-
Obama’s Imbroglios
May 23, 2013 | 45 comments
-
My Rahm Reunion
May 16, 2013 | 16 comments
-
The Left Hates Us
May 9, 2013 | 143 comments
-
Such a Dynamic Duo
May 2, 2013 | 49 comments
-
The Continuing Crisis
May 1, 2013 | 0 comments
The Current Crisis
Chief Justice Roberts, You Fox You
All things considered, we conservatives did not come out so badly.
WASHINGTON — I have a headache. I imagine you do too, if you have been trying to interpret the legalese employed by those legal sages who have pronounced on Thursday’s Supreme Court decision on Obamacare. I would rather read the lyrics of a thousand rap composers than the anfractuous language of one legal sage.
Thanks, however, to Professor E. Donald Elliott of the Yale Law School I had a translator at my side, and I shall now hand down my judgment of the Court’s decision on Obamacare, which all sensible Americans have abstained from reading in its entirety including B. H. Obama and the vast majority of denizens of Capitol Hill, including N. Pelosi. Some of these worthies even admitted as much. It fell to nine heroic souls garbed in black actually to read the law and to Chief Justice Roberts to write the decision for the exhausted majority.
As a result of his prestidigitation with prior precedents and with the famously vague English language, critics cannot dismiss Chief Justice Roberts as hyper-partisan. His fellow conservatives are highly agitated by his decision. His usual opponents, the Liberals, celebrate him. The Chief Justice dodged the bullet. I think you can call him crafty, as Chief Justice John Marshall was crafty all those years ago when he wrote the decision for Marbury v. Madison. Roberts’ decision, the decision of the majority of the court, accomplished three things.
Firstly, it reiterated two earlier holdings of the Court that ended the expansion of the commerce clause. The expansion of the federal government’s reach under the commerce clause is no longer a grave threat to limited government. This offends certain Liberals such as our friends at the New York Times. Well, you win some and lose some, indignados.
Secondly, for the first time since the New Deal the Court rejected a law for exceeding the spending power of Congress. The Court invalidated the part of Obamacare that gave the federal government the power to coerce state governments to spend money on Medicaid.
Thirdly, the Congress can now tax us for not doing something, but this power is not nearly so dangerous as the power that the Court limited, namely, the commerce power. Laws passed under Congress’s power to tax and spend may only take our money. Our recourse against this tax is the same recourse we have been employing since 2009, to wit, mobilizing and going to the polls. In 2010 it led to a historic sweep at the state and federal level. In 2012 the sweep will continue, landing Mitt Romney in the White House where he says he will make repealing and replacing Obamacare his preeminent priority. He can also refuse to enforce the tax by executive order. The next Congress can repeal it, using reconciliation to avoid a Senate filibuster if necessary.
All things considered we conservatives did not come out so badly, which should demonstrate once again how dangerous Obamacare is. Prior to Chief Justice Roberts’ juggling act Thursday, the conservative majority on the Court was going to bounce Obamacare and the Liberals could continue their noble work of deauthorizing an entire branch of the federal government, the courts. They could smear the Supreme Court as but another locale where crass conservatives play politics. You know how the otherworldly Liberals disdain mere politics! Now Chief Justice Roberts has responded to the better angels of his nature, and the Liberals are applauding. As I have said, Liberalism is dead.
Roberts may be another conservative figure of historic dimensions, as was Marshall. In 1803 Marshall was confronted by the outgoing Federalists’ appointment of the “Midnight Judges,” last minute appointees to the federal bench. When one of those appointees, William Marbury, did not get his commission he took it to the Supreme Court under the Judiciary Act of 1789. There sat Chief Justice Marshall, a Federalist and a believer in a strong federal government. He took the long view. He too, like Chief Justice Roberts, was crafty. He ruled that Marbury was entitled to his judgeship, but the Constitution did not give him the authority to raise Marbury to the court. The provision of the Judiciary Act, by which Marbury claimed his commission, was unconstitutional.
Chief Justice Marshall thereby established the principle of judicial review. This time around might Chief Justice Roberts have curtailed the pernicious commerce clause and pared back the federal government’s ability to coerce the states? Might he have returned Obamacare to another round of democratic process? History continues to be filled with surprises. We shall await its judgment.
About the Author
R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. is the founder and editor in chief of The American Spectator. He is the author of The Death of Liberalism, published by Thomas Nelson Inc. His previous books include the New York Times bestseller Boy Clinton: the Political Biography; The Impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton; The Liberal Crack-Up; The Conservative Crack-Up; Public Nuisances; The Future that Doesn’t Work: Social Democracy’s Failure in Britain; Madame Hillary: The Dark Road to the White House; The Clinton Crack-Up; and After the Hangover: The Conservatives’ Road to Recovery.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (155) | Leave a comment
More Articles by R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.
More Articles From The Current Crisis
http://spectator.org/archives/2012/07/05/chief-justice-roberts-you-fox
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- A Nation on the Edge
- Consternated Conferences
- The Great Train Robbery
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
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Scaramouche| 7.5.12 @ 6:49AM
Had Roberts abided by the Constitution, we wouldn't be left trying to decode his language and search for his real motives. Why do conservatives worry what the left will call Scalia, Thomas, Alito? They will do so no matter the ruling.
benny havens| 7.5.12 @ 7:37AM
Exactly!
Justice Roberts’ decision may have been very crafty, throwing the issue back into the lap of the people, saying that “the people” can change this law come Election Day if they don’t like it.
What Justice Roberts fails to understand is that Obama, Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the progressives, Marxists, communists and socialists in the government, along with the MSM, do not tell the truth. They connive, cheat, steal and lie every step of the way to the voting booth. They can not be trusted to tell “the people” what their agenda really is.
When over 50% of the voting population believes that they are going to get free healthcare, paid for by the “rich,” and all they have to do is vote for the aforementioned word merchants, it’s a done deal.
Liberalism may be dead but has been replaced by something far more sinister.
DTOM| 7.5.12 @ 7:42AM
Mr. Tyrell, CJ Roberts is NOT the fox.
He is the chicken.
DTOM
Bob Grant| 7.5.12 @ 9:01AM
Indeed!
Shadow| 7.6.12 @ 11:26PM
You are too kind. The man is a coward and traitor for refusing to do hi sworn duty to uphold
The Constitution.
Bob Grant| 7.5.12 @ 9:00AM
Spot on!
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.5.12 @ 6:02PM
"Obama, Biden, Clinton, Pelosi, Reid and the rest of the progressives, Marxists, communists and socialists in the government, along with the MSM, do not tell the truth. They connive, cheat, steal and lie every step of the way to the voting booth. They can not be trusted to tell “the people” what their agenda really is."
Nothing they have done compares to Poppy saying "read my lips, no new taxes";
not even Carter on coke obtained at Studio 54 would have said something so foolish.
Your wounds are self inflicted.
Brookschwarzenegro | 7.5.12 @ 6:04PM
.... not even Ted high on grass that Mary Jo gave him at the party the night before would have said,
"read my lips, no new taxes"!
JD| 7.5.12 @ 7:49PM
Obama said "read my lips, no new taxes (on those making under $250,000/year)" and clearly broke that promise. How can you say that that lie, plus so many others, doesn't compare to "read my lips, no new taxes?"
Appleby| 7.5.12 @ 7:10AM
Let the whining begin. For those of us living in socialist countries, this pattern is very familiar and it always ends up with a long, resigned whine of "What can you dooooooooooooooooo?" as the proles shuffle, head down, toward the exits.
Peter McGrath| 7.5.12 @ 12:29PM
Right on Appleby. RET, you are dead wrong.
Americans should be ashamed of our pathetic Supreme Court and its awful, dissembling Chief Justice, Sir John the Weak-Minded. One wonders if he suffered from a mental illness, or was being strong-armed with extortionate threats, for having written such a worthless opinion, perhaps the worst jurisprudence from our nation's highest court since Roe v. Wade.
Upholding Obamacare on the basis that the mandate is a tax is so wrong, so illogical, as to boggle the mind. A tax is levied against - and taken from - something of value (income, real estate, point of sale, etc.) and is paid regardless of conduct - all you need is possession of the item of value. On the other had, a tax is not levied if you do not possess the item of value. If I don't have income, I don't pay an income tax. If I don't own property, I don't pay a property tax. If I don't buy a good or service, I don't pay the sales tax.
