Quotes of the day

posted at 8:53 pm on June 29, 2012 by Allahpundit

However painful it was to read the headline “Obamacare Stands” on Drudge yesterday, Chief Justice Roberts made the right call.

Roberts’s opinion, far from being an act of cowardice or betrayal, is true to the tradition of the early Republic, when the Supreme Court exercised the power of judicial review to strike down federal statutes only very rarely…

There is a larger point. If the only way Americans can defend their liberties is to hide behind the verbiage of a Supreme Court opinion, it’s already too late for freedom here.

***

Conservatives who are trying to salvage a little “hope and change” from Chief Justice John Roberts’s disastrous ruling in the Obamacare case yesterday argue that the limits the Court placed on the Commerce Clause and the power of the federal government vis à vis the states are victories for conservatives in the long run. But in this case, the short run is the long run: Obamacare will change our society forever–and not for the better.

Liberals are celebrating, not just because Barack Obama’s presidency is no longer just a waste of time, but also because they believe that people will never reject entitlements once they have them. Evidence from around the world proves them right.

***

This country is hopelessly split along ideological lines, and it seems impossible for either side to gain any lasting advantage over the other. But maybe Roberts has managed to do precisely that. By nominally endorsing an overwhelmingly unpopular bill that is in major trouble anyway, he has created the political space needed to strike directly at the heart of liberal legal theory without inflaming the Democrats.

This, by the way, is exactly what the Warren Court of the 1950s and 1960s failed to do. Insufficiently concerned about political fallout, the liberals on that court plunged ahead with leftist policymaking from the bench. As a consequence, conservatives grew acutely aware of the dangers inherent to liberal judicial activism, organized politically to fight back, and thus was ultimately born the Rehnquist Court, which rolled back many of the excesses of the Warren years.

But how do conservatives continue their judicial project without similarly inflamming the left and stalling their own agenda in its tracks? Well, just maybe Chief Justice John Roberts showed the way yesterday. It’s all about taking opportunities as they present themselves, not over-reaching, and playing the long game.

***

[I]f the underlying mandate is otherwise unconstitutional, as Roberts concluded, how does adding a penalty make it okay? Under this precedent, Congress could theoretically mandate anything it wants and slap on a nominal penalty and defend it in Court as a tax after the fact. To use a popular example, the government can now still force you to purchase broccoli, as long as the punishment is a fine rather than imprisonment…

In a broader sense, this case was testing the assumption that the Supreme Court would never invalidate a major act of Congress. Even if Roberts had only agreed to strike down the mandate, it would have sent a powerful message that the Supreme Court is willing to protect the Constitution from further encroachments. But I fear when all is said and done, after this case, future lawmakers will still feel confident in the assumption that they can pass whatever they want, and if the legislation is major enough, the Supreme Court will find some sort of excuse to uphold it.

***

Some will suggest that this is no victory at all, given the Court’s ruling that the money one must pay for failing to obtain insurance can be supported as a use of Congress’s taxing power. However, by confining within the taxing power the ability of Congress to adopt such schemes, the Court has greatly limited Congress’s ability and political appetite to attempt them in the future…

Another thing to note is that Chief Justice Roberts’s opinion on the taxing power is limited. He noted that it could not be considered punitive because the amount citizens are required to pay for not having insurance is far less than they would have to pay to obtain insurance. He strongly suggests that, if Congress were to require citizens to pay an amount greater than the costs of insurance, that would constitute a penalty, and thus would be unconstitutional.

***

I would find this perspective [that Roberts's opinion was a victory for smaller government] considerably more persuasive if I could envision how, exactly, this war of “slow constriction” is supposed to play out. Does anyone really believe that a Roberts-led Court is likely to revisit the constitutionality of the major post-New Deal social programs? That it’s going to overturn child labor laws and minimum wage laws, or shutter regulatory agencies? Whatever precedent was set yesterday, that kind of genuine counter-revolution seems highly unlikely…

In an intellectual sense, the logic of the health care mandate may indeed have been “pregnant with rampant statism,” as Will puts it. But in terms of practical politics, the health care bill was itself the most statist act that’s likely to pass Congress over the next decade at least, and maybe in John Roberts’ lifetime. And by upholding it, Roberts handed liberals a victory in the scope-of-government war that matters most to them, while at worst setting them up to lose some less important skirmishes somewhere down the road.

***

In his remarkable health care opinion Thursday, the chief justice of the Supreme Court restrained the power of his own institution. He decided not to use judicial power to overrule the democratic process. He decided not to provoke a potential institutional crisis. Granted, he had to imagine a law slightly different than the one that was passed in order to get the result he wanted, but Roberts’s decision still represents a moment of, if I can say so, Burkean minimalism and self-control…

And here’s the biggest gift that Roberts gave to the nation: By restraining the power of the court to shape health care policy, he opened up space for the rest of us to shape that policy through the political process. By modestly refraining from rewriting health care laws himself, he has given voters and politicians more room to be audacious.

***

What did Roberts get? Institutional respect for the Court from people who have no respect for the Courts unless they win? That’s not a prize one can count on to last long. If you think liberals we say, “we’ll let it slide next time we lose a 5-4 decision and promise to never again push the boundaries of the Commerce Clause because Roberts gave us ObamaCare” you’ve missed the last 80 or 90 years of liberalism and the courts. Maybe I missed something but the New Deal and Warren courts* were happy to overturn decades and decades of law and never felt the need to “throw a bone” to conservatives (or people who thought the words of the Constitution had some set meanings).

