-
The Loss of Trust
June 18, 2013 | 32 comments
-
Sex and the Military
June 12, 2013 | 58 comments
-
Economics vs. ‘Need’
June 11, 2013 | 29 comments
-
Historic Rescuers
June 5, 2013 | 48 comments
-
Abstract Immigrants
June 4, 2013 | 31 comments
A Further Perspective
Judicial Betrayal
Conscience can be an implacable and inescapable punisher.
Betrayal is hard to take, whether in our personal lives or in the political life of the nation. Yet there are people in Washington — too often, Republicans — who start living in the Beltway atmosphere, and start forgetting those hundreds of millions of Americans beyond the Beltway who trusted them to do right by them, to use their wisdom instead of their cleverness.
President Bush 41 epitomized these betrayals when he broke his “read my lips, no new taxes” pledge. He paid the price when he quickly went from high approval ratings as president to someone defeated for reelection by a little known governor from Arkansas.
Chief Justice John Roberts need fear no such fate because he has lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court. But conscience can be a more implacable and inescapable punisher — and should be.
The Chief Justice probably made as good a case as could be made for upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare by defining one of its key features as a “tax.”
The legislation didn’t call it a tax and Chief Justice Roberts admitted that this might not be the most “natural” reading of the law. But he fell back on the long-standing principle of judicial interpretation that the courts should not declare a law unconstitutional if it can be reasonably read in a way that would make it constitutional, out of “deference” to the legislative branch of government.
But this question, like so many questions in life, is a matter of degree. How far do you bend over backwards to avoid the obvious, that Obamacare was an unprecedented extension of federal power over the lives of 300 million Americans today and of generations yet unborn?
These are the people that Chief Justice Roberts betrayed when he declared constitutional something that is nowhere authorized in the Constitution of the United States.
John Roberts is no doubt a brainy man, and that seems to carry a lot of weight among the intelligentsia — despite glaring lessons from history, showing very brainy men creating everything from absurdities to catastrophes. Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius.
One of the Chief Justice’s admirers said that when others are playing checkers, he is playing chess. How much consolation that will be as a footnote to the story of the decline of individual freedom in America, and the wrecking of the best medical care in the world, is another story.
There are many speculations as to why Chief Justice Roberts did what he did, some attributing noble and far-sighted reasons, and others attributing petty and short-sighted reasons, including personal vanity. But all of that is ultimately irrelevant.
What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States.
Who he betrayed were the hundreds of millions of Americans — past, present and future — whole generations in the past who have fought and died for a freedom that he has put in jeopardy, in a moment of intellectual inspiration and moral forgetfulness, 300 million Americans today whose lives are to be regimented by Washington bureaucrats, and generations yet unborn who may never know the individual freedoms that their ancestors took for granted.
Some claim that Chief Justice Roberts did what he did to save the Supreme Court as an institution from the wrath — and retaliation — of those in Congress who have been railing against Justices who invalidate the laws they have passed. Many in the media and in academia have joined the shrill chorus of those who claim that the Supreme Court does not show proper “deference” to the legislative branch of government.
But what does the Bill of Rights seek to protect the ordinary citizen from? The government! To defer to those who expand government power beyond its constitutional limits is to betray those whose freedom depends on the Bill of Rights.
Similar reasoning was used back in the 1970s to justify the Federal Reserve’s inflationary policies. Otherwise, it was said, Congress would destroy the Fed’s independence, as it can also change the courts’ jurisdiction. But is it better for an institution to undermine its own independence, and freedom along with it, while forfeiting the trust of the people in the process?
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM
About the Author
Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. His website is www.tsowell.com. To find out more about Thomas Sowell and read features by other Creators Syndicate columnists and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (141) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Thomas Sowell
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/03/judicial-betrayal
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Of Weiner and Women
- Revenge of the Fruitcakes
- There’s Something About Cambridge
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Aristocat| 7.3.12 @ 6:26AM
"What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States.
Who he betrayed were the hundreds of millions of Americans -- past, present and future --... who have fought and died for a freedom that he has put in jeopardy."
Magnificent statement by Dr.Sowell.
Mr.Roberts needs to read the preamble to the Constitution: "To secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." LIBERTY ! DOWN WITH TYRANTS !
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.3.12 @ 2:48PM
President Bush 41 epitomized these betrayals when he broke his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. He paid the price when he quickly went from high approval ratings as president to someone defeated for reelection by a little known governor from Arkansas."
Is this an admission Clinton was a better candidate in '92 than Bush? probably not.
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.3.12 @ 2:55PM
Clinton was a better POTUS than both Bushes combined.
JD| 7.3.12 @ 3:23PM
Clinton was the best kind of liberal - one who does nothing.
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.3.12 @ 5:59PM
There you go.
aware| 7.3.12 @ 6:34AM
From Romney we get this:
"As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts… [Roberts] hold[s] dear what the great Chief Justice John Marshall called "the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected": a written Constitution, with real and determinate meaning. "
Yeah. This is still on his website. Inspiring, isn't it.
rjh| 7.3.12 @ 9:17AM
In fairness to Romney, no one could have predicted this self serving treachery by Roberts. On the other hand, would you rather be guaranteed two or three more wise Latinas on the court?
aware| 7.3.12 @ 10:39AM
As opposed to a couple more Roberts? You were screwed the moment the Establishment picked Romney.
rjh| 7.3.12 @ 10:44AM
I ask again, would you rather have obama appoint justices? There are only the two options, so deal with it.
Boar Hunter| 7.3.12 @ 10:48AM
I am going to deal with it. I am not voting for Romney
rjh| 7.3.12 @ 11:30AM
That'll show 'em...obama thanks you. People like you are part of the problem.
Boar Hunter| 7.3.12 @ 2:34PM
Most recently, Republicans had a member of the Democrat leadership call them his "Bitches." For several years now I have stood by and watched as the same people who lectured about the deterioration of public discourse continue to refer to Republicans as Tea Bagger's, racist's and terrorists.
As far as I'm concerned, the gutless cowards in the Republican party and all those who lecture me about how I'm suddenly "part of the problem" because of that cowardice, can kiss my hairy behind.
I have no choice except to vote for a spineless coward over a communist? Think again.
The Republicans stood by while Obama forced Romney's signature legislation on the American people. They stood by while Obama's "administration" repeatedly lied to the court and broke the law. What has the Republican party done to stop one single thing Obama has done?