A penalty, on the other hand, punishes conduct and has nothing to do wtih a levy based on the value of a good or service. The mandate "penalty" was a fine - like not having proof of auto insurance -and NOT a tax.
And I haven't even touched on the Anti-Injunction Act, which would clearly apply if one accepted the absurd and concluded that the mandate were somehow a tax. Roberts' "finesse" of this issue bordered on the ludicrous.
Peter McGrath| 7.5.12 @ 12:30PM
Roberts did not rule based on reason but on sophistry (i.e., pure B.S.) . His ruling stands as a object of ridicule; ergo, he's no fox, perhaps, a donkey, mule, or posterior of a horse, but no fox.
We should all be ashamed of him and the Supreme Court. He, and it, have failed the American people.
Roberts' craven decision is akin to your local Sheriff declaring that his Department will now be assisting criminals in the commission of crimes. This coward, now a confirmed tool of the Left, has announced that our Supreme Court may make pronouncements which make no sense, whatsoever, based on motives which remain hidden from the American people.
Here's our very own Clown Prince POTUS, in a link below, arguing 'til he's blue in the face that the mandate is a penalty, and NOT a tax. The Democrats would never have passed this crap legislation if they had characterized the mandate as a tax. So, our Supreme Court abetted Congress in a massive fraud visited upon the American people. In this context, the term "fox" - used to describe a stealthy predator who kills defenseless prey in hen houses - may be apropos.
http://crooksandliars.com/susi.....te-not-tax
Abu Nudnik| 7.6.12 @ 11:44AM
A quibble: one is fined for *driving* without auto insurance, not for not possessing it. I don't own a car. I can not be fined for not having auto insurance... until I step behind the wheel of a car.
CJW| 7.5.12 @ 12:34PM
Great advice from Appleby who refuses to vote for Romney because she is too principled, and voted for a third party helping to elect Carter.
aware| 7.5.12 @ 5:20PM
Yeah, who needs principles when there's an "election" to win, huh.
CJW| 7.5.12 @ 7:00PM
Advice from the Obma crowd.
aware| 7.6.12 @ 5:21AM
And your idea is to vote for the guy who says on his web site "As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts...."
Stupid conservatives, always stuck looking for silver linings when they ought to be looking for silver bullets.
Drunken Sailor| 7.6.12 @ 9:55AM
Or course let not take into consideration he posted that BEFORE Roberts made this decision and surprised conservatives everywhere.
Armchair Quarterback
CJW| 7.6.12 @ 11:31AM
You have two choices. Vote for O or vote for Mitt. What will you do, genius? Stay home, brood, and post stupid comments like looking for silver bullets? Since you are so much smarter than conservatives, what are the silver bullets that you know and we do not?
As for Roberts, his past decisions were excellent. This decision was plainly wrong, but I would still take Mitt and GWB appointing judges rather than O and Clinton, who appointed Giznburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan. In case you did not know, those four voted for Obamatax.
R Martin| 7.5.12 @ 7:13AM
“Thanks, however, to Professor E. Donald Elliott of the Yale Law School I had a translator at my side…”
Isn’t this the problem? Judges/lawyers write stuff that has sweeping effects on the population, yet a translator is required to understand it. And it isn’t the fault of the English language. Our language can be very precise and Mr. Tyrrell, who has demonstrated some skill in its use, knows that. No, I think judges and lawyers often deliberately obscure meaning through clever use of the language so only they can resolve its true meaning. It’s a bit like diplomats who believe the practice of their trade requires special nuance only they possess.
We sure need some straight talkers in government.
BackToBasics| 7.5.12 @ 11:36PM
Agree and your point about resolving the "true" meaning is so apt. I'm convinced that such ambiguous and vague rulings and laws are written so that future interpretations can be written to say and mean anything they want. Precedence seems to be more important than the Constitution itself.
chuck| 7.5.12 @ 7:18AM
This ruling is a huge pile of dog squeeze. You can scoop it up, place it on some bread, garnish it with lettuce and tomato, and try it pretty it up, but it's still a sh!t sandwich.
TLP| 7.5.12 @ 9:25AM
Anyone think that Tyrrell is anything but a MORON, after this?
There is no Silver Lining.
Justice Useful Idiot does NOT have a Secret Plan to Save the Republic.
One in the Hand, still trumps Two in the Bush, where I come from. And Professor Plumb, who just Stabbed us in the back, with a Pen, in the Supreme Court Building, just gave Black Jesus a big one, right in his hand.
And what do WE have, in the Bush?
A bunch of Idiot Country Clubbers, like Will, and Rove, and our Boy "R" who look right at us, and tell us that 2+2= every other number than 4. And, that we're Lucky to have them, to teach us Math. Plus, Politicians who are so afraid of their own Shadows, their Reflecions, and any kind of suggestion that there be Confrontation, that they HIDE in that Bush, until all of the Smoke Clears, whereby they re-appear, only to tell us that they'll Get'em Next Time, maybe, if they can be sure that nobody calls them a name.
And, by the way: SEND MONEY!
You can't make this Sh*t up.
aware| 7.5.12 @ 5:22PM
Believe it or not, I couldn't agree more. Perfectly said.
Anthony| 7.5.12 @ 7:32PM
A little harsh Tim, RET is not a moron, he is a decent, well meaning conservative lost in the kulturesmog of Washington elitism and statism.
Kitty | 7.5.12 @ 7:27AM
R.E.T. must still be celebrating July 4th. I don't drink and I'm not part of the silver-lining crowd. The ruling was a disaster for the United States of America.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.5.12 @ 11:32AM
I agree. This was not craftiness; it was betrayal. I also cannot stand those morons who compare Roberts to that great jurist John Marshall. Marshall's decision in Marbury vs. Madision was a RESTRAINT upon Congress. (He ruled that the Judiciary Act of 1789 was not constitutional.) Roberts' decision was a blantant act of sophistry that essentially removed all restraints from Congress. RET is losing his conservative mojo every day, and it's hard to fathom why, unless he's succumbed to the strange-new-respect temptation.
aware| 7.5.12 @ 5:35PM
A cluster-bomb of a disaster. The initial blast is bad, but the little bomblets will be going off for years. This is, if we had years. Like a nation with 16 trl in debt and unfunded liabilities of over 120 trl can just throw another 2 tril(by their #s which makes the truth at 10 to 30 times that) on the pile.
Elections won't change this. Only nullification by the states has a chance. If conservatives don't mind advice from the extreme right, that's where the effort should be made, state(little "s") nullification. Only by removing the entire issue from the Federal level is there even a chance of killing this.
CJW| 7.5.12 @ 7:01PM
Explain in your plan in specific concrete terms.
aware| 7.6.12 @ 5:27AM
http://tenthamendmentcenter.co.....-movement/
CJW| 7.6.12 @ 3:27PM
D you believe states can nullify federal law?
How is that a specific concrete plan?
Allowing the states to pass more laws instead of the federal government means we still have government passing more laws. Most states are no better than the federal government in being fiscally conservative. Look at NY and California. Both bankrupt. In fact, you should be wary of states' power because states have more, if possible, power to pass laws than the federal government.
Alej| 7.12.12 @ 2:43PM
"Look at NY and California. Both bankrupt. In fact, you should be wary of states' power because states have more, if possible, power to pass laws than the federal government."
Exactly the man's point. The majority of people in California and New York are socialist jerks; let them pass their stupid laws and elect their Pelosis and Weiners, which affect only themselves.
But stay the hell out of Texas.
Hardcard| 7.5.12 @ 7:38AM
Bob.... according to your scenario, where does,ginsburg,kagan,breyer,and sotomayor come into play? maybe you and your guru from the yale think tank can enlighten the unwashed masses as to their foxie ways.
DTOM| 7.5.12 @ 7:41AM
Between Mr. Tucker's suggestion that the only they we can do on Obamacare is take our pain pills and Mr. Tyrell's suggestion that CJ Roberts did some good by giving the Frankenstein Obamacare bill a shroud of faux-constitutionality strongly suggests to me that TAS has gone anti-rogue!
Obama is intensely disliked by a lot of people. HE is a proven liar, thief, and breaker of laws. He is not an American in that he does not understand the importance of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
He wants to be king -he thinks he is. He needs to spend some time in an orange jumpsuit with shackles on his wrists. After all, he is a self-confessed cocaine user!
He does not understand that it is profit that pays every tax, every penalty, and everyone. No law, no government, no school, no state, no police force makes profits. Only enterprises do. And only profitable enterprises can generate the support for all those other operations. It is as immutable as having to look east for light in the morning. Obama wants to look west for dawn's early light. He's wrong, it's in the east, Barry, not the west.
