The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

Roberts Wrecks America

By on 6.28.12 @ 10:14AM

Early reporting is that Chief Justice John Roberts sided with the Supreme Court’s liberals to uphold Obamacare almost in its entirety.

The mandate was upheld as a tax, even though if it were only being looked at as a Commerce Clause question, it would have been found unconstitional 5-4.

There is a narrow ruling regarding Medicare, but the important parts of the Act, including the mandate are upheld.

This is nothing short of a disaster for the nation, and a huge black mark on John Roberts’ legacy.

In reading from his dissent, Justice Kennedy said “In our view, the entire Act before us is invalid in its entirety.”

In speaking with others, I noted that Roberts was the Court member who worried me most; more than Kennedy. Still, I am fairly stunned by this outcome and can’t help but feel that the soul of our nation has just been lost.

Politically, this is probably a modest win for Barack Obama, though it will also motivate a certain sector of the electorate (including most readers of these pages) to work hard to defeat Obama and get Republican control of the US Senate.

As for Republicans, they need to keep saying “tax.” Obama can no longer claim to have cut taxes without being laughed off the stage, as this will probably represent the largest tax imposition in modern American history.

Early stock market reaction to the ruling is very negative, with the market having dropped from being down just over half a percent to being down about 1.25 percent. I don’t blame them, but to me the loss here is far more than financial, though it is certainly that as Obamacare will do to the US what similar plans have done to Greece.

View all comments (47) |

rightasrain| 6.28.12 @ 10:20AM

As much as it pains me to say this, I think it is a huge win for Obama. Let's also hope it's a huge motivator for the right.

Occam's Tool| 6.28.12 @ 10:23AM

Concur. He has sided with evil and destroyed all we hold dear. I certainly hope his relatives are put in the longest wait lines of all, and may the Death Panels reap his family.

As I have stated before, attorneys are vermin and scum.

Howevere, to those on the sidelines who don't want to vote for Romney---folks, the next Prezzy is going to be able to put in two or 3 Young Justices if he's a Democrat. You think if Obama is re-elected that Ginsberg and Breyer won't step down to be replaced by 50 year old wise Latinas?

By the way, kudos to the prescience of Professor Tribe. When it comes to understanding the mind set of low life treasonous scum sucking dirtballs, he's an expert. May you burn in Hell in the afterlife, Justice Roberts.

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.28.12 @ 10:31AM

This is the Dred Scott decision of the 21st century.

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.28.12 @ 10:45AM

BTW, even though I hate Romney, this traitorous Supreme Court has just ensured that I will vote for him.

Ryan| 6.28.12 @ 10:32AM

America is not dead.

We live, we vote, we worship, we post.

And God is still in control. He was not surprised.

Ryan| 6.28.12 @ 10:32AM

America is not dead.

We live, we vote, we worship, we post.

And God is still in control. He was not surprised.

DTOM| 6.28.12 @ 10:34AM

Now will you fence sitters, you faint-hearted, I don't like Romney, weak-kneed Americans get off your asses and do something about Obama? Your options are now down to these: defeat Obama or it's the death panel for you - sooner or later, but you'll never dodge it - unless they take you out directly!

Do you need a freakin' diagram?

JP| 6.28.12 @ 10:46AM

The problem is we are stuck with him. Any suggestions?

JmsA| 6.28.12 @ 10:48AM

Hear! Hear!

Jack of Spades| 6.28.12 @ 11:31AM

Sure, plenty of us will vote for Romney, under the Anybody but Obama rule, but Romney now has to explain to the great Center why Obamacare is bad but Romneycare was good. And we know the Mainstream Media will make darn sure he gets a fair hearing.

Any thoughts on his possible strategies?

BTW, the lesson is that conservatives can't rely on the Supreme Court to do the work the GOP didn't.

JP| 6.28.12 @ 10:38AM

I never thought this type of ruling would be a disaster. After-all, the issue at hand should be dealt with through the politica branches and not the courts. But, the long term damage is the precedent it sets. No matter how Roberts worded his opinion, Congress now has the power to do about anything. That is the long term damage he did.

It is now up to the GOP. And that fills me with dread. How many Senators and Reps will cave?

wally| 6.28.12 @ 10:38AM

Shed a tear for the passing of America.

Spineless bastard Roberts....

C. Vernon Crisler | 6.28.12 @ 10:46AM

He needs to be impeached.....and thrown in jail.

