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 4 5 6 7

This is not difficult. One of the ways to tell the character of a man is by the friends/company he keeps. Roberts partied with the 4 far leftists, not the 3 conservatives are even the “moderate”.

VorDaj on June 30, 2012 at 1:26 AM

KOOLAID2 on June 30, 2012 at 1:18 AM

Hmmm, Kollaid wants to sit on things that are spitting fire :) well maybe this will help with that venue :-)

uncommon sense on June 30, 2012 at 1:30 AM

I’m still waiting for any Roberts apologist to play out this commerce clause argument. It’s diminished how? Legally?

wolly4321 on June 30, 2012 at 1:33 AM

Obama kept claiming he had a shiny winner’s ribbon around his neck.

Roberts took the ribbon and rubbed it a little, and saw that it was in fact a turd sandwich.

He hung it around Obama’s neck again.

John the Libertarian on June 30, 2012 at 1:34 AM

We have no choice but to Carry On.

lynncgb on June 30, 2012 at 1:35 AM

I’m still waiting for any Roberts apologist to play out this commerce clause argument. It’s diminished how? Legally?

wolly4321 on June 30, 2012 at 1:33 AM

All Congress can do is tax. They cannot mandate behavior, and they cannot exhort commerce where none exists.

John the Libertarian on June 30, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Your refreshment was much appreciated.

lynncgb on June 30, 2012 at 12:50 AM

.
I am glad you enjoyed it.

PolAgnostic on June 30, 2012 at 1:36 AM

It’s not that you can’t explain it in full. You can’t explain it at all. You throw up strawmen.

I’ll ask again, point to law that limits the commerce clause. That was your defense of selling us out.

There is no law. One justices opinion. It carries no legal authority whatsoever. I’ll ask the same question….

You agree, right?

wolly4321 on June 30, 2012 at 12:50 AM

I came back here in good faith looking to expand our discussion, and I see a personal, condescending attack against me, “strawmen”, and “no legal authority”?

“no legal authority”, eh? – why don’t you try telling/selling that to those who say we now only need 51 votes in the Senate to rescind the 0bamaCare tax? Do you believe 0bamessiah will threaten to take the GOP to the USSC when they say there’s no need for them to be concerned with Reconciliation anymore, because the CC is inapplicable regarding 0bamaCare? LOL

You’re a rude, childish, self-righteous, passive-aggressive a$$hole, you refused to directly answer/address any of what I brought up, yet you still try to interact with me – you don’t realize that makes you a selfish, stupid, and uninteresting conversationalist to me, do you? :)

Until I‘m convinced you can talk to me civilly and intelligently, I’ll be snickering mightily whenever I see you try to get my attention! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 30, 2012 at 1:37 AM

uncommon sense on June 30, 2012 at 1:30 AM

…good tune…as I was picturing the DNC gathering.

KOOLAID2 on June 30, 2012 at 1:38 AM

All Congress can do is tax. They cannot mandate behavior, and they cannot exhort commerce where none exists.

John the Libertarian on June 30, 2012 at 1:35 AM

But, apparently, the Congress can tax someone for breathing…Then again AFTER a person ceases breathing…

Gohawgs on June 30, 2012 at 1:38 AM

KOOLAID2 on June 30, 2012 at 1:24 AM

Sorry I missed it..The Ad I saw was a car ad!..:)

Dire Straits on June 30, 2012 at 1:39 AM

We have no choice but to Carry On.

lynncgb on June 30, 2012 at 1:35 AM

Ah yes, and this is also pertinent! :)

uncommon sense on June 30, 2012 at 1:39 AM

Then again AFTER a person ceases breathing…

Gohawgs on June 30, 2012 at 1:38 AM

That’s the difference between a whore and the IRS. A whore will stop f**king you when you die.

jaime on June 30, 2012 at 1:40 AM

… Breitbart is probably laughing his butt off at all this “Breitbart is Here” stuff. As long as it results in meaningful action, anyway.

Axe on June 30, 2012 at 1:41 AM

Axe on June 30, 2012 at 1:26 AM

rofl..That is hilarious!..:)

Dire Straits on June 30, 2012 at 1:41 AM

Ok all, too many nights and 4 hour sleep sessions developing new and better ways to kill rodents and cockroaches in the last month for me… I will leave on this last song and may we take it to the left come November!

uncommon sense on June 30, 2012 at 1:43 AM

John the Libertarian on June 30, 2012 at 1:35 AM

I noticed a few more cracks in the Democrats conga line today..:)

PS..Plus Obie is getting no bump in todays polling..:)

Dire Straits on June 30, 2012 at 1:44 AM

uncommon sense on June 30, 2012 at 1:43 AM

‘Nite

jaime on June 30, 2012 at 1:44 AM

rofl..That is hilarious!..:)

Dire Straits on June 30, 2012 at 1:41 AM

lol — It never happened. I never said it. I was hacked. I’m on migraine medication. ~whatever-works-here~ :)

Axe on June 30, 2012 at 1:45 AM

But, apparently, the Congress can tax someone for breathing…Then again AFTER a person ceases breathing…

Gohawgs on June 30, 2012 at 1:38 AM

Agreed, this is vile. But it’s another discussion. And of course this applies. We have to rope them in. But I do think it’s a victory that the Court sat on Congress and told them they’re pretty much useless but for the ability to tax. The Democrats sold a bill of lies. Wait, not sold. Rammed it down our throats.

