| Story Views | |
| Now: | |
| Last Hour: | |
| Last 24 Hours: | |
| Total: | |
Obamacare: Nullification, Equal Protection And Important Court Cases
PART 1 of 2
By: Devvy
July 10, 2012
NewsWithViews.com
After Roberts toxic decision, the Internet and talk radio burned up the atmosphere and blogs non stop for days. Analysis came from all directions. Particularly disappointing was the spin by "conservatives":
Why Chief Justice Roberts Made the Right Long-Term Decision With ObamaCare
"Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government's coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases. Although he didn't guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded. And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown through his windshield. Oh, and he'll be home in time for dinner. Brilliant."
"Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue…..Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don't really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach."
How utterly stupid and foolish.
The biggest disappointment for me came from Virginia's Attorney General:
Ken Cuccinelli, on second thought, likes Supreme Court health-care decision
“They preserved our first principles protections, our individual liberty protections. They advanced state sovereignty, strangely enough, while keeping the law. That was not one of the combinations that were even in our top five. That permutation was one that we didn't spend a lot of time thinking was a likely outcome. But here we are. That's the one we've got. “They've turned this whole thing into a spending and regulation question with this ruling. The individual liberty pieces were preserved and states got strengthened here in the constitutional structure under this ruling.”
Pray tell how we are supposed to enjoy individual liberty with that decision? The power to tax is the power to destroy. Roberts just handed the gangsters in the U.S. Congress the power to tax us into poverty for not doing something they demand we do.
While there have been dozens of very good analysis about that decision, I believe Van Irion, an attorney with the Liberty Legal Foundation hit it on point perfectly:
Unconstitutional Obamacare Ruling – Playing Politics with the Constitution
"…Despite his protestations to the contrary, his ruling that the individual mandate is a tax and not a penalty ignores explicit statements from Congress, disregards decades of precedent on this subject, turns judicial restraint on its head, and opens a new floodgate for federal abuses. So, I immediately asked myself why he did what he did. Within a day the answer became apparent: Justice Roberts set aside the Constitution to play politics.
"Immediately after the ruling was made public I began hearing conservatives pushing the idea that Justice Roberts’ ruling was a stroke of genius. The idea is that leaving Obamacare in place will ensure Obama’s defeat in the upcoming election.
"I agree that Thursday's ruling may help Romney and hurt Obama. Polls unambiguously show that Obamacare is very unpopular. Even among liberals the popularity of Obamacare has been trending down since its passage. The longer Obamacare is in place the more we will learn about this horrible law, and the less popular it will become. More importantly, elections turn on which party's base turns out to vote. In political circles it is a well-known fact that voters turn out when their leader is under attack by the opposing party. I was recently told by a Republican Senator that Congress would never attempt to impeach Obama before the November election, regardless of what crimes Obama may commit, because any such attempt would bring out the Obama voter base…..
"I'm convinced that Justice Roberts’ appalling disregard of the Constitution was motivated by his desire to ensure Obama’s defeat in November. This would explain his surprising agreement with Kagan, Sotomayor, Bryer, and Ginsberg. It explains his disregard of well-established precedent on the tax and spend clause. It explains what is otherwise a completely unsupportable ruling.
"If I'm right about Justice Roberts’ motives he should be impeached (at the very least) for violating his oath of office. It does not matter whether we agree that Obama must be defeated. It does not matter that Thursday's ruling may get Romney elected. Supreme Court Justices should never play politics with the Constitution.
"Justice Roberts’ statement that “It is not our (the Supreme Court's) job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices” is shocking in the extreme. This is EXACTLY the job of the Supreme Court! Our Constitution protects individuals from a tyrannical majority. Political choices of the majority can NEVER violate the God-given rights of even one person. The Constitution was written to protect THIS principle. Now the Chief Justice has told us that it is not the Court's job to protect the people from the political choices of the majority. Anyone tempted to justify Justice Roberts’ ruling by claiming that it was a brilliant political move has completely missed the point of our entire system of government.