Conservative Bob| 6.28.12 @ 10:39AM

I was born in the greatest country the world has ever known, the United States of America.
I will die in the newest extension of Western Europe the Socialist States of America.
How can we face our grand children, we have squandered their birthright and they will not know the liberty we so frivolously cast aside and will saddle them with an enslaving insurmountable debt.
They should rue the day that we were born; our self absorbed generation has selfishly wasted all that was precious and left them the bill.

Crassus| 6.28.12 @ 10:39AM

Thanks a lot, Dubya. Your daddy gave us Souter now you double down and give us Roberts. Thanks a lot!

Grzmlyk| 6.28.12 @ 10:42AM

Gee, where is Emmett Tyrell to tell us how this proves that liberalism is dead in this country?

From where I'm sitting, Emmett, old buddy old pal, Roberts has just taken several strides TO THE LEFT. Think he'll veer back to the right? Did Breyer?

Emmett, old buddy, old pal, we are now a socialist/fascist dictatorship. And such entities NEVER pull back and turn right - they ALWAYS go over the cliff, which is exactly where we are headed.

Even were Romney to be elected next year - a dubious prospect - do you think he'd have the political courage to do what needs to be done in order to save this country? Not a chance. And even if he did, Americans would petulantly rejected him for a pabulum-spewing liberal in 2016 - just as France rejected the mild reforms Sarkozy proposed in favor of a Mitterand-style leftist.

America, RIP. Emmett, old buddy, old pal, you are a bloody fool.

Grzmlyk| 6.28.12 @ 10:43AM

OOPS - I meant Souter!

aware| 6.28.12 @ 10:44AM

For those like Occam above who grab the perennial consolation prize of saying this makes it imperative to vote for Romney, just a simple question: Roberts is your guy, appointed by a "conservative" president not too different from Romney, so even if it makes you feel like you are "doing something", what is the ultimate point if you end up with this?

No offense, just asking.

Mike G| 6.28.12 @ 2:33PM

I agree, what is the point? Romney is a liberal just like the Bushes.
I will admit to voting for the first Bush, but I really didn't realize he was a liberal. I haven't voted for a liberal since then though. Voting for a liberal doesn't change the direction of the country, it merely slows the approach to the cliff. A vote for Romney will not lead to a repeal of Obamacare, and anyone who thinks it will is deluded.

ejp| 6.28.12 @ 10:46AM

Once again, this nation is ruined thanks to the rank incompetence of a GOP administration's Supreme Court appointments. Eisenhower giving us Brennan and Warren somehow wasn't enough. Nixon giving us Harry Blackmun wasn't enough. Bush I giving us David Souter wasn't enough. Now we have to see our very freedom as a nation destroyed for all time thanks to John Roberts.

And meanwhile of course, Democrat appointments always remember to goosestep in lock-solid solidarity with their ideological reasonings. Not since Byron White has there been a Democrat appointment to the Court who moved in the other direction.

And if anyone thinks that GOP members of Congress will have the guts to undo the damage of this ruling even when they have the power to do so---they won't. And now all of a sudden, with this back on the books, Mitt Romney's defects as the nominee with his Romneycare strategy just got highlighted again.

M_Hallisey| 6.28.12 @ 10:49AM

Sorry to be a dissenter, but I see Roberts' decision as correct. "Correct" in that SCOTUS did NOT exceed its bounds and that should make conservatives very happy. Roberts did NOT do what conservatives have long hated about liberal judges - that is, legislate from the bench. Instead, Roberts only said the ACA can be upheld as a tax and as Congress has that power to tax the ACA is constitutional. SCOTUS puts the issue squarely back where it belongs - Congress. Now it is up to the electorate (either pro-ACA or anti-) to vote to elect a Congress that either repeals or upholds ACA. As for me, I will vote for candidates who will repeal the ACA. To me, this decision is not a strategic defeat, merely a tactical one. So let's get out the vote this November in order to vote out Obama and his Democratic Party allies in Congress. Simple as that.

mike 3/505| 6.28.12 @ 11:28AM

"Roberts only said the ACA can be upheld as a tax and as Congress has that power to tax the ACA is constitutional."

I hear this "power to tax" all the time. The Constitution does not make that per an unlimited one. The power to tax is only for necessary and PROPER (Proper, being Constitutional) Congress has NO power to tax for unconstitutional purposes. "Taxing" someone for failure for refusing to enter a marketplace, is not a constitutional use of Congress"s power.

Ryan| 6.28.12 @ 11:28AM

Roberts has okay reasoning, but I still think that the whole thing was unconstitutional as the minority holds it.

It could have been a LOT worse, and Roberts isn't worth throwing under the bus. Heller, anyone?

JP| 6.28.12 @ 10:50AM

"As for Republicans, they need to keep saying "tax." Obama can no longer claim to have cut taxes without being laughed off the stage, as this will probably represent the largest tax imposition in modern American history."