In fact, Roberts has actually lost something very important (if this theory is right)…he’s shown that with enough bullying and threats against the legitimacy of his Court, he’ll give in.

***

There are probably five votes to uproot the entire campaign finance system, a decision that would make Citizens United look like small fry. And there are probably five votes to invalidate Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

I don’t think invalidating the ACA would have affected the court’s legitimacy that much, at least outside of liberals in the legal academy. But taken as a whole, this series of decisions really might have irrevocably hurt the court’s reputation for independence.

But Roberts has something of an ace up his sleeve now. Accusations of hyper-partisanship are much harder to make against him, and he has more freedom to move on these issues.

All told, it is easier for the conservative wing of the court to make some significant rulings in some other policy areas.

***

I don’t know what’s in Roberts’s heart, but no court watcher I’ve heard from puts much weight on the idea that Roberts did anything other than reason backward from the result he wanted in order to buy respect from the court’s critics at the expense of his own beliefs…

That so few people seem to care augurs poorly for the rule of law and the auspices of our republic.

***

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7

defeat, now vote.

rob verdi on June 29, 2012 at 8:54 PM

Unconstitutional Justice.

Electrongod on June 29, 2012 at 8:55 PM

Where’s the bunny?

El_Terrible on June 29, 2012 at 8:55 PM

So what will Obama girl’s wisdom cost me and my family and the nation?

burrata on June 29, 2012 at 8:56 PM

Robert’s Constitution is made of silly putty, not parchment.

profitsbeard on June 29, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Will Mr. Roberts emerge from his bunker next Groundhog’s day? And how will he interpret the shadow he’s cast?

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on June 29, 2012 at 8:58 PM

I walked into Walmart looking for a new bicycle helmet. They didn’t have the color I wanted so I left. That’s when it got crazy.

As I was walking to my car this crazy guy attacked me. He started yelling I had to pay. I told him he was crazy because I didn’t buy anything. He yelled “AHA!! You admit it!” It was effing Roberts.

El_Terrible on June 29, 2012 at 8:58 PM

OMG if I have to look at that sh-it eating grin on Robert’s face one more time I’m gonna puke.

Nikkia2112 on June 29, 2012 at 8:58 PM

too early to tell.

ted c on June 29, 2012 at 8:58 PM

In fact, Roberts has actually lost something very important (if this theory is right)…he’s shown that with enough bullying and threats against the legitimacy of his Court, he’ll give in.

I like this author ….

burrata on June 29, 2012 at 9:00 PM

Libs have a point….once the freebies begin its hard to stop them
This has got to stop…..need to get the senate and wh back and stand strong and tell tge truth

Folks will get it.

cmsinaz on June 29, 2012 at 9:00 PM

This statist monster has been growing, and Roberts opened the gate.

Congress has to slay it, bury it, lest it be revived again a few years hence.

AshleyTKing on June 29, 2012 at 9:00 PM

I walked into Walmart looking for a new bicycle helmet. They didn’t have the color I wanted so I left. That’s when it got crazy.

As I was walking to my car this crazy guy attacked me. He started yelling I had to pay. I told him he was crazy because I didn’t buy anything. He yelled “AHA!! You admit it!” It was effing Roberts.

El_Terrible on June 29, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Was it on a Friday???
Taxes are higher when going to Walmart on Friday..

Electrongod on June 29, 2012 at 9:00 PM

President Lawless now has a soul mate in Chief Justice Lawless.

I’m seeing a trend here…

…..and a friggin worthless, cowardly gop as an opposition party.

PappyD61 on June 29, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Gee, another Obamatax/SC thread. Imagine that?

Flora Duh on June 29, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Wait a minute… QOTD… the smiley Roberts face… the quotes… the cleverness of the decision… the cluelessness of the decision…

It’s déjà vu all over again!

de rigueur on June 29, 2012 at 9:01 PM

I only agree on one point. Roberts knew the result he wanted and weaseled his way backwards to achieve it. I’ve seen this happen a lot in lower courts. Roberts acted as though he was in small claims court.

MrX on June 29, 2012 at 9:03 PM

Gee, another Obamatax/SC thread. Imagine that?

Flora Duh on June 29, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Yeh, getting so I don’t even want to come here…

OmahaConservative on June 29, 2012 at 9:03 PM

OMG if I have to look at that sh-it eating grin on Robert’s face one more time I’m gonna puke.

Nikkia2112 on June 29, 2012 at 8:58 PM

Thinking the same thing. Can’t AP put photoshop a bag over his head or put Souter’s face on his body since there’s no difference between them. When you read the dissenting opinion, you realize just how contorted Robert’s thinking (or lack thereof) was. This was no Bobby Fisheresque chess move. It was a purely political vote because he’s a coward and has no conservative core. Period. One can spin it or rationalize it until the cows come home, but in the end, it was a dark day for freedom.

TxAnn56 on June 29, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Wait a minute… QOTD… the smiley Roberts face… the quotes… the cleverness of the decision… the cluelessness of the decision…

It’s déjà vu all over again!

de rigueur on June 29, 2012 at 9:01 PM

Enlighten us….

idesign on June 29, 2012 at 9:06 PM

I’ve seen so many different interpretations of the decision that I can only believe that most people (especially the so-called experts) simply do not understand what the court did here. I’d rather wait and see what happens next.

n0doz on June 29, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Gee, another Obamatax/SC thread. Imagine that?

Flora Duh on June 29, 2012 at 9:01 PM

It’s getting to be a bit sadistic.

