-
Even the Europeans Rethink the Welfare State
April 21, 2013 | 4 comments
-
ObamaCare for Everyone Except Obama’s Appointees
March 8, 2013 | 3 comments
-
The Sensitive Saudis: They Want Democracy for Everyone Else
March 5, 2013 | 3 comments
-
Remember, There Is No Spending Problem!
February 26, 2013 | 1 comment
-
Another Useful Reminder that Communism was Loathsome
February 24, 2013 | 16 comments
The Spectacle Blog
In Washington the Left pays for constitutional treason with accolades rather than pieces of silver. And liberal praise for John Roberts’ untenable, even dishonest opinion upholding ObamaCare as a tax continues to come in. The latest is New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman who announces that the decision “was inspired by a simple noble leadership impulse at a critical juncture in our history.” Just as all liberal decisions are inspired, he might have added. As long as you are aggrandizing government power, you obviously are on the side of the angels.
“Dishonest John” is worse than either David Souter or John Paul Stevens. They were clear and unabashed enemies of constitutional liberty. So no one expected anything different than opinions constantly undermining constitutional protections for individual liberty and against government power.
Roberts has become the Manchurian Jurist, whispering sweet rhetoric into conservatives’ ears while delivering results to the leftish establishment which runs Washington. His dicta against an expansive interpretation of the Commerce Clause sounds nice, but is meaningless, since he has provided the roadmap for evading its effect in the future. Even Nancy Pelosi cannot have missed “Dishonest John’s” invitation to treat everything as a tax, which doesn’t even require calling it a tax.
No doubt “Dishonest John” will receive some nice dinner party invitations when he returns from his two-week sojourn to Malta. He might believe that the entire affair is a joke, but the rest of us will pay with our constitutional liberties for the rest of our lives.
Oldefarte| 7.1.12 @ 10:54AM
"Dishonest John" is no different from Sonia Sotomayor, since they're both LAWYERS/JUDGES. As such they are all members of what use to be called the ABA, and which pours $billions into the political coffers of the Democratic Party. What we need is TORT REFORM ON STERIODS. Case Closed!!!!!
Scott| 7.1.12 @ 11:28AM
"Even Nancy Pelosi cannot have missed 'Dishonest John's' invitation to treat everything as a tax, which doesn't even require calling it a tax."
Three points:
One, I would never underestimate the Botoxic Avenger's ability to miss something. While it's a close race with Harry Reid, I truly believe she's the stupidest person in Washington today, and quite possibly the stupidest person to ever hold a leadership position.
Two, if everything can be treated as a tax, then opponents will be able to call everything a tax and be able to rightfully say that the Supreme Court backs them up. This not an insignificant rhetorical tool; a number of analysts have concluded that Obamacare wouldn't have passed if proponents hadn't been able to hide behind the fig leaf that the mandate wasn't a tax. And, to ice that cake, if proponents of a policy persist in insisting it's not a tax, they can be justifiably accused of deliberately lying.
Three, if everything's a tax, then opponents of this sort of foolishness may often have another rationale to invalidate those acts -- given the sort of cavalier, "ends justify the means" attitude of the Left, does anyone think they'll always be sure to have the bills originate in the House of Representatives?
RJ| 7.1.12 @ 11:54AM
Admittedly, the case involved complex issues and the ruling was completely unexpected. Nonetheless, the more I study it, the more distorted it looks. As Doug Bandow says, the dicta that some conservative commentators are praising is meaningless as legal precedent. The justification of the act on the basis federal tax authority is undeveloped, and appears in conflict with past precedent. Some of the references in the dissent seems to indicate that Roberts changed his mind well after the initial vote and even champions of Obamacare are saying that he did it to save the Court from political attacks from the left; not that it was a well-reasoned opinion based on legal precedent.
It is an opinion that people cannot understand; seems politically-based rather than judicial determined; and opens the door to unlimited federal government action under its previously limited taxing authority. As time goes by, this opinion be viewed more and more as a major embarrassment to the Supreme Court. All that was missing were references to "penumbras, formed by emanations."
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.1.12 @ 12:32PM
I was a bit shocked when Bush appointed this boy judge to be chief justice, bypassing the older men on the bench. The only justification I could see for it, is that a putative conservative would be in charge of the court for a generation.
Now we see the folly of placing wet-behind-the-ears judges not only as a judge on the court, but even worse, as the chief judge of the court. Such young men lack the wisdom of older men.
I don't agree that there was dishonesty involved. In his Alice-in-Wonderland decision, Judge "Taney" Roberts has shown not only the inexperience of a younger man, but also that he is a fool.
More than likely, all the other judges will hold this fool -- Judge "Taney" Roberts -- with a certain amount of contempt. The best thing he could do now is resign, then join the academy, where others like him reside.