Perhaps the Romney Team will take your advice and tell all Americans that Obama just passed the largest tax hike in history.

DRed| 6.28.12 @ 10:51AM

Oh, settle down

Couch| 6.28.12 @ 10:52AM

"I am fairly stunned by this outcome and can't help but feel that the soul of our nation has just been lost."

Roberts agreed with a plan that came out of the Heritage Foundation.

/some perspective please.

ejp| 6.28.12 @ 10:52AM

What a crock! Obamacare was specifically sold to the nation NOT as a tax so where was the regard for "original intent" of the law that conservatives are supposed to hold in high regard? Spinning this decision as "correct" is laughable. GOP congresses never do anything when they have power because you can always count on some of the squish-head moderates to throw everything out of whack and prevent solid ideas from being accomplished.

RJ| 6.28.12 @ 10:53AM

More evidence that the Supreme Court is full of surprises. Please note that if Roberts was not in the majority, the vote would have been 5-4 in favor of upholding ObamaCare and a broader, more supportive opinion was likely have been written by another justice, probably Breyer. Of course, that is little consolation now.

Politically, Obama can no longer run against the Court and the Republicans have ObamaCare as an issue, which will threaten many vulnerable Democrats. It is up to us citizens to deal with bad legislation. The Constitution is not self-enforcing. It is a standard in which citizens can judge the actions of the Federal government. Once the Federal government has over-stepped its authority, it is up to the citizenry to take remedial action against the violators using the electoral process.

RJ| 6.28.12 @ 11:00AM

I was wrong. I saw Drudge stating a 6-3 ruling, but later reports say the vote was 5-4. It just adds to the disappointment.

solidground| 6.28.12 @ 10:53AM

SCOTUS may have ruled Obamacare Constitutional, but that does not change the fact that it is a financial, policy and healthcare disaster of the first magnitude. We lost this battle, but we can still win the war: Congressional repeal. I know, it's a long shot. But then, so was the Declaration of Independence.

RCV| 6.28.12 @ 10:58AM

What a bunch of drama queens! So Chief Justice Roberts takes his job seriously and understands that he's not there to decide what's good public policy, only what is and is not constitutional when it comes to passing on legislative acts. The constitution lives, and kudos to our Supreme Court.

JP| 6.28.12 @ 11:12AM

I agree. And it should be noted that Roberts just signed the end of the Obama Administration. The worst thing that could have occured for Mitt is for the courts to strike the IM. It would have taken the burden off Obama's shoulders. Now the President and his party must explain to voters why they passed the largest tax in history. At a time when 58% of the voters want ObamaCare repealed, this is the worst thing that could have happened for the President and Harry Reid. See you at the polls.

DRed| 6.28.12 @ 11:29AM

You mean a law that can be overturned hasn't destroyed the soul of America?

Hardcard| 6.28.12 @ 11:03AM

THE END !!!!

squalis| 6.28.12 @ 11:05AM

First Barry, now Roberts. The legacy of GWB is now sealed.

Derek Leaberry| 6.28.12 @ 11:09AM

The fiascos in Iraq and Afghanistan indirectly led to a President Obama and his health care. I hope those who supported Bush's Middle East misadventures think hard about how the Obama health care revolution sprang from the loins of the failings of neo-conservative foreign policy.

Blame George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Bill Kristol and the rest of the neo-conservative apparatus for today's disastrous ruling.

SteelerJim| 6.28.12 @ 11:14AM

If the Supreme Court can rule that slaughtering a baby in his mother's womb is a constitutional right, then anything is possible. America get ready. God have mercy on us!

JP| 6.28.12 @ 11:16AM

No one could have guessed that Roberts would have joined the liberals on the court. Looking at past rulings, Roberts pretty much sided with the conservative block in almost all big cases. I was expecting Kennedy to go over. What is interesting is why Kennedy didn't go over. He certainly had the political cover to do so when Roberts joined the liberals on the court. And in the end, we are stuck with another 5-4 decision. I wonder how many liberal bedwetters are now decrying another "split" decision?(crickets chirp).

tonypal| 6.28.12 @ 11:40AM

Wow! All you guys are missing the point here. I don't know how many of you have actually read Robert's opinion, but give it a go.

Roberts explicitly rejected both the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause arguments, construing the mandate as a legitimate taxing power of the state. In no way did he state Congress has plenary power to lord over the individual decision making process.

John Roberts didn't have some sort of overnight conversion to the concept of the "living Constitution." In fact, when everyone here calms down, I think most of you will come to have a deep respect for the man's shrewdness.