You better stay on the porch with the rest of the establishment and lick yourself dog, barking at a full grown man is gonna cause you nothing but grief.
Drunken Sailor| 7.3.12 @ 2:39PM
Boar Hunter, You have to vote your mind. But can you explain how your actions will help?
rjh| 7.3.12 @ 4:46PM
I don't think he cares. People like him are partially responsible for giving us obama. I am truly disgusted with the Republicans as well, but we must deal with reality here. You must first stop the destruction before you can rebuild.
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 4:57PM
He's one of those people who will not only Cut off their Noses, to Spite their Faces, but Blow Off Their Heads, to spite their Hats.
They'll write in "Rubber Chicken" on their Ballots, and then Bitch like a little Girl, when The Muslim gets 4 More Years.
Boar Hunter| 7.3.12 @ 7:41PM
Maybe if Obama gets a second term, someone will find their testicles.
Drunken Sailor excluded, the Democrat who tweeted, "it's constitutional bitches" seems to be right on track. The Republican party has become exactly that.
Occam's Tool| 7.9.12 @ 4:32PM
I respect Boar. There comes a time in all men's lives when they must raise the Black Flag and go about slitting throats. I just think that Obama is a sui generis, outside of normal Presidential concepts of incompetence. James Buachanan was such a man, as well, and Carter came very close. But Obama combines that with actual hatred of his country, which Carter did not demonstrate WHILE IN OFFICE (although he has been the WORST ex-President, the best being James K. Polk.)
Occam's Tool| 7.9.12 @ 4:35PM
The second best ex-President was Hoover, who was enormously helpful to Truman in setting up the Marshall Plan. I'm sure that friendship was part of the reason Hoover did not release his comments on WWII until after death, as he was also an old-fashioned gentleman (although an incompetent President).
Deborah D| 7.3.12 @ 11:31AM
"aware" is a lefty....
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.3.12 @ 2:53PM
No! You don't say, churl? O dearie dearie-- you had better call Frank Burns to tell him
'give Roy Cohn a ring.'
aware| 7.3.12 @ 6:11PM
Because I just copy and paste from Romney's own web site? Come on neo con Debbie. I'm so far to your right I can hardly even see you on my left. Never voted for a liberal statist, and won't start with Romney.
You want to play at politics but your comment shows you hardly even know what the game is about. I've posted here for years and seem to continually irritate only neo cons and other closet statists.
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 6:45PM
No.
Because you're an Idiot.
aware| 7.4.12 @ 6:52AM
TLP, a perfect example of a statist. Go on and vote for the liberal while telling us how "conservative" you are with one of your long winded and pointless monologues.
Again, I only posted your boy's own words, RomneyZombie.
TLP| 7.4.12 @ 8:15AM
I don't care what you posted. I care that you're an A-hole, and that you think that, unless everybody is like you, Stays Home, or goes Third Party, come November, than they're not REALLY Conservatives, like you.
I read you, and I see Clint.
I read you, and I see Jack.
I see Appleby, and all the other Dumb MFers who'd rather see this Ccksckr Son of a Communist Whore, finish the job he's doing on this Country, than to cast their Vote for someone who doesn't fit their description of Conservative JESUS CHRIST.
It's a Red Pill - Blue Pill proposition. There's no Third Way. Unless you're a Fckng Dumbfck, like you.
I can just imagine all the Friends you must have.
How many you got?
None?
I'm guessing NONE.
Why not just do everybody a favour, and go Die in an Alley, somewhere, with all of your friends?
I'm thinking - One to the Temple.
aware| 7.4.12 @ 10:21AM
So you support the Republican statist and expect different results this time. Who's the dumbass?
You don't care what the facts are shit for brains, as you admit. Tell you what, Herr fascist, just click your high heels together and say "there's no place like home". That should be more effective than voting for Mitt the Trojan Horse.
TLP| 7.4.12 @ 3:44PM
I support the Republican Nominee, because that's the only way to get rid of The Thing that is in the Oval Office now, Shit For Brains.
That's my plan.
What's yours?
aware| 7.5.12 @ 6:21AM
Keep growing my own food, stacking silver on the dips, and preparing for economic collapse that sparks a political crisis which will lead to possible civil war. Not just for myself, but to be a help to those like you, who think the political class is going to look after them.
The night before the Argentinians had their currency devalued by 2/3s their president said he would never do such a thing. Then he boarded a helicopter and got the hell out. When you hear Obama or Romney say the banks are safe you will know it is too late.
alphadoc| 7.4.12 @ 2:33PM
Consider this alternate theory: It was actually the Republican leadership that "got to" Roberts to change his opinion.
The Bushes and Republicans shepherded Roberts through decades to get him on the high court and he owes them for his career. He also seems like an unlikely revolutionary.
We know that many of the Republicans are as Statist as the Dems and also want to control health care. With this opinion they can campaign and likely win on the repeal issue, but then have every excuse not to do so, since it's the law of the land. They can then roll out their "improved" version of central planning.
TLP| 7.4.12 @ 3:46PM
alphadoc, Heal Thyself.
Occam's Tool| 7.9.12 @ 4:41PM
As a physician, I expect NOTHING but scummitude and treachery and scumbaggedness and evil from attorneys. Roberts just demonstrates the old favorite catfish joke once again.
But TLP is correct----Romney, whatever his glaring faults, will be lightyears ahead of Bummer. There is one of the only places I part company with Boar, although I respect his views. My goodness, even ROBERTS is better than GINSBERG/KAGAN/SOTOMAYER---he occasionally votes correctly.
But I certainly hope when Roberts has his next seizure that it is a doozy and that his doc takes Roberts' legal approach and applies it to Roberts' treatment---"sorry, judge, you know seizures can be caused by stress and you stay in your stressful job. What's that, you're going into potentially lethal epilepticus and Ativan might save you? Sorry, no can do---not here to save you from the consequences of your actions."
Scaramouche| 7.3.12 @ 7:02AM
I'm quick to admit, that Romney is not my ideal candidate, but we ALL better realize, that with an Obama re-election, on January 22, 2013, we have Obamacare, with a Romney election, we don't. Need to stop the potshots, they only help Obama.
aware| 7.3.12 @ 10:45AM
You actually believe this will be repealed? Look into the history of social security. It was reviled when passed and many promises of repeal were made. Until even promises ceased. But social security was never seriously threatened.
