New liberal nightmare a lot like … old liberal nightmare

posted at 2:01 pm on July 3, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

Old and busted: John Roberts will lead the Supreme Court as an overtly radical conservative that will shred stare decisis and impose historic limitations on federal power!  New hotness: John Roberts has upheld ObamaCare and had the lowest level of reversals on precedent in the last 60 years … in order to lead the Supreme Court as a covertly radical conservative that will shred stare decisis and impose historic limitations on federal power!

It’s impossible to keep up with all of the conspiracy theories stemming from Thursday’s decision, I tell you:

Liberals who celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision on health care may be nursing an ugly hangover after the justices dive back into their work this fall, with a docket likely to be loaded with controversial cases.

And left-leaning courtwatchers are already worried about the jurist who brought them such relief last week: Chief Justice John Roberts.

Some liberals contend that Roberts’s surprise crossover on the health care law has given him a free hand to craft and sign onto a slew of conservative opinions next year without suffering much of a public drubbing from Democrats and the press. With one major case, Roberts may have inoculated himself and the court against charges of partisanship.

The chief will have plenty of chances to make his mark in the next term. Already, the justices are planning to delve into the politically charged issue of affirmative action. They may well add hot-button disputes over same-sex marriage rights and voter ID laws. And the court could even take up the constitutionality of the landmark law Congress passed nearly half a century ago to guarantee African-Americans equal access to the polls: the Voting Rights Act.

Some of this is probably just leftover pre-ObamaCare-decision hysteria with no place else to go.  Thanks to commentators like Jeffrey Toobin, James Fallows, and Politico’s Roger Simon, the Left still has an image of Roberts as an unthinking radical, unmoored from precedent and unmoved by the deference due to the legislative branch.  Gabriel Malor destroyed that meme the very morning that the decision was published:

Here’s the data on the first five years of the Roberts Court (gleaned from this NYTimes infographic):

(1) The Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts overturned precedent decisions at an average rate of 2.7, 2.8 and 2.4 per term, respectively. By contrast, the Roberts Court overturned precedent only at an average rate of 1.6 per term.(2) The Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts overturned laws at an average rate of 7.9, 12.5, and 6.2 laws per term. By contrast, the Roberts Court struck down laws only 3 laws per term.

Just three laws per term! Far, far from being “eager” to overturn legislatures, as hack Toobin dribbled, and obviously, indisputably playing no unusual role in “second-guessing laws,” as Fallows alarmingly squeaked, the Roberts Court has been a model of restraint. Restraint is, naturally, one of Chief Justice Roberts’ well-known characteristics and it was remarked upon during his confirmation hearings. One could even creditably call the Roberts Court the most restrained, incrementalist Court of the modern era. (I assure you, these numbers have not changed appreciably in the past two years.)

It’s unlikely, therefore, that Roberts will shift away from the incrementalist approach that has characterized the first seven years of his term as Chief Justice, and which certainly characterized his most famous (or notorious, depending on your point of view) opinion to date.  But it’s revealing that the fear of Roberts doing so has arisen almost within hours of his court handing liberals their biggest victory in years, and it shows just how insecure they become at just the hint that they might lose the judiciary as a means to pursue policy.


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

Yeah, so what? Courts have been reading things into the constitution since before it was ratified.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Since before Roe, as I pointed out in this post. Just because the Warren Court used a legal divining rod in Griswold to find a “right to privacy” that was later used in Roe, which even liberal, constitutional scholars admit was a poorly-reasoned decision (Justice Blackmun, the author, later admitted that it was uncomfortably similar to Dred Scott) does not mean that we should applaud Roberts doing the same or claim that it was constitutional.

In fact, Justice Roberts did not rule on whether the ObamaTax was constitutional for purposes under the Anti-Injunction Act. The decision holds that it is a “tax” for the purposes of upholding §5000A. When the “tax” goes into effect in 2014, it can be challenged as to whether it is a constitutional tax.

It was folly.

A smart court would have given us a Roberts type decision 40 years ago and we wouldn’t still be griping about Roe.

Meaning that “you can have an abortion, but you have to pay the Federal government a tax first”??? How would that make a court “smart”?