TAS are you selling out today?
Don't Tread On Me.
Take down this post and we have our answer!!!
R Martin| 7.5.12 @ 8:04AM
The fox analogy is interesting. I know a bit about foxes, there are many where I live, and they are highly susceptible to mange—which is always fatal. Is that sound we hear Justice Roberts scratching?
Sjccoach| 7.5.12 @ 8:35AM
This is a typical conservative loser column. Custer only lost his life and part of his regiment so the Sioux didn't really win. It is time for many conservative pundits to grow up and realize that we lost.
CJW| 7.5.12 @ 8:44AM
We lost before the Court, and Roberts is a weak justice.
But the law can be repealed with a Rep Congress and president, and a Rep president can gut the law by granting waivers. Congress can also reduce the budgets of HEW and IRS so they cannot enforce the law, just as the Dems did to S.Vietnam in Jan 1975.
Solution is fairly simple. Vote against the Dems and Obama, and for the Reps. But we still have the same losers here who find it more convenient and principled to complain about Reps and Romney, and who will stay home or vote for a third party.
MK48| 7.5.12 @ 12:05PM
As I sit here watching fireworks displays and smelling the aroma of BBQs it feels more like a wake than a celebration. It appears to me that unless a lot of Americans wake up, get off their posteriors and start taking effective action very soon, this may well be the last 4th of July celebration we ever see. We the people have allowed anti-American radical socialists to infiltrate and corrupt our government so completely that they have little reason to fear that citizens of this nation will interfere with their plans. Right now the enemy in Washington and their co_conspirators spread out all over this country are preparing for the final takeover. I suspect the date for a war with Iran is already agreed upon by Obuma and the leaders or Iran. That will be the signal for Obuma to declare martial law across the U.S. and while Americans are glued to their television sets watching Obuma's propaganda networks spin whatever story they are told to broadcast, Obuma's "peoples army" will be tightening the noose around any remaining patriots who might actually put up a fight against being disarmed and rendered helpless to put a stop to the final solution. Citizens of this country have become so apathetic and complacent that there will probably only be pockets of resistance. Obuma has succeeded in dividing Americans so deeply that I have little hope that many will unite and act effectively once the situation becomes obvious.
elsdallas| 7.5.12 @ 12:57PM
Hell will freeze over before I vote for a socialist like Mitt Romney. A republican by the name of Chief Justice Roberts just granted an unlimited expansion of federal power when he could have struck down the whole law. Voting for a republican is not enough. We have to vote for people who believe in limited government and upholding the Constitution. Mitt Romney is not such a person and therefore will not get my vote.
CJW| 7.5.12 @ 1:28PM
Vote for your candidate Obama.
Dave Williams| 7.5.12 @ 1:56PM
...but he is the ONLY alternative to King Zero!!!! Please don't let the best become the enemy of the good. Look, I'm not crazy about Mitt either, but considering where this country is headed if he loses, you can bet that I'll be out there fundraising, organizing, persuading, and yes, VOTING for him in November. Four more years of our current little tinpot Caesar and America is OVER!! How hard is that to understand????
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.5.12 @ 11:37AM
Excellent analogy Sjccoach!
CJW| 7.5.12 @ 12:27PM
Analogies are never perfect.
The Sioux won that battle but the Sioux, and all other Indians, lost the war, except for the Indians with gambling casinos on their land
.
Bottom line is we lost. Obamacare is the law.There is no silver lining, unless voters get motivated to vote out Obama and get a Rep Congress to repeal or modify the law.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.5.12 @ 1:09PM
Lincoln and the Republicans did not give up after Dred Scott, but sought to bring about a Supreme Court that would overturn the decision.
CJW| 7.5.12 @ 1:33PM
Lincoln, the first Republican president, took office in 1861 and the Civil War started immediately thereafter, which made the Dred Scott decision moot with the victory, and passage of the 13 and 14 amendments.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.5.12 @ 5:35PM
But the decision came out earlier, and Lincoln advised that people accept it until it could be changed. IOW, he didn't not grant the Constitutional legitimacy of the ruling, but granted the formal legitimacy of it, until it could be overturned.
"If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence of the judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance with legal public expectation, and with the steady practice of the departments throughout our history, and had been in no part, based on assumed historical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some of these, it had been before the court more than once, and had there been affirmed and re-affirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, to not acquiesce in it as a precedent.
"But when, as it is true we find it wanting in all these claims to the public confidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not even disrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settled doctrine for the country. . . ."
(Speech on Dred Scott, 1857.)
http://teachingamericanhistory.....ocument=52
CJW| 7.5.12 @ 7:05PM
You are ignoring history. Did you read what I wrote? The speech you cite is just a speech. Did not affect or mean anything. The Civil War and the 13th and 14th amendments rendered Dred Scott moot.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.5.12 @ 10:28PM
Uh, so you expect a civil war to remove Robertscare? If there's no civil war, then we follow Lincoln's course.
CJW| 7.6.12 @ 11:35AM
No.
Do you have a problem comprehending, or just trying to be difficult? I explained to you how the Scott decision became moot, it had nothing to do with what you said. From that you infer we should have a Civil War? Whatever Lincoln said had nothing to do with getting rid of the Scott decision.
Bob Grant| 7.5.12 @ 9:10AM
I think Mr. Tyrrell is attempting to defend his initial position by rolling out the already-cliche Silver Lining talking points.
These talking points weren't valid when the decision went public, they aren't now, and will not be next year.
Remember, the Hindenburg had silver linings.
TLP| 7.5.12 @ 4:14PM
He's a Country Clubber.
He's a part of The Establishment.
He thinks that Will, and Crystal, and Krauthammer, and Hume, and Rove, all walk on water.
He is PART OF THE PROBLEM.
God save us, from the likes of these LOSERS.
Louis Jenkins| 7.5.12 @ 9:14AM
Barry's mother was a wanna be porn star. Go ahead, look for it on the various sites. The information is there. And she wasn't a very good one either. Nor is Obama a decent president. His records, including education, were he was born, who his father was, etc., is a mystery. His legislation stinks. His thought process, without a teleprompter, is a mishmash of ideas without rhyme or reason. He tells people what they want to hear, and then promptly forgets about them. He is like a washing machine on the spin cycle, out of balance. Robert's saved Obama's bacon this time around, unless there is a Senate Republican majority in Nov. And that's a mighty big "if."
Bill84728| 7.5.12 @ 10:17AM
Who cares if where he was born? Whether his mom wanted to be a porn star? Who his father was?
Just get him out. He's destroying our country with his lunatic policies, declarations, and laws.
fmm| 7.5.12 @ 9:15AM
UnfortunatelyMr. Tyrrell, it looks like the same people who got to Roberts have gotten to you as well.
TLP| 7.5.12 @ 4:22PM
He's part of the problem.
He thinks that Rove, and Hume, and Will, and Krauthammer, walk on water.
And he wants us to send him Money?
Good Luck with that one, Idiot.
Bill Hussein O'Stalin| 7.5.12 @ 9:24AM
The decision expanded state's rights and limited federal power. It was actually a good decision in some ways.
By defining Obamacare as a tax that means it can be changed with another tax law. Tax laws are changed constantly.
Although the liberals are gloating it's far from over. The governor of Florida has the right idea as well as Jindal.
Don't expand Medicaid no matter what you are offered.
One effect of this is that you most likely will see the freeloaders leave those states which will reduce the need for welfare, social services. One side effect is that crime in those states will come down. What's not to like?
This could be more interesting than you think.
Bob Grant| 7.5.12 @ 12:06PM
Just because this horrific opinion might result in a few positive outcomes, it should not distract from the fact that it is a disaster in curbing federal government's taxing power. In fact, it expands it tenfold!!!!!!!!
Just because a few governors make chicken salad out of chicken shiaaaat shouldn't take away from this fact.
Bill84728| 7.5.12 @ 9:27AM
Yeah, Chief Justice Roberts was so clever he added to the subversion of our nation by the Commerce Clause the subversion of our nation by endorsing taxing inactivity. How clever. So now we need to do what's necessary to get a Constitutional amendment enacted prohibiting Congress from exercising that particularly nasty taxing power. Thanks a lot.
TLP| 7.5.12 @ 4:23PM
He was GOTTEN TO.
Mark My Words.
