A Kick in the Stomach
Peter Robinson ·
June 28, 2012 at 6:02pm
I'd heard plenty of predictions that, if the vote were 5-4 to uphold, Chief Justice John Roberts would join the liberal majority, making the vote 6-3, but only doing so to write the opinion, keeping it as narrow as possible. I'd never heard anyone reputable or knowledgeable suggest that that Chief Justice would join the liberal minority to cast the deciding vote. Yet that is just what the Chief Justice has done. Justice Kennedy now looks like a pillar of rectitude and right reason by comparison.
Sickening. Just sickening.
- Comment (70)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (5)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
On the plus side, Ben gets two copies of that book.
Oct '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
What was left of W. Bush's legacy is now gone.
Dec '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Peter I appeal to you to actually read the decision. We won the arguement. The commerce clause cannot be read to do what the government wanted to do. Also looking at his ruling on the tax issue it appears that whether or not the tax is constitutional seems to be pretty solidly constitutional and consistant going ALL the way back to the presidency of Madison.
We may not like its effects, but I think that the Roberts opinion is pretty solid. I want you to stop and consider that we got the entire liberal minority to sign a decision that limited the commerce clause.
Edited on June 28, 2012 at 6:09pmJul '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
I have no respect for the man now. Just another judge who wants to be chic and grow in office instead of upholding the law.
May '12
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Agreed. While relying on the Supreme Court to save us from our folly should not be our only hope, I certainly did not expect Judge Roberts to be the swing vote.
Time to reconsider a proper border fence for Texas:
(courtesy of The Onion)
Jul '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
I heard someone say that Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show that Roberts was tacking left, but wouldn't say what the proximate cause was on the air.
Any ideas? Conspiracy theories?
Apr '12
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
As the old Taoist story asks, "Who's to say what's good or bad?"
Now the anti-tyranny party can make the election about tyranny. The Tea Party has just been fully rejuvenated.
To quote a more Christian source, let's try Genesis 50: 20, "But as for you, you thought evil against me; but God meant it for good, to do as he has done this day, to save many lives."
We shall soon be thanking John Roberts and Obama both, for the results they will bring to us, just as Jimmy Carter helped bring us Reagan.
Jan '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Guruforhire, no. It's a loss. And with this, Romney has now an almost insurmountable setback. Reason and thoughtful argument doesn't matter, people don't listen to that anymore. They just want to hear "yes" or "no". And they got their answer from the Supreme Court. Nobody will listen to the "Yes, but . . . . " arguments. As I said in previous threads (before the decision), it's 5-4 upheld, and sadly you can't afford all the free stuff.
Sep '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
What makes matters worse is that Kennedy didn't only want to throw out the mandate. He wanted to strike down the entire law.
Roberts could have sided with his fellow conservatives, both taking down the law and placing restrictions on the Commerce Clause moving forward.
Instead he sided with the liberals. Why? Who knows.
May '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
"I think you ought to know I'm feeling very depressed." - Marvin, "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" This says it all.
Dec '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
What are republicans to do when they have a regressive tax that is relatively inconsequetial to revenue to run on eliminating?
Jan '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Guruforhire, I don't know. It's pretty disheartening. If the decision is to repeal, then Republicans look like evil bloodsuckers. If the decision is to let it stand, then the US will totter even more on an unstable foundation.
Jan '12
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Terrible News! But maybe it will get conservatives and independents all fired up about November
Jun '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Guruforhire:
We may not like its effects, but I think that the Roberts opinion is pretty solid.
I'm a little hesitant to admit it, I'm almost afraid I'll get kicked out of Ricochet, but I listened to the oral arguments back when and came to the same conclusion Roberts did: the mandate is a tax.
It's collected by the IRS. If it looks like a tax and quacks like a tax, it's a tax. And unfortunately under the XVI Amendment Congress has pretty much unlimited power to tax income.
Oct '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Right now, I am trying to decide whether to donate to the Romney campaign or the Seasteading Institute. I am leaning toward the latter.
Jul '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
locke91: What makes matters worse is that Kennedy didn't only want to throw out the mandate. He wanted to strike down the entire law.
Roberts could have sided with his fellow conservatives, both taking down the law and placing restrictions on the Commerce Clause moving forward.
Instead he sided with the liberals. Why? Who knows. · 8 minutes ago
I'm hoping that weasel flipped for nothing more than the prestige and esteem of the media, but who knows.
Aug '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
"Kill the ObamaTax."
Seems like a good bumper-sticker slogan to me.
After all, historically it's been easier to run on a tax cut than to run on repealing legislation.
Edited on June 28, 2012 at 6:28pmMay '12
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
Republic of Texas: Agreed. While relying on the Supreme Court to save us from our folly should not be our only hope, I certainly did not expect Judge Roberts to be the swing vote.
Time to reconsider aproperborder fence for Texas:
(courtesy of The Onion) · 10 minutes ago
If not for restraint on Medicaid expansion I think this would be up for a vote sooner rather than later. I think we are about one rolling blackout thanks to EPA over reach this summer away from taking this up for consideration.
Jan '11
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
locke91:
Instead he sided with the liberals. Why? Who knows.
No, I think we do know.
Roberts argues that the Court must bend over backwards to uphold a law. He couldn't uphold it on the grounds its supporters argued, so he simply supplied his own. And even that stretched the bounds of credulity. As the dissenters said, Roberts' argument depends on interpretations that the Court has never (-never-!) used before.
Did Roberts do that to prove that the Court isn't activist? Has he always bent over backwards to save every law? Or only the laws on which he'll be accused of being activist? If the Court craves a reputation for "judicial restraint," even when it trumps the Court's responsibility to strike down when necessary, then prestige has supplanted justice.
Oct '10
Re: A Kick in the Stomach
IF you have an American flag flying for July 4, now is the time to lower it to half-staff. America R.I.P 1776 - 2012.