In 2005 I was asked by the Bush administration to assist Judge John Roberts during the Senate confirmation process for his nomination as chief justice of the United States. Over several pressure-packed days, and throughout the confirmation process, I felt I got to know him fairly well. I found him to be one of the most brilliant, thoughtful, and humorous people I’d ever met. Those qualities don’t always go together. It was clear he was going to be a major right-of-center voice on the Supreme Court for decades to come. So it is with a great deal of personal interest that I have considered his opinion in Sebelius and the commentary that has followed.
The Antithesis Of John Roberts
The chief justice is a good man, whose record over the whole of his career will probably be a good one, perhaps even a great one. However, I do not agree with this opinion. I believe the dissent got it right. I am well aware of the fact that a conscientious judge must sometimes rule in a manner that he personally disagrees with. But the majority opinion appears to be a result looking for a rationale, which is the antithesis of what I ever thought would be the approach of John Roberts. One of his new admirers described his opinion as “incoherent but brilliant.” That’s the most depressing thing I have read in a long time.
There is rampant speculation as to why Justice Roberts rendered the opinion he did. To many on the left it is believed that he was looking out for the Supreme Court as an institution. Liberals made it clear well in advance that if the Court struck Obamacare down they would attack the Court as politicized and illegitimate. They now say that the chief justice “put the country first” by the “clever” means of rejecting the government’s central Commerce Clause argument and instead achieving the same result by relying upon the federal government’s power to tax, an argument that was seen as peripheral at best by all the lower courts that had considered the issue of constitutionality. The same is true with regard to the litigants.
A Misguided View Of The Role Of The Court
Some on the right say that Roberts has actually hurt Obama’s chances for reelection; that he has undermined Obama’s constitutional rationale (the Commerce Clause), restricted his ability to pay for ObamaCare (giving states the right to reject the Medicaid provisions), and hung a big tax albatross around his neck during an election year (holding that the mandate penalty is a tax).
There may be some truth to all or part of this speculation. The problem is that none of these considerations are an appropriate basis for deciding a lawsuit. Cases are still supposed to be decided upon the law and the facts before the court. This may seem a mundane point in a discussion involving institutional and national salvation, but it’s true nevertheless. An umpire does not concern himself with the outcome of the game as he is calling balls and strikes.
Besides, once he gets on this slippery slope, what would make any justice think that he can even determine what is best for his institution or the country over and above a proper decision in the case before him? FDR attacked the Hughes Court, and it apparently bent to his will. That Court went down in history, not for putting the nation first, but for caving in to pressure. (The latest Rasmussen poll has the Supreme Court’s approval rating down 11 percent since the decision.)
I would like to think that none of this represents Roberts’ reasoning, But one thing is for sure: There are a lot of people out there on the left who think that it would be laudable if it did. That is a seriously misguided view of the role of the Court.
The desire to find a Reagan-like pony in all of this has caused some of my conservative friends to see one where none exists. In fact, many pessimistic liberals and optimistic conservatives have one thing in common: the view that somehow the opinion places new limitations on the use of the Commerce Clause, because it was deemed not applicable in Sebelius. They also think that the decision substantially restricts the conditions that the federal government can place on states regarding programs partially funded by the federal government. Unfortunately, in my view, both of these beliefs are wrong.
The majority opinion rejected the Commerce Clause as a valid basis for the individual mandate because, while the federal government can regulate commerce and commercial activity, it cannot compel economic activity, as the mandate attempted to do. The chief justice’s opinion contained a lot of music about the limitations of the Commerce Clause that is easy on conservative ears, but it was essentially the same set of points that conservative justices, usually in the minority, have been making for years. In 1942 the Supreme Court decided in Wickard v. Filburn that a farmer could be penalized for growing wheat on his own farm for his own consumption. Many view this as the high-water mark of the expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause. The Court in Sebelius in no way overruled or rejected Wickard. On the contrary, the opinion pointed out that in Wickard the case involved the “activity” of growing wheat. In Sebelius there is no commercial activity on the part of one who chooses not to purchase health insurance. Wickard is just as egregious and just as valid as it has always been.
One of the few instances when the Court invalidated a congressional extension of the Commerce Clause was in the case of U.S. v. Lopez in 1995, when Congress tried to penalize gun possession in local school districts. In the Obamacare ruling, the chief justice wrote the following: “The path of our Commerce Clause decisions has not always run smooth, see United States v. Lopez . . . , but it is now well established that Congress has broad authority under the Clause.” So apparently Lopez was just a momentary glitch.
So we can be pleased that the Court did not take the unprecedented step of allowing the absence of activity to be regulated under the Commerce Clause, but that still leaves what I would guess to be 99 percent of future Commerce Clause cases — cases that will involve some sort of alleged “activity” on the part of the person or persons being regulated. We will still have the same ideological split on the Court, probably with the swing vote making a decision based upon how outrageous the federal overreach is. We are essentially where we were before with regard to the Commerce Clause. So, one cheer, not two. And certainly not three.
On the other issue I mentioned above, the Court decided that the federal government could not withdraw all of its previously committed Medicaid funding to a state on the grounds that the state decided not to participate in the Obamacare expansion of Medicaid. The Court did nothing, however, to prevent the federal government in the future from withholding money if a state reneged on previously-agreed-upon federal requirements. Here, the Court simply held that the feds could not egregiously withdraw previously-agreed-upon funding by imposing new requirements that a state could not or would not accept. This holding that states should not be subjected to a bait-and-switch operation was agreed to by seven justices, even though the administration was counting on being able to load part of the cost of Obamacare onto the states by means of this Medicaid requirement.
Again, we should be thankful for this status-quo result, but the political Left has no need for concern that this decision has done anything to diminish the federal government’s ability to call the shots if a state decides to take federal money.
So we are left with no silver linings and one major concern for the future that goes beyond Obamacare. It seems that, after this Court decision, while the government cannot make you buy broccoli under the Commerce Clause, it can tax you if you don’t.