PolishKnight| 7.5.12 @ 9:53AM
I've debated with leftists in the past and they all employ this tactic: Make an argument that favors their position while pretending to be "moderate" and giving credence to some other legal theory. Then when they have a different position that requires the opposite argument, they switch to that one and pretend like they never thought otherwise and say "This situation is different than that!"
It all boils down to: What works for me is all that matters and you shouldn't be so selfish and think ONLY about YOURSELF! They are genuinely perplexed when someone disagrees with them even when it's clear that the source of the disagreement is that there is nothing in it for us. In their subconscious universe, there is no "us", there's only THEM. We exist, as humans, at best as objects to be dehumanized and made fun of by them.
When it suits the leftist court, the commerce clause will emerge again as a rationalization. Just wait and see. Perhaps Roberts has a point that the court really can't protect us and we shouldn't be waiting for it. Let's end affirmative action racist preferences via an act of congress or even executive order. Let's end illegal immigration the same way. The courts are useless and the same now can be said of the Holy Constitution.
ncatty| 7.5.12 @ 9:54AM
Roberts could have formed a majority with Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas, and assigned himself the task of writing the opinion, and accomplished the same result; namely, limiting the expansion of the Commerce Clause. So why didn't he do it that way? I suggest a combination of hyper-institutionalism and a desire for the "strange new respect award", which he has won hands-down.
Thom| 7.5.12 @ 10:04AM
R.E.T. needs to get his head out of the arse of Academia. The people that will enforce King ObamaCare have none of the intellectual brain power required to read between the lines as R.E.T. does here and ultimately they will just follow orders written by a legion of government lawyers that will add their own spin to 2700 pages of contradictions and distortions. What recourse will the victims of this law have? Take it to the Supreme Court? The Court is finished as a co-equal check on the powers of the other two branches. The “republic” is dead, Mob rule will now rule supreme across the land and while R.E.T. continues to hallucinate about his favorite form of Marxism being “dead”. The outcome of this ruling will work its way through every vestige of America until we look like the UK or worse. Only academic nitwits try to find a real world difference between a “tax” and “penalty” in the application of the law.
Anthony| 7.5.12 @ 10:08AM
Jesus Emmett, Your Yale trained lawyer/translator, like all Ivy lawyers, speaks Mandarin Chinese. Only an Ivy could craft this convoluted explaination of how crafty and wonderful Roberts is.
Bullshit.
Roberts, as has been said by your many posters without the benefit of a Yale law degree, could simply have deemed the whole damn bill unconstitutional and told Congress to START ANEW. That would have sent the proper message for all aspects of the Constitution violated by this insane law.
But no, Chief Justice Marshall of the 21st century has his own legacy to fulfill, and apparently, with Arizona in addition to Obozocare, Roberts is just getting warmed up.
Nothing good can come of this, save storming Washington and burning the Town down to the ground and starting fresh.
Thom| 7.5.12 @ 10:32AM
Part of what I sent to the so called Fox:
This Benjamin Franklin quotation should have been at the forefront of this ruling: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.” You have given license to the wolves….
You have made a prophet of old Ben’s comments after the convention in 1787, “A Republic, if you can keep it.” The Founders would burn Washington DC down starting with the Supreme Court based on the thinking in this ruling.
Welcome to Democracy Hell Justice Roberts. You’ve just kicked the last foundation stone from the Republic and made the Constitution and the Supreme Court irrelevant.
PolishKnight| 7.5.12 @ 11:22AM
Or perhaps he just made it official?
For decades, conservatives have voted for moderate republicans in the hopes that they would appoint enough SC justices to correct major injustices (pun intended) such as racist affirmative action quotas and Roe V Wade. Even Ronald Reagan put O'Conner on the court who wound up siding with the left much of the time and GW almost put a marxist woman on the court. In the meantime, these horrific laws and policies march on decade after decade.
Maybe we should thank Roberts for sticking a fork in the court and calling it done. In the end, a big Federal government do whatever it pleases and a wise latina will write it up. I've been saying this for years here and getting Constitution worshipers angry. I hate to do it, but that's the reality.
We need more than anemic economic promises to put presidents in the white house and some moderate justices. Let's hold our candidates to higher standards and if they fail, stay home like so many did with John McCain. As bad as things are now, under McCain I suspect we'd have the dream act passed outright and similar spending with the left saying: "Those republicans are just so irresponsible and tax and spend!"
CJW| 7.5.12 @ 12:30PM
Brilliant strategy. Stay home and let Obama win again.
As bad as McCain was and is, there is no way he would have been as bad as Obama.
PolishKnight| 7.5.12 @ 1:34PM
In some ways, I rather like how the election is sorting itself out right now. Obama is running on an anti-offshoring strategy to try to court, or more accurately LURE working class white males back into the fold. It won't work, but it will hopefully get Romney to realize that he can't please his country club buddies with tax breaks for H1B's and still win the election. So maybe this will spur him to be more conscious of the long term effects of offshoring, H1B's, and illegal immigration.
McCain ran on a campaign of "vote for me, you have no other choice!" and many people did take the choice he hadn't conceived of: staying home and not voting for him. If the Republican party cannot adopt then it deserves to die just like the US Constitution!
Get over it, folks.
CJW| 7.5.12 @ 2:12PM
Face reality. With Obma you got the Justice dept to sue Arizona, Fast and Furious witht he death of Brian Terry, Justices Kagan and Sotomayor, Obamacare, Dodd Frank, 5 trillion deficit, no drilling for oil, no pipeline,etc.
And you are trying to justify that McCain might have been worse? And that the silver lining here is it may spur Romney in some fashion?
There are people here still bragging that they did not vote for Ford, which helped elect Carter. Jimmy gave us the Dept of Energy and Dept of Education, and Iran. That worked out well. What are the chances of abolishing a cabinet dept once it is embedded in our system?
Great strategy, let the Rep party and Constitution die.
PolishKnight| 7.5.12 @ 2:21PM
And you just said it: If the Republican party cannot abolish bad cabinet departments and is so lame then perhaps it needs to die
just like the Constitution.
Say what you like about the left, but they're motivated. Praying to a dying constitution, er, dying Constitution is for losers.
And yes, in many ways McCain is worse because we'd be not much better off and living that much further in denial.
CJW| 7.5.12 @ 3:35PM
At least the lefties here, like Purp and others, fight for the Dems, and are not defeatists like you and others.
Maybe you don't know, but a political party cannot abolish cabinet departments.
If you don't believe in our Consitution and believe it should die, then you are worse than a defeatist. Justic Ginzburg and Obama share your beliefs about our Consititution.
PolishKnight| 7.5.12 @ 4:13PM
That's just it: The Constitution is not the Bible. It's not something to "believe" in. It didn't jump out of it's glass case and march over to Roberts and slap him around. It is what the Wise Latina says it is.
Get over it.
It's defeatist to worship the Constitution rather than defending and upholding, or even at least DEFINING, our shared goals. Roe V Wade and Gay Marriage are distractions. The left has succeeded overwhelmingly by using a simple formula of rewarding their base by robbing from the demographics of their opponents (and no, it's not "the rich"). This is why Obama is on this big bus tour of middle America with this "BS across America" tour to try to lure NASCAR dads into voting for him.
TLP| 7.5.12 @ 4:29PM
Actually, it IS the Bible.
It's the Bible for how to Self Govern one's self.
And, like the Bible, it is hard to adhere to.
But, when one does?
Good things happen.
Sometimes, things are hard.
That doesn't mean we don't do them.
Or, did you forget?
PolishKnight| 7.5.12 @ 4:57PM
As the Bible says, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's...
I was originally going to write above that this incident reminds of when Constantinople fell and the Turks put a French hooker on the altar and had her drink sacrificial wine out of the cup. Then they washed down the walls of the Cathedral and made it into a mosque.
The Wise Latina and her friends are doing the same with the Constitution: It says what they want it to say.
Regarding the Bible. Sadly, I was treated badly by my Christian parents who told me over and over again when they were being abusive that I was commanded to "honor" them by their "loving" God. No thanks.
There's something to be said for the left for at least coming up with ideas and knowing how to implement them.
CJW| 7.5.12 @ 7:07PM
PK
Sorry to say but you do not make any sense.
Bob Grant| 7.5.12 @ 7:03PM
Who's to say Polish is NOT a lefty?
He tends to save his most cutting criticisms for republicans.
It sets my BS meter off.
Food for thought.