John the Libertarian on June 30, 2012 at 1:46 AM

PS..Plus Obie is getting no bump in todays polling..:)

Dire Straits on June 30, 2012 at 1:44 AM

It’s going to be a landslide.

John the Libertarian on June 30, 2012 at 1:47 AM

uncommon sense on June 30, 2012 at 1:43 AM

…night…don’t let the bedbugs bite!

KOOLAID2 on June 30, 2012 at 1:52 AM

‘Nite, all.

jaime on June 30, 2012 at 1:53 AM

‘Nite, all.

jaime on June 30, 2012 at 1:53 AM

night jaime!

Axe on June 30, 2012 at 1:54 AM

Yea. Cite law. That’s what I asked for. Didn’t get it.

Your response was classic.

Btw, I’ll make this simple,,,,

In what way did Roberts in any way put in to law any constraint on the commerce clause?

wolly4321 on June 30, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Axe on June 30, 2012 at 1:45 AM

LoLz..Just remember sometimes they carry!..:)

Dire Straits on June 30, 2012 at 2:02 AM

The way I see all this is: Roberts just threw a 2 ton gauntlet down on us/the American voter.

His decision was hard-core, really. And for all the people wanting to know if it was a conservative victory or defeat, we have to wait until Nov to find out. We can’t know until then if it was a win or loss.

Can this country rally itself and throw Obama out and turn the Senate republican? Can we keep the House?

That was the challenge Roberts laid down. No more of this bs of “Romney isn’t my guy, so I’m staying home” putting your head down on your chest and crossing your arms.

That bs has got to stop now. If Obama is re-elected, this country WILL become a Socialist state. The Left already can feel it/smell blood in the water.

I was over at Ace earlier, and a couple people asked, if the administration DOESN’T use the word “TAX”, does that mean the mandate falls. I wonder how many people may think that.
To be clear, I really hope everybody gets this, NOTHING that Obama says/does will bring down this bill.

It’s written in stone as far as the SCOTUS is concerned. It’s done.
The ONLY way this country can kill this law is to vote Romney in and turn the Senate Republican.
That is it.

Look at it like this: If this new found fire under the a** of conservatives washes Obama and the socialists out in Nov. It WILL be because of Roberts ruling.

This country just got a massive challenge from the CJ. The question is: will we rise to the challenge?

I hope people see this post. I know it’s the middle of the night and all, but people have GOT to know what the stakes are and put away their pity and make Nov red.

B Man on June 30, 2012 at 2:03 AM

Mrs. ziffel, put your mu mu on, we’re headed East to the Alamo—-no, not alano.

arnold ziffel on June 29, 2012 at 11:36 PM

See you and the Mrs. there. We’re pointed due South.

;)

Ladysmith CulchaVulcha on June 30, 2012 at 2:05 AM

Roberts fell for the ole bait and switch like an idiot.

He called something a tax which isn’t a tax and even Obummer ain’t calling it a tax.

What a moron Roberts turned out to be!

Sherman1864 on June 30, 2012 at 2:05 AM

The way I see all this is: Roberts just threw a 2 ton gauntlet down on us/the American voter.

B Man on June 30, 2012 at 2:03 AM

I agree completely. Roberts said: don’t come whining to us. You voted these creeps in, and this is what these creeps do. If you want redress, THROW THEM OUT.

John the Libertarian on June 30, 2012 at 2:07 AM

Obama came here and spoke about civility,, right down the street from me. I didn’t go. Sorry.

wolly4321 on June 30, 2012 at 2:08 AM

LoLz..Just remember sometimes they carry!..:)

Dire Straits on June 30, 2012 at 2:02 AM

FIFY — link. :)

Bah. Bmore will never see it. He never reads up. :)

(couldn’t even type that without laughing)

PS: Always loved that song.

Axe on June 30, 2012 at 2:09 AM

John the Libertarian on June 30, 2012 at 1:46 AM

Leaving Alito, Scalia, Thomas and even Kennedy standing at the alter for the likes of Ginsberg et al causes me pause. Souter’s Roberts’ supposed 3 dimensional chess move seems more like hoping to luck into drawing a Royal Fizzbin on a Thursday…

Gohawgs on June 30, 2012 at 2:10 AM

One justices opinion.

wolly4321 on June 30, 2012 at 12:50 AM

No, it’s actually five justices’ opinion. That makes it law. I went to a lecture today by Erwin Chemerinsky, a lib SCOTUS scholar. He considered the commerce clause discussion dicta, but it doesn’t matter. There are five votes saying you cannot force participation in the market. The next case posing the question would lose, and Roberts was careful to base his taxing opinion on this question making it less dicta than usual.