It just makes you feel better in the midst of your complete helplessness to think Romney is the answer. His obvious flaws will overcome his not being Obama by November.
Louis Jenkins| 7.3.12 @ 2:18PM
And your answer is social security? It's a great system? Maybe when the funds were put away in a lock box, but now it's used to finance the government's spending. Find a better example.
..................?
aware| 7.3.12 @ 6:26PM
Louie, buddy, try to keep up. If you think that I, aware, would look at social security in any way but with extreme hostility, as I do with all actions of the State, including it's military adventures, then you got me pegged in the wrong pigeon hole.
And if I believe, as I have said many times here, that "government" is a vast criminal conspiracy and the State is the physical embodiment of evil in this world, would I "favor" social security?
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 6:48PM
Yes, you would.
Because you're a Dumbass.
They STOLE ALL THE MONEY from Social Security, and you want them to have more.
Because, you're a Dumbass.
aware| 7.4.12 @ 7:00AM
Herr TLP, hopelessly confused as usual. Lefties like you support "government" and their legal plunder systems, as long as the Republicans(Crips) and not the Democrats(Bloods) are running it.
No point in telling you to keep up as you plainly don't have the brains to do so.
TLP| 7.4.12 @ 8:33AM
"If you think that I, aware, would blah blah blah blah blah".
When people start talking like that? Like, maybe they think they're "The Great Santino"? It's pretty much a major Red Flag as far as taking their Scissors away, is concerned. It's time for Plastic forks and Knives, and it's time to confiscate all of their belts.
I would normally tell someone like you, to go out and get themselves Laid.
But, since you are obviously never gonna get laid, or kissed, or even looked at by any person with any kind of Standards or Self Esteem, I would recommend some Professional Help.
I'm thinking someplace like Bellevue, where they push your tray of food, under your door.
I gotta feeling that YOU, aware, And all of those voices you hear, will fit right in with the other nuts.
aware| 7.4.12 @ 10:31AM
Nobody doubts you are the king of personal insults, Herr fascist, just as nobody doubts you are the king of cognitive dissonance. I can almost see the spittle running down your chin.
Good thing your mommy has a bib on you.
TLP| 7.4.12 @ 3:52PM
That's perfect.
The Great Santino - aware - is calling me "Herr Fascist" a split second after he says I'm the King of Insults.
It's a good thing your Mommy doesn't know you watch her in the shower.
Pathetic.
Quartermaster| 7.5.12 @ 5:36PM
Your picture is under the word pathetic in the dictionary. You never reason. Like the typical leftist you bloviate and insult.
Keep voting for the lesser evil, It's worked so well over the years. So well it led directly to a moron like ZerO. People like you got him there because you wouldn't hold the GOP establishment's feet to the fire.
If you really think Romney is going to save your grits, you are most ignorant. Romney, Bush, McCain, Boehner, McConnell are the same type of statist you keep voting for and it got us just where we are.
Collapse is coming no matter who you vote for this time around. It's far too late to prevent the collapse.
Boar Hunter| 7.3.12 @ 7:43PM
Help Obama?
What has the Republican party done to oppose anything he has done?
TLP| 7.4.12 @ 3:53PM
Touche.
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 7:41AM
Here's what I say:
I say Roberts was "Gotten to."
I say, he was Flipped, in exchange for someone burying something that somebody had on Him, or a member of his Family.
Godfather II. The Corliones Family seeks a Gaming Liscence in Nevada. A Senator on the Committee excoriates this "Greaseball Guinea" from Jersey, for thinking that he can march in to his State, and start making demands.
And, then, before you can Butter your Popcorn, the Senator wakes up in a Whore House room, with a Dead Hooker on the floor, and the Corliones Consigliere with his arm around him.
Before you can say Chicago Crime Family Administration, the Senator is singing the Corlione's praises.
Maybe Roberts wasn't with a Hooker. Maybe he was with a little Boy. Maybe he was with a little girl. Maybe he was in the Mens Room with his head in Purp's lap. I don't know.
I just know that they had SOMETHING on this POS.
It's as plain as the Fat Ass, and the Bow Legs on the Wookie.
Mimi | 7.3.12 @ 8:02AM
Tim , glad you had the courage to reveal your " GUT" feelings. what happened with Roberts opinion, was so strange!
Think back ...why did he allow Kagan to not recuse....we all know she should have. The other Judges reaction was so strong, his decision so shocking...lots of calls for resignation.
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 9:11AM
Think back at how the LIBERALS kept telling everyone to "Watch Roberts". "Keep an eye on Roberts."
Not, Kennedy, whom EVERYONE determined was the Weak Horse in the bunch.
No. It was Chief Justice SUPER CONSERVATIVE that we were told was "Wobbly".
Outta nowhere, and for no explainable Reason, he went over to The Dark Side.
This must be how Washington felt, having learned that Benedict Arnold had been Flipped.
I'm just sayin.
Bob Grant| 7.3.12 @ 11:08AM
TLP,
How about a new rule for conservative presidents selecting supreme court nominees in the future:
No Harvard Law School student who studied under Lawrence Tribe.
John Roberts did and so he should have never been considered.
In hindsight, he appears to have been a liberal ticking time bomb that exploded at the worst possible moment for our fragile country.
Warrior| 7.3.12 @ 10:45PM
The last conservative president selected, O'Connor, Scalia and Kennedy. A great batting average if you were playing baseball.
Bush 41 selected Thomas and the reliable liberal Souter. How a globalist (socialist lite?) picks such a great conservative justice like Thomas is a mystery. Most likely he stumbled into it.
Why would conservatives place any confidence in any President to select justices? It can't be that hard, the liberals never miss the target, yet Republicans can't even get it right half the time.
The only argument left is that we hope Romney will select conservative judges. Unfortunately, his political resume shows just the opposite. While he can't be any worse than Obama, he's probably not all that much better.
Bob Grant| 7.4.12 @ 12:08AM
INTIMIDATION. Since the late 80's, republicans are fearful to send judicial nominees over to the senate for confirmation only to be "borked".
It's as though the people on the left have rigged the system in their favor using mob-like intimidation tactics. Republicans quake in their little boots over, and over again.
Remember when Alito was sent over for confirmation? Chuckie and the boys had his wife in tears.
Disgusting??????????