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 3:01 PM

************** Its Scrotched ************************!

canopfor on July 3, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Yep. Scrotched for sure with a big gash up the wazoo.

SparkPlug on July 3, 2012 at 3:01 PM

This is the dumbest decision since Rove E Wade.

SparkPlug on July 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM

New taxes coming.

Register democrat or pay a tax.
Don”t vote pay a tax.
Vote as the government recommends or pay a tax.
Donate to the democrat party or pay a tax.
Do a certain amount of voter registration for the democrat party or pay a tax.
Donate to Planned Parenthood or pay a tax.

The list is endless.

bgibbs1000 on July 3, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Do you know that in the Constitution there never was any limitation of the government power to tax anything. The only limitation is the power of the electorate to destroy the elected officials who tax them more than the electorate want… Do you remember the Bush tax cut extension battle in 2010? Why do you think Obama the socialist who ran everyday on ending the Bush tax cut for the Rich together with super majority in Congress full with rabid socialiss agreed to extend the Bush tax cut for everyone include the rich? Because the electorate would have screwed them even more than they screwed them in the 2010 elections.

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM

Still waiting for your explanation. You’re good at hyperbole — not so good with details or logic. And you’ve certainly never been to law school.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:55 PM

“good Behaviour” is what Congress decides, genius. TO any reasonable person, Benedict Roberts violated it ten ways from Sunday. And, no, I never went to law school. I’m not an idiot. I come from mathematics, where we understand logic and formal systems, something that law school students have no concept of. What passes for logic among lawyers is laughable.

Of course, law schools have a great advertisement for their competence with that 84 IQ dog-eater who was Precedent of the Harvard Lawn Review …. wow! That idiot wouldn’t have gotten past 8th grade in any real discipline …. “profit AND earnings ratios!!” LOL.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Yeah, so what?

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 2:49 PM

BTW, cozmo, I am a lawyer and I take the law seriously. It must be said that, in a debate about constitutional law, it is difficult to take a person seriously when his rebuttal begins with “Yeah, so what?”

If you are going to display the intellectual heft of a feather boa, then you should probably stay on the Obamateurisms of the Week and other “fun” threads on this site.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Of course, law schools have a great advertisement for their competence with that 84 IQ dog-eater who was Precedent of the Harvard Lawn Review …. wow! That idiot wouldn’t have gotten past 8th grade in any real discipline …. “profit AND earnings ratios!!” LOL.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 3:03 PM

Why do idiots who go to Law school think they are so smart. You could be an English Lit major or a Poly Sci major and then PAY to go to law school for 3 years.

If going to Law School was so hard there wouldn’t be a bazillion grads every year flooding the landscape chasing ambulances.

SparkPlug on July 3, 2012 at 3:07 PM

Your statement is illogical. Have you ever read the Constitution? Article 3 allows SCOTUS to decide all controversial cases. There’s no gray area.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Someone needs to save this for later.

Night Owl on July 3, 2012 at 2:57 PM

I don’t think you read the earlier exchange where Roberts’ actual right of decision was being implicitly and expressly impugned. There is no question about Roberts’ right to make the decision he did. The Constitution is limpid on this matter, and if you don’t think so, you need to read it without injecting partisan nonsense.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 3:08 PM

They’re just working the ref. Why would they stop doing it? With this ref, it works.

David Blue on July 3, 2012 at 3:09 PM

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Roberts’ dumb decision has possibly irrevocably doomed America to socialized medicine which will have a greater impact on American demise than Pearl Harbor and 9-211 combined. Now that Obama-care is legal-thus technically legitimate-even if the Republicans win big time in November-will they have the balls to dismantle this new entitlement? Already whiny RINOS like Mitch McConnell are showing signs of backing down on repeal. And what can we expect of Romney, author of Obama-Care-Lite Version? I am praying for two things 1-that Romney wins and 2 he has enough hutzpah to actually end what is now a LEGITIMATE ENTITLEMENT-thanks to Roberts–but I suspect- in Romney- we may have less a Patton and more a Pee Wee Herman.

MaiDee on July 3, 2012 at 3:09 PM

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:36 PM

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:37 PM

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:39 PM

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:51 PM

You make no sense.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Having a Bad Day, Norman?