Nikkia2112 on June 29, 2012 at 9:06 PM

Landmark Legal Foundation destroyed Roberts’ tax argument in their briefs. It also demanded that the court explain what kind of tax this is if tbey wanted to use te tax arguement. Roberts ignored it whole clothe in order to preserve his Legacy. That man is a disgrace.

jawkneemusic on June 29, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Brooksie gives John Roberts the kiss of death…

d1carter on June 29, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Maybe the Libs are right. Maybe Dubya is an idiot. Evidence: He appointed John Robers to SCOTUS.

SagebrushPuppet on June 29, 2012 at 9:07 PM

It may look like Roberts betrayed you, it may sound like Roberts betrayed you, it may even feel like Roberts betrayed you, but don’t let that fool you, he really did betray you!

VorDaj on June 29, 2012 at 9:07 PM

Levin’s first hour today explained why the commerce clause was NOT reigned in by this written ruling. Some kind of procedural details about needing “the court finds” in the language that addressed the commerce clause and it was missing. It was Roberts stating his view point only.

Listen to Levin’s first hour from his show today, it will completely depress you.

karenhasfreedom on June 29, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Complete, total, and devastating defeat.

May John Roberts burn in Hell.

Stoic Patriot on June 29, 2012 at 9:08 PM

John Roberts

Duh!

SagebrushPuppet on June 29, 2012 at 9:08 PM

It was a purely political vote because he’s a coward and has no conservative core.

TxAnn56 on June 29, 2012 at 9:06 PM

I’m hoping he’s a conservative but a coward. Either way, he just demonstrated he can be bullied.

I am truly terrified that we’ve lost him though.

El_Terrible on June 29, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Victory or defeat?

Won’t know until all the results are in. November.

Bmore on June 29, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Listen to Levin’s first hour from his show today, it will completely depress you.

karenhasfreedom on June 29, 2012 at 9:08 PM

Thanks, but I’m already depressed.

SagebrushPuppet on June 29, 2012 at 9:09 PM

If Obama had a son..
He would look like John Roberts.

Electrongod on June 29, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike: What Professor Barnett, who argued the case on behalf of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, that’s NFIB, said was that the Roberts Court told the future congresses that their power to spend has been checked. You see, I can’t see how you can reconcile that, though, because the Affordable Care Act compels spending. Then he presented the caveat, but it doesn’t apply to the new spending under the act. I don’t understand.

The Health and Inhuman Disservices Department is fastidiously out there playing public sector venture capitalist of choice for new hospitals, new clinics, new pharmaceutical companies, new research companies. They’re already doing it. Again, they’ve expanded the sphere. If you wanted to circumscribe or stop future spending, then you would strike the commerce power to spend on the things that had come before by reaffirming that you could spend on Medicaid under the Commerce Clause. You’ve now set it in stone. Barnett sees it half full; I see it half empty.

I want to get Professor McClanahan in on this, my good friend Brion McClanahan. His latest book, Forgotten Conservatives of American History, written with the great Clyde Wilson. At MikeChurch.com, we have autographed copies that Professor Wilson and Professor McClanahan have both autographed. Brion, first of all, good morning and thanks for joining us.

Professor Brion McClanahan: Good morning. Thanks for having me. I appreciate it.

Mike: I don’t know if you got to hear Professor Barnett, or if you just heard my recount of Professor Barnett. What say you?

Professor McClanahan: It really doesn’t matter. The whole piece of legislation is a disaster in so many ways. Of course, I even said before the Supreme Court ruled on this case that it really doesn’t matter in that way, either. If they ruled it was unconstitutional or constitutional, it’s not even their purview to do this. This is really a Tenth Amendment issue.

I was listening yesterday to Rush Limbaugh and others on talk radio. Of course, it’s all over Facebook, “What are we going to do about this? This is a disaster. I don’t know what to do. We’re going to elect Republicans. That’s what we’re going to do.” Of course, that’s not what you need to do. The states need to grow a backbone and say, “We’re just not going to enforce it. You ruled its constitutional. So what? It’s not constitutional in our state.” We need to dust off this idea of nullification again. I think Scott Walker in Wisconsin actually brought this up, we’re just not going to enforce it in Wisconsin. That’s what we need to be doing now and forget about the Supreme Court.

This idea that it cuts spending power or increases taxing power, they’ve been doing this for hundreds of years. Since the early Marshall court, they’ve been expanding the power of the federal government. I don’t know in what way anyone would look at this as half empty or half full. It’s completely empty to me. The bill was unconstitutional from the get-go, whether they’re relying on the Commerce Clause or the General Welfare Clause or whatever stupid clause they want to pull out of the Constitution. They can’t find any authority for it. Of course, they’re reading between the lines. As Jefferson famously said, to paraphrase, “I’ve read between the lines and I found only blank space.” There’s nothing there. This is a completely ridiculous notion to think that this does anything to the power of the central government except increase its power.

Mike: Okay. That was my takeaway from it. Professor Barnett said, “No, seven justices clarified the Necessary and Proper Clause.” I haven’t read the opinion yet. I’ve been really busy working on What Lincoln Killed, so I haven’t had a chance to read it yet. The Necessary and Proper Clause was perverted forevermore by McCulloch v. Maryland. This goes back to 1819.

Professor McClanahan: Right. Marshall screwed that up anyway. Of course, at the ratifying conventions, this was brought up in several states. “This Necessary and Proper Clause is going to be a disaster.” “No, no,” the proponents said. “This is just necessary to put in there because we could have put this after every clause in Article I Section 8.” You can say we have the power to do such and such, to make post roads. Every law that we make shall be necessary and proper to carry that into execution. They’ll put it at the end of Article I Section 8. This was not going to enhance the power of the government at all. It’s just something to put in there that says we can make legislation to do this, but it didn’t enhance the powers of the government. It didn’t increase the powers of the government. On the contrary, it was something that we have to say, because if we don’t say that, how are you going to enact legislation?