I’m not happy with the decision, but it leaves a huge opening for future restrictions of unconstitutional congressional action, which I do like.

alwaysfiredup on June 30, 2012 at 2:10 AM

John the Libertarian on June 30, 2012 at 2:07 AM

That is exactly what he said.

B Man on June 30, 2012 at 2:15 AM

Yea. Cite law. That’s what I asked for. Didn’t get it.

Your response was classic.

Btw, I’ll make this simple,,,,

In what way did Roberts in any way put in to law any constraint on the commerce clause?

wolly4321 on June 30, 2012 at 2:01 AM

Reading comprehension problems?

Again: “Until I‘m convinced you can talk to me civilly and intelligently, I’ll be snickering mightily whenever I see you try to get my attention! :)”

:)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 30, 2012 at 2:17 AM

The way I see all this is: Roberts just threw a 2 ton gauntlet down on us/the American voter.

B Man on June 30, 2012 at 2:03 AM

I agree completely. Roberts said: don’t come whining to us. You voted these creeps in, and this is what these creeps do. If you want redress, THROW THEM OUT.

John the Libertarian on June 30, 2012 at 2:07 AM

…we got works to do!

KOOLAID2 on June 30, 2012 at 2:17 AM

You’re a rude, childish, self-righteous, passive-aggressive a$$hole, you refused to directly answer/address any of what I brought up, yet you still try to interact with me – you don’t realize that makes you a selfish, stupid, and uninteresting conversationalist to me, do you? :)

Until I‘m convinced you can talk to me civilly and intelligently, I’ll be snickering mightily whenever I see you try to get my attention! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 30, 2012 at 1:37 AM

This, after complaining about HIM (supposedly) attacking YOU?

Hilarious!

JannyMae on June 30, 2012 at 2:20 AM

Reading comprehension problems?

Again: “Until I‘m convinced you can talk to me civilly and intelligently, I’ll be snickering mightily whenever I see you try to get my attention! :)”

:)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 30, 2012 at 2:17 AM

My irony meter just exploded.

He obviously GOT your attention, because you’re still responding to him. You’re doing nothing but deflecting from the question you can’t answer. I’m not snickering. I’m LOL!

JannyMae on June 30, 2012 at 2:22 AM

Axe on June 30, 2012 at 2:09 AM

Thank you!..I’m sorry for the bad link!..Thank you for pulling me out of the current!..:)

Dire Straits on June 30, 2012 at 2:22 AM

B Man on June 30, 2012 at 2:03 AM

THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I feel it in my bones that the voters understand what needs to be done. We will prevail. We will defeat them.

Let it be known, this is what we promised on 6/30/2012.

karenhasfreedom on June 30, 2012 at 2:24 AM

B Man on June 30, 2012 at 2:03 AM

I said some of the same things and tried to convey that idea too, but got called a “Roberts apologist”.

THAT is the attitude that will let zero win this November, and these same people will probably blame Roberts for it as much as zero blames Bush for everything under the sun that he doesn’t like.

Well, done talking about it here, there’s little point in it.

Wolfmoon on June 30, 2012 at 2:25 AM

LoLz..Just remember sometimes they carry!..:)

Dire Straits on June 30, 2012 at 2:02 AM

Fixed!..:)

PS..Shout out to Axe!!..:)

Dire Straits on June 30, 2012 at 2:26 AM

Roberts fell for the ole bait and switch like an idiot.

He called something a tax which isn’t a tax and even Obummer ain’t calling it a tax.

What a moron Roberts turned out to be!

Sherman1864 on June 30, 2012 at 2:05 AM

It is not a tax?

Tell me: do we presently need 51 votes in the Senate to rescind 0bamaCare, or 60? Did that number change since the decision was handed down yesterday, or is it the same as it was before the decision? If you believe that the decision had an affect on the number, what would you say within the decision caused that number to change?

Bizarro No. 1 on June 30, 2012 at 2:27 AM

My irony meter just exploded.

He obviously GOT your attention, because you’re still responding to him. You’re doing nothing but deflecting from the question you can’t answer. I’m not snickering. I’m LOL!

JannyMae on June 30, 2012 at 2:22 AM

I laugh at your laughable, shallow analysis as well as at you! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 30, 2012 at 2:29 AM

JannyMae on June 30, 2012 at 2:22 AM

Do you even know what “snickering” means? Apparently not! LOL :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 30, 2012 at 2:30 AM

This, after complaining about HIM (supposedly) attacking YOU?