Again, some optimists say that, since the Court relied upon the government’s taxing power, we are protected as a practical matter, since Congress would always be reluctant to pass a huge new tax. However, in the future Congress can insist it’s not a tax, just as it did this time. One would think that it would be politically more difficult to pull this off again, but there is no legal constraint to keep the congressional leaders from trying — deny it’s a tax during debate and have the government argue in court later that it is a tax.
The chief justice did remind us of one thing of overriding importance: We can’t sit back and count upon the courts to save us from ourselves. I believe that he made a mistake, but so did we. The real silver lining is that in a democratic republic we get another chance in November to fix it.
- Fred Thompson
I don’t understand why Justice Roberts has not been taken to task for “indirectly re-writing the Constitution”. Is there anything that can be done to correct this travesty of justice?
All indications, although not substantiated, are that there is a feeling of ill will among the justices. If indeed this is correct, and that is affecting decisions, than any opinion they hand down must be considered suspect.
Justice Roberts can not presume to be the person who writes a new Constitution for us. With this “little” change, he has opened Pandora’s Box.
To say this whole situation, and the apparent non-legality surrounding it is disturbing, is an understatement.
Tom,
with respect,I don’t understand your comment, I respect your right to say it but I don’t understand it.
Outside of a couple of op-ed pieces, or some blasting article from the left-wing media how exactly are we supposed to “Take Justice Roberts to task”. Last time I looked spring court justice is a lifetime position or until he quits. I suppose a lot of people could write about him in forums like this and maybe it would wake him up by hurting his feelings, otherwise I’m not sure what course of action you’re suggesting.
Michael, you hit the proverbial nail on it’s head…”life time appointments.” The very reason SCOTUS enjoyes these “life long” appointments, to enable them to make Constitutionally clean decisions sans politics. Their jobs are to make decisions based upon our Constitution completely without fear of poltical repraisals. In this instance, the several rationales put forth TRYING to explain the inexplicable Roberts decision:he was intimidated by the Obama regime…the Left had him fearful political fall out would endanger the future of the Supreme Court, that strictly following the Constitution would damage the legacy of the Roberts’ Court. In other words, Roberts didn’t just stick his big toe into the political pool, he jumped head first into those waters and dragged the entire court with him. and BTW, his job is CERTAINLY not to teach people a lesson, or clean up after our mistake of who we elect.
As such, BECAUSE Roberts made a VERY OBVIOUS political decision, by his abdication of his oath…NOT to SCOTUS, NOT to his own legacy, but TO THE CONSTITUTION ONLY, he has called great attention to the notion of Life Long Appointments. HE did this…ROBERTS made it clear now that the Supreme Court has decided politics has a very entrenched place in the courts, it’s time WTP NOT accept us to be burdened for the rest of THEIR lives with bad, very bad and damaging decisions.
who sais we were going to change the constution? That is a long process.
It is a very, very short process when the majority on the Supreme Court decide a case where the opinion does not conform to the Constitution and the law.
The process started more than 70 years ago….is that long enough for you Artie?
1942…..a farmer cannot grow wheat on his own land for his own consumption?
this was only a first honkin’ bloom of a rewrite.
tell me ben franklin or any of the signers would have upheld this insanity.
Fred,
Great appearance on the Hannity show today and good discussion here. But I must disagree with the OBAMACARE Penalty versus Tax discussion.
All taxes are Penalties. When I make more money I am penalized by having to pay a higher tax rate: more penalty. In the progrssive Income Tax (Labor Tax) we are penalized for making more money. Taxes are Penalties.
In socialism, we all are to make the same income, spend the same amount and live the same. We are all to be equal. When we exceed those expectations we are penalized.
Roberts has given us the opportunity and direction to remove all penalties in the Progressive Tax System. He has pointed us in the direction of correcting the past 100 years of penalties placed on the citizens. We must repeal the 16th Amendment.
Don Stuart
is there any legislation passed where the voting public has a clear understanding and warning of what it involves? Pelosi’s comment: “let’s pass it then see what it says” should have had the administration scrambling for damage control. but perhaps she is part of what the real message was. hindsight assessment in it all. let’s jump in the water headfirst to see where the bottom is with our outstretched arms.
Fred,
Are you a contender for VP?
I hope so! I’m still disappointed that you didn’t run this round….NOW look!
I believe Roberts should have viewed this as a Commerce Clause issue and ruled against it as opposed to a taxing issue. I don’t believe the gov’t should be able to force you to buy anything. It is a slippery slope. What’s next? What new …tax will the gov’t create to force us to bend to it’s will?
I believe that if this is ever repealed and there are enough Consevatives (Republicans as a whole are useless, too many RINOS), a new Amendment needs to be added to the Constitution to prevent these types of laws from seeing the light of day.
Fred, one of the most inteligent articles i have read on this subject.
What is most disconcerting about this decision is that the Government now gets the right to tell us how to live our lives. If we don’t do what they say, we’ll place a penalty on it and argue in court that it’s a tax, then claim later in press releases and new media outlets that it’s not.
If we don’t elect someone other than this man as POTUS, then we’re done as a Democratic Republic.
Fred,
Like you I am somewhat disenchanted by the latest in a long series of not only goofy decisions by our judicial system but also ones that not do not seem to follow any coherent line of logic, without regard to how convoluted the path to the decision is.
A traffic cop writes you a ticket. You did not have your license on you. When you go before the judge (in a lot of places) even if you have your license while you’re in court you are going to pay a fine, which is part of the authority of the locality to regulate your activity and is not a tax. If that same traffic cop decides that my proof of insurance is not good enough or I cannot produce it, he then writes me another citation which logically concludes that I do not have insurance on my vehicle and forces me to appear in court to prove or disprove the citation.
What the Roberts decision has done has taken the activity of the consumer out of the decision, changed a citation into a Disneyland ride requirement and pay the fine that you would pay for a violation of the regulation magically appear on the other side of the room yelled TADA and turned it into a tax.