Bob Grant| 7.4.12 @ 12:10AM
Cor: Disgusting !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Warrior| 7.4.12 @ 8:58AM
You have to allow yourself to be intimidated. At least the liberals are dedicated to the destruction of the Constitution and follow through on their convictions. Republicans are intimidated because of their need to hold the power and play politics. Only Reagan would challenge the left. Look at the compromises he would make to get things done. While he always held up to his word, the dems never would. They are fine with the small steps as long as it leads to their larger goal.
Now we are left with the choice of a leftist who at least speaks of moderation or another 4 years of hard left with no compromise.
TLP| 7.4.12 @ 4:05PM
Think of all the things these Democrats did, to get what they wanted. (Soviet Style Health Care)
Meanwhile, the Republicans can't get a Mosquito infested chunk of Nowhere, the size of Dulles Airport, and 150 Miles from the nearest Tree, open for Oil Drilling, after 20 YEARS of trying.
We have No Men.
Only Posers, and Primadonnas.
This is why we fail.
Occam's Tool| 7.9.12 @ 5:03PM
Warrior, I think you will agree with me on this one 100%. The reason for your confusion is this: all Liberal Judges are scumbags at all times, whereas "Conservative " judges must overcome the scumbaggedness inherent in the legal profession to come close to being decent human beings with every decision they make. But the Dark Side has a pull of being popular. Evil always is.
Petronius| 7.3.12 @ 10:10AM
Did he swallow?
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 5:03PM
Yeah.
That's why we're where we are, today.
Because he Swallowed.
Bob Grant| 7.3.12 @ 11:00AM
TLP,
Keep your flow-of-conscience posts coming. MOST of it is spot on.
Now, what is your problem with sturdy women? They were a God send in the West during the 1870's.
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 6:51PM
I don't get it.
Bob Grant| 7.3.12 @ 6:59PM
Nevermind :-)
Just keep those crazy rants coming.
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 7:43PM
You got it.
aware| 7.4.12 @ 7:01AM
Finally, on target for once.
TLP| 7.4.12 @ 4:06PM
That's one more than you, Shit For Brains.
Occam's Tool| 7.9.12 @ 5:04PM
TLP: Women who swallowed were a god-send in the Wild, Wild West--- TLP. The goody two shoes never got that far.
RCV| 7.3.12 @ 11:21AM
Ah yes, when the right turns on their own, they really get vicious: the calumnies TLP throws at Roberts have not a shred of factual truth to them, but then, that's never stopped our boy TLP before.
As for Mimi's comment, the Chief Justice has no power whatsoever to force another Justice to recuse him/herself. Each Justice must make that determination on their own, and the others have no say in the process.
Bob Grant| 7.3.12 @ 12:08PM
Notice how Roberts apparently bent over backwards to make sure the perceived legitimacy of the court prevailed the controversial decision. It was a political decision.
Notice how Kagan's decision not to recuse herself demonstrated a complete disregard for the perceived legitimacy of the court. It was also a political decision.
Both political decisions but come from very difference places.
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 5:06PM
Do you have any PROOF that I'm wrong?
No.
Of course not.
Why don't YOU tell us how he was Flipped?
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 5:08PM
Why don't YOU tell us WHY he rewrote the Law, all by his lonesome?
We're waiting.
RCV| 7.3.12 @ 6:10PM
Anyone who has clerked for judges, or even read judicial histories, know that it is hardly unique for judges to change their minds in the course of considering a legal issue, after doing research, discussing the matter with other judges and their clerks. There are lots of other more likely scenarios than that Justice Roberts is a pedophile, TLP.
CJW| 7.3.12 @ 6:41PM
RCV
Did you clerk?
W
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 7:30PM
Of course he hasn't.
He's just talking outta his ass, like all Liberals do.
I still hope he has a good 4th.
That's the beauty of this Country.
We can disagree, without pulling a Gun.
At least, for the time being.
RCV| 7.3.12 @ 9:14PM
Yes I did.
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 6:54PM
He did MORE than Change his mind.
He rewrote the bill to MAKE IT CONSTITUTIONAL.
There's a difference.
But I still wish you a Great 4th.
Even if you do have your head up your ass.
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 7:27PM
And, you have NO PROOF, that he ISN'T a Pedophile, do you?
No, you don't.
RCV| 7.3.12 @ 9:16PM
...you, too, TLP, and long may it wave!
Occam's Tool| 7.9.12 @ 5:05PM
Yes, RCV, but assuming swinishness in judges is easy, because we are so rarely disappointed.
loulou| 7.3.12 @ 12:56PM
Interesting! His children are adopted, BTW.
I will say this: Ann Coulter was suspicious of Roberts from the getgo.
Roberts needs to be impeached.
Von Mises Jr| 7.3.12 @ 4:19PM
Initial reaction was that he was coerced, threatened or intimidated into changing his opinion. When the brief read like the majority opinion to then change his conclusion smells allot like the Gulf Oil Drilling Report where the regime just changed the outcome and did as they pleased anyway. Perhaps he was told such and that it would not work out well for him and his family?
To Dr. Sowell's point that our children may not know the freedom and prosperity our last few generations enjoyed. Perhaps instead they are going to experience war and genocide. Authoritative diktats typically lead to totalitarianism that is only pulled out by the root with quite a mess.
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 5:11PM
Maybe the Left's most Prestigious Supporter - Hustler Magazine's Larry Flynt - and his $1,000,000 Reward, for any Dirt on the Supreme Court Justices, had something to do with it?
Kitty | 7.3.12 @ 7:49AM
conscience can be a more implacable and inescapable punisher
The old conscience punisher. Phew, I know I feel better.
Gary B| 7.3.12 @ 8:41AM
The DC elite laugh at the idea of being bothered by one's conscious.
And the Supreme Court? It's a permanently political nuthouse.
Drunken Sailor| 7.3.12 @ 1:20PM
I was thinking the same thing. Don't they have to have a conscience in order to be bothered by it?
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 5:17PM
Conscience?
The LEFT are the ones who STARVED Millions of Ukrainians, to feed their Comrades during Uncle Joe's Worker's Paradise.
That's who they are.
The Camps.
The Gulags.
The Bullet to the back of the Head.
The Killing Fields.
That's what we're dealing with.
THAT'S THE LEFT.
Mimi | 7.3.12 @ 7:54AM
Thomas Sowell...Those are powerful words...stunning.
Thanks for your insight you are sharing with us.