Hilarious!

JannyMae on June 30, 2012 at 2:20 AM

I missed this one.

Are you so stupid that you don’t understand the concept that throwing garbage, which someone else has uninvitedly thrown onto your lawn, back onto their’s does not make you guilty of trashing their lawn the same way they did yours?

Please
, don’t bother responding to me – I’m not interested in what you’d have to say to this! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 30, 2012 at 2:39 AM

There is dicta of one. There’s a dissent opinion on top of that. It’s not legal precedence, period.

Man, I wish it was but it’s not.

Go ahead, grow some wheat or weed. Are you seriously arguing that the commerce clause even got scratched?

At best, it’s a spitball fired at Godzilla. It’s sad when we try to reach this deep for semi-victory.

Show me in concrete law. Otherwise, it’s politics. bs and spin.

Maybe I’m wrong, but I see one Justices opinion. I’d be glad to read all 5 justices intepretation of the limitations. The dissent was against any limitation.

wolly4321 on June 30, 2012 at 2:41 AM

Well, done talking about it here, there’s little point in it.

Wolfmoon on June 30, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Please don’t – why not ignore the immature, abusive rabble, or make fun of them instead?! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 30, 2012 at 2:42 AM

Wolfmoon on June 30, 2012 at 2:25 AM

Just in case I wasn’t clear enough, I meant, “Please don’t quit talking about it because of them.” :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 30, 2012 at 2:50 AM

Back away slowly, when someone snickers, it’s quite dangerous.

Still won’t answer the question.

Luv ya Janny. You rock.

wolly4321 on June 30, 2012 at 2:55 AM

wolly4321 on June 30, 2012 at 2:55 AM

I’m still snickering, too, at both of you! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 30, 2012 at 3:03 AM

I’m waiting. ….

The commerce clause took a hit how?

You are a fraud. You can go back to ignoring me after you and everyone else gets done reading this.

Bizzarro indeed.

wolly4321 on June 30, 2012 at 3:06 AM

wolly4321 on June 30, 2012 at 3:06 AM

Could you tell me in what reality “snicker” is synonymous with “ignore”?

Do you have any idea how much entertainment smug a$$holes, who are oblivious to their own arrogance & stupidity, can provide people like me? :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 30, 2012 at 3:11 AM

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

Thanks for this – well said – I agree.

Amjean on June 30, 2012 at 3:13 AM

The commerce clause took a hit how?

wolly4321 on June 30, 2012 at 3:06 AM

I answered it above, chip-on-your-shoulder.

If you’re not reading, or listening, I can show you the answer, but I can’t help you to understand it. You’re on your own.

John the Libertarian on June 30, 2012 at 3:21 AM

B Man on June 30, 2012 at 2:03 AM

Fully agree. We can argue and debate the brilliance or folly of the Roberts decision and its long-term legal implications for rest of the millennium– and we will–but the immediate challenge is to render it irrelevant in November. Defeat Obama, and defeating Obamacare becomes the first step toward reclaiming our country. There is no alternative to victory. We must win this.

I believe we can.

In the spirit of some of the earlier musical offerings intended to rouse the spirit, here’s mine. It was written in the darkest hours of the last century, during World War II.

de rigueur on June 30, 2012 at 3:50 AM

This says it all:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/

The Democrats now need to go into full spin in order to deny their law is a tax even in the face of this from 2010:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=1

crosspatch on June 30, 2012 at 4:04 AM

Just woke up, noticed a trend amongst the talking heads and knew I needed to remark on it before I forget. Because I will forget. Now that this has been labeled a tax, it seems important for everyone to know that this will only be a tax for about 1% of the nation’s population. Besides being B.S., what does it say about these people who have put us through hell for three and a half years for the lack of health care for 1% of the population? Obama has slashed Medicare by a half a trillion (is that right) and taxed anything that moves in the medical industry for the unpaid bills of 1% of the population? I think it’s safe to safe that they have redefined what is to big to fail downward.

Cindy Munford on June 30, 2012 at 4:24 AM

I’ll vow not to check Newsbusters but that’s as far as I go

Slade73 on June 29, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Understood. I believe I have checked Drudge, Fox News and Hot Air every single day since 2004.

the new aesthetic on June 29, 2012 at 10:59 PM

Sometimes these sites get tiresome. I recently gave up on Drudge and Townhall. Gave up on Newsmax and World Net Daily some time ago. I don’t care for Brent Bozell so I wouldn’t bother to go to Newsbusters. Fox is a little too mainstream. Hotair and Breitbart are about it for me right now.

rickv404 on June 30, 2012 at 4:44 AM

Cindy Munford on June 30, 2012 at 4:24 AM

Hope you’re not losing sleep over this.

