-
Peter Wehner Responds
June 19, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Cummings Accused of Subverting IRS Investigation
June 19, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Gerson, Wehner, and the Losing Old Ways Crowd
June 18, 2013 | 18 comments
-
Hannity: Secure the Border First
June 17, 2013 | 6 comments
-
Charles Krauthammer and The Limbaugh Theorem
June 14, 2013 | 27 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Mark Levin is uniquely situated to analyze what happened with Chief Justice John Roberts yesterday.
The Landmark Legal Foundation, which Levin heads, filed an amicus brief on ObamaCare.
Last night on his radio show (audio here) Levin walked his listeners through a devastating legal takedown of Roberts.
One can only be speechless at Roberts’ action.
In August 2005, I was one of a number of people asked to go around the country in the run-up to Roberts’ confirmation hearings as an Associate Justice. The task: sell John Roberts in media appearances in states with undecided senators. Roberts, recall, was first nominated to replace Sandra Day O’Connor. It wasn’t until after the death of Chief Justice Rehnquist in September that Roberts’ nomination was changed by President Bush to Chief Justice, with (eventually) Sam Alito getting the nod for the O’Connor seat.
For two weeks between August 16 and August 31 a group of Roberts surrogates spread out across the country to brief on John Roberts. All had either some connection professionally and personally to Roberts, or, as with myself, had been extensively involved in judicial nomination fights.
In addition to myself, they were, by name:
John Smietanka
Victoria Toensing
Adam Charnes
Barbara Comstock
Rob Knauss
George Soule
Ben Ginsberg
David Leitch
Wendy Long
Dean Colson
Peter Rusthoven
H.P.Goldfield
Judy Hope
Greg Garre
It would be interesting to get their thoughts on John Roberts today.
I was paired with Rob Knauss on a trip to Fargo, North Dakota. Rob, now a Los Angeles attorney, is a close friend of John Roberts, both fellow law clerks for Chief Justice Rehnquist.
If there was one thing I heard over and over it was what a great conservative John Roberts was. What a smart lawyer. And so, with tremendous support from conservatives, John Roberts was bumped up from being a nominee for Associate Justice to being Chief. And he was confirmed.
You know what made me uncomfortable with John Roberts later? The business with the swearing-in of President Obama.
How hard was that to do? One has a 3 X 5 card in one’s hand with the oath written in plain English and reads it, with appropriate pauses for the oath-taker to respond. Easy, yes?
No. Not for John Roberts. Why? Apparently he was so enamored with his own memory that he stood up there — with literally the world looking on — and screwed up the presidential oath. Embarrassingly, to be on the safe side, Roberts had to go to the White House and repeat the ceremony in private. What this said to me was that there was a touch of hubris here, or maybe it was pride. In any event, what has been a simple tradition since 1789 was screwed up for the first time for no other reason than that John Roberts refused to hold a simple 3x5 card in his hand.
What Roberts did yesterday was not the work of a smart lawyer, as a genuinely smart lawyer (Levin) demonstrates in detail.
What Roberts did do was try and be something he was never supposed to be — a politician. And in the doing of it he embarrassed not only himself but the Supreme Court.
Brent Bozell has said that Roberts’ reputation will never be rehabilitated after this.
He’s right.
And as Mark Levin notes — Justices Thomas, Kennedy, Scalia and Alito — did a superb job.
In the fallout over this, it seems instantly clear that John Roberts has elected Mitt Romney. The rebellion launched yesterday will have long lasting effects, and electing Romney is clearly going to be one of the, but not the only one. There are races for House and Senate all over this country that will now get a fresh infusion of cash and energy from angry conservatives. In fact, Romney’s campaign says that once the understanding was out there of what Roberts had done, the Romney campaign had donations of four million dollars before the sun set.
But in fact electing Romney isn’t the job of a Chief Justice. The job of the Chief Justice is to interpret the Constitution — not play politics.
John Roberts chose to play politics. And a breathtakingly blatant — not to mention inept — kind of politics.
Big mistake.
And the institution of the Supreme Court will suffer from it. Big time.
View all comments (45) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by Jeffrey Lord
http://spectator.org/blog/2012/06/29/mark-levin-on-john-roberts-reg
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Yes, It Can!—Maybe
- The Mole in Don Draper
- A World Turned Right Side Up
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
RCV| 6.29.12 @ 12:42PM
One of the great pleasures yesterday in the wake of the health care decision was listening to Mark Levin's apoplectic rantings. Every time some conservative even deviates a whit from the tea party line, it's a great "betrayal". Learning that Jeffrey Lord was one of the minions assigned to sell Roberts to the masses is an equally delicious pleasure this morning.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.29.12 @ 2:42PM
RCV, the point is that a supreme court justice is supposed to interpret the law, not change it to make it conform with the Constitution. This moron Roberts became a politician yesterday rather than a judge. Why can't you liberals understand that? It has nothing to do with "deviating" from a party line.