Yes, we feel betrayed.....something is not right here...something is wrong!
Anthony| 7.3.12 @ 7:56AM
Dr. Sowell is once again right on the money. Roberts apparently has fallen victim to leftist hegemony that dictates and demands fielty to the notion leftism is The Way.
So Roberts told Americans, if you don't like the law, do something about it, ain't my job. I'm just here to maintain the status quo.
OK bro, we get you loud and clear. Time to flush D.C. like a good colonic.
The pols haven't figured out that you can only hit a hornets nest so many times before all hell breaks loose. All hell is about to break loose.
Mimi | 7.3.12 @ 12:02PM
All hell already broke loose when we smelled the RAT in the cupboard...were lining up with a second wind and increasing our troop strength and pounce with a fury bigger than 2010 !
canuckistani| 7.3.12 @ 2:30PM
Really? How'd that work for ya during the primaries?
Romney will not repeal under any circumstances.
WRTolkas| 7.3.12 @ 8:14AM
"One of the Chief Justice's admirers said that when others are playing checkers, he is playing chess."
Well, that makes his change of mind with the swing decision alright then. Still, what comes to my mind are the actions of Vidkun Quisling.
Everyone have a safe 4th. Though lately, I have seen very little to celebrate.
c. j. acworth| 7.3.12 @ 8:21AM
Here in New Hampshire we can still buy fireworks legally. I intend to celebrate you betcha.
Occam's Tool| 7.9.12 @ 5:07PM
WR---not true. Quisling was honest and straightforward about being a loathsome scumbag from the beginning. Like Kagan, Beyer, and Ginsberg.
Occam's Tool| 7.9.12 @ 5:08PM
Whcih is to say, Roberts is lower than Quisling, as Roberts is lower than Whale Dung.
jaytrain| 7.3.12 @ 8:25AM
Add to conscience history . Sebelius , as the case is known , will be added to Roe v Wade , Plessey v Ferguson and Dred Scott as bad law and even worse policy . Roberts may be on the A List in DC social circles today , but in short order he will be sharing space with Roger Taney in the history texts .
Gary B| 7.3.12 @ 8:45AM
Take away getting high fives at A-list DC parties and you remove the primary motivation for most of what goes on in that hopeless cesspool.
Republicans get temporary access every time they "reach across the aisle."
R Martin| 7.3.12 @ 8:43AM
The Washington “people” to whom Dr. Sowell refers are all cleverness and no wisdom. Their goals are power, prestige, self preservation and venality. Doing right for those who elected (or appointed) them is not even on the list.
I was not aware that there is a long standing principle of judicial interpretation that deference to Congress supersedes a natural reading of the law. No wonder this country is in such trouble. Congress is filled with political hacks (see above), and judges should be providing adult supervision and restraint, not deference. This battleship needs to be turned.
RJ| 7.3.12 @ 8:50AM
Thanks, Dr. Sowell. I increasingly feel betrayed over this opinion. John Roberts' Senate Confirmation Testimony was magnificent with his illustration that he viewed judging as serving in the role of an unbiased umpire. Who thinks he behaved that way in this case? Instead, he looks like timid politician who changed his vote in face of threatened public criticism from Obama and the left-stream media. If he did so, he is unworthy of being on the court because he used the court as a political instrument rather than a neutral arbitrator of disputes and a fiduciary custodian of the Constitution.
You don't have to be a lawyer to know that fundamentally, the decision is legally wrong. The Constitution established a Federal Government with limited authority. Justice Roberts' opinion, in opposition to established precedent, grants it authority to tax any citizen for not doing what the federal government dictates. That is not the type of government created by our Founders or successor generations of Americans. This is one of many government actions which illustrate that we no longer have a democratic republic defending individual freedom. Today's government has evolved in to a corrupt dictatorship. Freedom-loving citizens need to take to the polls in November and turn things around.
Louis Jenkins| 7.3.12 @ 9:14AM
"That is not the type of government created by our Founders or successor generations of Americans." RJ
Indeed it is not. However, we have a government that has been acting badly for years. This currently only magnifies the problem, and we all know what happens if you don't have small melanoma taken care of. When the legislation acts out, so do all parts of the government.
Mimi | 7.3.12 @ 12:10PM
Louis...For years?? I've never in my life seen anything like this bunch with an Amateur, in charge...their nervous NOW and the outrages are getting worse!
RJ| 7.3.12 @ 12:34PM
If you really want to get depressed, read about the Supreme Court decisions under the Chief Justice Hughes Supreme Court, particularly after President Roosevelt threatened the Court. In 1937, the Supreme Court, stopped enforcing the many of Constitutional restrictions on government. The nation changed course in the 1930s and has never been the same.
canuckistani| 7.3.12 @ 2:35PM
Yeas, the nation improved and became a world leader on all three fronts: military, diplomatic and commercial.
It took saint ronny to put the brakes on our middle class progress at home, Daddy Bush commercially with his skeezy relationship with Sam Walton, and Junior diplomatically and militarily with his adolescent wanderings.
Wake up.
JD| 7.3.12 @ 3:09PM
You have a strange memory. As I recall, we became a world leader because the rest of the world blew itself to bits in the culmination of a bunch of left-wing experiments. The middle class wasn't doing so well under stagflation, but the 80s got it moving, just in time to run into a wall of outsourcing sponsored by the "make doing business in America harder" crowd.
Drunken Sailor| 7.3.12 @ 4:37PM
Don'y you have a moose to service somewhere?
Bob Grant| 7.3.12 @ 8:50AM
It's becoming clearer as each day passes that Mr. Roberts had considerations in mind that were counter to his primary duty as a supreme court justice, and counter to pledges he made at his confirmation.
-----
"But he fell back on the long-standing principle of judicial interpretation that the courts should not declare a law unconstitutional if it can be reasonably read in a way that would make it constitutional, out of "deference" to the legislative branch of government."
-----
Does "reasonably read" mean changing the literal meaning of a word (penalty) to another word (law) that already has a formal, and completely different, meaning?
Bob Grant| 7.3.12 @ 9:00AM
Obama got to him!
How does that stick in your craw?
canuckistani| 7.3.12 @ 2:38PM
Just fine.
At 18% GDP and a ludicrous drag on our competitiveness, adults realize we have to act on healthcare. Forget the equivocations on class warfare etc., the economics facing US companies and individuals is unsustainable and solutions must be tried. Doing nothing is a dereliction.
