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

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

I think he made the decision just to watch all the pundits tie themselves in knots trying to explain it.

The Rogue Tomato on July 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Out: Waxman’s nasal boobs

Rerun: Robert’s smirk.

enough already.

hillsoftx on July 3, 2012 at 2:05 PM

The Rogue Tomato on July 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Nah, he’s laughing himself silly watching rightys kick their gift horse.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 2:06 PM

How long must we wait until Justice Clement joins the Court?

aunursa on July 3, 2012 at 2:06 PM

The only “point” in this whole, sordid affair, is that the Supreme Court and Congress and the Oval Office can and will find a way to justify their running over us.

We aren’t “the People,” we are “the Roadkill” on the road to Utopia.

OhEssYouCowboys on July 3, 2012 at 2:06 PM

Just imagine how good his draft picks are going to be now that he has thrown the Superbowl!

Please don’t throw us into that briar patch again John Roberts!

-Libs

Kataklysmic on July 3, 2012 at 2:07 PM

Libs are the nightmare.

msupertas on July 3, 2012 at 2:08 PM

With John Yee available, just how in hell did we end up with this hack?

riddick on July 3, 2012 at 2:08 PM

The Court has gone down the tubes if Roberts even thinks about this:

With one major case, Roberts may have inoculated himself and the court against charges of partisanship.

Labamigo 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

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

Yeah, keep smiling, Roberts. Jerk.

minnesoter on July 3, 2012 at 2:14 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

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.

Not sure what to make of this, Ed. The left never liked Roberts. They always hated him. They didn’t start to like him after the OCare decision. They just liked the decision. The fear that’s arisen ‘almost within hours’ was always there.

joejm65 on July 3, 2012 at 2:15 PM

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

wildcat72 on July 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Is this the same as “a buried cable is more efficient that an above ground one”?

Or, is it the distance thing?

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 2:16 PM

I think he made the decision just to watch all the pundits tie themselves in knots trying to explain it.

The Rogue Tomato on July 3, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Prior to the decision, I’d already made up my mind that I wasn’t going to watch Fox News much, anymore. The Commie whores on MSNBC had already been removed from my cable channels, and I never watched CNN, anyway. But, it seemed to me that Fox News had become nothing but a bunch of Right and Leftwing bullshitters, who sat around, all evening, doing nothing but bullshitting and thinking that they knew everything.

Well, now, it’s pretty clear that they knew nothing, and that they have been reduced to simply being nothing but a bunch of bullshitters.

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

It’s just the left reminding Roberts that they’ll come after him again. They know he bleeds now – they won’t put their knives away.

gwelf on July 3, 2012 at 2:17 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

This shows beyond a shadow of a doubt how poor Roberts opinion was and how badly he has tarnished the SCOTUS image.

Poor character = poor judgment = Roberts judicial philosophy.

Skwor on July 3, 2012 at 2:17 PM

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

canopfor on July 3, 2012 at 2:18 PM

That’s exactly what this country needs, unpredictable leadership. Nothings lets employers hire faster than having no idea where the law of the land is headed.

pedestrian on July 3, 2012 at 2:18 PM

Is Mr. Morrissey *really* making the Salem Communications/Establishment case that Roberts is just a sorta kinda “misunderstood” kinda guy who’s sorta kinda conservative…

…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

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

Traitor to whom? Rush Limbaugh?

What a crazy statement.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:15 PM

You are always a simpleton, a fool.

The job of the SC court is this – protect the Constitution and the people from those who’d wish to destroy it.

Roberts changed the text of the Obama’care’ into ObamaTax to create an extra-Constitutional tax, and to set a devastating precedent.

You deserve to be enslaved, you gnatbrain.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Personally I could care less what liberals think and worry about It’s a conservatives’ nightmare-sort of like driving with bad brakes over atrocious mountain roads at night in a truck filled with nitro( and, of course, the driver is both drunk and sleep deprived). We have another improperly vetted anal cavity who joins a long list of Republican SC mistakes (Earl Warren, Harry Blackmun, Sandra Day O’Connor, David Souter and now Benedict Roberts). Why is it that SC justices who double-cross their nominators only come from the Republican side? Probably because the Democrats not only vet better but choose Marxist ideologues as obdurately fanatic as any Muslim suicide bomber.

