I have a theory about the few remaining Conservative pundits who defend John Roberts. Look at what they try:
1. Some project themselves into Roberts' mind and conjure up good motives. With all evidence to the contrary, they insist Roberts wants to do what's right.
2. Others claim he believes his "it's a tax" argument. Setting aside how this re-writes the law to pass it, the Court's dissenting view and Mark Levin's analysis render this argument as impossible. Roberts' intellect could never drop low enough to accept it....
3. Still more claim he's a strategic genius who is helping the GOP unseat Obama. Oh . . . riiiiiiiight. Preserve the bad law to, you know, hopefully win and remove the bad law. THAT'S MORONIC.
4. Still more say Roberts honestly feels he's preserving the "integrity of the court." In light of the all-too-predictable fallout from his miserable decision, I won't even dignify this with an answer.
Here's my theory: These pundits fear that opposing Roberts will push him to complete his move to the Left. They know deep down that he's largely a leftist activist, and they're hoping to pull him back from completely embracing The Dark Side. So, they pander to him.
Waddya think, folks?
By the way, pardon the length of this post, but I must re-iterate how it truly means nothing that Obama’s team floated the “it’s a tax” defense before the SCOTUS. Here are some reasons:
1. Since they had avoided that language in drafting the documents, this amounted to re-writing Obamacare AFTER THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. In other words, just by proposing this defense after the Congressional vote, Obama’s team was admitting that the legislative process itself had been side-stepped. That should have ended it right there.
The Honest 4 justices wisely described their job as JUDGING THAT WHICH HAD PASSED THROUGH THE DULY ELECTED CONGRESS, not some subsequent re-wording; and that Obama’s team was free to run any re-worded proposal through Congress again to face the voters, should they wish to.
2. Justice Roberts not only ignored this obvious problem, but he proceeded to participate in it by adopting the re-worded proposal himself! No wonder the Honest 4 were furious with him! Obama’s team should have been laughed out of court for submitting a defense that was neither in the bill nor offered for the Congressional vote on the bill, but Roberts actually made this the sole foot on which Obamacare stood! What activism! What sheer determination to rescue a bill that he himself admitted was thoroughly unconstitutional in its form
offered before Congress!
3. As the Honest 4 pointed out, there is no SCOTUS precedent for equating a penalty (which is designed to direct behavior) with a tax (which is designed to raise revenue). For instance, while a traffic ticket raises revenue, we don’t call it a “traffic tax.” It is a penalty. Roberts’ re-wording was preposterous.
4. Furthermore, ROBERTS NEVER EVEN ATTEMPTED TO OFFER ANY SCOTUS PRECEDENT FOR EQUATING A PENALTY WITH A TAX. Here was the cornerstone of his baseless argument, and he didn’t even try to show it was lawful! Incredible!
5. And let’s not forget the precedent Roberts set: Basically, the government can now make us purchase ANYTHING, just so long as they charge us for non-compliance! Can someone please explain to me how the Founding Fathers would have accepted this!
6. Most incredible was Roberts saying it wasn’t the Supreme Court’s job to rescue the voters from the results of their own votes—when the Congress they elected never got to vote on the bill as a tax!
Enough said. Since Roberts was well aware of these points and more, I hope we can stop trying to assign some pureness of motive to our Chief Justice.
1. Some project themselves into Roberts' mind and conjure up good motives. With all evidence to the contrary, they insist Roberts wants to do what's right.
2. Others claim he believes his "it's a tax" argument. Setting aside how this re-writes the law to pass it, the Court's dissenting view and Mark Levin's analysis render this argument as impossible. Roberts' intellect could never drop low enough to accept it....
3. Still more claim he's a strategic genius who is helping the GOP unseat Obama. Oh . . . riiiiiiiight. Preserve the bad law to, you know, hopefully win and remove the bad law. THAT'S MORONIC.
4. Still more say Roberts honestly feels he's preserving the "integrity of the court." In light of the all-too-predictable fallout from his miserable decision, I won't even dignify this with an answer.
Here's my theory: These pundits fear that opposing Roberts will push him to complete his move to the Left. They know deep down that he's largely a leftist activist, and they're hoping to pull him back from completely embracing The Dark Side. So, they pander to him.
Waddya think, folks?
By the way, pardon the length of this post, but I must re-iterate how it truly means nothing that Obama’s team floated the “it’s a tax” defense before the SCOTUS. Here are some reasons:
1. Since they had avoided that language in drafting the documents, this amounted to re-writing Obamacare AFTER THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS. In other words, just by proposing this defense after the Congressional vote, Obama’s team was admitting that the legislative process itself had been side-stepped. That should have ended it right there.
The Honest 4 justices wisely described their job as JUDGING THAT WHICH HAD PASSED THROUGH THE DULY ELECTED CONGRESS, not some subsequent re-wording; and that Obama’s team was free to run any re-worded proposal through Congress again to face the voters, should they wish to.
2. Justice Roberts not only ignored this obvious problem, but he proceeded to participate in it by adopting the re-worded proposal himself! No wonder the Honest 4 were furious with him! Obama’s team should have been laughed out of court for submitting a defense that was neither in the bill nor offered for the Congressional vote on the bill, but Roberts actually made this the sole foot on which Obamacare stood! What activism! What sheer determination to rescue a bill that he himself admitted was thoroughly unconstitutional in its form
offered before Congress!
3. As the Honest 4 pointed out, there is no SCOTUS precedent for equating a penalty (which is designed to direct behavior) with a tax (which is designed to raise revenue). For instance, while a traffic ticket raises revenue, we don’t call it a “traffic tax.” It is a penalty. Roberts’ re-wording was preposterous.
4. Furthermore, ROBERTS NEVER EVEN ATTEMPTED TO OFFER ANY SCOTUS PRECEDENT FOR EQUATING A PENALTY WITH A TAX. Here was the cornerstone of his baseless argument, and he didn’t even try to show it was lawful! Incredible!
5. And let’s not forget the precedent Roberts set: Basically, the government can now make us purchase ANYTHING, just so long as they charge us for non-compliance! Can someone please explain to me how the Founding Fathers would have accepted this!
6. Most incredible was Roberts saying it wasn’t the Supreme Court’s job to rescue the voters from the results of their own votes—when the Congress they elected never got to vote on the bill as a tax!
Enough said. Since Roberts was well aware of these points and more, I hope we can stop trying to assign some pureness of motive to our Chief Justice.
RSS Feed