Del Dolemonte on July 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM

Meaning that “you can have an abortion, but you have to pay the Federal government a tax first”??? How would that make a court “smart”?

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 3:01 PM

No there would have been a mechanism to make law in the legislature.

BTW, cozmo, I am a lawyer and I take the law seriously.

Then so what? You will be familiar with these names.

I interned under Linda Coffee, and spent time with Henry Wade. I learned their insights into having their case go before the Supreme court and causing such a long term stir over a case neither thought that much of.

The stakes are the same with 0bama care. And this time it won’t be up to jedi-judges.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Do you know that in the Constitution there never was any limitation of the government power to tax anything.

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM

How so? See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1. There is an explicit ban on unapportioned, direct taxes. Read Pollock v Farmers’ Loan & Trust Company, 157 U.S. 429 (1895) and then see why the need arose for the Sixteenth Amendment.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 3:18 PM

Hand-wringing by the Democrat media worked on Traitor Roberts, why stop now? All it takes is a hysterical caterwaul that Traitor Roberts might uphold the Constitution and BAM….we get Traitor Roberts to turn coward.

GardenGnome on July 3, 2012 at 3:18 PM

If you are angrier at Roberts than Obama, you may need to step back and look at the bigger picture.

Remember November.

thebrokenrattle on July 3, 2012 at 3:20 PM

The Constitution is limpid on this matter, and if you don’t think so, you need to read it without injecting partisan nonsense.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 3:08 PM

I don’t know why, but the word “limpid” makes me giggle. Otherwise, you’re comment was taken in the grave and serious manner for which you are so well known here./

Night Owl on July 3, 2012 at 3:23 PM

glass half-full guy here…

#1 for him to “cave” to the media…I’ve never seen anybody in the media with the brains to get to the SCOTUS…if they were smart they would not be working in media (they probably flunked ditch-digging 101).

#2 one particular statement said something about the court not being responsible for stupid decisions that voters make (I added the stupid part but I think I know what he was saying…payback for Obamatuer’s slamming the court on every opportunity like Cit U etc.).

I’m in the minority in thinking that Roberts was “dumb like a fox”…he essentially took a route to call it a tax (only 51 votes required to over turn), he didn’t gut the commerce clause (more and more states will refuse to upgrade their already over-burdened Medicaid to help pay for this) and he did it in a way to not set a precendent.

teejk on July 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM

He could have and SHOULD have overrturned the WHOLE thing!!! You don’t find a way to make it work and make obama’s argument for him!

What’s the guartantee Romney gets elected AND that we take the Senate to even be in position to repeal it?

More importantly Roberts set the precedent that the gov’t can tax us for inactivity. They can force us to do things and buy products from private companies.

Like eating Big Macs? Too bad, it’s bad for obamacare, no more big macs for you!

Like driving your SUV? Too bad, it’s bad for the environment so they’re going to tax you to death just to drive it!

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

No matter what else he does, he will forever be tarnished for wiping his _____ with the Constitution on the Obamacare case.

Ca97 on July 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Your statement is illogical. Have you ever read the Constitution? Article 3 allows SCOTUS to decide all controversial cases. There’s no gray area.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM

At best Traitor Roberts will be a ” swing” voter like Kennedy.

wildcat72 on July 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Traitor to whom? Rush Limbaugh?

What a crazy statement.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:15 PM

Yeah, keep smiling, Roberts. Jerk.

minnesoter on July 3, 2012 at 2:14 PM

So let me get this straight: you disagree with Roberts, so he’s a jerk?

Are you nine years old?

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Only, I’m not going to bother with ‘em, anymore. I’ve no more time for watching bullshit. I’ve better things to do.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 3, 2012 at 2:17 PM

Like congratulating yourself some more.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:19 PM

This shows beyond a shadow of a doubt …
Skwor on July 3, 2012 at 2:17 PM

That you think in cliches.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

…and thereby DIDN’T sell America down the river by establishing an ENABLING ACT (ref.: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enabling_Act_of_1933) for any tyrant to use as long as it can be rationalized as a tax?

REALLY?!?

