That Was Special

[Devereaux]

Well, that may well be THE worst decision the Supreme Court has ever made. It may well be worse than the Dred Scott case.

So now the Federal Government can "tax" anyone for NOT doing something. I am not going to Toledo tomorrow - guess they can tax me for that. Seems like it if this decision has any meaning.

[nate]

http://whitehouse12.com/2012/06/28/chief-justice-roberts-is-a-genius/

this was a link that came up on the "Federalist Papers" page on facebook.  I just gave it a quick read and the idea sounded interesting if not completely true.  I'll have to look more into it but an interesting read anyway if you have a few minutes.

[Bob Mayne]

Nicely written article but I doubt much of it is true. He's putting a positive spin on it but there's not much positive in the outcome of the ruling.

The only thing a about taxation is that it must go through Congress. So that does give some power back to the people through elected officials. However, people essentially get the government they deserve, as a whole.

My lament is that we don't have enough freedom minded, self responsible people to vote in the correct politicians who can reverse this. I hope I'm wrong.

[SirBrass]

Nicely written article but I doubt much of it is true. He's putting a positive spin on it but there's not much positive in the outcome of the ruling.

The only thing a about taxation is that it must go through Congress. So that does give some power back to the people through elected officials. However, people essentially get the government they deserve, as a whole.

My lament is that we don't have enough freedom minded, self responsible people to vote in the correct politicians who can reverse this. I hope I'm wrong.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.  Anyone got stockpiles of ammo and components to share?

I'm going to work for the best possible outcome.  Romney seems more pugnatiously oriented towards Obama than McCain was (as lukewarm as McCain was, I honestly think we wouldn't have such abominations as stand before us now if he'd been chief executive) and that was McCain's downfall... he tried to use Palin as a magic pill and then let her get tossed under the bus and trashed without a bit of backup, and then he played all nice with Obama when he should've pressed home the attack.  I hope Romney doesn't make the same mistake.  Sure he's the last guy on that list I wanted, but he's a bright hopeful dawn in comparison to Obama's long dark night (and no that's not a subliminally racist message for the libtards which are probably monitoring this forum for "subversive" content).

And you know what, Roberts may very well have a good point.  Here's a question I think we need to honestly ask ourselves: have we become so used to the judicial activism we decry the left using that when the conservatives on the bench don't do likewise in our favor that we feel betrayed?  I think Roberts should've struck down more, but what he DID do was clearly tell Obama that yes, this WAS a tax, despite all that the Obama regime has been us that it wasn't.  And if it was NOT indeed a tax, then it would've been struck down.  No more playing loose with the commerce clause is how I hope this case will be used in the future.  It also put the ball squarely back in our court.  Maybe we're disappointed because we don't trust our own fellow citizens to do what is right.  But if we force them to with our own brand of judicial activism, how are we principally better than the left?

Ben Franklin was asked once, "Mr. Franklin, what do we have now?"  And the great, flatulant (I say that with the most endearing spirit) statesman and eccentric said, "A Republic, madam... if you can keep it."  I'm wondering that if we cannot keep this a Republic by principled means, is it a republic worth keeping?  Or is it too big to be allowed to fall and rebuild?

In my less lucid moments I consider myself a bit of a writer (I say this tongue planted firmly in cheek), and a story idea I had is based in a world where societally, the US failed and a second civil war came upon us all.  On the optimistic side, I envisioned that those with the guns and the will to use them eventually prevailed and what came of the war was a rebuilt and strengthened constitution and a new nation bearing the name, "The Republic States of America."  Still functionally the US, but with a strengthened constitution with a more strictly defined federal government whose restricted powers were more concretely defined, etc.  That's the base "setting" I had.  But my point here is, the US is NOT too big to fail, and maybe if we wish to preserve our freedom then our system of government must be sacrificed and then rebuilt... the engine for which may indeed be required to be oiled by the blood of patriots.

But the fact is that if we the people as a whole do not wish to be free, then no sanely minded patriots can stop it.  We can only do what we can and hope to ride out the insanity and await the time and day for us to move to reinstate a government which will respect freedom and inalienable rights that it does not grant but instead by necessity recognizes.

For a parallel to modern science fiction, look at the Republic of Haven in David Weber's Honor Harrington saga, and see it's transformation from the Republic of Haven (as told in the historical narrative) to the People's Republic of Haven, to how patriots within defied the socialist controllers of various stripes, survived the pogroms and purges and at the right time reinstituted the Republic their nation was originally founded upon.  It took 200 years, but it still happened.

True, that's FICTION, but good fiction (especially good science fiction) has a way of making cognent observations on humanity, human nature, politics, and societies.

As for now: keep your powder dry, your presses ready, and your safes stocked.  Hopefully they will not be needed.

[Devereaux]

I just don't see this.

From where I sit, Roberts called a basically unconstitutional action constitutional, in order to label it a tax. BUT in the process, he set the precedent that Congress can now do whatever it wishes, so long as they make it a tax. Eat your broccoli - or pay a "tax". Buy Wal Mart jeans - or pay a "tax". Buy a Chevy - or pay a "tax". There is logically nothing that it can't do.

