The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

The Spectacle Blog

From our friend Mark Fitzgibbons.

Folks, the constitutional rule of law lost.  To use a more appropriate metaphor, the only thing that looks silver is the shining metal of knives the government wields.

The unprecedented takeover of one-sixth of our economy and the greatest loss of individual liberty that the largest number of Americans have suffered in over a century is just the tip of the iceberg.  Whatever rhetorical spin one can put on Roberts’ opinion is more than offset by the practical, deep, transcending, and even hidden effects of the ObamaCare ruling.


Fitzgibbons also makes a crucial point that has received too little attention:

The principal duty of any court is to adjudicate the matter before it.  Opponents of ObamaCare lost the case.  Period. 

All this talk about Roberts cleverly setting the court or the national political debate up for the next round is completely wrongheaded. That is not a judge’s, or a justice’s, job. The job is to decide correctly the case immediately before them. That’s why it’s called “case law.” The reigning interpretation of the Constitution and laws is developed by slow accretions of court decisions, not by the courts playing politics to protect their own “majesty” while supposedly painting political actors into a corner. Each case decision ought to stand on its own, with its own logic enjoying ample foundation. This decision manifestly doesn’t. Fitzgibbons is right to point that out.

View all comments (10) |

C. Vernon Crisler | 7.6.12 @ 12:15PM

Yes, it's like Lincoln's comments regarding Dred Scott. It's not settled law, and could be overturned by a future court.

Oldefarte| 7.6.12 @ 12:23PM

Yeah, and it's also the GD job of the POTUS and his band of thieves [aka Democrats] not to destoy this nation; or is that not more important here??????????????????

RJ| 7.6.12 @ 12:24PM

Roberts said his job was to act like an umpire; an unbiased arbitrator of disputes, based on existing law. Does anyone think his opinion was reached according to this standard?

His opinion declares that the Federal Government, created with few and enumerated duties, can tax anyone for not doing what the Federal Government dictates and for not doing it precisely according to the government's instructions. If this concept stands, we are no longer a free people.

Oldefarte| 7.6.12 @ 12:31PM

Thank G-D that some publications know what is important:
'..... Breitbart.com....On Thursday, a woman named Stephanie Miller approached President Barack Obama after a campaign rally and wept, thanking him for passing Obamacare. The mainstream media ate up the story -- in order to make Republicans opposed to Obamacare seem cruel.. And a sampling of her tweets shows she is no fan of Republicans.For example, she has tweeted that Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul and Rush Limbaugh were reasons why women need birth control and legalized abortion:
If there ever was a valid def. why women need birth control & legalized abortion it would b ROMNEY, SANTORIUM, GINGRINCH, PAUL, & LIMBAUGH!!She tweeted that Gingrich’s and Santorum’s fathers should have “pulled out” and also lamented that the “kool aid” she accused the GOP of drinking was not the “Jim Jones special."
Has the GOP all drank the kool aid??? Too bad it wasn't the Jim Jones special!!!Consistent with her public desires to see Republicans eradicated, she also tweeted that those “GOP test tube projects gone wrong ... are why ABORTION is legal!!”I'll be like Pres. Obama any day rather than those GOP test tube projects gone wrong they are why ABORTION is legal!!From these tweets, it turns out Miller was not just an ordinary person at a campaign rally. She is an Obama’s super fan and a GOP super hater......'

Teflon93 | 7.6.12 @ 1:05PM

Roberts set conservatives up for future victory in exactly the same way Wes Welker set the Patriots up to be Super Bowl champs by dropping that pass.

Oldefarte| 7.7.12 @ 11:34AM

Your name is not Stephanie Miller is it?????

thirteen28| 7.6.12 @ 1:47PM

And if Roberts was trying to protect the court's "majesty", his rewriting of the legislation and the constitution have had the opposite affect, quite strongly.

Reggie Love| 7.6.12 @ 4:03PM

It is sad to see so many conservatives try and pretend they didn't lose.

Bob K| 7.6.12 @ 10:25PM

"Calling It A Tax Adds Credibility It Does Not have."

That is the title of Betsy McCaughey's "On The Right" column in today's IBD. A remarkable piece of common sense on this issue that has all the writers on AS running around like Chicken's with their heads cut off.

Quin! You're all a bunch of clucks!

More Blog Posts by Quin Hillyer

http://spectator.org/blog/2012/07/06/more-good-stuff-against-robert

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

Most Popular Articles

The IRS Immigration Fraud Scandal

Jeffrey Lord | 6.18.13

Foreign Policy as Farce

Jed Babbin | 6.17.13

The Biggest Fool of All

Doug Bandow | 6.17.13

Can Liturgical Music Be Saved?

Patrick O'Hannigan | 6.17.13

Revenge of the Fruitcakes

Peter Hitchens | 6.17.13

Obama's Climate of Intimidation

Matthew Sheffield | 6.18.13

The Mole in Don Draper

James Bowman | 6.17.13

Whither Suburbia?

Steven Greenhut | 6.18.13

ADVERTISEMENT