« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

I’m Also Not Down On John Roberts

“It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.”

That quote from Erick’s post sums up my feelings completely. Over the past five years I have gained a ton of respect for John Roberts. One case can’t tarnish that respect.

As I said yesterday on another thread, my impression of Roberts is that he is a chess player who looks at the entire board very carefully before making a move. If he can bring about long term change in the direction and trajectory of our nation by sacrificing in the short term, I think that is what he will do.  In fact I think that is what he just did. By limiting the Commerce Clause while simultaneously forcing this issue back into the political realm, Roberts has given we the people another chance to get it right. Read carefully part of the decision:

Today, the restrictions on government power foremost in many Americans’ minds are likely to be affirmative prohibitions, such as contained in the Bill of Rights. These affirmative prohibitions come into play, however, only where the Government possesses authority to act in the first place. If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution……..

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

The American people must be weened off the idea that someone somewhere is always going to step in and save the day. The American people must take charge of their country and use the power of the secret ballot to reward those who support limited government and punish those who support the expansion of government and government power. In essence what John Roberts is proclaiming via this opinion is  “Don’t elect charlatans and then expect this Court to bail you out” .

No matter how disappointed I am by this ruling, no matter how galling it will be to listen to the Ezra Kleins and Lawrence O’Donnells of this world gloat and preen over the next few days, the fact remains that the American people have the government they deserve. 53% of of those who voted in 2008 chose a callow narcissist to be the leader of the world’s most consequential nation. What did we expect would be the result? How many conservatives and libertarians sat on their hands in 2008 instead of holding their nose and voting for John McCain? How many moderates thought John McCain was a funny looking old man and instead chose the hip young ( “clean and nice looking” according to Joe Biden)  Barack Obama instead?

If we have too much government or the wrong kind of government it isn’t John Roberts’ fault.  The fault lies with the entire nation. As a people we have failed. John Roberts wasn’t appointed Chief Justice of a nation with limited government. He was appointed Chief Justice of a nation that long ago heeded the siren call of the liberal harlot. He heads the court at time when 50% of Americans are subsidized by the other 50%. He must deal with a national culture that demands instant gratification and no responsibility.

As a people we can right this wrong and begin to scramble back from the abyss. We can start by working our buns off getting Mitt Romney elected, electing a GOP Senate, and holding the House.

Or we can sit around in a circle and call John Roberts a horrible no good lying moderate squishy cowardly gob of crap.

You decide which path will lead to victory and which one won’t accomplish anything beyond amusing any liberals who are within earshot.

COMMENTS

  • sulmak
    • barleycorn

      Its one thing to disagree with Robert’s reasoning, its another to accuse the court of not “doing its duty”.

      • sulmak

        Because of this statement.

  • Viet71

    He issued a conservative opinion (in a legal sense) that (a) makes clear no mandate survives under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause; and (b) turned a deadly important case into a case of garden variety consequences.

    He is to be respected for his opinion, which is conservative, well-written, and well-reasoned.

    Obama can take scant comfort from his opinion. Conservatives carried the day — choose to believe it or not.

    • http://www.theprecinctproject.wordpress.com ColdWarrior

      much better had the Roberts joined the four conservative dissenters and struck down the entire law.

      Here’s the summary from the four conservative dissenters:

      The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. And it changes the intentionally coercive sanction of a total cut-off of Medicaid funds to a supposedly noncoercive cut-off of only the incremental funds that the Act makes available.

      The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. It makes enactment of sensible health-care regulation more difficult, since Congress cannot start afresh but must take as its point of departure a jumble of now senseless provisions, provisions that certain interests favored under the Court

  • runner12

    But the question remains, is the law Constitutional as a tax? I believe not and that is where Roberts goes off the reservation for me. It is the Court’s job to rule on issues of Constitutionality and they got it wrong today.

    While I appreciate the good Roberts did write into the law and the rebuke that basically “we get the government we elect”, it does not nullify that his ruling today was utterly wrong Constitutionally speaking.

    • http://www.chicagobluesgirl.com chicagobluesgirl

      If you don’t agree, see analysis by Levin and Limbaugh.

      If it isn’t repealed, our lives are forever at the mercy of liberals because they can now tax us for non-behavior in any venue…Until June 28, 2012, we had a chance at liberty. Roberts changed all that. It is his rotten legacy. There is no good to appreciate.

      We need term limits with the SCOTUS and Congress so we have an opportunity, in the future, to get the radicals out.