Almost as goofy as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, definitely not his best work.
If Roberts made his decision to save the Court from attacks from the left it is an exhibition of cowardice and shows the same “Choose Satan to save Jesus” attitude that has put the US in its current situation! Like the coming election; many Conservatives see it as, once again, a choice between the lesser of 2 evils.
It is said that voters deserve the Government they elect – true; but only if they have a fair choice of the candidates in the running! That does not happen anymore (if it ever did) when the Parties in power, along with the National Media, conspire to boost those who THEY support!
Regardless of Robert’s past judgements he will forever be known as the Supreme Court Justice who destroyed America.
I am of the opinion that he is afraid of Obama and that the woman who helped Obama write this monstrosity and refused to recuse herself made the decision for him – to me he is a coward and the people who love this country will not get over his decision for a long, long time if ever.
It’s been a week and no one has figured this out yet. I’m a little surprised. It’s really quite simple. Sometime before the decision was reached, a gentleman by the name of John Galt walked into Roberts’ office and had a lengthy chat with him. Roberts had to take one final action–the Obamacare decision–before he could shrug off all future duties on the court. I expect Roberts will vanish within a few days, proving my theory.
I’m sorry I am slow, but I don’t understand what you meant by “I suspect Roberts will vanish within a few days.”
Fred,
You offer an excellent view on the political angles at play between the three branches of our federal government. You briefly mentioned in regards to a “seriously misguided view of the role of the court” that Roberts should not have made his decision based on politics to make the left look bad. Another issue is whether the courts role is to judge laws based on whether they are logical and beneficial, or if their role is to judge the constitutionality of the law. I understand it to be the latter. Unless I missed it, you don’t seem to have addressed whether or not you think the individual mandate is actually constitutional. What do you think? For clarity and distinction, please note that this question has does not ask if the law is a good idea, or if it puts us on a “slippery slope.”
Thanks,
David Nieswiadomy
I think Thomas Jefferson argued against CONGRESS enacting a law until several months had passed. Obama care is a prime example of why they should wait.
Thanks,
Floyd Black
We are forced to buy government all the time with taxes and fees.
Dear Mr. Thompson:
This issue once again stresses the need to make the selection of Supreme Court Justices a major issue during Presidential Campaigns.
Is a “litmus test” for Judges a logical tool for selection?
In my opinion: Yes!
So what test?
The primary duty of a Supreme Court Justice is to see to it that any challenged law does not violate the intent of the Constution.
We have seen Justices say “there is no way to know what “original intent” was.
Bull! Any Justice that doesn’t understand that issue is to ignorant of American History to be allowed to sit in judgement of Constitutional matter. Our brilliant Founding Fathers fought hard to gain Liberty for all citizens. They could have made themselves Kings, but instead, granted Liberty to every citizen. To assure we had Liberty, they granted Rights and Powers to Citizens First, to States second and to the Federal Government LAST! That is the Intent of the Constitution. Grant Liberty to Responsible Citizens.
All Judges must understand that any law that Takes Power from Citizens and places it in the hands of the Elitists now in charge of these United States is inherently Unconstitutional!
That is the needed Litmus Test.
I am greatly concerned that the Supreme Court is beginning to take on the attitude of Justice Ginsburg that the Constitution is not a good document for liberty and democracy. it was chilling to read her statements to the German magazine declaring that the Constitution of the United States would not be a good model for a new nation to follow. If my fears are real we are seeing the last days of this great nation.
It also seems to me that someone did a little arm twisting to Justice Roberts. For him to make such a ridiculous ruling in light of his past rulings and beliefs is quite troubling. The whole thing doesn’t pass the smell test and we all should be very concerned.
I take the short view of what happened last Thursday in the Supreme Court. It only takes one monumental blunder to ruin an entire career and become known forever as The Asshole of the Century.
Just because you had a part in Justice Roberts confirmation doesn’t mean you have to offer an excuse for what he did.
Some people analyzed his opinion and say that Justice Roberts’ choice of words sounded like he started writing his opinion to overturn Obamacare but halfway through it he changed his mind. If anyone should speculate on this then maybe we should think that he somehow became intimidated by someone or something to force his change and I would not put that past any of the thugs in this Chicago-style Democratic political machine.
What’s so difficult? What was supreme court to decide? Constittutionality, correct? Didn’t opinion say “IF TAX, constitutional.” Congress has the responsibility, was senate proposing revenue bills legal, did congress PASS a taxing bill? Congress has responsibility to amend this abortion away to smithereans, including senate, if incumbent DEMS support this abortion still are you going to vote FOR them?? Tell them NOW before the vote. You’re letting the propaganda distraction blind you to YOUR responsibility.
Why are we focusing on Roberts? The decision should be unanimous. It is unconstitutional or it isn’t. There should not be ‘right leaning” and “left leaning” judges when it comes to the constitution. I say the states should reject the conclusion of the court and ignor the “law” on the basis that it is unconstitutional.
I don’t need to read the article to know that John Roberts is to free enterprise what Earl Warren is to religious liberty, plus Roberts rates on the same level as Benedict Arnold. Roberts, the 4 justices who crammed socialist obamacare down our throats to pave the way for what will become the united socialist states of amerika, and Obama must all be impeached and removed from office. Thanks to them, I didn’t have a very good 4th of July yesterday. ELECT ROMNEY!!!
This article is one of the best I’ve seen. Too many people are squinting with all their might to find a silver lining where there is none.
If ObamaCare is left intact (which I believe it will be), then the taxing ability will be the battering ram with which Congress will feel compelled to nudge us into compliance with healthy living. You’re Body Mass Index is high? Then you have to join a health club. (We’re already seeing them assess elementary school children’s BMI in order to coerce parents to get their kids off the couch while simultaneously eliminating any strenuous physical activity in the schools.) You can imagine what types of behavior can be compelled once the government is able to say that THEY are responsible for your healthcare.