PolishKnight| 7.6.12 @ 9:29AM
Bob, one of the things I dislike most about leftists is how they pretend to be independent, scientific thinkers while acting like a bunch of high school cheerleaders. Therefore, I don't just join the club here in saying what's obvious against Democrats. I've met a number of stealth leftists myself (pretending to be "middle of the road" or "moderates") and they quickly reveal themselves when they agree with the Democrat orthodoxy 99%.
I've said that I want the right to abandon worthless political directions and strategies and focus upon "core" issues that will build their strength both politically across the board and with their base: anti-feminism, anti-racist quotas, pro-practical energy (natural gas, domestic oil) and take us out of the UN. Would a leftist even dare IMAGINE those positions beyond knee jerk attacks against them?
Nonetheless, you have a point that I may appear to be a lefty because I'm not a fundamentalist Christian letting the world go to pot while railing against abortion and gay marriage. If that means I have to give up my NRA card and can't go to anymore Republican club meetings, so be it.
Thom| 7.5.12 @ 2:31PM
PolishKnight,
Perhaps but I consider myself a late bloomer on such matters. I saw the writing on the wall in 1994 and have been preparing for what comes next ever since. The “republic” is officially dead however unlike the spineless form of Marxism R.E.T. goes on about. The “state” is now too big to fail and no matter what it takes, it and its loyal supporters will continue regardless of how many people have to have their liberty and wealth destroyed to prop it up. We’ve now moved into the “phony war” period and whatever follows that will truly be an eye openers for the lambs….
PolishKnight| 7.5.12 @ 4:24PM
Was there a particular reason you saw the writing in 1994 or is that just when your brain saw it? Was there an event?
The Robert's SC betrayal is kind of like a pearl harbor for the right. This is the kick in the teeth the right has needed. Hoping for a bailout from the SC and the Holy Constitution is NOT going to happen folks! Running on a "security" platform (war on terror) and "economy" will get lackluster results and mere socialist creep. We can't slow the panzers anymore by putting in speedbumps and praying to The Constitution. The panzers are parked and the troops have deployed, taken over the radio and TV stations, the government, and schools.
This means some "radical" political ideas: Address feminism. Address affirmative action. Address drilling for oil and natural gas. Address our foreign aid and defense policy! Address the marriage penalty! Address family court! So-called "child" support enforcement! Welfare reform! H1Bs! Outsourcing! And do it strategically (poll for which of these gets the most voters at any time, implement, and then repeat. That's how the Dems do it!)
CJW| 7.5.12 @ 7:09PM
PK
Care to give us specific plans?
PolishKnight| 7.6.12 @ 9:36AM
Sheesh! How much more specific could I be? Set up polling for the above positions and see which combination of the above works best with both increasing voter turnout for the base (whites, men, married women, middle and working class) while putting the other positions on the backburner or go stealth (implement them because it's what's best for the country and our base but don't bother running on them.) Don't over-rely upon security, national defense, and gay marriage since the public is already well aware of them.
As Yoda says, don't try, DO! This means copying the left in getting things done. Republican presidents should refuse to enforce affirmative action and declare it unconstitutional. Let it go to the courts. Even if the Wise Latina upholds it, it at least makes it a political issue. End the marriage penalty since that will get more money into the hands of Republican voters. There are tons of things the Republicans can do, now, that would both increase and strengthen their base and attract voters from traditionally Democrat demographics without pandering to them.
CJW| 7.6.12 @ 3:22PM
PK
You did not mention one specific concrete law or program.
Presidents do not enforce affirmative action. The courts do, and most companies and colleges do it voluntarily, or for fear of a lawsuit.
As for taxes, the entire IRS should be repealed, with a flat tax or sales tax. Tinkering with "penalties" or credits or deductions gives more power to the government.
PolishKnight| 7.6.12 @ 3:58PM
The notion of trying to go for a so-called flat tax or sales tax is precisely the kind of thing I would not suggest. For starters, whose going to enforce it? Will it be voluntary? Otherwise, you're going to need an IRS and it may even be worse than the current system. It's Obamacare for the right!
Next, regarding presidents not enforcing affirmative action. Note how Obama just effectively granted amnesty to a million illegal immigrants. Or looked the other way at the black panthers voter intimidation case. It's called the EXECUTIVE branch for a reason. Consider your claim of companies doing it for fear of lawsuits. Who files those lawsuits (hint, they live in a white house!)
I mentioned tons of concrete laws or programs: The marriage penalty is piece of the tax code that's far more popular (or unpopular) and feasible than trying to blow away the tax code altogether! Affirmative action is a part of the 1964 civil rights act. So these are concrete policies and laws that are being addressed.
Finally, stop with this anti-government tirade. One reason the left is so powerful is that they seek to make the government into THEIR government. It's about power with them. In a way, it's like a pacifist position: Just because you think guns are bad doesn't mean that your opponent has to agree. Consider Roberts and his crazy tax position. Stop being so literal and looking to win Miss Manners awards. Put up a fight.
CJW| 7.6.12 @ 5:28PM
What are you talking about? Miss Manners? Anti-government tirade? You are not logical.
Discrimination lawsuits are filed by mostly by individuals as well, as the EEOC. They are not filed by the president. You seem to be using affirmative action and discrimination suits as the same. They are not the same.
Affirmative action is a court and government developed doctrine as a remedy for past discrimination, but it is not specifically mandated by the Act .
The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on sex, race, national origin, and other factors, and the Age Discrimination Act prohibits age discriminiation. Most lawsuits are filed by individuals. They are not filed by the president.
Obama granting waivers or amnesty is not affirmative action. Holder not filing suit against the Black Panthers is not affirmative action. This raises the issue of abuse of executive power to enforce laws.
Most states have a sales tax, and there is little problem in enforcing it. Merchants collect and remit to the state.
A flat income tax, like we have in Pa, is collected by filing a tax return, and the dept of revenue (IRS) enforces it. But with a flat tax there is no need for a large intrusive IRS because there are few credits, deductions,and exemptions to review and audit.
You offered one suggestion: the marriage penalty.
You legal info is mostly wrong.
PolishKnight| 7.8.12 @ 8:09PM
Gee, do you think my legal info is mostly wrong? I didn't hear you the first three times! I repeat, the President has a lot of authority in enforcing the laws such as appointments to the EEOC, which side he will argue in discrimination lawsuits (filed by white males) that reach the supreme court, etc. In addition, he can make executive orders that protect the rights of white males and/or can even engage in reverse discrimination of his own that would highlight the issue (how about preferential treatment for men on lifeboats to make up for previous discrimination?) We can quibble over the merit or method to conduct such matters, but they are quite doable.
Regarding the sales and flat tax. Again, you oversimplify the issue. There already are issues with enforcing it such as when companies deal with wholesalers to either resell goods or use them in manufacture of products. Imagine a car company that makes it's own parts competing with one that buys from suppliers. Do they pay the sales tax? And what about tracking all those parts as they move around? Both income and sales are derived values defined by income/losses and what's allowed by the IRS. The only real flat tax is a sales tax and the homeowner/Realtor mafia lobbies want the economy to go to he-double toothpicks before that happens!
Feel free to blow me off. I'm used to it from so-called caring liberals (and Christians).
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.5.12 @ 11:03AM
aNTHONY,
yOU MAY NOT BE FAR OFF BASE.
Folks,
it seems to me that Justice Roberts threw all your bitching back right in your face.
Obamacare is merely a symptom of our own laziness as a people. The govment teat holds the infection, and burning that teat off may be our only salvation.
Storming Wahington is the best option, and burning it down with ballots seems to me to be the most blood-free option.
Youall know this. Why keep chewing on it?
As one of our most articulate commentors here once wrote:
"We have three defenses; the soap-box, the ballot box, and finally the bullet box."
Clear back in 1941 when the Japanese General Staff considered an actual invasion of America, it is reported that the conclusion was that there would be an armed American behind every blade of grass. (ie: no way)
...Same for Russia and China.
Our overinflated "governors in the Senate" have overlooked that simple equation. They have forgotten that five bullets can change the votes in the Senate.
It will be NO fun to be a communist Senator hiding in their offices if this election "goes their way".
They will understand that every blade of grass spells their "retirement" from the Senate.
TLP| 7.5.12 @ 4:32PM
I love ya, Ken, but don't confuse US, with what Roberts did.
This is all about him.
Not us.
Period.
They got to him.