Of course, Patrick Henry called these things the sweeping clauses. Over and over again, this was argued that this thing is never going to abuse the powers of the states. Again, that’s the issue here. This is centralization. This is nationalization of the government. The progressives, back in the early 20th Century and late 19th Century, figured out this is how you’re going to have to do this. You’re going to have to start calling this government a national government. Of course, that was the debate in Philadelphia. We’re going to have to go back to that, start calling this thing a national government. We are the American people. The states are irrelevant. They’re just mere provinces of us and we can do whatever we want. We operate on individuals. We can tell individuals whatever we want them to do, whatever taxing authority we have. It’s ridiculous.

Mike: So we have Professor Brion McClanahan on the Dude Maker Hotline with us. I started the program today by saying that at 10:10 a.m. yesterday morning, if you hadn’t already made the decision to get out, many people’s hearts, minds and souls decided that they wanted to get out, that they no longer wanted to be governed by this tyrannical monster that calls itself the federal government of the United States of America. They’re now thinking, “No, Rush, we’re not buying your elect more Republicans crap because that hasn’t worked for the last century.” It certainly hasn’t worked for the last half of a century. There has to be another way. The other thing that we’re hearing and keep hearing, and I’ll play one for you, this is Congresswoman Michelle Bachman saying there’s only one way to get out of this. This is from The O’Reilly Factor last night, Laura Ingraham guest hosting. Michelle Bachman, how do we get out of this?

[start audio clip]

Michelle Bachman: People are angry. They’re shocked. Now what they recognize is that there’s one option left, it’s a powerful option. It’s the ballot box in November. I think more than ever, Democrats and Independents are going to be looking at a Mitt Romney for President because it’s a very clear contrast. It’s Barack Obama and you keep ObamaCare or it’s Mitt Romney and you repeal it. This was my signature issue when I ran for president. I will tell you that Mitt Romney has told me on more than one occasion, looking in my eyes, “Michelle, I will repeal ObamaCare.” We have to not only win the White House, we have to win the Senate and the House. People shouldn’t be fooled into thinking we have to have 60 Republican seats in the Senate. We need 50 plus one.

[end audio clip]

Mike: There you have it. You win another federal election and this will be sunshine and gumdrops.

Professor McClanahan: Right. It’s a completely ridiculous idea. Mitt Romney, how can you really trust a guy that’s been so duplicitous throughout his career? He’s one thing, another thing. He believes in federal power, I should say general power or central power. It doesn’t matter if the Republicans are there. That’s great. They’re going to repeal it, but what are they going to replace it with? They’re going to come up with something that will be almost the exact same thing, they just won’t call it that. To put all your faith in the Republicans is ridiculous. You have to start doing this at the local and state level. Of course, I don’t know how many Americans realize that, but that’s where all the power lies. If the states said, “Enough of this, we’re not following your stupid law,” nullification, which we think is a dirty word, nullification has worked every single time it’s been attempted or threatened in United States history. This is what we should be doing now, just saying, “Forget you, federal government. The states can do this.”

Mike: And that’s what I said on March 22nd, 2010. You people are going to be told to elect Republicans, pursue this in the federal courts. I said no, the way to do this is to have your state nullify this, strike it down, have a ballot initiative. However you accomplish it, that’s the course of action. Of course now, the federal power mongers are taking to all the radio, television and internet airwaves and are saying, “No, no, we’ve got to stick with this. We’ve got them on the run now. Now we can get them at the ballot box in November.” It hasn’t worked.

I pose a challenge to people today. You tell me how you are going to prevent things like this from happening, or try to prevent things like this from happening, from the national government, because that’s what it is now, from the national mob to your children. You may not be able to stop it from us, but please explain to me how you explain to stop this from happening to your children. The word posterity is actually in the Constitution, in the preamble, because they had an eye looking towards the future. To me, that is the challenge. I don’t think you’re going to fix this. I don’t think it’s reparable. I think it has to be disintegrated at some level.

The only way you’re going to accomplish that is by first convincing your friends and neighbors in your states, as Professor McClanahan pointed out, that you have to rethink the problem. Thinking about it like you have been brainwashed and propagandized to think about for the last 50 years plus, since Goldwater lost, has produced today — this is what drives you nuts, Brion. Doing it the way we’re being told to go back and do it by Ms. Bachmann and even my governor, it produced ObamaCare, produced the Pelosi Congress, produced Bush nominating Roberts, and it produced yesterday’s decision. This is what it produced. This is an undeniable fact. So why would you counsel the same course of action. I don’t understand this.

Professor McClanahan: You got me. You’re preaching to the choir. This is showing again that the federal government has as monopoly on its own power. It can pass whatever legislation it wants and it has a Supreme Court that’s often complicit in going along with unconstitutional acts. It doesn’t matter. You can take any issue. We’ve seen it with healthcare. We just saw it with the immigration issue. Take any issue you want. They’re going to say, “Well, we can find the power somewhere in the Constitution because some Supreme Court has said something, some federalist essay that doesn’t even matter says something. We can do it.”

I think that’s the point in all this. They have again decided they have a monopoly on power. You citizens are going to follow that monopoly on power. There’s no check to it. Well, there is. It’s out there, and of course it’s the states. This stuff was talked about in the ratifying conventions. It was promised over and over again the states would not lose their authority in this government, and they have. I think that’s the ultimate travesty in all of this.