The CBO says that 76% of those who pay the tax for that 1% will make less than 500% of the federal poverty level, which CBO estimates to be $24,000 for a family of 4 in 2016. That means 76% of the Obama Tax payers will earn less than $120,000 a year. 1% of the population will have their bills paid, not by the rich, but by the middle class and those least able to pay for the non-payers. The very people on whom Obama promised never to raise taxes by a single dime.

This is insanity, and we simply must defeat him. That is all.

de rigueur on June 30, 2012 at 4:44 AM

This says it all:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/06/29/white-house-claims-obamacare-fine-penalty-despite-court-calling-it-tax/

The Democrats now need to go into full spin in order to deny their law is a tax even in the face of this from 2010:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/18/health/policy/18health.html?_r=1

crosspatch on June 30, 2012 at 4:04 AM

lol I love watching the Dems spin – what’s most fun is when we accelerate the twisting!

I am so looking forward to the July 11th vote in the House! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 30, 2012 at 4:46 AM

See, the thing is that the NY Times is the “paper of record” and carries so much water for Obama that they call the paper “Gunga Din”. If they said it was a tax in 2010, there’s no backing away from that now. The Supreme Court forced the administration to eat those words.

crosspatch on June 30, 2012 at 4:52 AM

Can this country rally itself and throw Obama out and turn the Senate republican? Can we keep the House?

That was the challenge Roberts laid down. No more of this bs of “Romney isn’t my guy, so I’m staying home” putting your head down on your chest and crossing your arms.

That bs has got to stop now. If Obama is re-elected, this country WILL become a Socialist state. The Left already can feel it/smell blood in the water.

[...]

It’s written in stone as far as the SCOTUS is concerned. It’s done.
The ONLY way this country can kill this law is to vote Romney in and turn the Senate Republican.
That is it.
B Man on June 30, 2012 at 2:03 AM

Agreed 100%. We must defeat Obama by electing Mitt Romney. That’s just the way it is. Those not voting for Romney at this point are for Obama.

Lately I’ve felt even more over and done with the Obama-supporting fake conservatives on this site campaigning against Romney. Their little contrarian act was a mildly entertaining distraction a few months ago, but it’s not cute anymore. I have absolutely no patience with such people who care more about indulging their own individual need to feel “more purely conservative than thou” than they do with doing what’s right for the country.

bluegill on June 30, 2012 at 5:27 AM

Obama-supporting fake conservative
bluegill on June 30, 2012 at 5:27 AM

mitt is the father of obamacare. thats now the law of the land thanks to your boy. chew on that.

romney will never “defeat” obama even if he wins in november, because he will never overturn obamacare.

the problem with romney supporters is they only have one card left in their whole deck one stinking card. “i’m not obama”

will play great with racists and low information voters, but, they happen to be democrats.

have fun changing hearts and minds bluegill.LOL

renalin on June 30, 2012 at 5:52 AM

still in shock this morning. was taught in elementary school eons ago that SCOTUS was sacrosanct. that idea was flushed down the toilet on 6/28/12. we can’t trust our leaders. a sad day.

renalin on June 30, 2012 at 5:59 AM

renalin on June 30, 2012 at 5:52 AM

Renalin the Obama supporter is a bore. He tries to get attention on a conservative site by campaigning for Obama and by encouraging people not to vote for the one candidate, Mitt Romney, who can and will get rid of Obamacare. Renalin and the other Obama-supporting fake conservatives are all the same, though Renalin is one of the dimmer ones in the bunch. Even Steveangell with all his wackiness is more interesting than the one-note Obama supporter Renalin.

bluegill on June 30, 2012 at 6:12 AM

bluegill on June 30, 2012 at 6:12 AM

so why doesn’t mitt ask congress to repeal the obamacare tax in july? why isn’t he ahead of this. he also has F&F to throw in their faces. do you hear even feigned outrage? nothing nada bupkus.

obamacare is a tax bluegill. do you REALLY think a big government lover like romney is going to repeal a tax. gotta bridge in brooklyn if you believe that one.

renalin on June 30, 2012 at 6:30 AM

renalin on June 30, 2012 at 6:30 AM

I believe the vote to repeal is scheduled in the House on July 11.

esr1951 on June 30, 2012 at 7:02 AM

ok the theatre and the play have closed. no more, “oh woe is me, what shall we do now” BS, time to hitch up your big boy pants and get ready to continue our God given freedom through the ballot box. if many of you simps stay home on election day, you will only have time to say your goodbyes to your loved ones before they’re loaded onto the boxcars on their way to the camps in wyoming or wherever. you must always remember, the people that come to subjugate you, under the law, with their badges, will be your neighbors. the people in charge at homeland security, consider what they do “a job” and will do what they are told, including being nazis! people look back and wonder where were all the good germans? well, there really weren’t any, the ones who disagreed with nazi gov’t policy, kept their heads down hoping it wouldn’t effect them or selfishly thought that evil would benefit them. all is coming to a head in the world anyway, but you will be judged by what and how you treat others. the decision you make from here on out should be selfless, this is personal. socialism begins at home, not under the watchful eyes of the gun toting gov’t. it is a sin to call evil good, to constantly try to sway men to act by talking about “the children” or guilt prosperous people into redistributive politics. make your choice america, man up and defend freedom or let the worlds best hope wither and die through inaction.

