1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

Pat Buchanan on Roberts, why he did it

Discussion in 'Politics, Elections & Legislation' started by wireguy, Jul 3, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    From HUMAN EVENTS


    John Roberts makes his career move

    By: Patrick J. Buchanan
    7/3/2012 06:57 AM


    For John Roberts, it is Palm Sunday.

    Out of relief and gratitude for his having saved Obamacare, he is being compared to John Marshall and Oliver Wendell Holmes.

    Liberal commentators are burbling that his act of statesmanship has shown us the way to the sunny uplands of a new consensus.

    If only Republicans will follow Roberts’ bold and brave example, and agree to new revenues, the dark days of partisan acrimony and tea party intransigence could be behind us.

    Yet imagine if Justice Stephen Breyer had crossed over from the liberal bench to join Antonin Scalia, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas and Anthony Kennedy in striking down Obamacare. Those hailing John Roberts for his independence would be giving Breyer a public caning for desertion of principle.

    Why did Roberts do it? Why did this respected conservative uphold what still seems to be a dictatorial seizure of power — to order every citizen to buy health insurance or be punished and fined?

    Congress can do this, wrote Roberts, because even if President Obama and his solicitor general insist the fine is not a tax, we can call it a tax:

    “If a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. … If the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress’s constitutional power to tax.”

    Roberts is saying that if Congress, to stimulate the economy, orders every middle-class American to buy a new car or face a $5,000 fine, such a mandate is within its power.

    Now, Congress can indeed offer tax credits for buying a new car. But if a man would prefer to bank his money and not buy a new car, can Congress order him to buy one — and fine him if he refuses?

    Roberts has just said that Congress has that power.

    Clearly, the chief justice was searching for a way not to declare the individual mandate unconstitutional. But to do so, he had to go through the tortured reasoning of redefining as a tax what its author and its chief advocates have repeatedly insisted is not a tax.

    Why did he do it? One reason Roberts gives is his innate conservatism.

    As he wrote in his opinion: “We (the Court) possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

    This is a sentiment many of us seek in a jurist in a republic: a disposition to defer to the elected branches to set policy and make law. But Roberts here raises a grave question — about himself.

    While it is not the job of the Supreme Court “to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” it is the job of the Supreme Court to pass on the constitutionality of laws.

    Did Roberts look at that individual mandate and conclude that it passed the constitutionality test? Or did he first decide that he did not want to be the chief justice responsible for destroying the altarpiece of the Obama presidency and sinking that presidency — and then go searching for a rationale to do what he had already decided to do?

    Here we enter the area of surmise.

    In the view of this writer, Roberts desperately does not want to seen by history as merely a competent but colorless member of the conservative bloc on the Supreme Court, another reliable vote in the Scalia camp. He does not want Anthony Kennedy, the swing justice, to be making history, while he is seen as a predictable conservative vote.

    John Roberts aspires to be a man of history, to have this court known to historians as “the Roberts Court.” And if there is to be a decisive vote in future great decisions, he wants that vote to be his.

    He wants to be seen among the cognitive elite, in this capital city that voted 93-7 for Obama, as a large and independent thinker. And with this decision on Obamacare, for which he will be remembered, he has taken a great leap forward to establishing that new identity.

    John Roberts likely has ahead of him a quarter of a century as chief justice. If he wants to be written of as another John Marshall or Oliver Wendell Holmes, and not Roger Taney, he must pay the price the city demands. If he does not wish to be remembered as a tea party justice, he must deliver the goods. And John Roberts just did.

    Already they are saying of him that John Roberts has grown.

    Liberals will never again see him in the same light. Nor will his old comrades. To attain the first, John Roberts is willing to accept the second. He has made his decision. John Roberts is moving on up.
     
  2. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    I went looking for some rational explanation for what Roberts did. It looks like there was one.
     
  3. Barry C. Roach

    Barry C. Roach Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    9,209
    Location:
    Scottsdale, AZ
    Traitor to the Republic. He may be as big a narcissist as O. What a disappointment.
     