Czar of Defenestration on July 3, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Settle down and go play with your pet gerbil. You sound like you’ve been in the bunker collecting your freedom seeds and canned goods for too long.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Hilarious. Are you so pathetic that you think the chief justice — or any justice — works for Rush Limbaugh listeners?

What a whiner.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Hey Genius:

the job of the justices is to uphold the Consitution!

In no way is obamacare constitutional!

What roberts did was make stuff up b/c he was a spineless coward. It wouldn’t fit under the commerce clause so he made up a bunch of BS about it being a tax!

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Good use of exclamation points. You have found a way to amplify your nonsense.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:39 PM

The Constitution was created SPECIFICALLY to provide some protection against the people who populate the government, elected, appointed, and other. This is Constitution 101. ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Where’s that class? At the University of Wal*Mart?

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I’ll be sure to keep working extra hard to support your sorry liberal a$$!!

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I have utterly no question that it’s the other way around.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM

Explain his “bad” behavior. I won’t hold my breath.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM

I must now add to my list that you are not a serious individual either.

Skwor on July 3, 2012 at 2:45 PM

I hope not, especially if being “serious” means whining all the time.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:51 PM

yes, that’s what the constitution does, but there was nothing ‘controversial’ here. It should have been clear cut.

Redteam on July 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Yep, SCOTUS is in the habit of taking on clear-cut cases — which is fine with you, as long as they always cut your way.

You make no sense.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM

glass half-full guy here…

He raped the governing language …
ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 2:51 PM

Still waiting for your explanation. You’re good at hyperbole — not so good with details or logic. And you’ve certainly never been to law school.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:55 PM

That’s not the question. The question whether or not the “law” was constitutional. Not only did he vote to affirm something that Congress had no authority to enact he essentially changed the wording to make it more palatable to the decision he wanted to render.

Actually, what you claim as authority in the constitution for SCOTUS to decide controversial cases does not exist except in your own diseased brain. The founders that spoke on Marbury vs Madison all regarded it as a usurpation on Marshall and the rest of the Federalist SCOTUS justices. With one exception. Hamilton thought it was an implied power, but we have been suffering from the effrontery of the Hamiltonians since 1865 when Lincoln was allowed to fool enough of the norther electorate shove his dangerous political philosophy down the throat of the country.

Quartermaster on July 3, 2012 at 2:51 PM

And now we’re getting the Glenn Beck lunatic spin, I see. You want a country governed not by law, but by mock-historians who decide what the Framers meant or didn’t mean. No thanks.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I guess some people discuss and argue, others just call names.

tom on July 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

No there would have been a mechanism to make law in the legislature.

Like Obamacare? The Democrats originally labeled the “fine” §5000A as a tax, then, specifically, changed it to a “penalty.” CJ Roberts rewrote the statute to, again, make it a tax and, hence, constitutional. So, where was the mechanism to make law in the legislature with what Roberts did? Congress HAD “made law.” Roberts came along and “REMADE” it.

Then so what? You will be familiar with these names.

I interned under Linda Coffee, and spent time with Henry Wade. I learned their insights into having their case go before the Supreme court and causing such a long term stir over a case neither thought that much of.

The stakes are the same with 0bama care. And this time it won’t be up to jedi-judges.

Um, even if you repeal Obamacare, the precedent is still set. Some Congress down the road may say, “You know, Cozmo, you can drive that SUV and refuse to put solar panels on your home, but you are going to have to pay a tax if you do.”

Sadly, Roberts’ decision to uphold this monstrosity allows for a fundamental change in the relationship between government and citizen. No longer must Washington govern with the consent of ‘We the People.” It is enough for the Federal government just to slap a tax label on something in order to be able to pummel, threaten, and coerce the population into submission and we have a “Conservative” Justice of the Supreme Court to thank for it.

When you get right down to it, one must ask: If this is where we are going as a country, then what, exactly, was the point of the last 236 years?

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

When you get right down to it, one must ask: If this is where we are going as a country, then what, exactly, was the point of the last 236 years?

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

And why you bothered becoming an American.

:O(

OhEssYouCowboys on July 3, 2012 at 3:28 PM

How so? See Article I, Section 8, Clause 1

Article I section 8 clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Yeah, this proves what I said that there is no limit on Congress to tax anything as long as it is uniform throughout the United States.