JD| 7.3.12 @ 3:22PM
And there's your argument. "Anything is better than nothing."
Only a fool believes such an argument. Things can ALWAYS get worse.
This "solution" makes no serious attempt to analyze any problems or solve them. It's just a pronouncement of blame based on ideology, then a shower of handouts that doesn't have anything to do with either the pronounced blame OR actual problems.
TLP| 7.3.12 @ 5:23PM
What's "The Drag" from all of the Entitlements, which the Left has no interest in doing anything about, other than ADDING more people on the Rolls?
Or, don't you give a Sh*t about that?
Of course you don't.
Bob Grant| 7.3.12 @ 8:06PM
Canucklehead,
Doing NOTHING is the remedy to this economic malaise. Part of what's causing this malaise the our incompetent president's insistence on inflicting this job/freedom killing law on our country, all under the guise of DOING SOMETHING about healthcare.
Come on man, wake up from your stupor.
Occam's Tool| 7.9.12 @ 5:13PM
I agree; our malpractice situation is a ludicrous drag on our competitiveness, as is our entire legal system. Let me know when THAT has been solved, and we will talk about our health INSURANCE system. (It is NOT a problem with healthcare---subtract our gunshot deaths, our automobile crash deaths, and eliminate our dead neonates that NO OTHER HEALTH SYSTEM in the WORLD would consider VIABLE, and our numbers are the best in the world. In short, get someone to an ER alive, and they get the best care in the world. Our life expectancy rates are due to things out of MD control. Some of us have actually practiced abroad---it sucks.)
Longdrycreek | 7.3.12 @ 9:11AM
Dr. Sowell is one of my favorite commentators. His recent commentary explains why I am frustrated with both major political parties. I have never voted for the Democratic presidential candidate nor for LBJ when he was a Texas senator. Unreliable, untrustworthy.
Though increasingly a nominal Republican, I find the Republican Leadership in the House and Senate to be weak and vacillating on major issues.
I think in the U.S. we are harvesting the large crop of political leadership whose talents fit The Peter Principle.
We are cripped with a mystery man in the Office of President, a criminal outfit in DOJ, an inept Keystone Cops mentality in Homeland Security, a
dense group in the Department of State, and a idiot as Secretary of Defense or whatver he wants to make it.
We are overcharged and underserved with talent and leadership.
I bet few in government could milk a milch cow but they do not how to milk the public purse.
Anathama on the lot.
squalis| 7.3.12 @ 9:14AM
So where is Jack in WI, and the other Paulbot (can't remember his moniker). Still sitting out this election? Counting on SCOTUS to do your work for you? Well, they didn't. Now it's up to you, and others like you, to give this country a chance to survive the way it was first intended. We need you guys to step up. To all libertarians and conservatives not happy with Romney, we need your votes for him. This country needs your votes for him. STEP UP!
canuckistani| 7.3.12 @ 2:51PM
Total amnesia on this site.
The whole first century of the union was a constant struggle to drag people along. The second century was the country finding its way and maturing into the nation of inclusiveness it always intended to be, and its third century will be a century of change that takes the lessons of the past and builds on them.
Look at the US's major war history and their motivators:
We declared independence over cash. Won.
We started an opportunistic war with Canada in 1812 for curious reasons. Lost (or tied depending on the definition, and we got a bar song as our national anthem)
We fought eachother over cash and the unfair trading practices of southern farmers. Won.
We entered WW1 over cash. Won.
We entered WW2 in the Pacific over cash. Won.
We entered WW2 in Europe as a favor to Churchill and future commercial interests. Won.
We entered Korea over commies. Tie.
We entered Vietnam over commies. Lost.
We entered Gulf War 1 over cash. Won.
We entered Gulf War 2 over lies. Jury still out.
We entered Afghanistan over Jihadis. Jury still out. Bin Laden killed in Pakistan.
When we fight over commercial interests, we win. When we fight for other reasons, we tie or lose. That must tell us something about our place in the world.
Healthcare is 18% GDP. Facts are facts, and we are losing our first commercial war by doing nothing.
JD| 7.3.12 @ 3:12PM
Pearl Harbor was a cash consideration? That's just one of many strange claims you've made. And then you equate your ideological crusade to one of history's actual wars.
Thom| 7.3.12 @ 6:36PM
Healthcare spending is 18% of GDP for two primary reasons you don’t seem to grasp.
1) We can afford it compared to most other countries where your next meal ranks over “healthcare” for mos.
2) the most important is that Government made it “free” for tens of millions in the mid-60s and that has created the same artificial demand driven price inflation the subprime market did for housing. This is complicated by government even more by setting prices for services now through regulations. Tell me what part of this problem is King ObamaCare going to improve upon by giving up to 30 million more people “free” or “subsidized” “healthcare” while increasing everyone’s else’s current premiums to pay for all this extra “free” “healthcare”?
Next you’ll be telling us that the government giving away houses to some will reduce the selling price of houses right? Somebody had to build the house and get paid… and nothing about King ObamaCare will bring down the % of GDP when you keep setting the service level above the price the market can bear by cost shifting from those who pay for it to and increasing number of those who don’t.
Tell us what government subsidizes that doesn’t have run away cost? Housing?, Education?, Healthcare?
Warrior| 7.4.12 @ 8:45PM
Obama answered this in the 2008 primaries:
"...if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house..."
squalis| 7.3.12 @ 10:15PM
CBO estimates for cost of Obamacare has already doubled the initial estimates. That will only increase over time. Even worse is the thought of government controlling the most intimate decisions of people and family. Strange for those saying government should be out of the bedroom advocating this 2700+ pages of statism and lies.
nathan| 7.3.12 @ 3:10PM
You wouldn't be referring to me would you? I mean come on I've been a conservative since I was 11, knew why I was, understood the Founders as a teenager better than a lot of so called "conservatives" do now.
But I am not a neocon interventionist and don't believe in the democracy jihad favored by so many of you. I do advocate "intelligent" defense cuts and getting out of NATO and cutting our military presence around the world. On that Paul was so very right.
