Tag: Roberts

The ugly truth about Justice Roberts is that he sold out his principles

Via The Blaze

CBS News’ Jan Crawford is reporting that Chief Justice John Roberts originally sided with the Supreme Court’s four conservative justices to strike down the heart of Obama’s health care reform law, often referred to as “Obamacare,” but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

CBS continues (all subsequent emphasis added):

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy – believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law – led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

“He was relentless,” one source said of Kennedy’s efforts. “He was very engaged in this.”

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, “You’re on your own.”

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts’ decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

 So what got to Roberts? What made him change the vote? Apparently, he simply lost track of his principles

CBS explains a possible reason for the change of heart:

[Unlike some other justices] Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court – and to Roberts’ reputation – if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

Some even suggested that if Roberts struck down the mandate, it would prove he had been deceitful during his confirmation hearings, when he explained a philosophy of judicial restraint.

It was around this time that it also became clear to the conservative justices that Roberts was, as one put it, “wobbly,” the sources said.

It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.

So, basically, he was worried about PR rather than the Constitution? What a gutless wonder! The report also says Roberts tried to convince the other justices to switch votes, to make the court appear more  “united”. Also it seems that Justice Kennedy was trying to get Roberts to come back until the very last-minute. Here is part of Kennedy’s dissent, the words are, to me, chilling.

“The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty in peril…Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead our judgment today has disregarded it.”

Indeed sir, indeed! 

Linked at I’m a Man thanks! BC adds this

This is a prime example of why the liberals keep winning. 

Conservatives fear being labeled  ideological  or ignorant, so they let the left  dictate what is appropriate for debate. Some are even willing compromise their good sense or integrity to stay in the elitist crowd.

Yes, Liberals are NEVER afraid of what they will be called no matter what they say. Some Conservatives forget this. They also seem to forget that Liberals will say whatever they want about Conservatives, no matter what the Conservative says or does. To the Left is is all about winning, anything is acceptable to them if it leads to a victory for them.

More bloggers roast Roberts

Bob Belvedere lays it on Roberts, who KNEW better

John Roberts, however, is not a Leftist drone, yet he obviously has acted in a way that brands him as a Useful Idiot and Dupe of the Left. He may think he pulled a fast one or that he’s preserving the integrity of the SCOTUS, but the Left is laughing at him behind his robed back and celebrating their capture of another Right Wing Dupe. This decision will not restore the image of The Court. In fact, it sends a message that the Chief Justice is willing to sacrifice The Constitution for the sake of a facade — the political image of SCOTUS in the public’s mind — and this will, perhaps fatally, damage the reputation of the SCOTUS in the eyes of the Right — the only group that respects The Court and it’s place in The American Experiment. If, however, Roberts believes what he wrote, then one cannot be blamed if he questions the mental health of the Chief Justice.

By stating that the Congress has an unlimited power to tax, Chief Justice Roberts and the Leftist Justices have declared that The Constitution does not mean what it says and that the Congress need not concern itself with enumerated powers when it comes to using the taxing power, which, as many wise men have pointed out over the centuries, is the power to destroy.

BC has some great comments Rush made today

Donald Douglas has two posts up, one trying to salvage some credibility for Roberts, sorry I am not buying it, not at all, but it is worth the read. The other raises the question. Did Roberts change his votes due to some type of pressure?

Gateway Pundit notes that Romney donations went ballistic after Roberts rewrote Obamacare to save it and has a great cartoon as well 

Governor Romney raised over $4 million in twenty hours following the Obamacaretax ruling yesterday by the Supreme Court.
The Hill reported, via Free Republic:

Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign has raised $4.2 million since the Supreme Court ruled President Obama’s healthcare law is constitutional.

Romney started raising funds immediately after the decision, and in a post on Twitter his campaign spokeswoman said he had raised $4.2 million from 42,000 donations.

“Fundraising update for #FullRepeal: 42k+ donations, $4.2 million raised online for @MittRomney since #scotus decision,” tweeted spokeswoman Andrea Saul.

Romney responded to the ruling by renewing his pledge to repeal the Affordable Care Act known as “Obamacare.”

He wrote in a fundraising email to supporters on Thursday: “Today, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare. But regardless of what the Court said about the constitutionality of the law, Obamacare is bad medicine, it is bad policy, and when I’m president, the bad news of Obamacare will be over.”

One thing can be said of this, that fire in the American people’s hearts against big government is hotter than ever! NOW, this election is about the economy AND Obamacare, AND high taxes, and all of those added together equals a very bad November for Democrats!

Obamacare individual mandate upheld by John Roberts and his four Left Wing buddies, the bloggers react!

