even become famous enough to run for president?) I can't tell you how many emails I've gotten trying to convince me that Romney has REALLY changed and is PROLIFE. John Roberts is a sell out. He will sell out on abortion and he will sell out on gay marriage. He swore an oath to defend and uphold the constitution and he caved probably because he doesn't like and doesn't have the brains to deal w/Scalia. Step in the liberal catholics (including bishops and the whole ADW) who hate Scalia to start massaging Roberts' ego and suddenly we have one more pukepac deal...
I like it when the Archbolds write about the Catholic faith, rather than partisan politics.
I didn't think I could feel worse about this turn of events. I was wrong
Put not your trust in man. The only thing man can be trusted to do is to disappoint you.
And most especially do not put your trust in the U.S. Supreme Court. This is an institution that revels in the blood of 50 million dead innocent human beings. Before that, it decreed that blacks were mere chattel property, a decree that was a significant and substantial cause of Civil War in this country.
Feel bad about this? You cannot really be surprised at this outcome. Tyranny and despotism is to be expected.
Most especially, the Roberts Rule is an exercise in relativism, the often-favored rule of dictatorship today.
Since this law's penalty is considered a tax, it only needs 51% of a congressional vote to be overturned
Says who? You mean that now it can be the subject of budget reconciliation, instead of the filibuster rule?
Again, says who?
(1) Roberts' decree that this is a tax is NOT binding on the Senate parliamentarian. The Senate is the judge of its own rules and if the Senate says it is not a tax, then for Senate purposes it is not a tax.
(2) Roberts himself said that it is NOT a tax. That was immediately before he said the it IS a tax. Specifically, he said it was not a tax for purposes of the injunction act, but it was a tax for purposes of the Tax Clause.
Accordingly, the Senate can quite reasonably and fairly rule the same way, that although it might be a tax for purposes of the Tax Clause, it is not a tax for purposes of the reconciliation rules.
If Roberts was slick and smart here, then he was too slick and too smart by half. Everything about this "genius" opinion is self-evidently primed for blowing up in Roberts' hubris-filled face, as well as ours.
I like it when the Archbolds write about the Catholic faith, rather than partisan politics
Let's discuss that Catholic faith angle here.
Just exactly how moral is it, under Catholic teaching, to impose a tax on the uninsured for merely being without insurance?
What if government were to impose a tax on being homeless? How about a tax on being hungry?
Would it be moral to "eliminate" unemployment merely by mandating that everyone get a job and impose a tax on those who remain unemployed??
Moreover, principles matter. Reason matters. Logic matters.
It may very well be a good and moral end that people be insured, but it is a GROSS VIOLATION OF EVERY MORAL PRINCIPLE to use a wrongful and immoral means to obtain a good end. Catholic teaching does not subscribe to the idea that the end justifies the means.
One CANNOT do evil so as to obtain some good. One cannot licitly engage in dishonesty and deceit and oppression in order to do some good. Roberts twisted the law, distorted facts, and abused his authority in order to create this fraud of government authority, the authority not only to tax a person's inactivity, tax his liberty to be left alone, but the power to tax a person's misfortune, to tax the hungry for not buying food, to tax the homeless for not buying or renting a home, to tax the unemployed for not getting a job. It is the height of despotism even if Roberts and Obama, et al. insisted that it was all in order to obtain some moral good.
So *now* you believe CBS?
Bender opines clearly here. My compliments. The Roberts reversal is well established and for anyone remaining in doubt I refer you to the barely controlled vitriol leveled at him and his jurisprudential absurdities by his four dissenting colleagues. Their disdain for his machinations is unvarnished in their unassailable dissents.
Over at National Review Online, Jonah Goldberg lays the Roberts decison procedure out for all to inspect: he established his desired outcome and then backed into his opinion. In working to reestablish the high court's respectability he has re-founded it on sand and cloaked it in caprice.
Not bad for a morning's work.
Reap what you sow America!