But you all need to understand something. Romney actually has a record to run on and it ain't pretty. He's not a conservative, probably more liberal than moderate. He's already told us he's willing to violate his oath of office before he takes it. He openly supported the Fifth Amendment destroying NDAA language and there's a reasonably good chance that during his adminstration people will be indefinitely detained until SCOTUS rules and given this ruling, the language may very well stand with Roberts again casting the deciding vote. The NDAA was and is by far more dangerous than ACA. So don't think for a moment that with Romney the clouds will part and the sun will shine and all will be sweetness and light in the kingdom. Individual liberty will be at serious risk and in part the danger will come from the right as it did during the Bush/Cheney years. Happy 4th Folks!
rjh| 7.3.12 @ 9:14AM
"What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States."
Thank you Dr. Sowell. When Thomas Sowell says that you have screwed up, you have really screwed up. The fact that Roberts is now praised by the liberal media says it all.
JimH| 7.3.12 @ 9:17AM
Assuming Roberts came by his decision honestly and not from being compelled by the threat of publication of incriminating pictures or some such, I can only conclude that he did not want the SCOTUS to be a safety net from legislative idiocy; particularly in a narrowly decided case. He wants something this important to be decided legislatively. He is joining those other notable hand washers Lady Macbeth and Pontius Pilate. It is looking as if he was preparing to vote one way and changed after the last minute. Maybe he switched only when it became apparent that he would be the deciding vote.
Mimi | 7.3.12 @ 12:19PM
WE are ALL making excusesfor his atrocious VOTE....decent , maybe excuses.....no, no.. NO! His crazy choice and excuse were done haphazardly, incoherent...there is more to this ...IT SMELLS....to high heaven...the REASON is much more serious than any us innocent fools can can think up!
CallMeIshmael33141| 7.3.12 @ 9:35AM
Some claim that Chief Justice Roberts did what he did to save the Supreme Court as an institution from the wrath -- and retaliation -- of those in Congress who have been railing against Justices who invalidate the laws they have passed.
Neva hoppen. This was blackmail, pure and simple. The Chicago Way. Obama's MO since he entered politics as a community rabble rouser. He's been perfecting it ever since. That's what he keeps Axelrod around for.
Now, I know many people have said that the blackmail involved a threat to undermine the integrity of the court. Not it at all. The other justices spent a full month trying to turn Roberts around to no avail. Such tenacity can only be explained one way. Axelrod's oppposition research goons found something in Robert's past, so incriminating and/or embarrassing that Roberts would do anything to keep it a deep dark secret. That's how Obama/Axelrod have always operated even getting a divorce court to open court protected divorce proceedings against one of Obama's opponents. One can only guess what they found out about Roberts.
But blackmailers never go away. They always come back for more so look for Roberts to turn into a complete toadying fool for the Left on a variety of issues great and small.
Now what we on the right must do is to retrace the steps taken by Obama's political hit men. We have to find out what they have on Roberts and then go to him with it and demand his resignation. He's a coward. He'll resign.
squalis| 7.3.12 @ 9:58AM
Don't want him to resign with Obama in office.
CallMeIshmael33141| 7.3.12 @ 10:14AM
Doesn't matter. Obama isn't going to be able to appoint any Supreme Court justices until after the election, at least. Even if he wins, his sppointments can be blocked for four years if Republicans can win control of the Senate. They only need four seats to do that. (The Dems need to defend 23 seats this year only 17 of which are occupied by incumbents.) Incumbency is a formidable defense but it is not a guarantee of victory. Republicans will defeat several Dem incumbents. There is no Constitutional requirement for any set number of justices on the Court. Throughout our history that number has varied. It can again. The only member of the Court mentioned in the Constitution is the Chief. Unless Republicans allow it, Obama can be thwarted in his attempt to reshape the Court if he wins in November.
Boar Hunter| 7.3.12 @ 7:55PM
Every single last thing Obama has done for the last three years could have been thwarted.
Unless the Republicans allow it? Are they going to start standing up because Romney is so awe inspiring? They have allowed everything.
Obama has been so glaringly unopposed for three years that he is now doing things he himself stated were unconstitutional just three months ago because he knows no one will oppose him.
Occam's Tool| 7.9.12 @ 5:19PM
Boar: the Libs had overwhelming majorities in House/Senate in 2008-2010, allowing them to push many things through without Republicans. However, the judicial appointments could have been blocked over and over, and should have been--- all of Obama's nominations could have been blocked if the Republicans had stood together, and they should have. Kagan was unqualified, as was Sotomayer). Since 2010, we should have had complete deadlock.
ncatty| 7.3.12 @ 10:17AM
Thanks for reminding me of the Chicago way and Obama's own history of dirty tricks. What you mention cannot be ruled out.
republicanblue| 7.3.12 @ 10:03AM
Well it seems that Az will still be able to ask about your immigration status, but do you have to answer that question, well check out this story, it previews the next fight in court and its coming soon, Az may be able to implement the law but they have to be careful, check out the story
http://bit.ly/SB1070barks_nobite
Who Knows?| 7.3.12 @ 10:52AM
And we thought Reagan was only talking about the commies when he said, “Trust, but Verify”.
Ha!
Pace Dr. Sowell’s point, ALL governments need to be seen and dealt with under that admonition, and our Constitution SUPPOSEDLY embodies that wisdom.
These dark days, though, who trusts government, especially the federal and state ones? And, what about the “verify” aspect of that truism?
Kaput!
Example---verifying Eric Holder’s justice department. Going nowhere.
Kafka rules.
Live locally, that’s the ticket, and expect less than nothing from the government. Whoopee, we’re all going to die.
Hardcard| 7.3.12 @ 11:33AM
WEINER...SPTIZER....EDWARDS....CIGAR WILLIE.....BLOGO......
THE KENNEDYS......RANGEL..... AND NOW ROBERTS MORE TO COME.
Mimi | 7.3.12 @ 12:25PM
What do you know and....when did you KNOW it?
cicero| 7.3.12 @ 3:47PM
Hmmmm. . . Taxing people who do not do what you want them to do. Dhimmitude, maybe? If you do not buy health insurance (believe in the all encompassing love of the collective), ou must ;ay a tax.
Conservative Bob| 7.3.12 @ 4:33PM
When people fear their government there is tyranny; when the government fears the people there is liberty.... Thomas Jefferson
The destruction of our republic is almost complete.
After last Thursday we are no longer free we are no longer citizens, we are all subjects now. Obamacare will wreck havoc but the real danger to our liberty was Roberts' removing all practical limits on the central government. In light of his decision what limits remain to forestall any action congress can dream up? Is there to anything the congress can not do to us now?