RCV| 6.29.12 @ 6:14PM
The Chief Justice did EXACTLY what a non-activist judge is supposed to do. Even though, as a conservative, he undoubtedly thinks this legislation is a piece of crap, he did the only job he's supposed to do: decide not whether it's good policy, but whether it was within Congress's power to enact. He concluded it was.
Bob Grant| 6.29.12 @ 9:04PM
He concluded it was.
----
After a few modifications.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.29.12 @ 10:04PM
RCV, pure sophistry. The job he was supposed to do was to rule on Obamacare AS IT WAS WRITTEN. His job was not to "fix" the law to make it Constitutional.
LarryinTexas| 6.29.12 @ 11:24PM
Look, troll, don't even mess with conservatives on this one. Roberts concluded wrongly, using more tricks than any lawyer I have ever dealt with in my own legal career.
Barack the Usurper is going DOWN this November! I also think that the Democrats will be EVISCERATED, as I have been calling for for a long time.
You have NO CLUE what a "non-activist" judge is. Ignore the precedents? Read something into a law that is not there? Calling something a "tax" that is absolutely a penalty instead (and which all of your buddy Democrats vehemently insisted was NOT a tax)? That is "non-activist" in your view? Ha! You are a liar and a fraudster.
You, troll, are also a slug and a turd. It is ignorant people like you that we must eviscerate in November.
RCV| 6.30.12 @ 12:25AM
Not sure what else you'd call a financial assessment payable to the IRS. If the Constitution specifically barred imposition of federal taxes in connection with healthcare insurance, do you think Congress could get around such a ban by labeling the assessment a "penalty"? Of course not, and you'd be screaming bloody murder if the Court said they could, and rightly so. The Court has to look at the reality of what is being done to determine whether it is in the purview of legislative power under the Constitution.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.30.12 @ 1:39AM
RCV, you are indulging in the stupid sophistry that liberals are so fond of when it comes to judicial activism. You say the court has to look at the "reality" of what is being done. BS. The Court has to look at the reality of the TEXT of a bill, not at the reality of any associated POLITICS.
RCV| 6.30.12 @ 12:11PM
You didn't answer my question, Vern.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.30.12 @ 3:25PM
It's because you are confusing issues. This was not a decision involving form over substance. What the Democrat Congress imposed was a PENALTY, not a tax. A tax is a way of raising money; a penalty is not a revenue-generating remedy, but a punishment for an action or a failure to act. These two cannot be equated.
There was no issue in Obamacare of labeling a tax as a "penalty" nor vice versa. The individual mandate was a punishment for failing to act, not a revenue-generating act. Everyone seems to have understood this, and even the far left criticized the individual mandate as providing a boon to fat-cat insurance companies. That is why even now Obama and his minions are still claiming Obamacare did not involve a tax. Only in the twisted mind of Judge "Taney" Roberts could a tax be equated with a penalty.
RCV| 6.30.12 @ 5:51PM
It has all the earmarks of a tax: it is a financial assessment owed to the Internal Revenue Service. It is collected on your annual individual tax return. The legislation specifically provides that no civil or criminal penalty can be imposed for failure to pay the money; the IRS can only offset it against a refund owed if the taxpayer fails to pay it. It is nothing short of a tax on insured Americans, calculated on the basis of the filer's income. That's the reality, Vern, no matter what politicians want to say to the media. As I said, if the Constitution specifically barred taxes on those who lacked insurance, you sure as heck wouldn't allow Congress to avoid the ban just by calling it a "penalty" and insisting its not a tax.
RCV| 6.30.12 @ 6:42PM
SB "tax on uninsured Americans.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.30.12 @ 7:56PM
RCV, a tax is a tax, not a penalty. A penalty is a penalty, not a tax. When you pay your taxes late, you are assessed a penalty in proportion to the tax. Just because the penalty is proportioned to the tax (as is interest, too), doesn't suddenly convert the penalty (or interest) into a tax. Nor does it work vice versa.
IRS or state taxing authorities can forgive a penalty, but they can't forgive a tax. The legal distinction between raising revenue and punishment for inaction is basic.
If you've explained Obamacare/Robertscare accurately, it would seem the easiest way to avoid the Obama-Roberts penalty is reduce one's annual refund to as little as possible on one's yearly return, or perhaps even try to owe some tax each year; that way the IRS cannot collect any significant amount of penalty.
In summary, your attempt to turn this into a form/substance issue is misguided. Taxes and penalties are apples and oranges and cannot be legitimately compared. This is not about labels.
RCV| 6.30.12 @ 11:25PM
Vern, you still haven't directly answered my question, and I understand why you don't want.
