Green Room

What John Roberts forgot when he switched his vote

posted at 8:20 am on July 8, 2012 by

When Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote allowing Obamacare to stand, he made some interesting comments:

“We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation’s elected leaders.”

“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.”

Scathing, I know.  Scolding voters?  Maybe.  I find it imperative to remind him of the mid-term election of 2010 where voters did just that and gave Republicans control of the House and several additional Senate seats.  Roberts may have also forgotten that the Democrats did not have a supermajority after the 2008 election.  It was Republican turncoat Senator Arlen Spector from Pennsylvania who switched his party affiliation to Democrat giving the Democrats a filibuster-proof Senate majority.  Pennsylvania voters elected a Republican–what they actually got was a Democrat.   Specter was defeated in 2010 by Republican Pat Toomey.  Additionally, Blue Dog Democrat Bart Stupak and his prolife Democrat gang, including Rep. Kathy Dahlkemper, sold their souls to the abortion industry for Obamacare–such courage of conviction.  Stupak retired, while Dahlkemper lost by 11.4% to Republican Mike Kelly.  So yes, the system works.

When voters learn the truth about their elected officials–typically after the election–they get ousted if they don’t represent their constituents.  A good example will be in November.  What the were told about health care reform was not what was intended.  Instead, what we got was a CBO-confirmed $1.76 Trillion (over 10 years) government takeover and an IPAB death panel–which resembles nothing like the plan Obama/Biden campaigned on in 2008:

President Obama’s national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law. Democrats employed many accounting tricks when they were pushing through the national health care legislation, the most egregious of which was to delay full implementation of the law until 2014, so it would appear cheaper under the CBO’s standard ten-year budget window and, at least on paper, meet Obama’s pledge that the legislation would cost “around $900 billion over 10 years.” When the final CBO score came out before passage, critics noted that the true 10 year cost would be far higher than advertised once projections accounted for full implementation.

And so much for fiscal responsibility they promised:

A Commitment to Fiscal Responsibility: Barack Obama will pay for his $50 – $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level.

Voters didn’t stand a chance in 2008, so when Roberts rationalized his decision to ease his conscience or something by saying, “It’s not the court’s responsibility to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” it’s apparent that he forgot how the American people were duped into believing one thing about who they really elected and Obama’s actual health care plan.  That may be just politics as usual, but when a law is passed without the consent of the governed and under questionable Constitutional semantics, the courts must intervene, not push it back to the ‘you made your bed, now lie in it’ cliche.  Roberts chose political cover over the Constitution.  However, unlike elected officials, his job is safe.

To our benefit, I see a very re-energized base and I’m loving the GOP fund-raising records.  The Left should be very worried–the job started in 2010 will be finished in November.

 

Recently in the Green Room:

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

I have to agreeably, disagree with Ms Hiller’s premise almost entirely.

It is not the role of the SCOTUS to correct for the stupidity of the American Voters! They drank the Kool-Aid, they went to the polls and 53% of those that voted, did indeed vote for this socialist.

Surprise! He started doing exactly what he said he’d do! And with both Houses in his pocket, damned near wrecked the Country in two years. The voters sobered up.

Now it will take several years to undo the damage he has done. Or at least we hope we can undo it!

But back to Susanne’s thoughts – the non-elected Supremes were not created to be some kind of over-lord committee to decide what is right or wrong about the policies created at both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue. Only to decide if they are within the bounds of the Constitution.

Every member of congress and the POTUS himself take an oath to ‘protect and defend’ the constitution. The Supremes seem to be the only ones that remember that oath.

Pecozbill on July 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Ms Hiller:

Your analysis of this entire disaster is spot on. Between you and Mark Steyn, I can’t think of two political observers who are more cogent,incisive and 100 % reflective of the simmering discontent that the betrayed of the US now feel.

November WILL be a massacre of EPIC proportions at the polls.

DevilsPrinciple on July 8, 2012 at 9:29 AM

Every member of congress and the POTUS himself take an oath to ‘protect and defend’ the constitution. The Supremes seem to be the only ones that remember that oath.

Pecozbill on July 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

Such a nice thought. Lassie and Mary Poppins approves!
So why do we have a SCOTUS that most everyone is split Liberal/Conservative?

Mimzey on July 8, 2012 at 9:51 AM

Every member of congress and the POTUS himself take an oath to ‘protect and defend’ the constitution. The Supremes seem to be the only ones that remember that oath.

Pecozbill on July 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

You’d be right-on if it wasn’t for the fact that judicial review is not the Supreme Court’s job.

gryphon202 on July 8, 2012 at 10:16 AM

It is not the role of the SCOTUS to correct for the stupidity of the American Voters! They drank the Kool-Aid, they went to the polls and 53% of those that voted, did indeed vote for this socialist.

Pecozbill on July 8, 2012 at 9:21 AM

There are numerous judges who, by their actions, would thoroughly disagree with you, as do I.The Federal Circuit judge in California who decided that gay marriage should be legal over the will of the voters is but one obvious example of “judicial activism”.

This case will no doubt be a SCOTUS case.

DevilsPrinciple on July 8, 2012 at 12:05 PM

You know, Susanne, maybe calling people stupid isn’t the way to win them over to your side of the argument. Just a thought…

Yeah, America always gets what it voted for. In 2008, it wanted ‘Not Bush!’ and it got it. The problem is that there aren’t really a lot of adults that vote anymore. Most of the active voters are just old children who vote for the candidate that promises them cookies and milk for dinner and never having to go to bed until they wanna. A functioning republic requires people that can be adults, and say, “No, you can not buy what ever you want and stick your children with the bills.”

MunDane68 on July 8, 2012 at 1:54 PM

I don’t think anyone expects the Supreme Court to ‘save’ the voters from themselves.

By that logic, there is no need for the Supreme Court to exist since everything Congress does would be ‘what the voters asked for’

I do think some expect the Supreme Court to ‘save’ us from unconstitutional things the voters sometimes do. Popular doesn’t equal Constitutional.

ChrisL on July 8, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Yeah, don’t forget that we were all duped into believing Benedict Roberts was something it turns out he’s not.

stukinIL4now on July 8, 2012 at 3:43 PM

the job started in 2010 will be finished in November.

Sorry Susananne no, as Churchill said November will just be “the end of the beginning.” There is a monster load of work to do.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on July 8, 2012 at 5:27 PM

T

here is a monster load of work to do.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on July 8, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Agreed.

SusanAnne Hiller on July 8, 2012 at 6:43 PM

“… [A]s Churchill said November will just be ‘the end of the beginning.’ There is a monster load of work to do.”

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on July 8, 2012 at 5:27 PM

Absolutely (and excruciatingly) correct… +1000 FTW

It’s going to be like that old story about the guys who saved up for years for their chance to play a round of golf at St. Andrews in Scotland… When they finally made it to the first tee, one of the guys had a stroke from all the excitement. With others waiting behind them for their chance to play, they were faced with the dilemma of either “playing through” or giving up their treasured opportunity…

Afterwards, back home, they explained to the grieving widow why it took the guys 8-1/2 hours to call for help: “Look, we *tried* to speed it up, but all the way it was take a stroke and drag Mitt… Hit the ball and drag Mitt…”

“Ask not what your TEA Party can do for you…” ~ DeepWheat

DeepWheat on July 8, 2012 at 6:49 PM

“The voters were duped by politicians” is not addressed by the lawsuit and is thinner gruel than Roberts rewriting the law to make it “legal”.

trl on July 8, 2012 at 6:58 PM