  4. Don Steele

    Don Steele Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    1,537
    Location:
    Florida's beautiful E. Coast
    It's sad, and kind of pathetic to think that the Chief Justice worries about how a corrupt media will cast his legacy.
    IF Buchanan is correct, I fear the future will be very dark of many of us.
    IF Obama wins another term and continues his ongoing attack on the Constitution...you have to know there will be an all-out assault from the left on the Second Amendment. Given the Chief Justicie's worries about "legacy"...you have to be concerned that he will once again align with the liberal wing of the Court, in ANOTHER pathetic attmept to "make the left like him".
     
  5. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    Thomas Sowell is calling it flat out betrayal as well.......

    http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2012/07/04/judicial_betrayal/page/full/
     
  6. crusha

    crusha TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    5,762
    I agree. He caved.

    My opinion is, if you have two possible interpretations of the law...and one of them harms the Constitution...you err on the side of the Constitution and STRIKE THE SON OF A BITCH DOWN.
     
  7. burtona

    burtona Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2011
    Messages:
    172
    What makes Pat B. knowledgeble of what's in Roberts head? It's just his theory and is really no better than mine or anyone elses as to why Roberts made the decision he did.
    The opinion Roberts wrote has a couple of points on the limit of Govt. extortion of the states and limits on the commerce clause that will help the conservative cause for years to come. I'd like to have seen them declare Obamacare unconstitutional also because I don't trust the Republicans to repeal it even if they win the election.
    Dave
     
  8. Recoil Sissy

    Recoil Sissy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    2,642
    Boys and girls, we're just arguing about how to arrange Titanic's deck chairs. The truth is this: we're screwed. I mean totally screwed. A few fresh public opinion numbers illustrate why.

    1. RealClearPolitics.com (RCP) tracks presidential job approval/disapproval using an average of various tracking polls. As of today, July 4th, obummer STILL enjoys a 47.7% APPROVAL rating. Forty-seven percet of those polled think he's doing a fine job!

    2. If the election had been held July 2, 2012, the RCP poll average predicts obummer would have beat Romney 47.0% to 44.4%.

    3. A predicted obummer victory makes perfect sense because for the period ending July 1st, obummer has a favorability rating of 51.3% vs. an unfavorable rating of 44.8%. Romney's numbers are 43.8% and 43.9% respectively.

    4. According to the Rasmussen Reports national phone survey taken on Sunday, July 1st, 41% of likely U.S. Voters would vote for a generic Republican in their district’s congressional race while 40% would chosen the generic Democrat instead.

    Based on an assortment of objective statistics, I would argue that obummer is undisputedly the worst president in U.S. history. Those statistics and my opinion notwithstanding, THERE ISN'T A SHRED OF EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THE ELECTORATE IS INTERESTED IN REJECTING HIS SOCIALIST AGENDA OR THE CONGRESSIONAL DEMS. Obummer is more popular than Romney and the lib/dem/socialists in Congress are in a statistical dead heat with their GOP opponents.

    I can't find any data to support the following prediction but let's say November turns out to be a GOP trifeca. We'll assume Romney wins. We'll assume the GOP maintains it's House majority. We'll also assume the GOP wins a Senate majority.

    Even with that rosey scenario, what makes anyone think obummercare will get repealed? According to Rasmussen, only 52% of the electorate thinks obummercare SHOULD be repealed. The other half LIKES their free sh!t. They don't give a frog's fat @ss about taxes. They don't pay any.

    Considering the obvious lack of support for repeal, why would anyone believe GOP leadership when they babble about repeal? Then there's the issue of actual "leadership". Boner and McConnel couldn't lead a starving poodle to a bowl of Alpo and thus, I've come full circle.

    We're screwed.

    sissy
     
  9. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    We have been overtaken by the stupid gene. We have passed the point where the producers can create enough for everyone and still make a profit under the impact of the rules, laws, taxes, fees, licenses, permits and other forms of extortion from big brother. I kind of wish the big crash would come. The first month or so is going to be highly entertaining.

    I work in Orange County California a lot. Driving around up there it's like a movie set. These people live in a giant movie set and their lives are scripted, and they love their roles. They have no idea how thin is the veneer of civilization on which they live.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.