Yes, if your purpose is to avoid your legal obligations, you could do what you suggest, but you'd only need to if you didn't have health insurance, which most people with sufficient means have.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.1.12 @ 12:23AM
Your question is not relevant. You are trying to make this a form over substance issue when it is a substance versus substance issue.
RCV| 7.1.12 @ 12:58PM
No, I'm the one trying to get to the substance. You're the one hung up on the label. Could Congress do what I posited? Simple question, Vern, and it's answer demonstrates the vacuousness of your position. Roberts got this one right. The other conservatives on the Court were simply taking political policy positions.
Occam's Tool| 6.30.12 @ 3:16PM
Larry: If you are an attorney I will add you to my list of decent guys in the field, along with BigE.
kingsmill| 6.29.12 @ 12:44PM
It's pathetic watching Beltway George Will, Krauthammer and some other "Conservative, inc." water carriers trying to square the circle in justifying Roberts. Hats off to Jeff and Mark Levin, Laura Ingraham for calling out this moral weakling.
TNcracker | 6.29.12 @ 12:59PM
I can only conclude that Roberts was never really a conservative at all. The hideous precedent that he set with this decision could not possibly be considered Constitutional, so even if he was thinking of the Court's legacy, or had a literal gun to his head, he could have upheld it without going as far as he did. It's beyond shocking and disgraceful.
KittyAmerica| 6.29.12 @ 4:27PM
We knew in 2005 that on Romer v. Evans (according to the lawyers involved) he "provided invaluable strategic guidance working pro bono to formulate legal theories and coach them in moot court sessions." We also knew that he said Roe was settled precedent. So, the GOP was willingly fooled-again! Can't blame Roberts for that, we can only blame the senators who didn't protest because President George W. Bush said "trust me."
KittyAmerica| 6.29.12 @ 4:43PM
link to what happened then:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08.....berts.html
Kingofthenet| 6.29.12 @ 1:32PM
So the Cliff Notes version: Roberts is his OWN man and got Balls.
kingsmill| 6.29.12 @ 1:56PM
No that's the Rules for Radicals version.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.29.12 @ 2:43PM
Yeah, sort of like Justice Taney.
Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 3:55PM
We might not like Dred Scott, but at least it followed the law of the time, odious though it was. Roberts hasn't even done that.
C. Vernon Crisler | 6.29.12 @ 4:27PM
It did not follow the law at the time. Taney made it up.
Warrior| 6.30.12 @ 3:25PM
That's not what you liberals said about the Peoples United decision.
Oldefarte| 6.29.12 @ 1:51PM
Whether Roberts is conservative enough if besides the point, which is that the SCOTUS is/was/never will be the solution to this crapola. If WELFARECARE would hve been defeated instead, the Democrats [Pilosi, Reid, Schumer, etc] would have simply hit the legislative reset switch and replaced it again. Why? Because they control the government now. The solution is/was always 11/6/12, and if the American people/voters don't get off of their rears and do their duty by voting/electing as many Republicans as possible, A SCOTUS decision won't mean squat either way. The original problem began on 11/4/08 when this POTUS and his Democratic majority tood control, not when Roberts was nominated/confirmed. If anyone wants to talk SCOTUS, then again the dumbarses voters of this country elected a POTUS on 11/4/08 that nominated and got confirmed Sotomayor and Kagan and will if re-elected stack the court with Van Jones-types that will make Roberts look like a saint in comparison!!!!!!
Simon Templar| 6.29.12 @ 2:36PM
OF,
A scotus decision sets a legal precedent at the highest level of law and government that will be set in stone. Once again, I have said for years this is not just about elections. Elections are certainly important and a major key but you seem to miss the point here.
We now have idiots right at this moment making the argument that Roberts was actually acting in defense of the republic and conservatism. This is the flaw in many conservatives..this wishful thinking and inability to accept the big picture and the reality set before them. This is why the American Left chose incremental socialism as they see this weakness very clearly and continue to exploit it. Roberts is a traitor and a political hack opportunist like the RINO progressive that appointed him.
We have one more chance this November and that is it, forever. If we lose, Tyrrell can write another book, The Death of Conservatism.
Simon Templar| 6.29.12 @ 2:49PM
Here is an example of the idiocy out there and wishful thinking...
http://www.humanevents.com/201.....authority/
This decision has legitimized complete federal supreme power over the states and state sovereignty and supreme federal power and taxation, period.
What died this week was not only a constitutional Republic but also the concept of federalism.
No election is going to fix that.
Quartermaster| 6.29.12 @ 3:56PM
I wish you were wrong.
aware| 6.29.12 @ 4:38PM
You know what your problem is, Lord, you just don't hate the State as much as you hate Democrats. That's why you, and the rest of the neo con hall of fame you named, are always supporting statists and then ending up with egg on your face when, surprise, your "conservative" grows the State!