It's just that simple.
cicero| 7.5.12 @ 10:44AM
As I have said before, our court system has done more damage to our culture and our freedoms than any other of our institutions. The court system was supposed to be the weakest of the three branches of government. Marbury v. Madison was a huge mistake that the legislative and executive branches of gov. allowed it to stand. It was a power grab, pure and simple. Now we are stuck with the likes of Sebelius.
Mr. Tyrrell, you are engaging in a bit of sophistry in order to make yourself feel better. Unless the Republicans take power in November, and immediately dismantle Obamacare, and move on to dismantle at least half of the beaurocracy that now exists in Washington, we will go the way of Ming China, Imperial Russia, and formerly free Europe.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.5.12 @ 11:43AM
I agree except for the part about Marbury v. Madison. I do not see how it was a power grab, since Marshall did exactly what he was supposed to do: uphold the Constitution against Congressional agrrandizement. One may disagree with his ruling, but I see nothing "nationalistic" in his ruling; it was a supremely Solomonic decision.
Andrew Keirns| 7.5.12 @ 11:05AM
One thing bugs me greatly: The Chief Justice said it is not his job to save the people from the consequence of their votes. Well, it also isn't his job to make surfboards, or bring me breakfast in bed. It's his job to uphold the Constitution. So we repeat 2010 voting and move ahead; but is it the precedence that we can count on the Court to stay out of the way now when we reduce taxes, repeal regulations, etc? I don't know when they will sit out or when they will stand up; and I thought this was one thing we knew of Roberts.
TLP| 7.5.12 @ 4:36PM
It might be time to visits his HOME, like Hussein's Boys do, when things don't go their way.
Time to remind him that his Shit Stinks, just like the rest of us.
Except me, of course.
PolishKnight| 7.5.12 @ 11:26AM
I have an idea. Let's have a Republican legislature pass a tax on the Supreme Court. Roberts said Congress has an unlimited power to tax, right? OK then, each S.C. justice has to pay a billion dollars a year in taxes or go to jail. Don't have it? Then just don't show up for work. If Roberts won't do his job, then just kick him out, er, "tax" him out.
Robert| 7.5.12 @ 1:58PM
According to Robert's 'reasoning,' he should be taxed if he doesn't show up to work, e.g., for inactivity.
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.5.12 @ 11:42AM
Emmett,
these thoughts are directed straight to you. You wrote an excellent column for this morning. (See my comment above.)
We the people..."behind every blade of grass", are the final guardians of our republic...and we are indeed armed.
We still execute murderers down here in Texas. Perhaps Texans should be quarantined. If some Texan finally decided that a Senator was murdering our republic, well you can imagine.
Communist Senators just might not be able to go out for a drink, or go to a cocktail party if they "win".
No, the communists have gone "a bridge too far".
Many Texans, (and many other Americans) have had enough.
We do truly understand that a "blade of grass" is not very good cover. We also understand the number of fine men who have taken a bullet in the field behind a mere blade of grass defending the American dream.
Sir,
this communist government will not stand!
They will hunker in their offices...to no effect. They will "retire".
This Obamacare is the bridge too far.
Millions of folks behind a blade of grass...will stop this travesty.
We understand that some fifty percent of the American people have been sucked in to the teat at election day.
Five or six bullets will negate all of that.
I know full well that these posts will aim a lot of rifles at my "blade of grass". So be it. A free America is STILL worth dying for.
November will tell the tale. Pray a lot.
RCV| 7.5.12 @ 1:35PM
Ken: You are a very unstable guy. If TAS had any judgment, they would delete your disgraceful call for political assassination from their site. Your remarks are disgusting!
TLP| 7.5.12 @ 4:45PM
I like ya, but you are outta your mind.
Ken is as Rock Solid as they come.
Tyrell is an Establishment Stooge, and Kenny just called him on it.
Don't make me sorry, for treating you like a Freind.
The only thing DISGUSTING about all of this, is the Desecration of our Constituion, by a Man, more concerned about how HE WILL BE SEEN by the MSNBC's of the world, than he is about what the Founders had in mind, when they set up a Form of Government, specifically ste up to RESTRAIN an ALL POWERFUL CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, from ENSLAVING US, ala King George.
What is it about The Founder's Plan, that you don't understand?
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.5.12 @ 5:15PM
RCV,
as I have stated before...you have the legal tango down and the financial ability to insulate yourself from the worst that the communists push down upon us.
Most Americans do not.
I am not inciting assasinations. I am merely reflecting upon the fact that millions of Americans have lost their futures due to corrupt politicians who think they are above the law(s) of physics.
Many of those Americans have told me that they are just going to hold their...breath...until November.
Hells bells...in the summer of 2010 a LOT of congress critters didn't go home to face their constituents.
Sir, they were physically afraid.
Just imagine if the communists take the elections in November.
To a lot of Americans that will be the last straw. The takers will have out-voted the makers and the issue will not be clearer to them than at that point.
Things are going to get truly "unique" at that point.
Sir, the Constitution was and is a social and civil contract with "we the people". Up until now, it has been beaten and abused...but never decked.
If it is finally decked in November...oh my.
A lot of Americans will finally decide that law is just for lawyers and corrupt politicians. What then RCV?
I'm not inciting. I am merely giving a warning.
Of course I understand I may have fed suits at my door for these posts. Thank goodness for the Texas Rangers on my speed dial.
RCV| 7.5.12 @ 6:07PM
Hey TLP, if this is how you treat your friends, I'd hate to see what you do to others!! (I know - you treat them like you and Dr. R treat each other!)
Hope you're Fourth was glorious - yours too Ken.
MK48| 7.5.12 @ 6:37PM
Ken........read your book more people should it might change their mind on the end game.
Do I hear far off the "dead march proliferate" Beethoven's "funeral march".
JohnInFlorida| 7.5.12 @ 11:42AM
Oh my! The pundits just pile the BS higher and higher while we sink lower and lower.
Stock up!
Shoey| 7.5.12 @ 11:46AM
complete and total b.s.
whatis it that these Statists don't understand?
Roberts handed Congress infinite power to compel the behavior of the individual citizen as long as they call the penalty for non-compliance a "tax".
infinite power is infinite power it doesn't matter if it was given under the authority of the Commerce Clause or thur Congressional taxing authority, infinite power was given.
Roberts should resign in shame.
Cobalt| 7.5.12 @ 12:05PM
fox or weasel?
DTOM| 7.5.12 @ 5:47PM
or chicken?
elsdallas| 7.5.12 @ 12:08PM
This is no victory. The federal government has the power to coerce us to do anything with a tax under this decision. The government can levy a 50% tax if we don't do whatever it wants us to do, whether it be buying a product or doing "volunteer work" for a certain person or industry. This decision legalizes slavery in the United States. There is no way to clean this up and claim victory unless you are out right blind! This decision is a gross expansion of federal power without limit.
RJ| 7.5.12 @ 12:10PM
Contrary to the author's statement, the opinion did not place any limits on the interstate commerce clause, because it is dicta; not necessary for the Court's ruling. Roberts' discussion on federal tax authority is undeveloped and in conflict with past legal authority. This opinion will not be remembered as a wise one, but as an embarrassment.
The bottomline on the Roberts decision: the law of the land now stands as the Federal Government having the right to tax anyone for not doing what the Federal Government dictates and for not doing it exactly as the Federal Government prescribes. Such authority is inconsistent with a free society. It is an "Enabling Act" for a dictatorship. Our freedom now rests on the good graces of the "leaders."
Bill84728| 7.5.12 @ 12:25PM
The federal government does not have rights; it has powers. The feds have the power, not the right, to tax anyone for not doing what the federal government dictates.
That power can only be taken away from them by a Constitutional amendment, now that the majority decision of the Affordable Care Act says that Congress can penalize inactivity via the mechanism of a tax under the Constitution.
RJ| 7.5.12 @ 12:30PM
I agree and thanks for the correction. Governments do not have rights; they have power/authority/jurisdiction. It is the reason why I don't use the term "states' rights." There is hope other than a Constitutional amendment. The Supreme Court created this monstrosity; a future court can overrule it.
Bill84728| 7.6.12 @ 9:14AM
The concept of states' rights is interesting; supposedly it comes from the Tenth Amendment, but the Tenth Amendment reads as follows(emphasis added): "The POWERS not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited to it by the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.5.12 @ 1:11PM
An "Enabling Act" for a dictatorship. Chilling words, but an apt description.
wombat1| 7.5.12 @ 12:11PM
Reminds me of the story of two hens lost in a midnight raid on the coop. One was being carried off by a fox, and screamed-" I'm doomed!".