[...]

Mike: Please pass on to Professor Wilson that he wrote this great, great piece for Chronicles magazine last November called “A Little Rebellion.” I know you read it. Please pass onto Professor Wilson, in the last paragraph where he says that there aren’t very many Jeffersonians left today, that you know of at least one.

Professor McClanahan: Well, with your show, we’re getting more. This is it. You have to plant the seed somewhere. I think you’re doing a great job with that. Of course your listeners out there reading what they’re reading and talking to their friends, it has to start somewhere. The progressives were right in what they did in that they started small and worked their way up. They didn’t look at we’re going to elect a president and go from the top down. They went from the bottom up. They changed minds and then of course they changed everything.

Mike: They changed the culture. You have to undo the change.

Professor McClanahan: That’s exactly right.

Mike: Forgotten Conservatives in American History is the book. One final question, because your prior book was The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution. You have an entire chapter in there, not a chapter, but an entire section where you had mentioned, in one of the rare instances, you mentioned a modern case. You did mention ObamaCare and you had written about the powers of the Commerce Clause and what it could be used for. In looking at The Founding Fathers Guide to the Constitution, what did the Supremes do yesterday to restore — Barnett said they restored the Commerce Clause. I’m like what?

Professor McClanahan: Again, I don’t see how anyone can say that. The Commerce Clause was designed in two ways. One, to of course deal with international commerce. In 1787, when Congress made treaties, they weren’t necessarily sure they could get any of the states to agree to it. They wanted to ensure that they had a single voice when dealing with say Great Britain or France. So that was one thing. The other thing, of course, was when they talked about regulating trade between the states or interstate trade, what they were looking at was having a free trade zone around the United States. They didn’t want the State of Maryland and the State of Virginia passing tariffs against each other so that they couldn’t trade goods.

The idea was to make trade more free, not to make it regulated to the point that you can’t do anything. This whole idea that they can go in and expand this clause like they’ve done, again, it’s ridiculous. They don’t even look at those ratifying debates. They don’t even look at the debates in the Philadelphia Convention. They don’t care. They go back and look at Supreme Court decisions. We’ve now had this mess of case law. It’s ruined the Constitution, of course, ruined the federal republic. It’s gone.

Mike: I’m trying to be fair with Professor Barnett, because he is a frequent guest as well. Professor McClanahan has a different opinion. I tend to agree more with Professor McClanahan than Barnett. Barnett said yesterday the Constitution was saved. You would agree or disagree with that?

Professor McClanahan: Well, I don’t think it’s been saved since 1803. I think it’s a steady decline. You can even go before that. The Constitution has been on a steady decline. I don’t think it’s been saved at all. Take your pick of a president that’s even gone in line with the Constitution or Congress that’s passed constitutional legislation in several, several years. The Supreme Court hasn’t done anything but keep expanding the power of the national government.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 9:09 PM

One can spin it or rationalize it until the cows come home, but in the end, it was a dark day for freedom.

TxAnn56 on June 29, 2012 at 9:06 PM

and this time,
it is Bush’s fault

burrata on June 29, 2012 at 9:09 PM

I’m still just dumbfounded that I can now be taxed for not wanting to participate… can’t wait till I go into the book store and find I have to pay a tax for not buy The One’s latest book. :(

uncommon sense on June 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM

However painful it was to read the headline “Obamacare Stands” on Drudge yesterday, Chief Justice Roberts made the right call.

Allah, what the bleepity bleep? Roberts didn’t make the right call. Cripes.

Oh wait this is QOTD. Never mind.

SparkPlug on June 29, 2012 at 9:10 PM

I’m having a hard time believing Roberts is crafty enought to have held this up so that Republicans could rally and squash it and Obama in November. I’m more thrown for a loop by something Geraldo said on O’Reilly tonight. He told Laura Ingraham that he is not a Democrat, he’s a Republican. I just about died.

TXMomof3 on June 29, 2012 at 9:12 PM

and this time,
it is Bush’s fault

burrata on June 29, 2012 at 9:09 PM

I blame Roberts’s parents..

Not really..
But we can’t blame Bush…

Electrongod on June 29, 2012 at 9:13 PM

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Too long…

So I just scroll past it..

Electrongod on June 29, 2012 at 9:14 PM

Roberts should resign, he’s not up to his duties as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

All the Roberts apologist can save their energy, and keystrokes.

Looks like Ann Coulter called this one.

Dr Evil on June 29, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Gee, another Obamatax/SC thread. Imagine that?

Flora Duh on June 29, 2012 at 9:01 PM | Delete | Delete and Ban

Yep. Nothing on Holder or the letter Grassley and Issa sent about possible DOJ retaliation against the whistleblowers. This stuff bores me I’m out.

a capella on June 29, 2012 at 9:15 PM

Too long…

So I just scroll past it..

Electrongod on June 29, 2012 at 9:14 PM

That’s ok. It’s past your reading grade level.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM

I’m hoping he’s a conservative but a coward. Either way, he just demonstrated he can be bullied.

I am truly terrified that we’ve lost him though.

El_Terrible on June 29, 2012 at 9:08 PM

I don’t think we ever had him. Check out Lawrence Auster’s site who wrote about him extensively in 2005 when he was nominated. He’s got his 2005 archives on the front page. Rather chilling to say the least. If SSM comes to the court, he’ll vote in favor. Read about his pro bono work for gay activists and you’ll come to the same conclusion.

TxAnn56 on June 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Another quote of the day:

“Nancy Pelosi is a dingbat.” – Sarah Palin on Hannity.