tm11999 on June 30, 2012 at 7:33 AM

mitt is the father of obamacare. thats now the law of the land thanks to your boy. chew on that.
renalin on June 30, 2012 at 5:52 AM

And as some at HA have probably heard from their parents at some point in their life “I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it”

Bradky on June 30, 2012 at 7:50 AM

good morning

so the lsm is very upset that the governors DARE not to uphold the healthcare law but see NO PROBLEM with dear leader not following the laws for immigration…

PUHLEEZE

cmsinaz on June 30, 2012 at 7:53 AM

Playing the long game? Didn’t anyone every tell these dreamers that the tortoise winning the race is a child’s fantasy story? Ask Greece what their democracy turned into over the centuries?

Don L on June 30, 2012 at 7:59 AM

And as some at HA have probably heard from their parents at some point in their life “I brought you into this world and I can take you out of it”

Bradky on June 30, 2012 at 7:50 AM

While my parents never said that, I know that’s what Cliff told Theo.

TxAnn56 on June 30, 2012 at 8:09 AM

There are NOT five justices with the guts to overturn Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act.

WannabeAnglican on June 30, 2012 at 8:18 AM

The long game? That does not help the nation right now. My take.

kingsjester on June 30, 2012 at 8:29 AM

This is not difficult. One of the ways to tell the character of a man is by the friends/company he keeps. Roberts partied with the 4 far leftists, not the 3 conservatives or even the “moderate”.

VorDaj on June 30, 2012 at 1:26 AM

Hear, Hear!
So much for one of the “conservative scholars” on the Court, eh?
- If Roberts’ decision was based upon the Constitution, he is woefully inept.
- If Roberts’ decision was based upon political and / superficial reasons, he has not only damaged the Court, but also his own credibility.
Either way, Justice Roberts made a HUGE mistake. Combine this with his absurd smack-down of the Arizona law re: illegal aliens and what we have here is NOT “a failure to communicate”, which Roberts has obviously eschewed in a spectacularly grandiose fashion, but his machinations are a process more akin to those who want to re-make America in Europe’s ever-failing image.
One can only conclude that Roberts is no longer reliable in any way, shape, or form.

What is it with the Bush Family? First, Daddy (GHW Bush) appointed the very odd hermit and stealth radical Leftist David Souter at the urging of John Sununu, now, we see the results of Junior’s worst judgment in nominating a SCOTUS member. We won’t even go into RR’s nomination of the brain-addled Sandy O’Connor who screwed the pooch more than once in her waning years.
In Sum: IF a GOP POTUS ever gets another chance to nominate a Justice, I wish they would be more circumspect instead of constantly caving to Democrat demands for even more Leftists on the Court. It’s NO place for affirmative action or social engineering.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on June 30, 2012 at 8:41 AM

I agree completely. Roberts said: don’t come whining to us. You voted these creeps in, and this is what these creeps do. If you want redress, THROW THEM OUT.
John the Libertarian on June 30, 2012 at 2:07 AM

I’m beginning to understand the theory being proposed as to Robert’s motivations and intentions but I am coming up hard and fast against the question of whether it was his place to do so, assuming his conscious motivations WERE as noble as people seem to be making them.

If so, isn’t he simply engaging in his form of judicial activism and not fulfilling the Constitutional role of the Supreme Court?

Cleombrotus on June 30, 2012 at 8:45 AM

If so, isn’t he simply engaging in his own form of judicial activism and not fulfilling the Constitutional role of the Supreme Court?
Cleombrotus on June 30, 2012 at 8:45 AM

Cleombrotus on June 30, 2012 at 8:52 AM

kingsjester on June 30, 2012 at 8:29 AM

good one

see ya at the polls KJ :)

cmsinaz on June 30, 2012 at 8:53 AM

cmsinaz on June 30, 2012 at 8:53 AM

Come He@@ or high water, ma’am! Thank you!

kingsjester on June 30, 2012 at 8:54 AM

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.

This seems to me to be specious reasoning. “To hide behind”? Why the inflammatory rhetoric used to describe what the citizens expect the Supreme Court’s role to be?

Cleombrotus on June 30, 2012 at 8:57 AM

And after these people pay their “tax” they still don’t have any better or regular healthcare than they do right now. What got solved?

