New Rant.

[Socrates]

After being derailed for a long time, I'm finally back to blogging. Here's my latest: [url="http://gregorianrants.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/damn-the-constitution-full-speed-ahead/"]"Damn the Constitution, Full Speed Ahead![/url]" concerning the recent SCOTUS decision.

[Admin]

This was emailed to me and while I haven't formed an opinion about it, I found it interesting



[b]To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty’s hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.[/b][indent]


[indent]



I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides. [b][u]I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law.[/u][/b] I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. Let me explain.
First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice. He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent. The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became. It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it.
The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters. If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today’s decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today.
Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the “necessary and proper “ clause and the federal government’s role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942. As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is. They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday. In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Robert’s Court’s fairness. That’s why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it.
Next let’s look at the decision itself. Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece. (As I write this the libs don’t even know what has happened they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.) He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the “necessary and proper” clause which only applies to “enumerated powers” in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements. They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama’s whole defense of the bill. They also ruled 9-0 on the “necessary and proper” clause. Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done.
Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law. Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes. This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term “tax” and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone even the poor. That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney. More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total.
Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don’t want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck. If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven’t read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant.
So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a [u]unanimous[/u] decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romney’s and Republican’s fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing. Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just 2 weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order.[/indent][/indent]

[Anomaly]

Tl;Dr

[Norseman82]

Although I do not like this sausage of a law, Chief Justice Roberts did make one statement in the ruling that is spot on and should serve as a warning to the general populace to be careful in whom they vote for: "It is not out job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices".

[eagle_eye222001]

[quote name='Admin' timestamp='1341538254' post='2452723']...As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is. They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday. In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Robert’s Court’s fairness.[/quote]

Sort of. However, it is wrong to make rulings a certain way so as make other rulings appear fair. The claim it will be harder for the left to complain........honestly, it won't be hard. Someone who has an agenda, and doesn't care for truth, will play both sides of an argument...and when you point this out, they'll just ignore you and find another attack.





[indent=1][quote]... He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the “necessary and proper” clause which only applies to “enumerated powers” in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements. They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama’s whole defense of the bill. They also ruled 9-0 on the “necessary and proper” clause. Even better both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done.[/quote][/indent]

[indent=1]Valid point, and the only good news. However, I fear we have plugged a hole in the boat and simultaneously made a new leak.....or at least found a new leak.[/indent]

[indent=1]
[quote]Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law. Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes.....[/indent]
[indent=1]
Finally the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don’t want to.[/quote][/indent]

[indent=1]A small win for state's rights. About dang time.[/indent]

[indent=1]I need to read some more of the decision. I am greatly troubled by the tax on a negative action though.[/indent]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1341555634' post='2452772']
Although I do not like this sausage of a law, Chief Justice Roberts did make one statement in the ruling that is spot on and should serve as a warning to the general populace to be careful in whom they vote for: "It is not out job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices".
[/quote]
I must disagree with that statement, at least to a certain extent.
The job of the justices is to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution exists to a large part to protect the people from bad political choices by clearly delineating and restricting the powers of federal government.

Otherwise, why have a Constitution and federal courts to interpret it in the first place? Just let congress and other politicians do whatever they like, and let people live with the consequences of voting them into office, no matter how tyrannical or unjust those decisions may be - after all, they get what they deserve!

Yes, the Constitution can be amended, but the amendment process is slow and difficult by design, in order to avoid quickly and easily changing things on political whim. It is designed so the Constitution can only be changed if there is a serious and overwhelming reason to do so. In recent times, courts have taken upon themselves to effectively change the meaning of the constitution to grant the government new powers whenever they see fit - much quicker and easier than the whole amendment thing.

The problem with Roberts' ruling is that defining the mandate and its penalties as a "tax" is quite a stretch, and however one wants to mince words, the ruling gives a green light for huge and unprecedented expansion of federal government power - exactly the sort of thing the constitution was drafted to keep in check. Unless serious legislative action is taken, I'm afraid the results of this ruling will be disastrous.

[Ed Normile]

The libera/socialists such as Nutcy Pelosi have already came out saying its not a tax, its a penalty on the freeloaders .... truth isn't much to the wacko left.

ed

[Norseman82]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1341611897' post='2452935']
I must disagree with that statement, at least to a certain extent.
The job of the justices is to uphold the Constitution, and the Constitution exists to a large part to protect the people from bad political choices by clearly delineating and restricting the powers of federal government.

Otherwise, why have a Constitution and federal courts to interpret it in the first place? Just let congress and other politicians do whatever they like, and let people live with the consequences of voting them into office, no matter how tyrannical or unjust those decisions may be - after all, they get what they deserve!

Yes, the Constitution can be amended, but the amendment process is slow and difficult by design, in order to avoid quickly and easily changing things on political whim. It is designed so the Constitution can only be changed if there is a serious and overwhelming reason to do so. In recent times, courts have taken upon themselves to effectively change the meaning of the constitution to grant the government new powers whenever they see fit - much quicker and easier than the whole amendment thing.

The problem with Roberts' ruling is that defining the mandate and its penalties as a "tax" is quite a stretch, and however one wants to mince words, the ruling gives a green light for huge and unprecedented expansion of federal government power - exactly the sort of thing the constitution was drafted to keep in check. Unless serious legislative action is taken, I'm afraid the results of this ruling will be disastrous.
[/quote]

I understand your concern, but please remember that we non-liberals are the ones who get upset and cry "that's judicial activism!" when the courts implement liberal policy by overturning laws that are duly passed against abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. We hurt our credibility when we seek to use to our own advantage that which we decry.