LOL

Philly on June 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Will Mr. Roberts emerge from his bunker next Groundhog’s day? And how will he interpret the shadow he’s cast?

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on June 29, 2012 at 8:58 PM

The dark shadow he has forever cast on the Constitution is too much for me to handle. Between AZ getting bent over and now the rest of the country, I am stunned.
Congress keeps spending, Obama says FU, and the supremes say “You go boi.” :(

arnold ziffel on June 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM

There is a larger point. If the only way Americans can defend their liberties is to hide behind the verbiage of a Supreme Court opinion, it’s already too late for freedom here.

If conservatives in an election year like this one can’t win the battle of the ballot box, no Supreme Court judgment can save them.

This part is true I’m affraid

neuquenguy on June 29, 2012 at 9:17 PM

i guess that brooks gets paid by the word, but i get tired of the lazy leftist trope…quantity v quality of h/c

so brooks thinks his doc doesn’t give him quality care? a big problem with the progressive mind is that they create another world that they believe exists…somewhere else…somewhere in the ghettos of this country, somewhere in flyover country, where docs do assembly line medicine on stupid peasants…pulling their tonsils out, cutting off their feet for a few extra bucks

anyone who has the slightest contact with reality knows that government h/c will NOT be quality

brooks makes a mockery of himself.

the assembly lines are in barry.care…the capitation rates, the lists of protocols.

i’ve seen a lot of docs in my time…they work tons harder and are way smarter than brooks or barry can dream of.

r keller on June 29, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Looks like I picked a bad week to quit taking emphetamines.

Everything is rigged, even roller derby.

SparkPlug on June 29, 2012 at 9:18 PM

I’m just curious, does Roberts negate Marbury vs. Madison?

It’s a BS argument, AP. It’s their job to rule unconstitutional law unconstitutional. It can’t be spun. They granted that responsibiliy to themselves. They get to now pick and choose?

wolly4321 on June 29, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Ignore him EG

cmsinaz on June 29, 2012 at 9:18 PM

Geraldo said on O’Reilly tonight. He told Laura Ingraham that he is not a Democrat, he’s a Republican. I just about died.

TXMomof3 on June 29, 2012 at 9:12 PM

thank you very much, lol. Just a few more of them kind of “republicans” and we’ll be in fine shape.

arnold ziffel on June 29, 2012 at 9:19 PM

That’s ok. It’s past your reading grade level.

Dante on June 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Actually I read a…

Ignore him EG

cmsinaz on June 29, 2012 at 9:18 PM

You are probably right..

Electrongod on June 29, 2012 at 9:20 PM

Another quote of the day:

“Nancy Pelosi is a dingbat.” – Sarah Palin on Hannity.

LOL

Philly on June 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM

I saw that too…LMAO

idesign on June 29, 2012 at 9:20 PM

I still cannot get rid of the knot in my stomach. I guess I need to get a life?

neuquenguy on June 29, 2012 at 9:20 PM

I just can’t wait for Moores new documentry,

Going Forward to HealthCare Faulure!
(sarc)

canopfor on June 29, 2012 at 9:21 PM

The decision doesn’t end the health care debate; it accelerates it. I spoke to some conservatives on Thursday. They were disappointed by the ruling, but they were delighted with the language on the commerce clause. Most of all, they were excited about the coming political debate. They remain sure that Obamacare is a fatally unpopular and flawed Rube Goldberg device and were energized to work harder for its repeal.

HOW DARE THEY?

Don’t these people realize they’re supposed to running around like their hair’s on fire screaming “we’re doomed, we’re doomed?”

Flora Duh on June 29, 2012 at 9:21 PM

I’ve developed a headache wondering about why Roberts did what he did. Who really knows? My latest theory is that he was beaten up so badly about the Citzens United decision, he decided he wanted some love from the liberal media. Well, he’s certainly getting that now – The Most Greatest Justice evah! I’m sure he’s also getting quite a few invitations to D.C. parties.

TarheelBen on June 29, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Won’t know until all the results are in. November.

Bmore on June 29, 2012 at 9:09 PM

I guess that is our last hope, by the way how are you friend Bmore… been to long I know, and I’ll try not to fall asleep tonight :)

uncommon sense on June 29, 2012 at 9:23 PM

I think Time will make Roberts the man of the year.

El_Terrible on June 29, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Another quote of the day:

“Nancy Pelosi is a dingbat.” – Sarah Palin on Hannity.

LOL

Philly on June 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM

That sure caught my attention. I would love to see Romney pick someone who could get me as excited as Sarah did.

TXMomof3 on June 29, 2012 at 9:23 PM

No doubt el_terrible ……big mug on the front cover

cmsinaz on June 29, 2012 at 9:25 PM

That sure caught my attention. I would love to see Romney pick someone who could get me as excited as Sarah did.

TXMomof3 on June 29, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Gary Johnson comes to mind. What do you think? :)

arnold ziffel on June 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

I’m having a hard time believing Roberts is crafty enought to have held this up so that Republicans could rally and squash it and Obama in November. I’m more thrown for a loop by something Geraldo said on O’Reilly tonight. He told Laura Ingraham that he is not a Democrat, he’s a Republican. I just about died.

TXMomof3 on June 29, 2012 at 9:12 PM

Yeah, that mean Laura Ingraham browbeat poor Geraldo over F&F so bad I thought he was going to cry.

Funny when democratics are in power in Congress, the oversight responsibility of the Congress is sacrosanct and nothing shall stand in its way.

Under Republicans however, it’s always a witch-hunt, just politics.

slickwillie2001 on June 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

I think Time will make Roberts the man of the year.