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 3:29 PM

“You know, Cozmo, you can drive that SUV and refuse to put solar panels on your home, but you are going to have to pay a tax if you do.”

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

You know, congress has had that power since before there were SUV’s and solar panels. To think that congress cannot tax something is beyond silly.

If congress does try it, they do so at their peril.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Article I section 8 clause 1:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States do anything that it damn well wants;

Yeah, this proves what I said that there is no limit on Congress to tax anything as long as it is uniform throughout the United States.

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 3:29 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on July 3, 2012 at 3:33 PM

When you get right down to it, one must ask: If this is where we are going as a country, then what, exactly, was the point of the last 236 years?

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Because we are Americans, because we do not surender, we do not give up, and we do not just lay down… That is the reason we are the greatest nation of history of mankind and we will remain so for a long time to go. What would you have done with yourself during FDR times who has expanded the power of the government and makes Obama looks like a stupid rookie…

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 3:33 PM

Because we are Americans, because we do not surender, we do not give up, and we do not just lay down… That is the reason we are the greatest nation of history of mankind and we will remain so for a long time to go. What would you have done with yourself during FDR times who has expanded the power of the government and makes Obama looks like a stupid rookie…

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 3:33 PM

That is precisely why Obamuh got elected. Because the majority, those who voted for him, have surrendered, given up and laid down their desire for liberty, so that they may partake of the government’s compassion … and demands.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 3, 2012 at 3:37 PM

This is the dumbest decision since Rove E Wade.
Kelo v City of New London.

SparkPlug on July 3, 2012 at 3:02 PM

FIFY. :-)

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 3:40 PM

John Roberts is Ernst Janning.

Portia46 on July 3, 2012 at 3:45 PM

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 3:33 PM

I wasn’t referring to me. I said that “if this is where we are going as a country…” As I have said repeatedly, Obama is irrelevant. He is nothing more than a haemorrhoid on the anus that is Progressivism. In 2008, the dangerous and shocking thing wasn’t that he was elected. It was that there were enough gullible, base, and ignorant Americans — and, evidently, “European” enough in their thinking — to elect him in the first place.

If the country is going to enslave itself to a ruling elite, then one of my former countrymen wants me to ask:

Miss Me, Yet?

M2RB: Cheap Trick

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I prefaced my post with that “glass half full” thing…

I still think Roberts was up to something in what appears to be a crazy decision…the ruling is still being analyzed, the court is in recess, the election is coming up.

I think Roberts was delivering a very subtle message (be careful what you wish for, it may come true).

I hope I’m right.

teejk on July 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM

I hope I’m right.

teejk on July 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM

I am pretty sure you are.

It up to We The People now.

As it should be.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I think Roberts was delivering a very subtle message

teejk on July 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM

Yeah, that Congress can do whatever it wants as long as 5 people on SCOTUS are there to deem it a tax.

pedestrian on July 3, 2012 at 3:51 PM

Because we are Americans, because we do not surender, we do not give up, and we do not just lay down… That is the reason we are the greatest nation of history of mankind and we will remain so for a long time to go. What would you have done with yourself during FDR times who has expanded the power of the government and makes Obama looks like a stupid rookie…

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 3:33 PM

That is precisely why Obamuh got elected. Because the majority, those who voted for him, have surrendered, given up and laid down their desire for liberty, so that they may partake of the government’s compassion … and demands.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 3, 2012 at 3:37 PM

Let’s not beat around the bush, today’s American is vaestly different from yesterday’s American. Yesterday’s American lived their life with pride and self respect. He worked hard and fought hard for his country and his freedoms. He put value into bettering himself and to achieve noble goals while keeping his moral fibre intact.

Today’s American has all but given up on those ideals. He goes through life trying to put as little effort forth as humanly possible, banking on the “rest” of the citizenry to pull the plough and then share the crop patroitically. He is content with just getting by without an ounce of pride, or even compassion toward his fellow man.

We’ve gone from a citizenry of givers to a citizenry of takers. And the second they reach 55-60% of our population, they will irreveribly eat this country from within.

NapaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 3:52 PM

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Having a Bad Day, Norman?