I didn't read the whole opinion, but was any of this challenged on tenth amendment grounds? The reason I ask is that one of the next steps is implementing some of this on a state level, and this could be seen as a tenth amendment issue (not to mention the first amendment issues regarding the HHS mandate). To me, those would be two clear-cut constitutional grounds for overturning or scaling back the sausage of a law.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Norseman82' timestamp='1341677759' post='2453136']
I understand your concern, but please remember that we non-liberals are the ones who get upset and cry "that's judicial activism!" when the courts implement liberal policy by overturning laws that are duly passed against abortion, same-sex marriage, etc. We hurt our credibility when we seek to use to our own advantage that which we decry.[/quote]
While I'll admit the term is somewhat inexact, generally speaking "judicial activism" refers to courts essentially creating new laws from the bench, usually expanding the powers of federal government to those not previously recognized.
If you want to use the term to refer to [i]any[/i] declaration of a law as unconstitutional, then there is no point in having a Supreme Court at all.

The true conservative believes in limited constitutional federal government and the principle of subsidiarity.

The examples you gave all involve federal courts overturning long-standing [i]state[/i] laws, and granting the federal government power over affairs that were previously recognized as the province of the respective states (abortion and marriage laws, etc.)
In contrast, the ruling on the HHS mandate grants the federal government unprecedented new power over both the decisions of private citizens and the states, and is contrary to every conservative principle.

Liberals will always have some accusation or name-calling of something or another if they don't get their way. Methinks conservatives should worry less about what liberals might say, and more about sticking to principle.

[quote]I didn't read the whole opinion, but was any of this challenged on tenth amendment grounds? The reason I ask is that one of the next steps is implementing some of this on a state level, and this could be seen as a tenth amendment issue (not to mention the first amendment issues regarding the HHS mandate). To me, those would be two clear-cut constitutional grounds for overturning or scaling back the sausage of a law.[/quote]
This mandate and countless other laws and rulings should be struck down on tenth-amendment grounds, but unfortunately courts have tended not to take the tenth amendment seriously for some time now, declaring it to be overridden by various "emanations of the penumbra" and other such nonsense, which for liberals and some phony "conservatives" take precedent over what the Constitution actually says. (Can't have such primitive literalism!)

[4588686]

I'm glad that there has finially emerged a conservative bold enough to be pissed off about something and willing to publish his continual beeshing on the internet. This development is long overdue.

[MIKolbe]

well someone has to bravely face the applause....

[Socrates]

. . . Haters gonna hate. . . .

[4588686]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1342134619' post='2455146']
. . . Haters gonna hate. . . .
[/quote]

I dislike it when you make me like you.

[Aloysius]

I hate the argument about how Justice Roberts made the decision to help Mitt Romney get momentum. If that were his motivation, then that would absolutely be judicial activism of the most crass and ugly sort... if that were truly the reason he switched sides, then I think he should be impeached.

No, I think it's more likely that he actually believes what he wrote in his decision. Sure, I think he was all ready to strike it down, and that his decision to re-think striking it down had a lot to do with pressure and public opinion and trying to avoid the appearance of judicial activism... but ultimately I think he believed what he wrote. he twisted the law all up, as the dissenting opinion noted, basically re-wrote the law as he saw fit, but he believed the argument made constitutional sense. with the sixteenth ammendment it kind of does make sense, if the law had actually been written that way there is little we could say against it strictly from the constitution (oh sure, we could say penalty fines are not taxes, and making someone pay when they fail to comply with something you've ordered is actually a "fine")... because congress could write the law strictly as a tax increase that allowed for exemptions if it wanted. basically "everyone's income tax is raised x%, but anyone who demonstrates that they have health insurance is exempt from this tax"

All the arguments about how he advanced the conservative constitutionalist position on the commerce clause and the neccessary and proper clause don't really amount to a hill of beans. I mean, sure, it is good precedent and I like his interpretation of those clauses, but doesn't that ignore a wee little problem of the pandora's box of a precedent? Basically Roberts declared that Congress has unlimited authority over everything, so long as the only punishment it applies to those who do not follow its mandates is a tax. The law can even say that the tax is a "penalty" for not doing what congress wants, and with the Roberts precedent, the courts can determine that even though it's called a "penalty" it is effectively just a "tax". no one needs to bother with the commerce clause anymore, they have been granted unlimited power under the authority to tax.

I would RATHER they had upheld it as constitutional under the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause or general welfare. sure, that would have meant healthcare was now under the authority of the congress; but what this decision means is that EVERYTHING is under the authority of congress. at least upholding it with the Commerce Clause and general welfare would have expanded the commerce clause to healthcare only, as a means of promoting the general welfare of the nation, as a special case. But now congress can declare tax penalties for failing to do anything it wants you to do.

I don't like Roberts' decision, not out of any sort of really being bothered that Obamacare exists, deep down you should all know something like it was inevitable with the health care nightmare we have allowed to develop, but for precisely the kind of conservative bending over backwards that is praised in conservatives' defense of Roberts. For God's sake, give me any other reason, even throw in Bill Clinton's assinine reference to Washington requiring conscripted soldiers to purchase their own guns, just don't tell me congress has unlimited authority over individual citizens as long as its only penalty for noncompliance is taxation. because guess what: failure to pay taxes can lead you to jail, so ultimately Roberts has handed congress the ability to say "do this, or pay a fine ("tax"), or go to jail" and they don't have to have any explicit authority for what the "this" is.

[Anomaly]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1342184473' post='2455288']
deep down you should all know something like it was inevitable with the health care nightmare we have allowed to develop, [/quote]That statement right there is the B.S. reason why we are moving to governemnt run health care. Nothing really significant changed in the health care system. What did change are:
1- We got better at it and the better care is more expensive.
2- People wanted the better care, but wanted someone else to pay for it.
Period.

Edited July 13, 2012 by Anomaly