El_Terrible on June 29, 2012 at 9:23 PM

Well, can you think of someone who has more impact this year?

TXMomof3 on June 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

I just can’t wait for Moores new documentry,

Going Forward to HealthCare Faulure!
(sarc)

canopfor on June 29, 2012 at 9:21 PM

Actually you are on to something..

Michael Moore doesn’t need to travel to Cuba anymore…..
He can stay right here and film his new movie..

And call it “Smoke and Mirrors”

Electrongod on June 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

They better start building more prisons. I refuse to comply. I had healthcare until barky got involved. Now my company can’t afford it. And I’ll be taxed for that?

Yea, he can kiss my arse.

Roberts can too. It could have been killed dead.

wolly4321 on June 29, 2012 at 9:27 PM

So,um,whats the story on the HealthCare Rebate Cheques!?

Obama healthcare reforms lead to $1.3 billion in insurance rebates
April 26, 2012
***************

WASHINGTON — U.S. consumers and businesses will receive an estimated $1.3 billion in rebates from insurance companies this year, according to a new study quantifying a key early benefit of the healthcare law that President Obama signed in 2010.

That will translate into anywhere from a few dollars to more than $150 for some 15 million consumers nationwide, the new report by the nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation found.
=========================================

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/apr/26/news/la-pn-obama-healthcare-reforms-lead-to-13-billion-in-insurance-rebates-20120425

canopfor on June 29, 2012 at 9:27 PM

Oh just stop with the damn “brilliant” spin. This was naked moral cowardice; nothing more.

Cleombrotus on June 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM

If Obama had a son..
He would look like John Roberts.

Electrongod on June 29, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Electrongod:Lol:)

canopfor on June 29, 2012 at 9:28 PM

Gary Johnson comes to mind. What do you think? :)

arnold ziffel on June 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Not a spark, sorry! When they announced Sarah Palin was the nominee, I broke down and cried. Identity politics were a major part. A conservative working mother was something I could relate to.

TXMomof3 on June 29, 2012 at 9:29 PM

TXMomof3
———-

I saw Geraldo on OReilly too. He was in a pi**y mood.

When he said I’m a Republican I almost spit out my beer but I didn’t want to waste it on Geraldo.

He must be one of those “Republicans” who voted for Obama.

bailey24 on June 29, 2012 at 9:29 PM

canopfor on June 29, 2012 at 9:27 PM

I guess my company missed that memo, as I’m still waiting and paying more for the same coverage :) how are you canopfor, long time no see, on my behalf anyway :)

uncommon sense on June 29, 2012 at 9:30 PM

Well, can you think of someone who has more impact this year?

TXMomof3 on June 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

I’m simply not looking forward to it.

El_Terrible on June 29, 2012 at 9:30 PM

slickwillie2001 on June 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Have you ever seen Geraldo espouse a single conservative principle? His brand of Republicanism is something scary to behold.

TXMomof3 on June 29, 2012 at 9:31 PM

I still cannot get rid of the knot in my stomach. I guess I need to get a life?

neuquenguy on June 29, 2012 at 9:20 PM

It’s the same knot we all have. Because we love this country, it’s heritage, it’s history, it’s forefathers, etc. I can only speak for myself, but it’s sickening to watch this country be destroyed. And destroyed from the enemy within, i.e., Roberts. This wasn’t friendly fire, he torpedoed the constitution. He spat on my father’s service to this country and every other veteran who put their life on the line so we wouldn’t have to be taxed on something we didn’t want. I don’t like Mitt Romney, but as God as my witness (said in Scarlett O’Hara fashion), I will drag his a$$ over the finish line if it effing kills me. Four more years of Obama and we’re at Soylent Green.

TxAnn56 on June 29, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Contrary to popular belief, the Constitution does not protect people in any way.

Unless you are a criminal, in which case you have so many rights you need a lawyer (paid for by the government) to explain them to you.

If you are a responsible person, f**k you. Pay. The government owns your property and the government owns YOU.

jaime on June 29, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Well, can you think of someone who has more impact this year?

TXMomof3 on June 29, 2012 at 9:26 PM

Time will probably pick someone like Julian Assange.

TarheelBen on June 29, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Not a spark, sorry! When they announced Sarah Palin was the nominee, I broke down and cried. Identity politics were a major part. A conservative working mother was something I could relate to.

TXMomof3 on June 29, 2012 at 9:29 PM

So there is no misunderstanding, know that I was kidding. A couple of posters are very fond of little Gary and it has become a running joke on QOTD. I don’t even know who he is other than I think he wants to legalize reefer madness.

arnold ziffel on June 29, 2012 at 9:33 PM

bailey24 on June 29, 2012 at 9:29 PM

No, doubt. He’s a lover of all the leftist lunatics and friends with all the doofuses (sp?)who spout Obama love. I don’t know about you, but I don’t have any lunatic liberal buddies.

TXMomof3 on June 29, 2012 at 9:34 PM

‘Cuda has moxie, that’s for sure.

Philly on June 29, 2012 at 9:34 PM

They better start building more prisons. I refuse to comply. I had healthcare until barky got involved. Now my company can’t afford it. And I’ll be taxed for that?

Yea, he can kiss my arse.

Roberts can too. It could have been killed dead.

wolly4321 on June 29, 2012 at 9:27 PM

I have a indivudual high deductible policy from Blue Cross..

I just got a letter the other day informing me that because of the O-Tax..
Blue Cross has to spend 80% of my monthly premiums on improving health care..
If not…I get a rebate…
Well..this letter told me that they meant their obligations so I don’t get a rebate.