I believe this was a planned assault on the Constitution by the stealth Progressives in both Parties. Roberts scored a clear victory for those who seek to form One World Order. He will be richly rewarded.
Where is the discussion of Kagan recussal, The LYING POS activist Bit(H should not have had a vote.
The Obamacare document is not a health care bill; but a totall government control bill cleverly disguised with enough healthcare items sprinkled through out the maze of un-nessessary pages of legal jargon to confound and intimidate an objective observer.
Once read and properly interpreted; there is NO WAY anyone can qualify this document as Constitutional. Unfortunately our Supreme Court has been compromised and intimidated by the Obama administration.
Senator Thompson,
Thank you for being one of the few sane voices calling this bad decision for what it is. Will you please make another run at President?
Well written( I could understand it)
I don’t believe we should be forced to pay a tax for something we believe is morally wrong like aborting a baby.
Nice.
Point blank: Roberts was dead wrong in his decision not to uphold the Constitution.
His fluff and stuff reasoning is a flat out FAIL.
The end does not justify the means…..he knows this.
So for some convoluted reason he decides ‘oh, the best way i can oppose this horrifying assault to the Constitution is to uphold it so in the long run it gets struck down.’
INSTEAD, of the short route, of just voting NO!?
What personal gain did he believe he had to gain to make this wrong decision?
For the love of Pete, My God have mercy on us all!!!
I remain confused about one issue I believe to be significant, but have seen no commentary/opinion regarding it.
The Constitution clearly states (Article 1, Section 7):
All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
Did not this bill originate in the Senate?
The seem simple, Roberts and much of the American public has been made to believe that conservatives are on the right and must compromise with the left to reach a balance, but reality is that conservatives and especially the Supreme Court are in the center of the constitution (Centerist not a Centrists), and the Iiberal left sociaIist are both left in total totaIitarian government and at the same time to the right complete anarchy, which was eliminated by our Republic and the constitution. The Democrat communists are still hoping to get conservatives to believe we are a democratic republic instead of a Constitutional Republic.
Centrist would be in the center of the Constitution and therefore an advocate of the Republic, instead of a liberal center of the road moderate compromised conformist .
and Benedict Roberts cross the line.
The the problem is simple, Roberts and much of the American public has been made to believe that conservatives are on the right and must compromise with the left to reach a balance, but reality is that conservatives and especially the Supreme Court are in the center of the constitution (Centerist not a Centrists), and the Iiberal left sociaIist are both left in total totaIitarian government and at the same time to the right complete anarchy, which was eliminated by our Republic and the constitution. The Democrat communists are still hoping to get conservatives to believe we are a democratic republic instead of a Constitutional Republic.
Centrist would be in the center of the Constitution and therefore an advocate of the Republic, instead of a liberal center of the road moderate compromised conformist .
and Benedict Roberts crossed the line.
I am not a constitutional lawyer, but it is beyond me what Justice Roberts did. He seemed to be reaching for strws to justity a bad call. Was it a strike or a ball? I think, as you said, the disenters had it right. Perhaps in the future I will understand Justice Robert’s decision and although, unlikely, will praise him, but in the meantime I believe he is wrong. Fortunately we have another chance in November and hopefully the House could strat lokking at alternatives,. this opinion could provide.
“God save America”
Nelson and Carl, you both are RIGHT ON!!!! The you-know-what Kagan I have another description [unprintable] of her, and she should have used common decency, of which she knows nothing, to have recused herself. She has been Obama’s ticket to anonymity as far as his past is concerned, representing him in eluding the truth of his records in college and his true birth certificate, as well as working for Obamacare. And yes, there was never such a bunch of derelicts, charlatans, frauds, and thugs ever in charge of this country as there are now. VOTE REPUBLICAN IN NOVEMBER, no matter how lukewarm you may feel about Gov. Romney, who’d better start fighting fire with fire, or he will lose!!! Where is Newt Gingrich when we need him? He or Santorum could have cut B.O. down to size!!!!! Another 4 years of B. O. and this country is toast!
In the end, this decision leaves the door wide open to the concepts of Cass Sunstein, probably one of the worst people to ever infiltrate a government.
His theory of “nudging” people to do things they would not normally do to make them come into line with government edicts will now be used for all sorts of things a government decides are best for us.
Don’t agree? Then you shall be taxed.
That liberals don’t understand this boggles the mind!
Don’t they realize this will come back to bite them?
What if a tax is decreed on those that do not attend church or get an abortion by some super conservative government?
They think they will be in power indefinitely?
Mind you, I would not be the least surprised if Zero declares martial law and suspends elections when he realizes he will lose. “Flag wavers” and “those who are suspicious of centralized government” are now on the terrorist watch list.
Yes, it can happen here if we let it.
And, by the way, Mr. Thompson, I thought it was a sad day when you pulled out of the race. I know you have your reasons but, leaving it to McLame led to this mess in my humble opinion. I sure do hope you are tapped for a position in the new administration and that you will take it!
First time reader, and it is nice to know that I am not alone in my thinking. The answer could be simple, just reduce the size and scope of government. I fear we are beyond the point of no return. We have a chance to but the brakes on this November, as to letting the socialist keep there foot on the gas[if there is any]. This country is a runaway train and without stopping it, there will be a Hugh wreck. I live in the brown rot state and one should see what Med-fly jerry has in store for us!!!
Chief-In-Justice Roberts has become the most hated individual in the whole country, even worst than Barry Obama. He should be punished someday soon by those who have been hurt most by this terrible illegal ruling.
A pox on his house and all that live in it. We will never forget or forgive him for this dastardly betrayal.
Fred,
The lesson you may want to remember is that a young chief justice will be far more concerned about his ‘standing’ in the country that an older more experienced person. He also will be far easier to roll and intimidate. He has more of his life ahead of him and thus more to lose. The boys from Chicago play hardball just like Putin. He got the message and blinked. We all will be paying for his weakness for generations!