MaiDee on July 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

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

It’s not insecurity. It is an intimidation strategy. It worked on Roberts.

They may seem hysterical about it at times. But the hysteria apparently swayed Roberts. I expect more of it.

farsighted on July 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Like congratulating yourself some more.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Or read maybe.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 2:21 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

Given that the law is supposed to be repeatably interpreted allowing a citizen to be able to predict outcomes for behaviors conflicts how exactly has Roberts opinion improved the SCOTUS’s position as arbitrator in such matters?

Skwor on July 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

As far as I’m concerned, Roberts is worse than Kagan, sototmayor, breyer and ginsburg!

He stabbed us all in the back when it mattered most.

And he screwed us with the Arizona case too!

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

That you think in cliches.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Irony is indignant.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 2:21 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

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

They broke their stress ball.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 2:22 PM

This is going to be re-litigated over the HHS mandate on churches and religious hospitals. We have 4 Justices on record as way the whole law thrown out. What are the chances Roberts will defy them and the American people a second time?

jawkneemusic on July 3, 2012 at 2:23 PM

Nonsense. If Roberts were so brilliant, Obamacare would be struck down.

JohnTant on July 3, 2012 at 2:23 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

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

So why didn’t Roberts ” decide” the case based on it’s Constitutionality and it’s language ?
Why did he kick it back to the legislature, back to same idiots who passed that unconstitutional law in the first palce ?

burrata on July 3, 2012 at 2:24 PM

That you think in cliches.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

That you intentionally take quotes out of context and edit the wording to contrive a point that doesn’t exist for the purpose of making ad hominem attacks.

You are not only simple you are dishonest.

Skwor on July 3, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Every time I am reminded about the decision…

… I want to throw up.

Seriously, it’s as if something bad happened to Little 7% and I am in denial…

… but actually something bad did happen to him, his future, and the future of this Country.

I really think that the vote in November will have to be so large, so overwhelming, so devastating to the political elite ruling class and entrenched politicians that it will be a hundred years before a liberal ever raises it’s ugly head again…

Seven Percent Solution on July 3, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Liberals are paranoid, its who they are.

A bird hits a window and their world is coming to an end.

They can be even more frightened of a come to Jesus John Roberts but their totalitarian regime mantra will remain unaltered.

Most liberals aren’t evil but the liberal-ism that infects them and harms all of us, that is evil.

Our liberty, our very way of life is threatened and its Americans who threaten us.

We all declare for liberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases with himself, and the product of his labor; while with others, the same word many mean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the product of other men’s labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatible things, called by the same name – liberty. And it follows that each of the things is, by the respective parties, called by two different and incompatible names – liberty and tyranny.
Abraham Lincoln

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln

Speakup on July 3, 2012 at 2:25 PM

As far as I’m concerned, Roberts is worse than Kagan, sototmayor, breyer and ginsburg!
He stabbed us all in the back when it mattered most.
And he screwed us with the Arizona case too!
LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Not true. Citizens united, Heller vs DC?

Yes this ruling was an Obamination but to say he’s worse than those who you know will take our freedoms away any chance they get is asinine.

jawkneemusic on July 3, 2012 at 2:26 PM

There’s no gray area.

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:13 PM

And no gray matter, in your brain

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 2:26 PM

Seven Percent Solution on July 3, 2012 at 2:24 PM

And its all Roberts’ fault for telling Americans that it was the job of the people Americans elect.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 2:27 PM

As far as I’m concerned, Roberts is worse than Kagan, sototmayor, breyer and ginsburg!

He stabbed us all in the back when it mattered most.

And he screwed us with the Arizona case too!

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 2:21 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

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

After Benedict Roberts’ insane opinion there’s nothing left. He’s trashed everything.

Between the Indonesian Dog-Eating Retard and Benedict Roberts, America has been put down like an Jakarta Poodle before dinner.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 2:27 PM

You are not only simple you are dishonest.

Skwor on July 3, 2012 at 2:24 PM

It’s the perfect leftist, never truly liberal or progressive.

Schadenfreude on July 3, 2012 at 2:27 PM

I think he made the decision just to watch all the pundits tie themselves in knots trying to explain it.

