Looking for better conservative conversation? Join Ricochet for just $5/month. Think of it as your neighborhood bar: familiar faces, lively debate, and room for a different point of view. Plus: listen to most of our podcasts ad-free.
With the ascent of "democratic socialism" in the Democratic party and a Supreme Court confirmation fight commencing this week, Steve Hayward checks in for the latest on how this may play out in the midterm election with Henry Olsen, and also introduces us to a new special, anonymous (and soon to be regular) mystery guest, "Professor X." She teaches at a major public university, and argues that we aren't arguing broadly enough about what is wrong with the Supreme Court these days. (Bonus: we also talk guns and shooting!)
Hosted by Steve Hayward, with guests Henry Olsen and "Lucretia"
Discussion (3)
CHARTER MEMBER
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
I'm not as sanguine as "Professor X" about the Supreme Court's usurpation of the power of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison. If it's so clearly the Supreme Court's jurisdiction, why wasn't it explicitly mentioned in the Constitution?
However, if we stipulate that the Supreme Court has the power to declare laws unconstitutional, then I don't understand how the Roberts-rewritten ObamaCare statute could possibly withstand judicial review.
--U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 7
As Steve Hayward and Professor X discussed, the Roberts rewriting of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA - known colloquially as ObamaCare) explicitly characterized the individual mandate's penalty as a tax. No party in the lawsuit challenging the law contended that the penalty was a tax. Chief Justice Roberts must take full ownership of that fiction. But furthermore, no one disputes that the PPACA originated in the Senate. Recall that Scott Brown had been elected Senator on a promise to be the 51st vote against ObamaCare, so the Senate could not take up any bill from the House. The conference bill was passed by Congress using the procedural prestidigitation known as "reconciliation."
This is yet another reason I'm unhappy with the establishment Republicans, who deserve (and could learn much from) Trump. It should have been a simple and reflexive matter for the Republicans in Congress to back a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the Roberts-rewritten PPACA for its clear violation of Article I, Section 7.
To read this bio, please join Ricochet.
The Constitutional “ratchet”, whereby liberal Courts rewrite the Constitution as they please and conservative Courts never reverse the liberal innovations, is why Trump’s victory was so important. And why Max Bootish schemes of destroying the Republicans “in order to save them” are ... meshuge.