Del Dolemonte on July 3, 2012 at 3:14 PM

It gets really hot in the Arby’s kitchen on days like today.

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2012 at 3:53 PM

That is precisely why Obamuh got elected. Because the majority, those who voted for him, have surrendered, given up and laid down their desire for liberty, so that they may partake of the government’s compassion … and demands.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 3, 2012 at 3:37 PM

And we have the opportunity to correct this error this November. Obama is not worse than FDR or LBJ. he not even close to these two in expanding the power of the government. He may be have the worst socialist rhetoric but in no way he was able to enact as much government expansion as FDR or LBJ…Do you know the tax rate during FDR? It was 90% at the highest income… a damn 90%… The man created Social Security the largest and most expensive ponzi scheme in history… But yet we not only survived FDR and LBJ but we became the most powerful nation in history of mankind… Stop your doom and gloom people and go vote this November to defeat Obama and the other socialist democrats…

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 3:57 PM

teejk on July 3, 2012 at 3:46 PM

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Y’all carry on and don’t let those who pray for salvation from old farts in robes get you down.

I’m goin’ to go watch old airplanes and explosives.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Let’s not beat around the bush, today’s American is vaestly different from yesterday’s American. Yesterday’s American lived their life with pride and self respect. He worked hard and fought hard for his country and his freedoms. He put value into bettering himself and to achieve noble goals while keeping his moral fibre intact.

Today’s American has all but given up on those ideals. He goes through life trying to put as little effort forth as humanly possible, banking on the “rest” of the citizenry to pull the plough and then share the crop patroitically. He is content with just getting by without an ounce of pride, or even compassion toward his fellow man.

We’ve gone from a citizenry of givers to a citizenry of takers. And the second they reach 55-60% of our population, they will irreveribly eat this country from within.

NapaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 3:52 PM

When did “yesterday” end and “today” begin? Is there anything we can do to change this? Are people around the world like this, or just in America?

thebrokenrattle on July 3, 2012 at 4:03 PM

You know, congress has had that power since before there were SUV’s and solar panels. To think that congress cannot tax something is beyond silly.

If congress does try it, they do so at their peril.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 3:32 PM

No, they haven’t. If Congress had this infinite taxing power, there would never have been the need for the Sixteenth Amendment.

Yeah, this proves what I said that there is no limit on Congress to tax anything as long as it is uniform throughout the United States.

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 3:29 PM

I disagree. For an example, see: Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189 (1920)

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 4:03 PM

I guess some people discuss and argue, others just call names.

tom on July 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Apart from “whiner,” I’m still looking for any example of name-calling. I think you’re thinking of Hot Air darling Chris Christie.

Whiner.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 4:05 PM

The man created Social Security the largest and most expensive ponzi scheme in history… But yet we not only survived FDR and LBJ but we became the most powerful nation in history of mankind… Stop your doom and gloom people and go vote this November to defeat Obama and the other socialist democrats…

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 3:57 PM

You mean the ponzi scheme that is still being perpetrated upon the People? The one that is headed towards a catastrophic collapse? That is surviving FDR?

I’d say that his Socialism is doing quite nicely, not only surviving, but basking in the glow of an America where Socialism is, once again, desired by the majority.

I agree with what Napa Conservative said, supra. The America that I grew up in, is not the America of today … and I’m only 53.

America is now a nation that is, in the majority, a nation of parasites. And, once again, that is precisely why Obamuh was elected.

What you call doom and gloom, I call reality and the cold, hard facts.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM

It gets really hot in the Arby’s kitchen on days like today.

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Arby’s is an interesting choice. A sleaze-food company owned by a leverage-buyout firm named after a character in an unreadably boring Ayn Rand novel.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Again, in the context of winning this election, why are we continuing to bark at the moon over John Roberts?

AYNBLAND on July 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM
Because you need to know who your enemy is if you want to win the war.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 2:22 PM

Oh, well he’s there for another 30 years and there’s nothing we can do about it. Again, what’s the point in barking at the moon over something we cannot change instead of focusing on this election?

I realize that Mark and Rush and others are beating this dead horse because they want to say “I told you so, see we can only win with Conservatives” if Romney loses but you and I aren’t talk radio hosts. Why is everyone else wasting their time on this?