Yeah, and would Obama and the dems stop in their tracks? Even if the court tossed it out, this admin would have plans to work around a decision against Obamacare anyway, which is typically what has been done with anything that attempts to obstruct what this admin does.

hawkeye54 on July 3, 2012 at 2:28 PM

J.E.Dyer has a great article in the Green Room for those that haven’t read it. Possible solutions and some great comments and insights. I hadn’t read it until today.

Ed: Please bring this to the front page.

bluefox on July 3, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Not true. Citizens united, Heller vs DC?

Yes this ruling was an Obamination but to say he’s worse than those who you know will take our freedoms away any chance they get is asinine.

jawkneemusic on July 3, 2012 at 2:26 PM

On the biggest case in the history of the Court he stabbed us all in the back and gave gov’t the power to tax us to do anything it wants us to do.

He was supposed to be a conservative and to have respect for the constitution. He just put it in the shredder.

He’s a liberal and a disgrace.

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 2:29 PM

And its all Roberts’ fault for telling Americans that it was the job of the people Americans elect.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 2:27 PM

Uhmm, you do realize that there are 3 CO-EQUAL branches of government with the Judicial one being there to balance out the other two. When the Judicial refuses to perform its designed function they are undermining our government just as much as when the Legislative branch writes an unconstitutional law.

Skwor on July 3, 2012 at 2:29 PM

It’s impossible to keep up with all of the conspiracy theories stemming from Thursday’s decision

The simplest, most straightforward one:

Roberts was threatened by a mafia/ghetto thug to “reconsider” his “decision.”

That’s my story, and I’m sticking with it.

MisterElephant on July 3, 2012 at 2:30 PM

I am afraid that we lost Roberts throughout his tenure as he is going to side with liberals on the majority of future cases… He will take it very personally that the vast majority of conservatives attacked him mercilessly on the Obamacare decision and he may have already made his mind that he is going to screw conservatives in most of the cases that come to him. I hope that he proves me wrong.

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Yikes! It is a bit of a fever swamp here today. I’ll check back after the Benson reruns are done. First things first.

Mason on July 3, 2012 at 2:32 PM

“America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” Abraham Lincoln

Typical of most great nations and empires…..out of complacency, greed and corruption they either destroy themselves from within or weaken themselves so as to be more easily conquered by invaders.

hawkeye54 on July 3, 2012 at 2:32 PM

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

I blame Bush and the hack he charged with overseeing Roberts
confirmation, none other than Steve Schmidt of the McCain campaign
who tried to run roughshod over Palin and blame her for the loss.

Bush ran as a conservative and governed like a liberal. Of
course, we voters weren’t paying attention because the economy
was overall good and we kicked a$$ in Iraq.

Hopefully, we are NOW paying attention because if not held
accountable, Romney will another Bush.

Amjean on July 3, 2012 at 2:32 PM

Lsm are vultures

cmsinaz on July 3, 2012 at 2:33 PM

I am afraid that we lost Roberts throughout his tenure as he is going to side with liberals on the majority of future cases… He will take it very personally that the vast majority of conservatives attacked him mercilessly on the Obamacare decision and he may have already made his mind that he is going to screw conservatives in most of the cases that come to him. I hope that he proves me wrong.

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 2:31 PM

If this is true then Roberts was never qualified for his position in the first place. What does that say about our “best and brightest” of the educated class?

Skwor on July 3, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Get out the Lysol, bacteria is back.

slickwillie2001 on July 3, 2012 at 2:34 PM

When the Judicial refuses to perform its designed function they are undermining our government just as much as when the Legislative branch writes an unconstitutional law.

Skwor on July 3, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Please explain how Roberts “refused” to perform the decision you wanted his “designed function”?

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:36 PM

When the Judicial refuses to perform its designed function they are undermining our government just as much as when the Legislative branch writes an unconstitutional law.

Skwor on July 3, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Please explain how Roberts “refused” to perform the decision you wanted his “designed function”?

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Hopefully, we are NOW paying attention because if not held
accountable, Romney will another Bush.

Amjean on July 3, 2012 at 2:32 PM

That’s if we’re lucky enough to even get Romney elected!

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 2:37 PM

And its all Roberts’ fault for telling Americans that it was the job of the people Americans elect.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 2:27 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. The idea of a Democracy was specifically rejected by the Founders, for very good reasons … which the new American Socialist Superstate will illustrate to all in quick order …

“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” — James Madison, Federalist 10

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Uhmm, you do realize that there are 3 CO-EQUAL branches of government with the Judicial one being there to balance out the other two.
Skwor on July 3, 2012 at 2:29 PM

Yes, I do. Do you realize that elections have consequences.