I'm unsure why everyone is all surprised by Roberts? Did anyone NOT follow his confirmation hearings? This is ANOTHER legacy of a big government President (like his father before him). Vote for a Rhino, get a Rhino in the Supreme Court! Rommey is more liberal/progressive than the previous WH occupant. Expect nothing better from him, probably much worst.
Hilltop is right when he describes the dissenting judgments as unassailable. They are correct in their application of the law to the facts. The majority judgment must be overturned.
Did Robert's create a conservative Trojan Horse?
http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/
"Just exactly how moral is it, under Catholic teaching, to impose a tax on the uninsured for merely being without insurance?"
I'd say men of goodwill could disagree on this issue. It seems to be a prudential issue rather than an essential element of the faith. Taxation by governments is moral and serves the common good. Is this particular tax moral? I don't like it, but that doesn't mean it's immoral. Is it consitutional? I don't think so, but I'm not a competent authority on the matter. In fact, the competent authorities on that matter have ruled that it is in fact consitutional. Are they wrong? maybe.
it's fine and good to debate prudential issues, but to claim the moral high ground in prudential issues is a confusion of faith and politics. faith must inform politics, not the other way around.
Do you object to uninsured driver fees/taxes levied by states?
I was a huge supporter of Robert's appointment. Proves how wrong I could be. Obviously, when Obama lectured him, Roberts listened. (Maybe he was invited to join the Choom gang.) But in the end, in my mind he destroyed the last aspect of our government that had any objectivity, and in doing so he became the ringmaster of the Supreme Circus of the United States
Bender,
"And most especially do not put your trust in the U.S. Supreme Court... it decreed that blacks were mere chattel property, a decree that was a significant and substantial cause of Civil War in this country."
Sorry, but your devotion to God does not relieve you of at least some deference to truth. Presuming, as it seems clear, you mean to refer to the Dred Scott decision, you are absolutely wrong in stating that the court decreed blacks were mere chattel property. Long before this decision, in the bowels of the 3/5th clause in the first article (dealing with assigning of congressional seats in the several states) of the constitution, the framers acknowledged the pre-existing flaw of race-based slavery. In attempting to fix an end date, or some kind of endurance limit on the institution, the constitution required that importation of slaves be halted after a certain date (can't remember and don't care to look it up) in the early 19th century. As a grand moument to the law of unintended consequences, this created a new market and industry- the domestic slave trade. So the Supreme Court did not declare that blacks were chattel property- only that slaves were. Some (granted, not many) of the slave-owners you surely hate for their racist occupation were actually black freedmen. What the Dred Scott decision did (in grave error) that added to the country's strife was that it declared that Congress had no authority to restrict or outlaw slavery in the territories or on federally controlled lands.
Facts are important. History is important- try to get it right.
JKR in Texas
Albert,
Did you really mean this as a blanket statement?
"Taxation by governments is moral and serves the common good."
It is true that governments may levy taxes to fund their rightful ends, but I don't know if I'd give them a blanket statement that any tax they raise (for any end) is moral and for the common good.
JKR in Texas
Roberts has a young family. Rumour has it that he was threatened. (Breitbart, theulstermanreport) So in fairness, if that were true, many of you might have done the same. Just trying to say, don't judge without knowing the full story. You never know what could happen behind the scenes.
Before you slander me as a liar, JKR, I suggest that YOU get your facts straight.
Upon his entry into Illinois, Dred Scott, black man, became free.
Except that Roger Roberts, I mean, Taney, said that he wasn't. He wasn't free because he was black. Period. And as a black man, being "so far inferior" to the white man, he had "no rights which the white man was bound to respect." NO RIGHTS. NONE. Rather, he continued to remain unfree, a slave, chattel.
And it was this imposition of ruling -- which extended slavery ownership throughout the country, even in non-slave states, which until then there had been an uneasy peace of state-by-state federalism with respect to slavery -- that was a major factor in the break-out of Civil War. Because of Taney, the issue could no longer be resolved by rule of law, only by force of arms.
Post a Comment