I am so fed up with Roberts instead of doing the right thing He compromised with the far left. went with a bunch of people who are determined to destroy America. Folks the liberals are driving nails in their own coffins. God will soon bring Judgement upon the U>S>A> we will find ourselfs on the ash pile of History like all other Nations before us who turned away from GOD
Like China?
i stand with you on this point.
One wonders what has happened to John Roberts—two rulings in a row in which he sided with the 5 proud libs. He appears now to be one of them. As Lavonne observed, it appears that we may be seeing in him the emergence of a repeat of the evolution of Earl Warren, who apparently was a Constitutional conservative when Eisenhower appointed him in 1953, but turned out to be an infamous lib—for which our nation is still paying.
We’ll see before long, it would appear, whether or not the Republican leadership in the House and Romney have enough backbone to do what they have been promising to do—repeal this monster that will be the final nail in the coffin of the greatest nation in history (apart from Israel when she was faithful to God) if it is allowed to go forward. Will we be a nation ruled by impartially applied Constitutional law or one ruled by men who pick and choose which laws they will uphold or ignore, with its citizens having no voice or recourse? If the President and a high-handed Dem.-controlled Congress can ignore DOMA and immigration laws, make appointments that bypass Congress, oppose strict voting laws, etc., it can ignore any other law that stands in the way of its centralized government and dictatorial agenda. These, with their Russian-commissar mentality, can even decide we will not have an election in November. Mr. Holder has made it clear he wants the polls to be open to anyone who shows up, dead or alive, registered or not, citizen or alien.
I know that God still rules over all in His providence, and He will have the last word. Lavonne and I have been praying earnestly and “without ceasing” for a long time that our nation will turn back to God—at least morally, if in no other way—and to respect for our Constitution. His answer may be “No.” We know that He could tolerate only so much rebellion and rejection even from His beloved Israel before He broke them as a nation, preserving only a remnant long enough for Him to bring the Savior into the world.
We truly live in “times that try men’s souls.” Those who are not genuinely concerned about the implication of this ruling—and the perilous mess into which Mr. Obama and his Dem. radicals in every branch of government have further plunged (and are plunging us)—are either hopelessly ignorant and/or apathetic, or they have themselves become radicalized.
Judge Robert’s Job and all the Justices job was solely to examine a Law as it was written not to rewrite the Law so it would obviate the Commerce Clause. He failed in his basic reponsibility and weakened the constitution and the country. Candy coating and second guessing does us a disservice as well.
Roberts is not a “Machiavellian genius.” Roberts is a moral degenerate lifetime Washington D.C. politico, who is well known in the beltway to be borderline obsessed with his image. In other words, Chief Justice John Roberts emotionally operates on the same level as the average twelve year old girl, and just sold out not just the Republic, the Constitution and the entire American populace, but really the entire planet, because now that the United States is no more, the forces of evil will run absolutely rampant over the rest of the planet. And Roberts did it so that a bunch of coke-snorting sodomites and psychopaths in Georgetown will pretend to like him – for about five minutes.
Ann -
don’t hold back. tell us how you really feel.
giggle.
but
too frighteningly true.
your insight into Roberts’ character is eye opening.
could it really be that low simplicity in all its intense self centered-ness that did this to the world?
all the men that have died for freedom!!!
and now enter
Roberts
without a gun to his head……
The Court then allowed that the mandate could be framed as a tax-based mandate, but because of the Anti-Injunction Act the Court could proceed no further. It could not and did not rule on the constitutionality of a tax-based mandate.
http://resistance.ning.com/forum/topics/obamacare-unconstitutional?xg_source=activity
“…The real silver lining is that in a democratic republic we get another chance in November to fix it.”
Romney is not a fix, Romney is Obama LITE. The fix would be to dump Romney and put in a true conservative candidate.
Since intelligent thinking people know that this Obama tax will be a punch in the stomach of the Middle Class and will greatly reduce the quality of medical care in this country, and even the availability of it, perhaps Roberts was giving us the punch first – to wake up those who are asleep and uninformed.
The United States is headed for hard times, worse than the Great Depression. I’ve been writing about this for 22 years and in both my books I called what’s coming “The Greater Depression”. We have one last chance in four months to slow this down. I no longer believe it is possible to prevent at least a tripling of prices (except for housing). We have spent to much and owe far to much, more than anyone has ever owed in the history of the world, one of the basic causes of inflation.
It could, however, be a whole lot worse if we lose what America is all about, our freedom to live our own lives unfettered by government intrusion and taxes of every kind imaginable. We won these freedoms when we fought King George who did much of what President Obama has done. Has the the Federal government become the new British king? Obama is certainly more like King George than is comfortable for me. Some say we could see food shortages and riots on a very un-American scale in the next four years. Homeland Security certainly thinks so with their recent purchase of 400 million rounds of 40 caliber hollow point ammo, illegal for war but OK to use for hunting or on your own people. This is America’s last chance to save the freedoms we have long enjoyed but the Progressive Marxists have done more damage than most know and ten times as many Americans are leaving the country as left when Bush was president. May God help us if we continue on the path we seem to have chosen.
Things are not always as they seem.
REPUBLICAN Ronald Reagan gave us LEFT WING Sandra Day O’Connor.
REPUBLICAN George Bush gave us John Roberts who is arguably nearly there.
I shudder to think of whom Mitt Romney would nominate since he more or less CREATED Obamacare in Massachusetts, refuses to REALLY speak out against amnesty, and as yet has similarly distanced himself from the Tea Party and/or its platforms.
How do you spell “DOOMED?”
I thoroughly approve of Jutice Robert’s vote. He has had to sit in Congress, in the front row and be completely humiliated by our pretender in chief and that wasn’t the only time our imposter in chief has dissed the High Court. I believe Justice Roberts dild what most of us wish we could do – metaphorically give O-bum-a a high five while at the same time planting his judicial foot square in the middle of his Socialist behind, leaving an imprint that will be felt by the left long after the election gives Romney the White House. The opinion has galvanized the right, taken the air out of the left (they cannot say the court is a pawn for the right any more) AND in his writings told us how to handle the decision – IF WE DON’T LIKE IT, VOTE THE BUM OUT – I’m paraphrasing of course, but in essence that is exactly what he wrote. Think about it – what a fantastic way to retaliate for all the disrespect handed to the court by this dirtbag. Justice Robert’s knew EXACTLY what he was doing and I, for one, and very glad he did it.