I am what you might call angry, and so are many others. and here are some of their reactions.

Zion’s Trumpet links Ed’s post, and offers his own take

Also keep in mind that all this happened back when the GOP still had a shot at getting Obama’s health care monstrosity overruled by our nation’s highest court. Since that option is no longer on the table, we the people have no alternative but to rid our federal government of every parasitic leftist we possibly can, even if that means replacing some of them with – shall we say – less than hard-right Republicans. To do otherwise is to commit national suicide, and even some Ron Paul supporters are now beginning to recognize that fact.

Mitt – if I may be so bold as to address you by your nickname – all you have to do to win the White House at this point is refrain from saying anything truly stupid or offensive to conservatives, stick to the topics of the economy and ObamaCare, and try to pick a running mate who isn’t as big a RINO as you are. Might I suggest Marco Rubio… or Allen West?

As for you, Barack, you’re political death warrant has just been signed, sealed and delivered by five smarmy, activist lawyers in black robes, and the genuinely comical thing is that you’re too dumb to realize it. While I’m sure the Jurassic press will join you in declaring victory today, I’m equally as certain that the real victors in all this will be the people of this country once they throw your sorry butt out of office and begin the process of retaking their liberties from a degenerate and dictatorial federal government.

Chris at Wyblog warns that we better start saving up for that mandate, oh, sorry Mr. Roberts TAX that makes us buy a Volt!

The government is our master. We The People are powerless before it.

The Constitution means nothing. Limited government? Fuggedaboudit.

Someone needs to dig up Thomas Jefferson and have him beat Chief Justice Roberts over the head with the Declaration of Independence. Repeatedly.

Not that it would do any good. The damage is done.

The Obamacare abomination survives. Every American is compelled by the force of law to purchase health insurance. Because the individual mandate is in actuality a tax.

Welcome to the United States of Greece. Where our Socialist Overlords have big plans for us serfs. It’s been said that the power to tax is the power to destroy.

Liberty was destroyed today. We’ll probably never get it back.

UPDATE 28 Jun 2012 11:39:
The more I think about it, the madder I get.

Even if Obamacare gets repealed a terrible precedent has been set. Congress can tax our behavior. Get too fat? Pay the Obesity Tax. Don’t buy that Chevy Volt? Pay the Fossil Fuel Waster Tax. Homeschool your kids? Pay the Support Your Local Teachers Union Tax.

Nanny-state busybodies like Mike Bloomberg are having an orgasm right now.

Milton Wolf warned us yesterday that, in the end, we would have to kill this beast legislatively, he was right

Weasel Zippers reminds us that Romney lists job one as “Repeal Obamacare”

Charles Krauthammer offers his view on why Roberts did it

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.

Go read it all, I think Krauthammer is exactly right, but I disagree on one point. Roberts has, in my view, discredited ANY standing he had as a constitutional conservative. He placed his principles and his duty on the back burner to help the “image” of the Court? If so, then he has forgotten what duty is, and is a disgrace!

The Right Scoop has Rush’s take

The Other McCain has Michelle Bachman’s response 

Jill has a great post up including this

The bottom line from the dissent:

Scalia/Kennedy/Thomas/Alito dissent calls decision “a vast judicial overreaching.”

John Hayward comments via Twitter (older tweets at bottom):

You are now the property of the State, which can levy a special tax against you, if you don’t spend your money as ordered.

Remember, Obama didn’t just lie about ObamaCare being a tax. He LAUGHED at the idea, on national TV.

Prognostication winners: those who said the ruling would be both a win and loss for Obama. His tax hike on the poor survived the Court.

Shouldn’t a law be judged on what it actually says – i.e. “mandate” – rather than being rewritten by justices to keep it alive?

So the Court just changed a law nobody read to tell the authors what they really meant.

Hey, Obama voters! Your boy just hit poor and middle class Americans with the biggest TAX in history!

So statists can claim anything isn’t a tax, to get it past voters, then the Court will change it to a tax later.

So basically, the Court rewrote a clearly unconstitutional law, in direct opposition to the statements of its authors, to keep it alive.

Yeah, pretty much what I thought. Goodbye, Constitution, it was nice knowing you.

So Obama lied, said O-care’s not a tax, but SCOTUS says it is. Thanks for voting for this guy, chumps.

Jeff Goldstein at Protein Wisdom has this nugget

Thus, behold:

The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.

I won’t have to unpack that for longtime readers of this site, but do allow me to unpack it — as I’ve done with similar linguistically incoherent statements in the past — for those who will spend today bemoaning a ruling that, when viewed from their own intepretative perspective (rather than their policy desires), they can’t honestly fault.