Teaching the republicans a lesson over McCain is what got us Obamacare.

SCOTUS told how this can be fixed. Roberts didn’t even like 0bamacre, just that it can be changed to be made constitutional.

For too long politicians have relied on the courts to save their bacon when they screwed up. Not this time, and not to be forgotten.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 2:39 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

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.

From Progressive law Professor Pamela Harlan (NYT, Sunday):

The Roberts court has intensified the effort to reduce federal power. That the individual mandate was upheld should not overshadow the court’s ruling on Medicaid expansion — the part of the ruling that is most likely to affect other legislation in the near future.

For the first time since the New Deal, the court struck down an exercise of Congress’s spending power.

It held that Congress lacked the power to deny Medicaid funds to states that refuse to expand their coverage. Chief Justice Roberts — joined by the liberal justices Stephen G. Breyer and Elena Kagan — held that while the government can deny additional Medicaid funds to states that refuse to expand their coverage, it cannot penalize them by rescinding current Medicaid payments.

This is a loaded gun indeed.

MANY state and local governments, universities and nonprofit agencies build their operations around federal financing. If the federal government can deny them additional money only when it adds conditions the recipients must meet, it will be hamstrung in ensuring compliance with critical federal objectives. For example, the government gives grants on the condition that recipients will not discriminate on the basis of race, sex and disability.

If Congress adds sexual orientation to the list — which seems likely at some not-too-distant point — must it maintain existing financing for groups that defiantly persist in discriminating against lesbians and gay men?

A 2000 law requires state prisons and local jails that get federal funds to accommodate inmates’ religious practices. But those facilities received money long before the law was passed.

Can the government credibly threaten to cut off funds to facilities that violate the law, or are its enforcement tools now limited?

What, then, to make of the court’s landmark decision to uphold the individual mandate? Chief Justice Roberts construed the mandate not as a requirement that individuals purchase health insurance but as a choice: buy insurance or pay a tax. But the conservatives surely know that a Congress that can tax but not do much else — spend money, regulate the economy or enforce civil rights — will be hamstrung. Taxes are unpopular and nearly every Republican member of Congress has promised to oppose any additional taxes on individuals or businesses.

A Congress that can advance national priorities only through its taxing power is a Congress with little power at all. That is the real legacy of the last term. The Supreme Court has given Americans who care about economic and social justice a reason to worry this Fourth of July. The court’s guns have been loaded; it only remains to be seen whether it fires them.

For Progressives, The Bloom Is Beginning To Fade From The Roberts’ Obamacare Rose

M2RB: This Providence

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 2:39 PM

This is Constitution 101. The idea of a Democracy was specifically rejected by the Founders, for very good reasons … which the new American Socialist Superstate will illustrate to all in quick order …

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 2:38 PM

That part is. But not the 0bamacare decision.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Bifidis, doing a job well by dumping loads. You take after your namesake bacterium.

chemman on July 3, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Please explain how Roberts “refused” to perform the decision you wanted his “designed function”?

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:37 PM

Considering your previous insulting and dishonest posts I offer this response to your inquiry.

Matthew 7:6

6 Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

Skwor on July 3, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Please explain how Roberts “refused” to perform the decision you wanted his “designed function”?

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:37 PM

He permitted a law to be constitutional, not by how it was written but by how he thought it should have been written, and in the process granted Congress a taxing authority that the Constitution does not give it, all to regulate an industry that it does not have the enumerated power to regulate.

pedestrian on July 3, 2012 at 2:41 PM

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

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:39 PM

You’ve lost the argument when that’s what you have to resort to.

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

And here’s a few more (!) just for you !!

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I am afraid that we lost Roberts throughout his tenure as he is going to side with liberals on the majority of future cases…

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Benedict Roberts needs to be impeached. Judges can sit on the bench only so long as they maintain “good Behaviour” and Roberts has certainly failed that. The only bench he’s qualified to sit on is a park bench.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 2:42 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

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

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

A clock that breaks… is broken.

Liberals can own Roberts. After all, he epitomizes one of their central tenants; if it feels good do it, no matter the consequence.