Cindy Munford on June 30, 2012 at 9:30 AM

Nothing less than
The John Roberts Enabling Act of 1933 2012

Czar of Defenestration on June 30, 2012 at 9:33 AM

An apology to FloatingRock:

Last night, in this thread, (and in my in-excusable frustration over the Roberts Court events) I used an abbreviated expletive at a commenter, specifically FloatingRock, that was not necessary and “usually” not in my character. Yes, I let my emotions take control of my reasoning, and would like to formally apologize to FloatingRock for my profanity. We all know that when some one resorts to name-calling or profanity, you’ve basically lost the strength of your argument.

In the future I will civilly explain to FloatingRock why attempting to promote voting for anyone other than Mitt Romney, (at this juncture of the election cycle), IS a vote for Barack Obama. There is no one in this election that can realistically defeat Obama other than Romney. Yes, vote your conscience. But please, don’t bother promoting/encouraging others IN EVERY THREAD to vote for Gary Johnson or Ron Paul, or any other candidate that CANNOT DEFEAT OBAMA.

For those of you who have not experienced the impact of rogue candidates, (Ross Perot) that was most likely responsible for electing Bill Clinton, or in fact Ralph Nadar, (who took just enough votes from Al Gore in Florida that “made the difference” in that election), please consider that in several battle-ground states—THAT ROMNEY MUST WIN—the difference could be folks that voted for some one other than Mitt Romney. This is where my contention is, that a vote for some one other that Romney is a vote for Obama.

FloatingRock says he’s/she’s in a safe state that is solid red and it would not make a difference to vote for Gary Johnson. Fine. Vote accordingly. But if you encourage others to vote the same in Florida, Ohio, or any other battle-ground state, YOU are responsible for possibly putting Barack Obama back into power for four more years.

Think about what this nation will endure if this comes to pass. We will not have a chance to put an end to ObamaCare. We WILL most likely see two or even three new liberal Supreme Court justices appointed under Obama—for decades! If you are prepared to accept these probable results by voting for some other than Mitt Romney, I have no other recourse than to call you an idiot. But, I will try to refrain from profanity going forward.

Rovin on June 30, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Nothing less than
The John Roberts Enabling Act of 1933 2012

Czar of Defenestration on June 30, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Sehr Gut!
Not one but two, count them two, dictators snatched the helm in 1933.
Herr Über Field Marshall von Hindenburg thanks you for the trip down memory lane.
(that santayana thing about history and oh ya history repeating itself itself)
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on June 30, 2012 at 9:44 AM

Rovin on June 30, 2012 at 9:42 AM

Good job! Sorry I did the equivalent of eavesdropping.

Cindy Munford on June 30, 2012 at 9:46 AM

It looks like I need to take just a moment to clarify something. On this thread last night I kept sensing an out of syncness with many of the other commenters here. After re reading the thread this a.m. I believe I understand why. Many of you are still lamenting what should have been, and are still demonstrating your frustration with the court, in particular Roberts. I’m not with you on that. I woke up to the decision as many did, read it, realized it, and for me it fell into just another bookmark in the history of the issue. In other words, it is therefore it will not change. I am quick to move on from things that do not work and even quicker to move on towards those things that are pertainant to working. Sure I like all of us are am still fleshing out what has occurred, but it is not the overreaching interest of mine to know so much about why, only about that which is. The majority of my concern is on what to do with what we have. I will shy away from that which is not helpful. Roberts made a decision which is certainly arguable was the wrong one. Nothing we do will change that. I moved on. My main objective is how to proceed. My apologies if that was not understood. I should have been paying , closer attention to the thread. Admittedly I was distracted. My apologies. Everyone deals with trauma differently, injury heals differently for everyone, pardon me for having moved past the what ifs.

Bmore on June 30, 2012 at 10:11 AM

Maybe this will help.

Bmore on June 30, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Massive victory for Marxist Big Government Mandates, massive defeat for individuals’ freedoms! Roberts killed America’s Constitutional Republic…period!

aposematic on June 30, 2012 at 10:17 AM

Bmore on June 30, 2012 at 10:11 AM

I think this is one of those things where a lot of like minded people won’t ever mesh. True, the only “fix” is in November but if you feel like the ruling is wrong, and you are given article after article by people you already don’t trust telling you how brilliant it is, I don’t think people are going to agree. Ever. As someone who is not buying, I don’t need more of the same people telling me I’m too stupid to see how brilliant it is. That said, I, like you, am pragmatic and if Roberts’ ruling was a baby step back on the long road of commonsense laws, than so is the election of Mitt Romney. There is still going to be the occasion where baby steps seem totally unacceptable.

Cindy Munford on June 30, 2012 at 10:25 AM

even if romney wins it will spell the end of the country. he will be unable to aggressively act to rid us of the filthy monstrosity of obamacare, its tentacles will remain entrenched forever.

the nightmare began with nancys gavel. it climaxes with a romney presidency.

renalin on June 30, 2012 at 11:00 AM

Cindy, true, I will be very happy to elect Romney as the next President. I will be busy about the business with anyone I meet reminding them of the largest tax increase in history and The 0 Economy.