The fact of the matter is that the thing we most feared, an expansion of the scope and power of Congress to regulate our lives, was not expanded. We can all quibble with Robert's decision to go beyond the original scope of Obama's argument, that the mandate isn't a tax. So be it.

I believe today's ruling will be an enormous boost to the political prospects of conservatism. Although none of us believe Romney is a right winger, he and every other republican have just been handed a huge platform for this November. Even the people on this site who are cursing out the Chief Justice and have previously indicated a dislike of Romney have declared they will hold their noses and vote for our nominee simply to ensure the defeat of Obama. John Roberts is a shrewd and clever man.

Derek Leaberry| 6.28.12 @ 12:00PM

Very interesting comment. I agree with very much of what you write.

Question- If Roberts has supported the mandate by calling it a tax but has refused to expand the Commerce Clause, has the liberal four on the Court concurred with Roberts entirely or only narrowly?

R. Dittmar| 6.28.12 @ 12:30PM

So the Constitution says that the Feds can't force you to quarter soldiers in your home, but Congess decides that if you refuse to quarter soldiers then you will pay a fine. Not to give Barry any ideas, but apparently that's all AOK in Roberts-land.

Mike G| 6.28.12 @ 2:47PM

How long before congress also passes a fine-tax (say $1,000 per gun per year)on all guns because we refuse to turn them in? Yes, we have a right to own guns, but there doesn't appear to be anything to prevent a fine-tax for owning one. On the other hand, they could pass a fine-tax for not owning a gun. Nah--that might influence people to overthrow an out-of-control government.

Bob S| 6.28.12 @ 5:09PM

What matters most is that the media and the White House can spin this into a victory for Obama and Obamacare. Obama has already shown he has little respect for the Supreme Court. When the Supreme Court rejected Obama's objections to Arizona's immigration law, he decided he just won't enforce federal immigration law. No matter what Roberts writes to limit the power of Congress and the President to tax people with Obamacare, Obama will still point to this decision to give his unilateral power over health care legitimacy.

I do have to agree though that this also gives conservatives a rallying cry to vote against Obama. As they say, the enemy of my enemy is my friend.

rightasrain| 6.28.12 @ 5:30PM

It really makes no difference whether our freedom is eroded via the Commerce Clause or the taxing powers. Justice Roberts has seen to it that the feint of using the Commerce Clause isn't even necessary anymore. Just call it a tax and call it a day.

Peppermint Tea | 6.28.12 @ 1:49PM

They can pass it (by bending the rules). They can find out what is says (No religious or individual freedom). They can get SCOTUS to validate it (the dread pirate Roberts).
But who will pay for it? It will bankrupt the US(S)A within 4 years.

Bob S| 6.28.12 @ 5:05PM

Roberts is as conservative as Bush, that is, not at all.

More Blog Posts by Ross Kaminsky

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/06/28/roberts-wrecks-america

ADVERTISEMENT

The Spectacle Blog

I Agree With Andy McCarthy: No Special Counsel

Ross Kaminsky | 9:16AM

Sorry, You Can’t Delegate Responsibility

Ray V. Hartwell, III | 9:10AM

Issa Recovers

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

The Religion of Peace Strikes London Again

Aaron Goldstein | 5.22.13

Not Just the Media: First Amendment Under Attack

Quin Hillyer | 5.22.13

House Judiciary: Constitutional Rights Vital in Wartime

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

U.S. Admits 4 Americans Killed by Drones

Luca Gattoni-Celli | 5.22.13

Colorado Governor Gives “Reprieve” to Murderer

Ross Kaminsky | 5.22.13

Latest Headlines

The Inoperative Jay Carney

Jeffrey Lord|31 comments

Lerner’s Plea

Ray V. Hartwell, III|28 comments

Eugenic Abortion 2.0

Daniel Allott|14 comments

Holding AWOL Obama Accountable

Betsy McCaughey|10 comments

What Are the Risks of Syria Involvement?

Christopher Orlet|8 comments

Obama’s Imbroglios

R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr.|18 comments

Obama’s Drone War

Jed Babbin|7 comments

Catholic Culture In America

G. Tracy Mehan, III|6 comments

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT

Home |About |Contributors |Advertise |Donate |Privacy Policy |Contact

The American Spectator Foundation is the 501(c)(3) organization responsible for publishing The American Spectator magazine and training aspiring journalists who espouse traditional American values. Your contributions are tax deductible to the extent permitted by law. Each donor receives a year-end summary of their giving for tax purposes.

Copyright 2013, The American Spectator. All rights reserved.