Justice Roberts decision to commit High Treason was startling, and felt like a hard kick in the gut after you’ve been beat down with a baseball bat. With this decision we have learned that all three branches of our once great republic is at war with the American people. I find it amazing that there is so many people in America hate her and wish her harm. I also find it incredible that so many in office find it so easy to swear an oath to GOD and the American people and have no intention of honoring that oath. We need to remember that this was not the only decision that was handed out by the Robert court. He decided that states do not have the right to defend their own borders also. He scolded the American people, telling us it was our fault. He should not be expected to protect the Constitution he swore to protect. We already knew that the other four traitors on the court were going to give the Marxists their sledge hammer to hold in their hands our life or death at their pleasure. That’s why it hurt so bad to see and hear Roberts twist the knife into our guts. Anyone with a half a brain knew this law was unconstitutional. Roberts knew it was unconstitutional.
Justice Roberts is just another politically elite snob that only cares for himself and invitations to the net celebrity cocktail party in DC. The Washington Elites don’t give two hoots about the country, the Constitution and the American People. A time will come when a price will be paid for their self indulgence.
I am concluding more and more that regardless of what Roberts’ intentions were, he bungled his decision.
E.g., why did he conclude that it was not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act (meaning that a lawsuit could not be considered until 2014 when the tax became effective) and then turn around and declare it a tax to allow the individual mandate to stand? Unsound! Puzzling! There are other inconsistencies.
This all indicates to me that his decision was made near the end of the deliberative process – very near. So near that he didn’t have time or the desire to go back and fix those inconsistencies.
Sen. Thompson,
Justice Roberts betrayed this country to leave this destructive corrupt law intact , taking it upon himself to determine a plan to “make” Obamacare Constitutional by re-writing it, when it never did qualify as Constitutional otherwise! Even his colleagues are greatly distressed at his irrational decision! His duty as a SC Justice is to determine IF a law is Constitutional OR NOT ! He and his own colleagues through debate process determined it to be UNCONSTITUTIONAL under the commerce clause , which is what it was based on . He totally failed to make a ruling as the law stood under the commerce clause, but instead “rewrote ” Obamacare to fall under a “tax” in order to “save” the law ! Is this action by Roberts considered legal or allowed by members of the SC? If so, WHY ? He has rendered a personal political farce of a ruling, upholding this law from the bench ONLY after he manipulated it to fit criteria for Constitutionality! This is an outrage ! Roberts has deeply tarnished the intergity of the SC , with Americans loss of trust and faith for Constitutional Justice ! He is the 2nd Benedict Arnold , shameful and without Honor ! He should resign, since he violated his oath of office to UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION ; instead he totally distorted the law to fit his personal decision to save it, which he does not have the authority to do ! No, I don’t expect SC justices to save us from the consequences of laws passed , but I DO EXPECT him to STAY within the confines of the CONSTITUTION , NOT deciding what laws to save by manipulation !!!
PS
Now it is up to us – help Romney repeal Obama’s mess, get informed, pass that knowledge along to others and help spread the word about how much money in new taxes that mess will cost our kids & grandkids. We all must do our part – independent or republican – find a group or form one, get together, get involved and keep the message alive that our nation is is real trouble now, but nothing compared to what we will see if Obama gets another four years. Or, no matter what you think about the Tea Party, they get things done – find one in your area and join, if only to get ildeas on how to run your own group and be a force to be dealt with. I see lots of passion in the letters here – please, don’t let your passion end here. Use it to oust this Obamanation from power. Use it to save out nation from the biggest threat we have ever encountered – the threat from within.
Perhaps this comment will get erased, but I contend that Roberts may very well have been threatened by someone in the Obama administration. I can’t prove it, but we lost a wonderful mayor in my city to just a few votes to open the door to the 1st black mayor. The mayor who lost would not contest the election, and he had every right to do that. It has long been rumored that he and his family were threatened by the other side if they contested that election. God help us to win back our country in November!
Blah, Blah, Blah just more BS. John Roberts just nationalized 1/6 of the economy of the USA. And Repubs were upset at Obama’s paltry takeover of GM?
The “game” seems to be… Who can Take Over More, Faster? Repubs or Dimicats?
Now, that statue of Firm Resolution and Constitutional Zeal, Mitchey McConnell (R) says Obamacare will be very difficult to overturn. Hint: Repubs are folding again and again……..
For this very reason(s) you have stated i no longer consider myself part of the GOP and i have refused membership or support to them for 2 years.
Constitutional Federalist
(i’m angry, so i need both words)
there’s only Donkephants and the Tea Party now.
Judge Roberts has once again demonstrated the obvious. There are no true conservatives in Washington D.C. It is time that we recognize that fact. You have the liberal left Democrats and the moderate left Republicans. The Democrats are persistent in pushing there Socialist agenda while the moderate Republicans push for compromise. It is time for a true conservative party.
Roberts is a traitor and there will be no rehabilitation for his reputation. If the Republican establishment thinks they can smooth this over or sugar coat it then they are wrong. Either they get this thing repealed and Roberts is asked to step down or we all start to look for another party that actually believes what it says.
Roberts folded to social pressure like a callow teenage girl. Since he is amenable to pressure then he must be made to feel it. Writing articles about how good a person this traitorous bastard is can only be counterproductive and is typical of the pansy asses that populate the Republican establishment.
This is not something about which men of good will may differ.
This is the Rubicon for the Republican party. Either they get this done or they are done.
First, I am a true conservative, fiscal and social.
At first, I was upset with Roberts on this and AZ.