To wit:  “Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.”

Fine.  How is this the case?  Because, per Roberts,  the mandate looks something like a tax might look and could look — much in the way a cloud formation may look like a randy sheep three way, if you’re inclined to see it that way.  But unless you believe God or Nature intended to paint a sheep orgy in the gas and water vapor floating above Peoria, the clouds aren’t actually a sheep orgy save your intent to see it as such.

Intentionalism just is.

But, you argue, it clearly wasn’t intended as a tax (or if it was, there’s no way of ever knowing that, given that it was presented as a penalty and not a tax) — because the President publicly denied that it was a tax, and it was passed expressly as a penalty.  Therefore, it was signified into being — at the point of passage — as a penalty.  And a penalty is not a tax.

Or is it?

Intentionalism just is.

According to the CJ, a penalty is indeed a tax when it can be viewed as a tax for purposes of a ruling.  Meaning, a penalty is a tax when a Justice decides to rewrite the law to turn a penalty into a tax.  Which he justifies because the way the penalty looks to him suggests that “reasonable”  people (or philosopher kings) can, if they squint — and if they ignore the intent that turned the law into law in the first place, and turned a set of marks into a set of signs, into language — see a tax.  How that is “reasonable” is anyone’s guess:   we know in no uncertain terms that Obama and the Dems who passed the law didn’t devise the mandate as a tax (despite what they later argued); for one to conclude that it is reasonably possible to “read” a penalty as a tax,  therefore, what c0mes to count as “reasonable” must be redefined as “ignoring what we know to be true”.  And that seems antithetical to “reason.”

Erick Erickson throws his back out, trying to defend Roberts

Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points.

First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

Good Freaking Grief! Tell me Erickson is not this stupid. If Roberts was swayed by public opinion, or by what he perceived MIGHT be a negative spin the certain people, then he is unfit for the highest court! He is there to rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of laws, not make his decisions to impress anyone!

Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue.

Oh, so the constitutionality of a law is “political” now, and not legal? Good Lord who is this buffoon posing as Erickson? I am with BC on this

What is sad is that a conservative republican blogger is dumb enough put this stupidity out for review — and think he making an intelligent point.

The reality is that John Roberts have just given his stamp of approval on the biggest governmental encroachment on American liberty in our country’s history. This is not just about the individual mandate.

The supreme court has just set a legal precedent saying that it is okay for the federal government to force you to buy a service and penalize you if you don’t.

Now, thanks to John Roberts, if they decide it is in your best interest to buy a workout machine, a house alarm system, a book,  a Communist government indoctrination video — or anything else for that matter — they can do it and it will be simple labeled as a tax.

Someone needs to tell this fat bastard to think, or to shut up!

Dear Erick, your head called, it is stuck in your ass, sorry, but I am done having patience for these “thoughtful” Republicans who excuse cowards like Roberts!

Nancy Pelosi credits a former fat, drunk disgrace for this, and Doug Powers skewers her!

Gag.

Mary Jo Kopechne unavailable for comment.

“Ted can now rest. He’s finally f*#%ed everybody in the country.”

Actually, stamping Ted Kennedy’s name on what will eventually amount to a massive tax increase for increasing numbers of Americans as companies dump out of insuring their employees privately isn’t entirely inappropriate.

Maybe Ted’s been reincarnated. If John Roberts is spotted drinking Chivas tonight and chasing tail at Au Bar it’ll be confirmed.

I might be updating later, so please check back. I do hope this fires everyone up, and keeps them that way. REMEMBER in NOVEMBER!

Chief Justice John Roberts Wields the Knife of Judicial Activism

I am uploading my podcast about Roberts and his indefensible vote today. Some have suggested he was interested in judicial restraint, or that he is concerned that the SCOTUS not look extreme, or partisan to America. Me? I think he had a job to do, and he failed. Some might say he is still a ” strict constructionist” sorry, I do not see how anyone believes that. What he did was to change, or re-write the Obamacare bill, changing the mandate, which even he said was not covered under the Commerce Clause into a tax, which is within the power of Congress. Is there a clearer case of judicial activism than that? 

While Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas voted with the constitution, Roberts voted against it! Sorry, again there is no other way to put it. These justices have one job to do, to uphold, or strike down laws, or portions of laws, as those laws are written. Roberts went well beyond his duties here. He actually chose to re-write the law, so he could uphold it it would seem. Now, a precedent has been set. Congress may now make us buy anything, as long as they call it a tax, and not a mandate! More here in my podcast, click the pic to listen

Look at me! I am Mr. Judicial Restraint!