"I'm all right", said the other, from under the arm of a tramp. " He told me if I keep quiet, he'll only eat half of me."
vitaglubet| 7.5.12 @ 12:33PM
My comment was just composed by me and is not spam. Fran Godici (vitaglubet).
vitaglubet| 7.5.12 @ 12:40PM
How does one get accused of sending spam by a 3rd party?
soldiermom11| 7.5.12 @ 12:46PM
I have wondered myself whether Roberts outsmarted all of us. I guess time will tell. See ya in November!
MrsduToit| 7.5.12 @ 12:51PM
The Congress was given the LIMITED not GENERAL authority to tax -- NOT taxing authority for every damn thing it pleases. It was granted taxing authority for those things specifically authorized in Article I, Section 8 and nothing more. If it isn't listed there, they can't tax us for it.
Obviously we can "throw the bums out," we've always had that option... DUH! We'd HOPED we had the Supreme Court as a last resort to force limitations on the Congress to the Constitution TOO. All three branches of government were supposed to be failsafes of Constitutional protections, and with Obamacare, all 3 failed.
If Congress passes a bill that says that each household has to hire an undocumented worker or pay a tax, that too could be argued the same way as "Congress can levy a tax for whatever it wishes" as Roberts used in this case, but Congress may ONLY levy a tax if the specific purpose of the tax is authorized in the Constitution, NOT levy taxes for anything it wishes. We're protected from these things by the 9th and 10th Amendments. If it isn't SPECIFICALLY authorized in the Constitution then We The People haven't given our permission. The fact that Roberts glossed over this means he's either evil or stupid.
Skeeboyd| 7.5.12 @ 12:57PM
I hope that Mr. Tyrrell is correct in his analysis of the Chief Justice's opinion and motivations--I fear he is not. What I found curious though was his suggestion that if elected, Mr. Romney can "refuse to enforce the tax by executive order." No matter how loathsome the mandate/tax/penalty is, it is the law of the land. Conservatives justifiably condemn Barack Obama for refusing to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act, or our immigration laws. Does our end justify using Obama's means?
VincentMVNY | 7.5.12 @ 12:58PM
Tyrell describes Marbury as a "Federalist and at the same time being a believer in a strong federal government". I may be wrong but aren't they mutually exclusive?
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.5.12 @ 1:17PM
At that time, federalists and Jeffersonians were divided by their view of France. These were not the federalists of the Constitutional ratification process, but rather supporters of John Adams.
Marshall was a "nationalist" but he also believed in Constitutional restraint.
RCV| 7.5.12 @ 1:36PM
No, Tyrell is right. The Federalist favored a stronger central government than the antifederalists or the Jeffersonians.
Ford Prefect| 7.5.12 @ 1:06PM
Mr. Tyrrell, I'm a long-time reader and fan of yours and AmSpec. However, I must completely disagree with your assessment.
You would be mostly correct if the court HAD curtailed the exploitation of the Commerce Clause as you have described. However, the court DID NO SUCH THING!
It was Robert's personal opinion (dicta) that the law was unconstitutional based on the Commerce Clause but that was not the Court's ruling. Whether Robert's mentions the Commerce Clause or not has no bearing on future decisions. It's not like a future SCOTUS will be limited based upon this one personal opinion.
If Roberts is "crafty" it's because he put this non-binding personal opinion into the court's majority opinion making people think that the court ruled on the constitutionality of ObamaCare vis a vis the Commerce Clause.
Too many conservatives are falling for this trick and they need to wise up. The law is unconstitutional no matter how you look at it but the majority did not rule it so based upon the Commerce Clause.
JD| 7.5.12 @ 7:53PM
Exactly. Even if this court HAD established a limit to the Commerce Clause, a future court could easily disregard it in the same way so many other limits on federal power have been disregarded in the past. This is the judicial equivalent of spending more now in exchange for a promise to spend less in the future. The promise isn't worth the paper it's written on, and everyone knows it.
Scotty| 7.5.12 @ 1:12PM
For all of you who believe the nation is coming to an end because the gov't has the power to tax you for "inaction".....my question is, why do you think this is new?
The gov't has been using the tax code for generations to shape individual behavior to what they believe to be correct. I never hear people complaining about gov't over-reach when discussing the mortgage interest deduction, or tax credits for natural gas exploration, fuel efficient vehicles, enery efficient windows or anything else.
You may argue that because this is a penalty or tax for doing nothing, which makes it different...but from an economists perspective you are wrong. If you don't buy a house, you are doing nothing, and thereby pay a higher tax rate than another individual that makes your identical income. If you don't buy an electric car, you pay higher taxes than your neighbor who got a $5k credit. The wording the gov't has used to defend this policy may make it sound different, but really nothing has changed.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.5.12 @ 1:20PM
Because Congress has taxing authority. Obamacare would never have gone to the Supreme Court if Congress had used a tax rather than a penalty. It was precisely because they did not impose a tax that it went to the Supreme Court.
JD| 7.5.12 @ 7:55PM
Scotty is exactly right. I made this argument in months past when asked about the ObamaCare case, and other conservatives didn't believe me, but it's true. The only new thing here is that this travesty is being abused to a much larger degree.
NoBlahBlah| 7.5.12 @ 1:23PM
'Should imprudent or corrupt men ever fill the Supreme Court however, the confederation would have to fear anarchy or civil war.' Alexis de Tocqueville, 1835.
So 'justice' roberts is a fox? So it is considered 'cunning' to mimic the behavior of the 4 'justices' that have shamed their Oath of Office by regarding their own agendas above the Rule of Law?
That is 'cunning?'
Sounds more like politics to me, and no offense RET, but instead of strengthening the SCOTUS, he has made it superfluous.
Since WHEN has any Article of the Constitution inhibited the progressive socialists before in their drive to weaken and dismantle the Constitution?
Apparently you and your lauded 'expert' believe that NOW the progressives will play by the Rules.
I wouldn't call that cunning, I would call it naive.
g1234| 7.5.12 @ 1:29PM
Chief Justice Marshall acted as a judicial activist in Marbury v. Madison. There are zero words in the Constitution that says the Court can rule that a law passed by Congress and signed by the President is unconstitutional. Marshall made it up.
Chief Justice Roberts' "It's a tax" was scorched by the dissenters "It's not a tax." Roberts, like Marshall, had something "bigger" in mind. I have no clue what the "bigger" is, but the difference between Marshall and Roberts is that Marshall got everyone of his colleagues to buy what he made up.
Roberts' concurrence writers basically said, "Any port in a storm, but the Commerce Clause is the true way." And the dissenters of course agreed neither with the reasoning or the outcome.
Not one of his colleagues supported him fully.
RCV| 7.5.12 @ 1:40PM
Nonsense. It is precisely what the independent judiciary was instituted for in the Constitution. As Hamilton wrote in the Federalist #78:
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents."
Doctor Right| 7.5.12 @ 1:59PM
Is this a joke?
WallyG| 7.5.12 @ 2:50PM
It's ineresting that now more leaks indicate that Roberts wrote both opinions for the majority and the dissenting judges. My question is, why was it neccessary to be foxy when the law was clear and should have been invalidated?
daryn| 7.5.12 @ 3:18PM
It doesn't matter how "foxy" Chief Justice Roberts was. He didn't do his job. His job was to uphold the Constitution. The healthcare bill is unconstitutional. It gives the government unlimited power over a significant part of our lives. It violates our fundamental rights. If we are unable to repeal it, America is finished. We will be a nation of dependents. You see what has happened with the other entitlement programs. They also are unconstitutional and people will not give them up. There is no way to justify this decision.
ChrisChris| 7.5.12 @ 3:50PM
Actually, "constitutional" is determined by how the majority of supreme court justices interpret the constitution, not by how daryn interprets the constitution. You can say the ACA is evil, wrong, socialist, etc, but as of last Thursday, it's officially constitutional.
Ron Ackenberry| 7.5.12 @ 3:34PM
Yes, indeed.
The Roberts decision was a great victory for the conservative cause.
May there be many, ...many...more!
ChrisChris| 7.5.12 @ 3:45PM
"Our recourse against this tax is the same recourse we have been employing since 2009, to wit, mobilizing and going to the polls."
Your other potential recourse to this tax is to obtain health insurance if you can afford it, rather than expecting the medical system and tax payers to pick up the tab when you end up in the ER without insurance.