First — AZ: Roberts is correct that AZ does not need another law. AZ law enforcement take an oath to uphold the laws of AZ as well as the US Constitution. AZ law enforcement are supposed to enforce Federal laws.
Second — ObamaCare: Roberts showed his brilliance. What he said was that the mandate could not be enforced with the Commerce clause, but, the Fed has the right to tax and the mandate was indeed a tax — therefore, ObamaCare is constitutional as a tax. What he did NOT say was that the tax itself was constitutional. He put the ONUS on congress to repeal. In the event they ever try to enforce the tax, this DIRECT TAX would fail the constitutionality test.
Perhaps Roberts saw the end of the republic coming if BHO were to win 4 more years and decided this action (judicial overreach of rewriting a law) was the best way to stop BHO from achieving that apparent goal by enraging those who still believe in the US Constitution to ensure a conservative victory in November much like that which occurred in November 2010. And subsequently stopping the current path to dictatorship and “righting” the ship of state back to her stated course of being a Constitutional Republic where rule of law means something (oops, currently lawlessness aside of judicial overreach).
Of course there are an unlimited number of other reasons for Roberts actions but this one makes a lot of sense to me.
Looking forward to putting this country back on the right path.
BTW, the “legality” of a tax cannot be “judged” until it is imposed (that is, someone has to pay it), this according to the Tax Anti Injunction Act of 1867 (look it up). So, be certain that Roberts has not given Congress an unlimited ability to tax, he has done no such thing. And apparently it will be sometime in 2014 or 2015 before a tax from the ACA law would be levied, so simply calling it a ‘tax’ now does not mean it is enforceable.
All in all, Roberts did the right thing to save the USA.
I’m not sure what is the propose of having a written constitution if we cannot rely or utilize its limits to protect the vast bulk(or any bulk) of our rights.
As far as I can tell with Robert’s edict the Federal “Constitutional” Republic is effectively dead. Whether or not we win in 2012 presidential election, is of little consequence, thanks to Roberts we are now subject to the shifting despotism of democracy.
As H.L. Mencken once said: “A good politician under democracy is quite as unthinkable as an honest burglar. “
I dont know how to take Roberts after this. Did he cleverly outwit the socialists? But then in the same breath he provided aid and comfort to the enemy by letting the law stand. I cant feel good about it. He may be another Bush Republican. As you know, Bush has come inexplicably to the aide of Obama on several occasions. I cant support the Bush’s and their ilk any longer.
I think this is the most inhuman strike against America this country has ever seen. It is both inmoral and unconstitutional. Dont know r never knew who John Roberts was, but i wouldnt say he,s brilliant as some have described but the most ignorant and stupid man America has ever known to come up with this and u canm bet he will be well remembered in the political world, I do hope he isnt planning on running for president r anything! Most Americans ive spoken to r quite upset with this ruling .I think they should be booted off the bench and r not fit to run this country r make decisions regarding this great nation. This is not about republicans, liberals r democrats this is critical issues to the well being of the nation. Its people like John Roberts can hold in his hands the downfall of what once was a great nation (as the bible speaks) He can hold hands with obama and see who can outgrin the other in never ever land somewhere. The whole situation is pathetic!
THE BIG OBAMACARE LIE ON IMPROVED ACCESS TO HEALTHCARE SERVICES
Posted by ApolloSpeaks on Thursday, July 05, 2012 7:48:23 AM
ObamaCare is the road to Healthcare Depression.
Growing physician shortages + growing physician demand (32 million new people covered by ObamaCare) = long and growing waiting lines to see doctors and get necessary medical care (see).
In Canada and Great Britain the waiting lines to see doctors and enter hospitals are one million strong (see). According to the Massachusetts Medical Society waiting time in their state since passage of RomneyCare is now 48 days (double the national average) as more and more doctors turn down patients
(see).
This healthcare nightmare is not what Americans want. Forget about what Justice Roberts did for now. DONE IS DONE! Use the hidden horrors of ObamaCare-scarcity, rationing, agonizing waiting lines and higher taxes-to kill the Obama presidency in November.
OBAMACARE IS THE ROAD
TO HEALTHCARE DEPRESSION!
VOTE AGAINST OBAMA!
VOTE REPEAL!
AS IF YOUR LIFE AND HEALTH DEPEND ON IT!
Email It | Print It | Comments (13) | Trackbacks (0) | Flag as Offensive
u think roberts is a good man. harry reed is also a good man. understand
these good men are trying to wipe us out. please advise who are the good
ones.
However you parce words the fact is that Roberts rewrote the law so he could come to his conclusion. It was not presented to the Congress as a tax. It was not voted on as a tax. The Supreme Court is not supposed to write tax law. That is the responsibility of the Congress. At the very least he should have said this is a tax, have it voted on again as a tax. This is clearly “Taxation Without Representation”. A requirement for the Supreme Court should be to have some knowledge of the Constitution. Apparently he voted for what he thought would make him look good rather than what was legal under the Constitution.
Thank you Fred Thompson, especially for pointing out the flaws in the “positive” interpretations of this egregious decision. Here are my thoughts.
A QUESTION FOR CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS
In declaring the Affordable Care Act – Obamacare – constitutional, Chief Justice Robert’s concern for the reputation of his Court caused him to forget to do his job. He took an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. His job is to make decisions based on the text of that document.
Our Constitution limits the powers of government. Obamacare gives the government unlimited power over a significant portion of all of our lives. The Constitution is based on the premise that all human beings are created equal in their right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness. The function of government is simply to secure those unalienable rights. There are no rulers or ruled. Under Obamacare, the relationship of the citizen to its government becomes that of ruler and those who are ruled. The Constitution allowed taxation to enable the government to perform its necessary functions. Obamacare, as interpreted by the Chief Justice, allows the government nearly unlimited powers of taxation. That amounts to unlimited power over the citizens.
This decision by the Court not only does not secure our rights; it fundamentally violates them. This law is unconstitutional. There is nothing on earth, no decision by any Court, that will change that simple fact. Chief Justice Roberts, you were concerned about your reputation? How do you like going down in history as the Justice who destroyed our rights as free citizens of a free country?