RCV| 7.1.12 @ 1:02PM
I wouldn't count on it, Vern. He's set for a long career as Chief Justice, unfortunately for us liberals. We'll get many more conservative decisions with Roberts taking the side of Scalia, Alito and Thomas. I can guarantee that on the gay marriage cases, you on the right will be glad he's there. It's Kennedy you'll have to worry about on that one, and whose scalp the right will be calling for.
C. Vernon Crisler | 7.1.12 @ 2:59PM
Actually, a ruling by the Supreme Court on "gay marriage" is a sign of just how far we've fallen as a Constitutional republic. Domestic laws governing behavior are within the jurisdiction of the States, not the central government. The Constitution, with Amendments, did not enumerate this as a power to be exercised by the federal government. It should therefore, never reach the Supreme Court, and I would want to have all of them thrown in jail if they so much as nod or shake their heads on the topic.
Warrior| 7.1.12 @ 4:31PM
RCV, the problems with our republic is far greater than just a liberal or conservative court. Very, very few of our elected officials follow the Constitution. Laws are created, then additional laws must be created to attempt and fix the unintended consequences, then more laws must be created to fix those consequences. Thousands and thousands of gun laws, immigration laws, environmental laws, educational laws, health care laws...and yet, nothing ever solves the problem. The government keeps telling us they will fix it if we give them more of our liberty. The problem is not with the judges, the problem is the laws. Mr. Crisler nails it when he advises that there are no enumerated powers to give this monster the scope and power it has assumed. The elected ruling elite establish laws for us commoners and exempt themselves from them. If you sir get caught cheating on your taxes or insider trading, it will be a nice cozy cell for you. The elected royalty doesn't even bat an eye when it's one of their own (that is unless the opposite party can use it for political advantage). The problem does not lie with mine or your ideology. The problem is the royal ruling elite. Secession is the only remedy.
RCV| 7.1.12 @ 5:14PM
Here's a news flash, Warrior. You're free to leave any time you want, but don't even think of trying to take an inch of this country with you. Remember that pledge of allegience you used to recite without thinking about the words? It's "indivisible". A lot of fine young Americans, including some of my ancestors, lost their lives establishing that principle last time. And we'd do it again.
Warrior| 7.1.12 @ 9:06PM
That's it?? Grade school level answer. So much for intelligent dialogue. The Pledge has no official function or meaning. You disrespect it by not even using capital letters when referring to it. It is not contractual in nature nor is it enforceable. However, the oath the elected officials took to protect and uphold the Constitution is. How about the President and Attorney General actually enforcing the laws that have been passed as is their duty? Not one person lost their life defending the Pledge. It's the Constitution that has been sworn to be defended.
I would waste more of my time trying to educate you on the meaning of the Constitution, but why even try. You believe your ancestors lost their lives defending the Pledge of Allegiance. Secession is the only answer. You can keep you corner of the country and your public school teachers.
RCV| 7.1.12 @ 9:53PM
We'll keep the whole country, Warrior. And I know more about Constitutional Law then you ever will, having graduated from Stanford Law and specialized in Constitutional litigation for 35 years.
Warrior| 7.1.12 @ 10:15PM
Very impressive blog resume. I suppose on the National Review you're the Queen of England, the Huffington Post your the reincarnation of Che Guevera and on Politico your Nancy Pelosi's pet monkey. You can't even get the Pledge correct, much less the Constitution. At least you gave me a good laugh.
RCV| 7.2.12 @ 11:18AM
I know it's hard for you guys at WalMart to think that other people actually study hard, achieve and do things with their lives, but it's true.
Warrior| 7.2.12 @ 12:39PM
I would think a "Stanford eductated" POS like you could do better than that.
bjb57| 7.2.12 @ 9:20PM
I guess then you go under the category, occupied by Biden and others, of "so much knowledge. so little wisdom".
Scott| 7.1.12 @ 1:34PM
The other thing to keep in mind about all this is that I don't really see this decision helping Obama, politically, and if Romney wins in November in part due to Tea Partiers incensed by this decision, lefty commentators are going to be blasting Roberts for having tricked them (regardless of whether that was his intent).
And if the Republicans are swept back into power, job #1 is get rid of Obamacare, and job #2 is figure out some way to make sure that future liberals can't take this decision and run with it.
Bob Grant| 7.1.12 @ 2:44PM
Wishful thinking.
I'll bet you the healthcare bill will gain in popularity.
Question: Where will the RINO's stand when the the bill has an approval of 55% or 60%? Will they, like John Roberts, cave to political pressure and find some justification to work with obama to "improve the bill"? When that happens, the election is over!!!
The RINO's are in hiding now because of obamacare's unpopularity but how long will this last?
By abandoning his stated beliefs at the senate confirmation hearing, John Roberts quite possibly set in motion an obama second term. A term that will finish off this once great country.
RCV| 7.1.12 @ 5:17PM
You're right about that, Bob. Indeed all of the few polls taken since the decision show a bump for the President in popularity, and that will continue. Also, Romney is just the wrong guy, for obvious reasons, to complain too much about the health care law.