Whatever the reason for Roberts' betrayal; limited constitutional government, even the weak shadow it had become no longer exists.
It is time that they come to fear us, if November doesn't fix this then maybe that healthy fear of the people should become much more substantial.
Ronsch| 7.3.12 @ 5:26PM
Sorry...So angry I just cannot think straight...He (Chief In-justice Roberts) should have done the truly noble and clear path and declared all of it unconstitutional. Period.
Oh, joy...Brooks is back in another troll-guise.
Kingofthenet| 7.3.12 @ 6:29PM
This article explains why in actuality it was Roberts who was the principled 'Conservative', very interesting read:
http://gillette-torvik.blogspo.....ssent.html
Otis Fulmen | 7.4.12 @ 11:24AM
Would that Roberts had heeded the oration of Lord Mansfield re: Rex v. Wilkes, in which, on judges' duties, Mansfield said,* inter alia:
"We must not regard political consequences, how formidable soever they might be; if rebellion was the certain consequence, we are bound to say, 'Fiat justitia, ruat coelum.' ['Let justice be done, though Heaven fall.']
...
I will do my duty, unawed. What am I to fear? That mendax infamia ['mendacious scandal'] from the press, which daily coins false facts, and false motives? ... I wish popularity; but it is that popularity which follows, not that which is run after. It is that popularity which, sooner or later, never fails to do justice to the pursuit of noble ends, by noble means. I will not do that which my conscience tells me is wrong, upon this occasion, to gain the huzzas of thousands, or the daily praise of all the papers which come from the press: I will not avoid doing what I think is right, though it should draw on me the whole artillery of libels; all that falsehood and malice can invent, or the credulity of a deluded populace can swallow. I can say, with a great magistrate, upon an occasion and under circumstances not unlike, 'Ego hoc animo semper fui, ut invidiam virtute partam gloriam, non invidiam, putarem.' ['Such have always been my feelings, that I look upon odium incurred by the practice of virtue not as odium, but as the highest glory.' Cf. Cicero, in Catilinam, i.29.]"
* the full oration is at otisfulmen.com
Petronius| 7.4.12 @ 12:22PM
A member of the House wants to unionize all the doctors. I can't wait until they go on strike because they can't make any money. And when Catholic hospitals close for refusing to abort babies we can expect Obama and co. to commandeer them and throw physicians families into the gulag unless they change their minds. We live under a government of the Trash, by the Trash, and For the Trash.
tasine| 7.4.12 @ 1:45PM
Well said, Petronius. I applaud you!
Occam's Tool| 7.9.12 @ 5:21PM
Oh, I look very forward to reviewing the care that Roberts' family receives, yes, indeedy.
Blackash| 7.4.12 @ 12:54PM
I see a bunch of the same clowns on this forum that I see on other ostensibly conservative forums. Many of them aren't really what they claim to be. To spend as much time trolling on these sites as they do they are either sociopaths looking for a cheap thrill or are really George Soros employees trying to discourage our side.
tasine| 7.4.12 @ 1:42PM
Absolutely spot on commentary! One can always rely on Dr. Sowell to go to the Constitution in these matters - exactly what SCOTUS should do but cannot seem to accomplish.
I wish we could draft Thomas Sowell to lead this country! Every citizen in the nation would be 100% better off!!
truzak| 7.4.12 @ 3:22PM
I think the most egregious element of Roberts' betrayal was not his obvious activism, but the presumed motive for that activism; namely, "out of "deference" to the legislative branch of government."
Recalling the underhanded and corrupt way in which Obamacare was passed, the lies that were told - from abortion funding to balancing the budget - and that the lawmakers neither read nor understood the law they were selling to their constituents, there should have been no "deference" to the legislative process. On the contrary, voiding the law would have been respecting the rule of law given how the law was fallaciously passed.
Given the natural tendency of government to grow and become tyrannical, it is indeed a miracle the freedom of the Republic lasted over a century. There is no turning back the clock, just as there is no turning back governmental power.
The only solution to getting us back to our founding principles, and the freedom inherent with them, is to "water the tree of liberty", as Jefferson said. But without the support of the military and law enforcement, the security forces of the government in the 21st Century are too much to overcome, even if by a determined people led by guys named Washington, Jefferson, Hancock, and Henry.
Bob Grant| 7.4.12 @ 5:32PM
I'm afraid this one man's act of cowardice will cause as much damage to the country as anything obama has done to date.
I'm getting the same message from my conservative friends:
What's the use?
They've given up. They not sure who to trust, or if the fight's worth fighting anymore.
The chance to do something meaningful against obama since inauguration, and Roberts punts!!! All he had to do is act on his supposed convictions, and he failed...EPICALLY!
Question: Will the RINO's be there when obamacare hits 55%? approval, 60%?
Roberts made it exponentially more difficult to unseat this POS!!
An utter disappointment....GW Bush continues to disappoint.
falcon46| 7.4.12 @ 8:09PM
The betrayal started a long time ago with Hamilton surrogate John Marshall committing a big betrayal in Marbury vs Madison by claiming the right of "judicial review" which ultimately must lead to "judicial supremacy." Hamilton's actions after the Constitution was ratified showed he never really believed most of what he wrote in the Federalist Papers.
Then comes McCulloch v. Maryland and the sanctioning of Economic Fascism by the SCOTUS in 1819 where Marshall sides with the Federal central bank against the state of Maryland.
Whether we know it or not, conservatives have been screwed for a long time. We didn't really know it because not one conservative textbook has ever been published from the conservative point of view that includes our complete history and why the conservative point of view is better and why.
All the billions spent to fight this or that bill. But never the 3 to 4 million dollars it would take to create a conservative textbook with complete cross-referencing of archival information. Conservatives have only themselves to blame.
Timely Renewed | 7.4.12 @ 10:56PM
The framers gave us the power to have the final say on the Constitution's meaning through the deliberative and democratic process of amendment. We can not rely on the fiat of five unelected and unaccountable judges. Unfortunately the amendment process is now moribund. We need to reform the amendment process so that the People can make the final determination as to the meaning of our foundational document, not a tiny judicial elite. See http://www.timelyrenewed.com.
margmary| 7.5.12 @ 7:20PM
So now that all three branches of government have betrayed us horribly and trashed our republic, how soon do we overthrow them? Our founding documents provide for such action.