And you NEVER learn, do you? As proved by the incessant howls to support Romney by the same people who "spread out across the country", like you and Levin, to tell us how conservative Roberts was.
You may get Romney in(I don't think so), but that will NOT advance a conservative agenda. Any more than getting Roberts in did. "Conservatism" isn't even on the ballot this time, like last.
Does it ever occur to any of you to ask what went wrong after one of these many debacles? Just oppose everybody who has grown, or will grow "government"(for ANY and ALL reasons), especially alleged "conservatives".
Then you won't look stupid when one of your "small government" saviors ends up giving you bigger and bigger "government".
KittyAmerica| 6.29.12 @ 5:08PM
Yeah, "now yall really got vote for us this November. This next race is more important than ever."
Time and time again they are betrayed. Patriots learn lessons from the past, neocons do not.
Bob Grant| 6.29.12 @ 9:19PM
So according to your theory sitting this election out would be better than voting for yet another RINO?
And allowing the most socialist president in this country's history to continue his destruction is the answer?
I appreciate you lecture but tell us SPECIFICALLY what your plans are on November 6th?
Tell us right now that by NOT voting for obama's opponent would be better than voting at all.
aware| 6.30.12 @ 6:21AM
If you can't see the game is rigged then go ahead and keep doing the same thing and expecting different results. It's sure working great, ain't it.
Something far worse than losing an "election" is coming your way. You probably think once Romney is elected, you will "hold his feet to the fire", too. Yeah, right.
The neo con establishment, like Levin, Limbaugh, et.al., told you Roberts would save us, now they are telling you Romney will. How freaking stupid can you be? So vote for the liberal and keep telling yourself you're making progress.
I'm doing plenty to monkey wrench this corrupt mess, but voting in farce "elections" ain't one of them.
PCPSmokerII| 6.29.12 @ 9:57PM
Well written. One comment that Levin made, two actually, stuck with me. (1) "We are supposed to have a conservative majority, but then we don't," and (2) " the pressure of the culture only seem to affect our judges." So simple. So truthful.
The battle continues. I'm glad for Levin, Limbaugh, and Lord are around.
2blumutts| 6.29.12 @ 10:22PM
I think I would have left out that even by mistake, "electing Romney isn't the job of a Chief Justice," preferring the point, the key one made by many others including Rich Lowry, that it is not Roberts job, here, in this case, to "redraft the law under the guise of judicial restraint to enable its passage." Yep, Roberts "struck out." We are on our own, have to, each one of us, accept the responsibility to get this mistake of a president out of office!
Alborn| 6.30.12 @ 12:37AM
Roberts called the Democratic party and the Liar-in-chief just what they are. Lying frauds and he snubbed his nose at the American people for electing them. And he is saying ha ha ha ha all the way to Malta. What a little man he has become.
Aristocat| 6.30.12 @ 2:55AM
Well done...That's what Roberts did...telling the American people: "If you elect Communists like Obama and give him Communist Senators and House members, don't come crying to me."
Bob K| 6.30.12 @ 12:54AM
So much for the argument that goes around Pennsylvania every few years that the people will get better judges if they are chosen by a "merit selection" process by a committee of elite non-partisans than if they are elected by the voters of the state. Much like it is done in Florida and the US Supreme Court.
Occam's Tool| 6.30.12 @ 3:14PM
Dear RCV,
With the exception of you (I disagree with you but you are a decent human being and intelligent) and Colonel Tom Kratman (I don't disagree with him and the other two comments also hold), my opinion of attorneys is that they are to intelligence and morality as Pakistanis in Britain are to outbreeding: Not the Exemplars.
My opinion is actually harsher than that, more on the lines of Westbrook Pegler vis a vis Eleanor Roosevelt (I was born in 1962---this reference doesn't date me except in showing that I received a good education in American history), and everytime the SCOTUS drops a bowling ball on its nads, which it does with stunning regularity from my perspective, my view of attorneys is merely reinforced.
Remeber, when I win, you treat yourself and SO to a Prime Steak, and I want the proof sent to Ken. G-d Bless, RCV. You are wrong here from a political perspective (I cannot dispute you Constitutionally, although I believe you are wrong there, as well---I do not argue with experts in their fields), as well. Neither the Europeans nor the US can continue with a Welfare state with declining or stagnant demographics.
I see a bad moon on the rise, RCV.
RCV| 6.30.12 @ 5:56PM
I think the coming years will show you the error of your pessimistic prognostications. I fully intend to collect/honor my bet no matter the outcome. But we will have to figure an alternative way of performance - I won't use Ken as a middleman: too unstable and too much in love with guns. No telling what his mental state will be when Obama is reelected. Be well, sir.
Occam's Tool| 6.30.12 @ 3:14PM
That's when I win on the election---I pick Romney to win for sure, now.