Gnashing of teeth and pissing and moaning about something you can’t control is what liberals do.

AYNBLAND on July 3, 2012 at 4:11 PM

And why you bothered becoming an American.

:O(

OhEssYouCowboys on July 3, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Yep. Americans becoming like Europeans. Ugh.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 4:11 PM

OhEssYouCowboys on July 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I am not going to surrender, I have the great American spirit in me, and they are enough like me to make the necessary corrections. Anyway every generation thinks that the world would end with them and they think that the next generation is far worse…

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 4:13 PM

Arby’s is an interesting choice. A sleaze-food company owned by a leverage-buyout firm named after a character in an unreadably boring Ayn Rand novel.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I guess that a communist like you would find Marx and Lenin writings much more interesting…Do you scum communists have any shame? Of course not.

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 4:15 PM

But yet we not only survived FDR

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 3:57 PM

FDR, of course, has the unique distinction of being the only individual in American history for whom a Constitutional amendment was specifically passed right after he died to never let anyone else act as he did. That was quite the statement on how “good” he was for America … It’s amazing that anyone can look at such a person, who was so out of control and power hungry that our Constitution had to be amended as soon as possible to prevent another such as him from appearing or acting on those same desires, as anything less than a threat to America and a terrible stain on our history. FDR’s rehabilitation has certainly been an exercise in revisionist history. Great men get holidays (well … they used to). Great threats get Constitutional amendments barring their behavior in the future.

Of course, the threat from someone like the Indonesian Dog-Eater had already been written into the Constitution, but none of that matters anymore …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 4:18 PM

Obama is not worse than FDR or LBJ. he not even close to these two in expanding the power of the government.

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Barky is far worse. He’s been operating totally outside the law and perverting the concept of America. He has thrown away all traditional allies, embraced our enemies and enemies of the West, and has generally tried to shape America into a third world sh!thole like the place he grew up in. He has lied constantly about everything and broken all of our institutions and systems so much as he was able. If America survives, there would be a Constitutional amendment made to stop another of his ilk from coming to power, but that was already in the Constitution … so there is no where to go from there, which is another reason he is that much worse.

Barky is plain un-American. He hates America and Americanism. He hates the whole West. Such a perversion we have never seen in our history, since it is only the modern population that would ever stand such a creature in in our government. America has its first foreign Emperor, which is distinctly different from having had FDR, our first American Emperor (and even FDR was restrained in ways that Barky has never been). And, on top of it all, the Indonesian is total retard and incompetent, which is the worst offense of all. It’s one thing to be taken apart by an evil genius or some amazingly competent enemy, but to be taken out by an inept boob … That’s beyond pathetic.

Barky has affected changes in America that will never be fixed and that are just plain un-American. Not just a grab for power but a distortion of our culture. We have never had to deal with anything like this and we haven’t dealt well with it – as he’s still in office when he should have been tossed out of the race the minute he violated verything about America by holding the biggest political rally of his campaign in a foreign country, for foreigners. I can’t even imagine America hosting a foreign candidate for a rally on the Mall in Washington. No one in America could have ever imagined such a thing as that insane Berlin rally … but that became part of American political tradition. It still boggles my mind that he got away with that. That is the sort of perversion of the government and culture that doesn’t go away. Irreparable damage.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 4:30 PM

When did “yesterday” end and “today” begin? Is there anything we can do to change this? Are people around the world like this, or just in America?

thebrokenrattle on July 3, 2012 at 4:03 PM

I know I’m going to be ridiculed for this but I think “today” started with the MTV generation.

What can we do about it? Cut entitlements to a bare minimum and force people to right their own ship for survival and tell their offspring that they’re gonna die if they don’t get their act together.

Around the world is a very general statement. People in countries like Sweden, Norway and Holland are worse offenders than here, and people in other countries might be less so. But since all of the world tries to emulate us even though they officially hate us, the trends here do substancially influence the rest of the world’s population.

NapaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 4:32 PM

Some of this is probably just leftover pre-ObamaCare-decision hysteria with no place else to go.

Or it’s strategic.

Roberts folded like a cheap suit once; no reason to think he won’t do so again.