LetsBfrank on July 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM

And its all Roberts’ fault for telling Americans that it was the job of the people Americans elect.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 2:27 PM

The Constitution is there to protect the people. Yes, elections have consequences, but elected officials do not have unlimited power between them. As Chief Justice Marshall wrote relative to the Necessary and Proper Clause in McCulloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. 316 (1819):

“We admit, as all must admit, that the powers of the Government are limited, and that its limits are not to be transcended. But we think the sound construction of the Constitution must allow to the national legislature that discretion with respect to the means by which the powers it confers are to be carried into execution which will enable that body to perform the high duties assigned to it in the manner most beneficial to the people. Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are constitutional.

Should Congress, in the execution of its powers, adopt measures which are prohibited by the Constitution, or should Congress, under the pretext of executing its powers, pass laws for the accomplishment of objects not entrusted to the Government, it would become the painful duty of this tribunal, should a case requiring such a decision come before it, to say that such an act was not the law of the land.

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM

You are not only simple you are dishonest.

Skwor on July 3, 2012 at 2:24 PM

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

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:42 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

Benedict Roberts needs to be impeached. Judges can sit on the bench only so long as they maintain “good Behaviour” and Roberts has certainly failed that. The only bench he’s qualified to sit on is a park bench.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

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

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:46 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.

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

SCOTUS told how this can be fixed. Roberts didn’t even like 0bamacre, just that it can be changed to be made constitutional.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 2:39 PM

A whole new sort of tax has been conjured up by Benedict Roberts. A tax for not doing or buying what the feral government tells you to do or buy. You can’t fix that. Not even a Constitutional amendment will fix that. And once the leftists grasp the power they get with that, they’ll never give up on it.

It is impossible to underestimate the damage done by Roberts. It was all-encompassing and irreversible. It was something that lefties in AMerica had never even dreamt of doing, but now they have been given it on a silver platter and that genie will never be put back. No matter what.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 2:47 PM

Is there any photo of Roberts in existence in which his smug face doesn’t look infinitely slappable?

Sharke on July 3, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Please explain how Roberts “refused” to perform the decision you wanted his “designed function”?

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:37 PM

There are four permitted taxes in the COTUS, including the 16th Amendment. Roberts’ opinion, specifically, says that his “tax” is not a direct tax because it is triggered by “it is triggered by specific circumstances.” Your other 3 choices are:

1. Excise tax (a taxable event such as a sale or death must occur)

2. Income (ObamaTax applies whether you have income or not)

3. Impost (tariff/duty) (Really??? You want to argue that one???)

So, which one do you want to claim the ObamaTax is?

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 2:48 PM

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

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM

In that case I’d be an Obama drone just like you.

LevinFan on July 3, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Resist We Much on July 3, 2012 at 2:44 PM

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

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

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 2:49 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

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

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

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

bifidis on July 3, 2012 at 2:46 PM

He raped the governing language and acted without logic or restraint. He assaulted the foundations of our nation and took them out from under us, instantly changing the nation (noted by Kennedy, BTW). His opinion was an irrational steaming pile of sh!t. He failed to maintain “good Behaviour”. End of story.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair 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…

#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

Benedict Roberts needs to be impeached. Judges can sit on the bench only so long as they maintain “good Behaviour” and Roberts has certainly failed that. The only bench he’s qualified to sit on is a park bench.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on July 3, 2012 at 2:42 PM

No one would impeach him even if 100% of the country agrees that he should be impeached and 100% of Congress is against him… Talking about impeachement of a supreme court judge is plain stupid and waste of time…

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 2:54 PM

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

teejk on July 3, 2012 at 2:53 PM

Yep, yep and yep.

mnjg on July 3, 2012 at 2:54 PM

Maybe someday they will get over their temper tantrum and do something constructive.

cozmo on July 3, 2012 at 2:57 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

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

Dirt. Bag.

Certif on July 3, 2012 at 3:00 PM

So even when they win, they feel like they’ve lost?

Almost like a conservative feels at the thought of Romney getting elected…..

tom on July 3, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Heh, Rush opened his show today by calling John Roberts the Rodney King of Supreme Court justices: Why can’t we all just get along.

petefrt on July 3, 2012 at 3:01 PM

Comment pages: 1 2