In the final analysis, Roberts managed to make a mockery of SCOTUS. Ironic, since his objective (reportedly) was to preserve the 'image' of that institution.
What he really did was to escalate the cynicism of those, myself among them, who believe that the Ruling Class bunch is devoid of integrity and will engage in any necessary amount of lies, fraud, and chicanery to preserve itself at the expense of the Country Class.
Roberts joins Humpty Dumpty--who was, after all, a cartoon--in re-writing the dictionary in the Grand Tradition of Dred Scott, Wickard, and Roe.
Congratulations, CJ. We do not think you are clothed in robes or anything else.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Roberts actually narrowed the powers of Congress under the commerce clause and upheld states rights in not allowing the federal government to force medicaid expansion on the states. Pretty conservative rulings.
Those two things could be considered larger victories than the mandate loss.
Interesting how some conservatives I have read online--those same individuals who touted his judicial restraint--are now throwing Roberts under the bus by claiming he is an activist judge!
Perhaps Dad29 should be reminded about his "And If They Lose In The Courts" post. He seemingly inferred that Roberts does not "actively second-guess and re-do existing law", that he is not "eager to overturn legislation"...completely untrue as Dad29 put in red letters. Now, in this post, Dad29 "reevaluates" his position in light of the decision, since Roberts is apparently beholden to the "ruling class" in an effort to attack his overall credibility.
Yet there are the pundits who believe Roberts is sly as a fox.
Perhaps today Obama won a battle, but Roberts has set up Obama to lose the war!
1. The “Court is activist” claim on the part of liberals...poof, gone! No scapegoat for lefties on the health care issue.
2. Congress cannot rely on the commerce clause to regulate inactivity -and- preempted future government mandates--JUDICIAL RESTRAINT.
3. He upheld the law, on the very narrowest of grounds using past precedent */**/***, remanding political questions to Congress--JUDICIAL RESTRAINT.
4. The coercive powers of the federal government over the states regarding federal monies...nope!
JUDICIAL RESTRAINT.
5. Both parties were provided suitable talking points: Democrats have their law they have to defend as a "tax increase"***.
6. Despite his alleged “partisanship”, he was the only Justice willing to reasonably consider both sides, a Republican appointee overseeing a “right-wing” court, in an attempt to depoliticize the Court.
*There is precedent for Congress to be involved in health care. Our founding fathers passed "An Act For The Relief Of Sick And Disabled Seamen’ (1798) which authorized a deduction--A TAX?--from the pay of seamen for the purpose of funding their medical care. The founding fathers did not believe this program to be unconstitutional.
**Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid are programs which have not been challenged constitutionally. It would appear that these precedents are explicitly based on the reasoning that Congressional spending power is broader than its regulatory power.
***I think what people cannot get over is Obama refused to call it a “tax” in the political process, even as his lawyers argued it was a “tax” in the litigation process.
This situation analogous to two businesses saying PUBLICALLY that they are “partnering” with each other, even though LEGALLY there is no “partnership”. There are numerous examples in law where what the parties say (what Roberts refers to as “labels” in his opinion) that are irrelevant in litigation. Given the amendment on income taxes, and the subsequent federal programs that incorporate "fees" and "surcharges", it is reasonable to make the argument that a "penalty" falls under this category.
It now appears that Roberts IS an "activist" in the worst sense of the term.
That is, he re-wrote legislation to force compliance with the Constitution.
That's not different from inventing new rights (Roe) or--for that matter--not different from inventing subordinate humans (Dred Scott.)
It's also similar to inventing new Federal powers (e.g. Wickard).
So. Conservatives lost in the courts. Hardly news.
And if you cannot tell the difference between "taxing" and "debiting pay", you are obtuse.
So you're calling Romney obtuse? And still pulling the lever for him come November?
There's a special phrase for that...
Did Romney bring up naval-pay deductions, dipwad?
And if you cannot tell the difference between "taxing" and "debiting pay", you are obtuse.
So you are saying that your payroll deductions for FICA, medicare, Federal and State income tax withholding, etc. are in fact merely "debiting pay" and not taxes?
Who's obtuse?
That is, he re-wrote legislation to force compliance with the Constitution.
Please cite the new law in Roberts' opinion. Here is the text of the Roberts decision. Look it over and point out the re-writes.
Roberts did the exact opposite of "activism". He cites Hooper v. California when he says "'every reasonable construction must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality' the questioin is whether it is 'fairly possible' to interpret the mandate as imposing such a tax."
As you have so CLEARLY pointed out on subsequent posts here, the penalty CAN be construed as a tax.
This is probably the LEAST activist part of the decision.
Umnnh...jimmy-boy-boy:
Many employers deduct from wages for (e.g.,) uniform expense, computer expense, or vehicle expense.
That's called a DEDUCTION, not a "tax."
I know. It's real hard to figure that stuff out.
So, on the basis of ONE decision, Roberts is now considered an activist judge???
Choose not to pay your income taxes over a period of time = inactivity.
The consequence? A penalty.
Choose not to purchase health insurance over a period of time = inactivity. The consequence? A penalty.
In BOTH cases, the financial penalty possesses the essential feature of any tax producing revenue for the government. Hooper v. California provides the vehicle.
In his opinion, neither the label of "penalty" nor the fact it was intended to influence behavior mattered. Because the court's duty is to defer to the elected branches when possible, the mandate must be upheld. That is judicial restraint.
Whether the penalty is or is not a tax is immaterial in this specific case, since it is NOT up to the Supreme Court to judge its validity. That is left up to the legislative branch.
Stated another way...the Supreme Court ruled that the penalty fit the taxing criteria based on past laws. It is the jurisdiction of Congress, not the Supreme Court, to change that criteria.
Perhaps Roberts used "mental gymnastics" as the basis for his ruling, BUT he properly deferred to the mess that Congress made. Indeed, it is not the job of the Supreme Court to protect people from the consequences of their political choices. Judicial restraint!
Thanks for the link.
And for the succinct and spot-on commentary.
In BOTH cases, the financial penalty possesses the essential feature of any tax producing revenue for the government.
Nuts.
"Failure to pay income tax" is the same as "failure to procure health insurance"???
Then, in fact, the Feds can force ANY activity at all.
You may cite precedent, and you may tell us that Congress/the President are malevolent Statists.
But you cannot persuade me that the Constitution's taxing power permits such coercion.
"Failure to pay income tax" is the same as "failure to procure health insurance"???
That's NOT what the court is addressing! I have a personal choice to pay my taxes. My decision. I have a personal choice to buy health insurance. If I choose not to engage in either activity, then there is a penalty.
It is addressing whether or not According to the Court, Congress is able to procure measures to address that inactivity. I may not like the past precedents, and you certainly do not like the past precedents. Too bad, so sad, that's the way it is, "statism" or not.
Regardless, according to Roberts, and conservatives, it is NOT up to the Supreme Court to overturn legislation unless for a compelling, constitutional, reason.
It is up to Congress to address this matter. Judicial restraint, a core value of "true" conservatives was demonstrated, much to the chagrin of those same conservatives.
"Then, in fact, the Feds can force ANY activity at all."
Patently false. The decision on the matter is narrow in scope. That is how court rulings work.
"Then, in fact, the Feds can force ANY activity at all."
There is such a thing as a "limiting factor". It's called elections, Daddy boy-boy.
That's called a DEDUCTION, not a "tax."
Fine. Federal withholding? State withholding? FICA, Medicare?
Post a Comment