If you happen to have health insurance (which you obviously do, Emmett), this "tax" doesn't apply to you, only to the freeloaders who could afford insurance and choose not to. It's either they pay or we pay for them, Emmett. Ever since this health care stuff got all crazy and political, I've become a better conservative than conservatives (who inexplicably took this law to the supreme court to try to keep people from taking responsibility for their inevitable medical expenses).
Who Knows?| 7.5.12 @ 3:49PM
Here's my comment to American Spectator June 28th---
Roberts is wise like a fox.
Remember when Mondale said he would raise taxes, in that debate with Reagan?
It sealed his fate.
I think Roberts WANTED to “call it like it is”, that is, do congress’s dirty work, and admit that they---the Democrats and Obama---WANTED to call it a tax, but were afraid to.
From now until November, we now have it on good authority, the SCOTUS, that Obama and the liberal Democrats are the TAXMAN.
Finally, some total clarity!
If the vast majority of American voters don’t throw out Obama, knowing this, well, they are beyond saving, and deserve the horrible malaise to come.
I’m cautiously optimistic, and think the shock of this TAXMAN cometh decision should lead Romney to a landslide victory.
Yes, Roberts essentially got revenge on Obama, IMHO, and The One has no clothes, from now on.
Abu Nudnik| 7.6.12 @ 12:03PM
They *did* want to and the bill that originated in the House did call it a tax. It was defeated in the Senate in part because it would require the redefinition of a tax. (see Peter McGrath above).
So the Senate worked on its bill. It cannot originate spending bills so it's a penalty. That's another reason Roberts is wrong, dead wrong on a point of law itself.
A landslide victory? You do not know the so-called liberal pod-heads. One in my family prated on about the "greater good." Needless to say, I can't find the "Greater Good Clause" in the Constitution.
I disagree with both you and Tyrrell. It is not justified by the Commerce Clause nor the the Necessary and Proper Clause. It is NOT a tax but a penalty.
Possibly the decision will motivate conservatives. Possibly it will result in a change at the top. Possibly. But then possibly not and the Court will have polluted itself by delivering a Humpty-Dumpty reading. "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less... The question is,... which is to be master — that's all.'
Petronius| 7.5.12 @ 4:04PM
The only thing remaining of the Real United States is the name. Roberts just re-elected Obama dictator for life. It's to late for any revolt because 3 of 4 people living here are overgrown infants who want the government to be mommy.
RCV| 7.6.12 @ 6:48PM
Petronius: Why don't you just move somewhere else and spare the rest of us your constant whining about how bad our country is?
Cobalt| 7.5.12 @ 4:52PM
Roberts erred on the side of tyranny.
Of course, in an oligarchy, Roberts will never have to associate with the proletiarians, nor will he ever be inconvenienced with their standard of living.
Faithwalk| 7.5.12 @ 5:13PM
Roberts did not do his job of upholding the Constitution.
Government is not doing its job anymore and our checks and balances are not working. The Supreme Court was created as an equal power to the other branches but Roberts is not acting like it is one. There can be no doubt that he caved after the threats of President Obama to the court.
The editor blasts the convoluted reasoning of the "legal sages" yet does the same. And he ignores the opinions of the other conservative judges and Kennedy which differ from that of Roberts. The Constitution was never ever meant to be this complicated.
Cobalt| 7.5.12 @ 5:18PM
"proletarians"
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.5.12 @ 5:29PM
Folks,
don't be mistaken. RCV is merely another "smooth talker" for the statists, (communists).
He wants us all to merely lay down and take tyranny in sips....until we are helpless.
As for me, if I no longer have freedom of opinion... screw 'em. I have made myself heard before I am disappeared.
Thanks, TAS
Chernove Law| 7.5.12 @ 6:17PM
Roberts did not limit the current Commerce Clause theories used to push federal government power beyond Constitutional limits. Roberts honored Wickard which allows federal regulation of purely local action under the Commerce Clause. Roberts says he would not extend Wickard, which is like saying he would not allow people to fly past the end of the universe. Second, one cannot justify taxing a failure to do something when, under this decision, Congress cannot regulate a failure to act? Conservatives want to hang Obama with the "tax" mantle. Anyone who argues that it is a tax when someone has to pay to the government every time someone chooses not to do something is engaging in sophistry. Congress called the payment a penalty. How can Roberts' ignore that? If one follows Roberts' logic, it is clear that Roberts created another vehicle for Congress to evade Constitutional limits its power. Congress is now authorized to tax us for not acting. Finally, Roberts did not return this for "another round of the democratic process." Some may have called overturning of the law judicial activism. It would have been the opposite of the type of judicial activism we have experienced since the overturning of Lochner. It would have been the type of activism that returned a balance among the 3 branches of government, and restored a belief in the concept of limited government. The Roberts' decision is a gross failure on all accounts.
3264grad| 7.5.12 @ 6:47PM
Obviously you are correct concerning the commerece clause. With the new defination of what consitutes a "tax" the commerce clasue becomes irrevalent in my opinion. If the gov't can "taxes" you into doing something or not doing something why is it important. With that definition American is closer to a dicatorship that a Republic.
JD| 7.5.12 @ 7:56PM
Even if this court HAD established a limit to the Commerce Clause, a future court could easily disregard it in the same way so many other limits on federal power have been disregarded in the past. This is the judicial equivalent of spending more now in exchange for a promise to spend less in the future. The promise isn't worth the paper it's written on, and everyone knows it.
Oldefarte| 7.5.12 @ 9:13PM
IMHO, this SCOYUS opinion did not matter so much one way or the other. The origin of this problem began with 11/4/08, and the taxpayer-voters clearly dropped the ball in allowing this president to become elected. They are/were acting/voting STUPIDLY. This one event allowed the nomination and confirmation of two ultra liberal SCOTUS judges also [again, the STUPIDITY of the taxpayer-voters]. Then this POTUS along with his Democrat controlled congress ramrod through congress this legislation of governmental welfare, health insurance wise that is of consternation now. It seem to me ludicrous for these taxpayer-voters to now blame a SCOTUS justice for what is and should be their individual and collective mistake of 11/4/08. STUPID IS AS STUPID DOES! In conclusion, the one/only solution as always is to correct the original mistake by these taxpayer-voters and they will get their opportunity to do so on 11/6/12. Hopefully they will act UNSTUPIDILY at that time!!!!!
SSG Baker| 7.6.12 @ 9:40AM
You the funny thing reading all of this, I am reminded of Starship Troopers. I am really starting to think that there was a point to the Citizenship through service motif in the book/movie. If you do not love the Country enough to defend it, then why the hell are you allowed to have a choice in how it is run. Maybe instead of a voter ID law, we need a voter intelligence test. Have each voter take a test in American History/Government (in English) and if you don't pass, you don't vote.
As for some of the people here calling for a war. Have you ever seen the dead after a fight? You do realize a war here again would not be like the Civil War, it would be a guerilla war like in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Abu Nudnik| 7.6.12 @ 11:52AM
Wow! All you guys read Tyrrell and praise him until he writes one article that anyone can see is a kind of poultice for a shocked and battered soul.
So he sees a silver lining, so what? Give the man a break. He does more good than all you pajama-wearing typists combined.
That said, spending bills must originate from the House, not the Senate. So a penalty can not be a tax (yes, I agree with most of you). Roberts also said that a tax can not come to court BEFORE it is collected. That means the states and various others can bring this to trial once more AFTER the tax is applied.
Yup, that's another silver lining.
PhillyGuard| 7.7.12 @ 2:50PM
I think the victory on the Commerce Cause may only prove to be a temporary ceasefire (and because of the unusual arrangement of justices' opinions there's some question as to whether it carries the strength of a precedent). Meanwhile, an entirely new means of government intrusion has been created. This decision takes its place next to Wickard v Filburn in the SCOTUS Hall of Shame: http://libertymcg.com/2012/07/.....companion/
rocky01| 7.7.12 @ 7:14PM
Unequivocal denial for which this reader is wondering aloud why so many are afflicted.
axbucxdu| 7.8.12 @ 8:55PM
Because as the grim fiscal mathematics grinds on, they (your afflicted) have no choice but to suspend their disbelief.
On another note, I'm beginning to think that we should applaud the progs' efforts here. Their continued agitation for these bankrupt out-of-the-box programs can only accelerate the financial collapse of the very same bloated government that they so adore. Just don't get fragged when disbelief can no longer be suspended.