Bmore on June 30, 2012 at 11:05 AM

Bmore on June 30, 2012 at 11:05 AM

We will do what we can and hopefully with enough enthusiasm to turn the tide from our smooth talking (???????) socialist of a president. I just wish the inside the beltway folks would stop trying to convince me that right is wrong. I may be dumb but I’m not stupid.

Cindy Munford on June 30, 2012 at 11:10 AM

xblade: “It’s really comical to watch the mental gymnastics folks like you go through to make this some kind victory for Republicans, and the court.”

I never claimed it was a victory for Republicans. Please show me where I made such a declarative statement. I’m sticking to the facts of the ruling and to analysis of what took place.

xblade: “Roberts, the brilliant strategist, didn’t do this out of cowardice. Nooo, he did this because he was afraid the court would become a lightning rod, lol. He didn’t do it because he was afraid, he did it because he was aFraid.”

Your assessment is based on faulty analysis. You presume Roberts ruled the way he did for one reason and only one reason — fear. I contend that he did it for more than one reason.

One reason was a pragmatic move to make the court NOT the issue. This is a strategic choice, and a rather clever one at that.

Did it EVER occur to you that had Roberts sided with the dissenters that the court would’ve become the primary issue in this year’s election? Did it also occur to you that maybe this was the administration’s plan all along — allow the law in its current form to be struck down, use that ruling to beat the court and the Repubs over the head with until election day, all while promising to replace the court with their kind of justices (in the name of social justice, of course) and implement a single-payer health care system? Thus completely minimizing if not avoiding the issue of the economy once combined with the MSM propaganda machine. Not much time remains between now and the election. All part of the administration’s “long game.” Yeah, think on that for a while.

The other reason, I contend, Roberts ruled the way he did is to make this ill-conceived and poorly written monstrosity something that the administration now has to justify paying for–not under the commerce clause or the necessary and proper clause or even as a penalty as most thought may have occured, but as a tax. And combined with the other ruling of not penalizing the states for non-compliance, major amounts of funding can disappear with every state that chooses not to participate.

In reality, this ruling ultimately makes BOTH parties accountable for this legislation and all future pieces of legislation because taxing authority MUST originate in the House.

Neither side saw this ruling coming the way it did, and–to me–indicates that it was a calculated and deliberate strategy by Roberts. The reaction from both sides was telling.

Now that the glow of the “hollow victory” for the adminstration has worn off, they are dreading that fact they have to live with the ruling of the individual mandate as a T-A-X. Look at all of the spinning and deflection that’s going on by the administration’s surrogates. The fire drill is on…

eanax on June 30, 2012 at 11:16 AM

eanax on June 30, 2012 at 11:16 AM

so what roberts did was a good thing? dude, we our toast, and you spend your time contorting into all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify what roberts did.

i’ll make it simple. he stabbed every taxpayer in the back, ripped up the constitution and joined his choom buddy in infamy.

renalin on June 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM

so what roberts did was a good thing? renalin on June 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Did I say he did a good thing? I am looking at what was done and reasonable/plausible explanations for doing so.

you spend your time contorting into all sorts of mental gymnastics to justify what roberts did.

renalin on June 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Apparently you don’t understand the point of analysis. It’s a tool to gain greater insight into what took place based on the facts and the context in which the decision was made.

i’ll make it simple. he stabbed every taxpayer in the back, ripped up the constitution and joined his choom buddy in infamy.

renalin on June 30, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Simple seems to be all you can handle.

eanax on June 30, 2012 at 11:57 AM

Simple seems to be all you can handle.

eanax on June 30, 2012 at 11:57

yep, in my world you either win or lose. we lost. roberts went against conservative opinions in the court. SCOTUS is now just a political tool. the left has won. hello socialism. it that simple.

renalin on June 30, 2012 at 12:12 PM

I think Jonah Goldberg nailed it.

Cindy Munford on June 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM

the problem with romney supporters is they only have one card left in their whole deck one stinking card. “i’m not obama”

will play great with racists and low information voters, but, they happen to be democrats.

have fun changing hearts and minds bluegill.LOL

renalin on June 30, 2012 at 5:52 AM

Ah, the irony of that… ‘I am not Obama’ should play well with you since you fit the low information voter bill perfectly, or else how would you explain the tonnes of comment garbage you dump on the HA threads ..as for ‘racist’ , I won’t go in there, you’re a too low life to even respond to that sort of accusation…I normally scroll past your pathwtic posts, so no idea if you’re a lefty troll (angryed type) or a ronulan, but if you are the latter, I wouldn’t mention ‘racist’ twice…but then again, probably the irony is lost on you…

jimver on June 30, 2012 at 12:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6 7