BadgerHawk on July 3, 2012 at 4:51 PM

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 3:00 PM

I guess some people discuss and argue, others just call names.

tom on July 3, 2012 at 3:25 PM

This troll/obot just destroys threads. It has no interest in learning anything nor can it discuss anything above the level of 1st grade. Very aggravating.

bluefox on July 3, 2012 at 5:05 PM

It gets really hot in the Arby’s kitchen on days like today.

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Arby’s is an interesting choice. A sleaze-food company owned by a leverage-buyout firm named after a character in an unreadably boring Ayn Rand novel.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Translated: “slickwillie nailed me dead to rights!”

Just curious, Junior-wasn’t your employer the first major US fast food chain to stop putting additives in their chicken sandwiches, and the first major fast-food chain to stop using trans-fats? I guess additive-free food is “sleaze” on your planet.

Thanks so much for sharing that!

Del Dolemonte on July 3, 2012 at 5:19 PM

NapaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 4:32 PM

no argument here…I didn’t have the silver spoon but I worked hard and acquired a modest wealth (not as much as Obama but a little). now I’m wondering if I was an idiot…it would have been easier to sit back and wait for others to provide for me.

Happy Independence Day…taxation without representation…

now the opposite but I think we can fix it.

teejk on July 3, 2012 at 5:27 PM

I know I’m going to be ridiculed for this but I think “today” started with the MTV generation.

NapaConservative on July 3, 2012 at 4:32 PM

What’s the MTV generation? The boomers who ran it or Generation X who grew up with it?

thebrokenrattle on July 3, 2012 at 5:56 PM

Roberts is now a liberal judge. He will get the invites to beltway parties…he didn’t like being ignored.

Redford on July 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Roberts is now a liberal judge. He will get the invites to beltway parties…he didn’t like being ignored.

Redford on July 3, 2012 at 6:08 PM

Yep, Mrs. Roberts finally has an invite to the neighborhood bridge club. The Roberts children have been admitted to the private school of their choice. Finally they can get a plumber. The WaPo now comes in a plastic bag. All is well.

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2012 at 7:07 PM

Roberts wrote in his opinion that “Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. IT IS NOT OUR JOB TO PROTECT THE PEOPLE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR POLITICAL CHOICES.”

Let’s assume that the Democrats wanted to call it a tax, but didn’t (they actually DID change it from a tax to a penalty) FOR POLITICAL REASONS. Fine.

If it is not the Court’s job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices, IS IT ALSO NOT TRUE THAT THE JOB OF THE COURT IS NOT TO PROTECT ELECTED OFFICIALS IN CONGRESS AND THE WHITE HOUSE FROM THE CONSEQUENCES OF THEIR POLITICAL CHOICES?

Why should the Supreme Court provide cover for Congress? Why should the Supreme Court provide cover a President?

If Congress meant for it to be a tax, but deliberately chose to label it a penalty due to political considerations, IT IS ***NOT*** THE JOB OF THE CHIEF JUSTICE TO PROTECT THE RULING CLASS FROM EITHER THEIR OWN FOLLY (WRITING UNCONSTITUTIONAL LAWS AND HAVING THEM THEM BEING DECLARED SO, i.e., THE MANDATE IS A “PENALTY”) OR THEIR POLITICAL DECISIONS (VOTING TO INCREASE TAXES, i.e., THE MANDATE IS A “TAX”).

On whose side is the Court? It would appear the DC-Establishment and, certainly, not the people.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 7:32 PM

What a crazy statement.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:15 PM

…I don’t know where you come from…but you’re nucking futs!

KOOLAID2 on July 4, 2012 at 12:19 AM

and it shows just how insecure they become at just the hint that they might lose the judiciary as a means to pursue policy.

Let’s block ‘em in the courts, in academia, outshine their thinktanks, and deny them power.

They SHOULD be insecure. We’re smarter than they are except when we ignore our own insecurity issues. Sigh.

MaggiePoo on July 4, 2012 at 3:51 AM

New liberal nightmare a lot like … old liberal nightmare

This title could be recycled for a topic comparing Willard to Hussein. HMM!

DannoJyd on July 12, 2012 at 7:21 AM

Comment pages: 1 2