If they are spending 80% of my premiums…instead of putting it into a pool…
?

Talk about the Feds granting the insurance companies to be little IRS offices..

Electrongod on June 29, 2012 at 9:34 PM

Draft dodgers refused to serve their country and were given amnesty.

Foreign nationals invade this country and are given amnesty.

Tax payers should refuse to pay taxes and demand amnesty. Demand it. Just like everyone else.

jaime on June 29, 2012 at 9:35 PM

If you are a responsible person, f**k you. Pay. The government owns your property and the government owns YOU.

jaime on June 29, 2012 at 9:32 PM

Well said sir. And I might add, the bureaucrats are always too chickenshit to approach/counsel/spank the losers who are causing problems.

arnold ziffel on June 29, 2012 at 9:36 PM

Mark Levin nails it in writing today and in spoken word yesterday. This is no victory. This is a disaster.

HeckOnWheels on June 29, 2012 at 9:37 PM

Now that this USSC Obamacare case has been closed, does anyone have a list of the other challenges to Obamacare and where they presently are in the court system?

The one decided this week soaked up all our attention, now we should be focusing on the others.

slickwillie2001 on June 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

In his remarkable health care opinion Thursday, the chief justice of the Supreme Court restrained the power of his own institution. He decided not to use judicial power to overrule the democratic process.

What he did is violate his oath to the Constitution and Bill of Rights by refusing to protect the individual rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

FloatingRock on June 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

There is a bit of Hope to possibly Change it,
er,Repeal it!

US House Majority Leader Cantor:

House will vote week of July 9 to repeal health care law -

statement via @NBCNews

Submitted 56 secs ago by editor

canopfor on June 28, 2012 at 11:11 AM

canopfor on June 29, 2012 at 9:40 PM

For your viewing pleasure..:)

http://www.therightscoop.com/video-sarah-palin-nancy-pelosi-is-a-dingbat/

idesign on June 29, 2012 at 9:40 PM

If Obama had a son..
He would look like John Roberts.

Electrongod on June 29, 2012 at 9:09 PM

Not funny, you homophobic pig.

Bishop on June 29, 2012 at 9:41 PM

The dark shadow he has forever cast on the Constitution is too much for me to handle. Between AZ getting bent over and now the rest of the country, I am stunned.
Congress keeps spending, Obama says FU, and the supremes say “You go boi.” :(

arnold ziffel on June 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Answers aren’t coming any easier today. Mystifying! And the thing is, Mr. Roberts and the rest keep their jobs until they, themselves say “Quit” and never have to explain to Americans why they made a decision that they knew would upend history.

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on June 29, 2012 at 9:41 PM

…Actually I was wrong above: What Roberts did was fail to protect the individual rights of the majority of Americans from the tyranny of the special interest minority of cronies who wrote Obamacare and Romneycare.

FloatingRock on June 29, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Mark Levin nails it in writing today and in spoken word yesterday. This is no victory. This is a disaster.

HeckOnWheels on June 29, 2012 at 9:37 PM

I’m starting to realize what it must have been like for the Titanic passengers when they realized their ship had just been struck. Will the S.S. Romney turn out to be the Carpathia?

TxAnn56 on June 29, 2012 at 9:42 PM

Have you ever seen Geraldo espouse a single conservative principle? His brand of Republicanism is something scary to behold.

TXMomof3 on June 29, 2012 at 9:31 PM

Naah. He’s as left as they come, like Charlie Rangel-Chuck Choomer style left. Laura should have asked him the last Republican he voted for. Probably Giuliani.

slickwillie2001 on June 29, 2012 at 9:43 PM

What he did is violate his oath to the Constitution and Bill of Rights by refusing to protect the individual rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority.

FloatingRock on June 29, 2012 at 9:39 PM

FR, for once we agree. I don’t understand how after the first day of oral arguments to determine if the case had standing, and if Ocare was a tax, to which the court decided otherwise, how can Roberts now deem that the mandate is a tax? That is literally creating, or re-writing the legislation, as it stands… I’m so confused and disappointed in this ruling :(

uncommon sense on June 29, 2012 at 9:43 PM

If anyone thinks Roberts did us a favor and was making a case for the electorate, legislative and executive to set it’s own policy and course they’re sadly mistaken. They won’t, economic realities will. That will be in the form of failure of the dollar, default on our debt and the collapse of our economic system. In other words, the fall of our country. Roberts just speed the process up. All in the liberal anthem of fairness.

lowandslow on June 29, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Not funny, you homophobic pig.

Bishop on June 29, 2012 at 9:41 PM

Just posted on the Drudge!!

Obama has walked back into the closet!!

Electrongod on June 29, 2012 at 9:43 PM

Let me see if I understand this correctly. Chief Justice blames the populace for electing people that write unconstitutional law in the first place because then he might have to do his job? Then helps them by rewriting it. I thought it was vote- concur or dissent.

wolly4321 on June 29, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Easy now, eeeeaaaasssyyyy. Just think of all the creative energy that will be unleashed in America as people try to figure out how to get around this debacle. I’m fortunate because the people I know are either experts in their fields or are so handy that it would boggle your mind; I can find ways to reduce what I buy and how I buy it. I will not contribute one more dime than is necessary to this administration.

Bishop on June 29, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Another quote of the day:

“Nancy Pelosi is a dingbat.” – Sarah Palin on Hannity.

LOL

Philly on June 29, 2012 at 9:16 PM

Bwahahahahahaahah. How could anyone not love this woman?

Go sister!

kim roy on June 29, 2012 at 9:45 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 7