Until people realise that BOTH PARTIES are compromised by the globalists this type of disbelief over unconstitutional acts will continue. You have to take this to the state and local level. You do realise that the Constitution was a treaty, that was only suppose to deal with interstate and international commerce and military defences, between the sovereign united States of America, it did not create a separate country of the United States of America. It was suppose to be something akin to the European Union or, at the time, the Swiss Cantons which were themselves a group of individual States joined in confederation. Each State was to retain it’s OWN military comprised of all the male citizens 18-36, the militia, and there was to be no standing army for the federal government, and the President could only call them up after a declaration of war from Congress was issued. After all Jefferson said,
“There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war.” –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363
because
“The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.” –Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160
“Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet.” –Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North’s Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231
This is just one Founding Father’s comments on the issue, there is much more to read about it. The federal government was to be subservient to the People and the States.
It is time to put the 10th Amendment to good use. When there is an illegal usurpation of power by the feral, I mean federal, government, it is up to the people of each State to push their representatives at the state level to nullify the illegal “law”. There is an organisation, the Tenth Amendment Center (which you can google), that has model legislation to pass to your state legislature. Oklahoma has already introduced it, and a few others are soon to follow. Pass it on, this is really our ONLY hope in these circumstances. The agents of the feral government will be brought up on grand theft and kidnapping charges for illegally taking your property or arresting you, respectably, in enforcing this and other “laws”.
Greg Gutfelt from “The Five” on Fox News had it right. We see this huge indistinct shape moving rapidly through the water and we are wasting time arguing about the shape of the fin we see above the water. In my day no Senator of Representative would have even discussed this bill because they knew their voters would take one look at it and insist it be sent to the garbage heap and not reconsidered until it was short and clear enough for the average genius to read and understand. Any Congressperson who voted for it or admitted they did not read or understand it would not have been reelected. The only reason for a 2000 page bill is to hide a bunch of things that would not be accepted if known. My fear is there are not enough voters left with the ability to see this. Those of us who do have our work cut out for us.
Bill
I am TIRED of people worrying what those LEFT WING LIBERALS say about anything. America WAKE UP and follow the CONSTITUTION. Get rid of the Department of Education, EPA and any other department that is not MANDATED for the government to have. Balance the Budget will be so easy without those people in the governments payroll. Cut all benifits for Congress so we will have Citizen-legislators instead of career politicians.
America is on the wrong path and Robert’s decision proves it even further.Obamacare means more Gov. control and less freedom on our part to make decisions.Take for example: the brain surgeon who called levin’s talk show who was concerned about a paragraph in OBcare that prevents surgeons from performing critical surgery on a 70 year old patient, that has just suffered an aneurysm.He must first get permission from the so-called ethics panel (death panel).They will decide whether the unit (patient) is deemed worth saving.Notice that the patient is referred to as a “unit”.
The Chief Justice just blew the call, plain & simple!
I think that Roberts was playing a card game and flipped a coin. By calling it a tax as Obama did at one time it could hurt his election. Then if Romney gets the White House in November and the Republicans the house they have a chance to over turn Obamacare. Or, they will just roll over again and want their tummies rubbed for nothing.
How much money did Obama put in some hidden coffer for Roberts vote, since O is so adept at buying votes. I agree with the first Irving that God has destroyed many nations in the past who fail to recognize Him, and the USA is on that verge.
What is so sad is that half the nation that calls itself democrats don’t realize what they are doing to themselves and their children, and too many RINO republicans only care about their “position” and not their country.
I used to like Roberts. Not anymore. I am appauled!
And so now it is up to We The People to declare our decision on November 8, 2012. REMEMBER TO REMEMBER IN NOVEMBER!!!
Where the Subject of the litigation, is other than the subject litigated; the question posed by Roberts is, to my mind’s eye; whether the original legislation is facted in perfected Congressional Mandate.
Courts often impose their own bias, either in terminology, or in course for, and in, action of the case at bar.
Sometimes it is better to follow a definitive plan of safety, by not following the shortest course home.
I, too, as sooo many, would like the Law considered, just plain and simply, ‘Un-Constitutional’. But, was not the case at bar.
Justice Roberts decision is not well reasoned and appears to be a conscious decision on his part to do what he considered necessary to protect (and project to the public) the legacy of the “Roberts Court” as non-political. In my judgement his ego as Chief Justice (with the court referred to as the “Roberts Court”) trumped his constitutional responsibility. It appears that until Justice Roberts adopted the “tax” conclusion (which allowed the other 4 liberal Justices the ability to sustain the individual mandate and Obamacare) that he was the only Justice ( not to mention the members of the Administration or Congress) who considered the tax argument appealing or persuasive. Unfortunately his desire positively to influence public opinion about the Supreme Court with a troubling and strained analysis of the Constitution has not only had the opposite effect but also damaged the Constitution and the rights of the sovereign states.
Where is the apology. As it turns out CJ Roberts did us a big favor. His actions exposed Obamacare as a monster, fortunately for us without Obama to implement it it’s a (mouse in a monster suit). I am so disappointed in you and others for what was said about a good man, maybe even a great man. We dare not eat our own so let this be a lesson and give the next guy that doesn’t give you what you want a chance. He might give you what you need.
Jim,
…to continue in analogy form:
if i am raising my daughter to be a self respecting lady,
i most definitely do not vote for/teach her promiscuous sex
as a means to obtain the blessings it will bring to her life.
it hasn’t changed:
evil begets evil
With this absurd piece of garbage, Roberts (no longer deserving of titles) shows himself just one more of the growing list of dictators deserving of impeachment as traitors. ‘Nuff said.
Senator Thompson, many times the most obvious explanations turn out to be correct.
Justice Roberts was either bribed or blackmailed. It’s as simple as that. Please don’t insult my intelligence by asserting that neither of those possibilities exists. They most certainly do, especially with the Obama/democrat regime.