Bob Grant| 7.1.12 @ 9:27PM
Correction: I meant law when I said bill.
Bob Grant| 7.1.12 @ 2:06PM
Dissent:
"In a few cases, this Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held—never—that a penalty imposed for violation of the law was so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’ taxing power—evenwhen the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here)the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. "
-----
It appears Mr. Roberts engaged in judicial activism. Ironically, something he would have been accused of if the struck down the entire bill.
Cobalt| 7.1.12 @ 2:28PM
When he was in the U.S. Senate, Obama voted against both of Bush's nominees to the Supreme Court--John Roberts and Samuel Alito.
Then when he became President, Obama successfully nominated Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court.
Now 79-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsburg has pancreatic cancer, and will probably retire soon. Don't look for Obama to replace Ginsburg with even a moderate. Also, beware Obama's nominees to the Federal Court while he is President.
http://afrocityblog.files.word.....merica.jpg
ejp| 7.1.12 @ 2:41PM
http://www.nationalreview.com/.....s-avik-roy
Further proof that this was not John Roberts being "clever" but that John Roberts is a spineless jellyfish in the tradition of so many other phony conservatives who have done so much damage to this country because of their refusal to stand up to the bullying Gestapo tactics of the left-wing media.
rightasrain| 7.1.12 @ 3:07PM
The ironies abound. Instead of enhancing the reputation of the Court, Roberts has put a huge black mark on it and made himself a laughingstock. In an effort to appear deferential to Congress and as if he is exercising judicial restraint, he ignored and then rewrote the plain language of the statute and thus instead engaged in judicial activism. In a effort to appear apolitical, he deserted his constitutional duty and was thus a political hack of the worst sort. He couldn't have done more damage if he tried.
bjb57| 7.2.12 @ 9:24PM
I agree. He will have a very difficult time being the Chief Justice. His conservative colleagues presumably no longer trust him, while the liberals will now view him as a useful idiot, someone they can roll relatively easily. He is going to be very lonely there for a long time.
Mimi | 7.1.12 @ 4:03PM
The country has been BETRAYED! To Pelosi...IT is still a penalty, under taxing authority!!??
Who would have thought , the respectable , Chief Justice would play the games, of the DEM'S....You Know the white is black , the up is really down games familiar to us as the blatent "LIES".
Who wrote his amature OPINION ?, Mark Levin
called it incoherent ! He evidently changed it , rather recently...did he succumb to the cries of a 'CHILD'....We all know that is USELESS! The only thing giving in to a WHINE gets you , is another WHINE !
What did he fear,...what did they have on him, and whom?
Oh he was trying to improve the Courts reputation? REALLY ? We all know the Courts main duty is to uphold the Constitution ! Honestly not with re-writing the law to fit...no integrity in that...
We have for the rest of HISTORY a puzzling mystery....Why.....???? Why hurt the People? have they not suffered enough?...Why HURT the ECONOMY it isn't hurting enough ??? Why HURT our Liberty/Freedom ? Especially our religious liberty ? It isn't at RISK enough ??
BEFORE US we only have one.."1" LIGHT....And that is the defeat of OBAMA and a slew of Senators...on November 6 !
RCV| 7.1.12 @ 6:02PM
"Constitutional treason"? Pretty childish description for disagreement on an issue of law. And particularly galling coming from a corrupt hack who had to resign from Cato for taking payments for placing articles favorable to the infamous Jack Abramhoff's clients. Crawl back under your rock, Doug. You don't have half the integrity John Roberts has.
Hardcard| 7.1.12 @ 7:53PM
somebody should do a little background on the chief justice. no body thought sandusky was the animal he was proven to be. food for thought.
Teflon93 | 7.1.12 @ 8:46PM
No worries on that score unless David Frum comes out in favor of pederasty, whereupon Roberts will join NAMBLA to keep those Georgetown cocktail party invites coming.
Bob Grant| 7.1.12 @ 9:22PM
Well,
Here's your first clue. He attended Harvard Law School and studied under ultra-liberal professor Lawrence Tribe. Perhaps the vetting should have ended there.
Teflon93 | 7.1.12 @ 8:44PM
If Mittens gets elected, when it comes to betrayals we ain't seen nothing yet, fellas.
RCV| 7.1.12 @ 9:50PM
Romney went to Harvard Law School as well. Be afraid, Bob, be very afraid...
Bob Grant| 7.1.12 @ 10:05PM
Oh, I'm afraid - for my country - but still voting for Romney.
Thanks for the concern though :-)
Ken (Old Texican)| 7.2.12 @ 8:33AM
RCV
All one has to do is note the new "army" of IRS enforcers to rate this law.
If Obama is re-elected, our country cannot recover in my lifetime
RCV| 7.2.12 @ 11:19AM
At our age, Ken, your prediction is almost certainly true! :D Hope things are good with you, politics aside.