The argument about the Commerce Clause is irrelevant, as he then totally gutted it by calling this a tax. His comments about the Commerce Clause simply don't stand. And, indeed, the whole position laid out is schizophrenic at best. He could have done ALL that is claimed in the article AND strengthened the Constitution and Rule of Law - by joining the minority. Indeed, it is quite remarkable to find that the dissenting opinion was written by ALL FOUR OF THE OTHER JUDGES! THAT is a real rarity! it speaks of real anger by those guys over Robert's decision.

This is simply a wrongheaded decision. It will come to haunt us for years to come. And Roberts basically oversaw the destruction of the Republic today.

[Panhead Bill]

I'll have to agree with Brass and disagree with Dev, respectfully, on this one. While I'm not happy with the decision, I am satisfied with how Roberts came to it. The Court finally limited the Commerce Clause's application - which is a small victory in and of itself.

Now, having not yet read the opinion, I'm not aware of what type of mental gymnastics were necessary (if any) were necessary to call it a tax, but taxing is within Congress' power, and once it was determined to be within congressional taxing power, it's outside of the supreme courts hands. Bad policy? Yup. Crappy law?  Yup. Potential to destroy the economy?  Yup. But that's not the supreme courts problem, that's our problem. The court isn't there to bail us out of bad laws that our elected representatives passed, unless it's clearly unconstitutional. We need to take it up with those we have, and will (or will not) elect into office. The ball is now in our court - what do we do with it?

To lay the blame on Chief Justice Roberts is wrong, or to say that Roberts is GW's Souter, or whichever disappointing appointment is likely as wrong. I still respect the Chief Justice and believe he makes rulings based on sound constitutional principle.

There's all this talk that he went this way to avoid an appearance of a court divided on party lines and that all this thought went into strategic planning based upon which judges went which way. He could've followed Stevens to the conservative side and overturned the law - but then there would be cries of partisanship over judious reasoning. It's been suggested that he voted as he did solely to avoid the calls of partisanship. I don't think so - I think he ruled as he felt was proper and to hell with the political games.

I think he went out of his way to avoid judicial activism, which we would decrie if used by the other side. He found a not so extraordinary way to find it constitutional to keep the law in place. Pointing out in the process that it's the elected legislatures - not the supreme court- who would have to fix the poorly designed law.

Is it the tragedy that many on the right cry that it is, that it's the end of the republic?  NO, it's a bad bill that's just barely constitutional that we have to deal with now. It is what it is. We want it gone, get the right people in office who will hopefully "repeal and replace" it. Not through executive fiat like some executives might try (and frankly get away with), but through real leadership with the congress and get them to fix it. That's the pres' job - not necessarily to write the laws, but to provide the leadership and guidance to get the appropriate laws written, subject to the pres' policies.

Watching and waiting to see what happens - it ain't over yet. ....

Bill

(now I'm gonna post this on FB)

[SirBrass]

If we want to fix this, July 9 is the start.  I've heard that Cantor is going to push forward a repeal bill that day, so get to work calling and mailing your congressional and senate representatives.

And Bill is right, it may be a bad law, but it's not unconstitutional.  Also, calling it a tax was exactly the government's argument to the court (while they told the public that it wasn't a tax.  Harvey Dent after the explosion would be proud, as would the serpent in the garden... both are two faced and speak with forked tongues) and congress DOES have the right to tax.  Tax badly?  Yeah that's bad but it's not unconstitutional and while I REALLY wish we'd given the libtards some tit-for-tat judicial activism in the cause of just government that still doesn't make it right and just begets more judicial activism on their part.  After thinking hard about it, I'll begrudingly give Roberts the nod of approval on this.  I REALLY wanted some judicial legislating just to put the pelosi's and boxer's and Obamas in their place.  Doesn't mean I'm right to want that, however.

We can't have the judges fix everything for us.  We've got to face reality and realize that there are alot of libtards with way too much pull in this country and instead of waiting for SCOTUS to fix everything for us, we've got to get to work in the trenches politically ourselves, not just to protest but to proactively fight to keep bad laws from becoming law and to keep bad politicians laundry where everyone can see it (and thus, motivate them to clean it, otherwise we'll AIR their dirty laundry).

Also, considering how long congress has hidden regulatory overstepping and burdensome taxes under "the commerce clause", getting that firmly smacked down by the court is a major victory in and of itself.  The rest of the opinion may mean that congress kind of has carte blanche on taxation power (if we want to limit that, then we need to change congress and the senate and move to amend the constitution to address that... this is OUR government after all), but it also means they have to be up front about it being a tax.  That's going to give certain politicians cold feet on the issue because right now we're so friggin' sick of being taxed to death, and plenty of people are remembering just what kind of grievances sparked our struggle for independence.  Hopefully this is causing certain folks on capital hill to go reread their history books.  Not certain if they'll take the lessons to heart, but I'll be content if they realize that they are employed by us and that we're thinking mighty hard on handing out a good number of pink slips just like we did 2 years ago.

If we can't get them to do what's right based on it being the right thing, then lets get them to do what's right liberally using the whip-hand.

[Devereaux]

Bill - you have always been respectful. I have no problem with people disagreeing with me on issues.

Still, I just can't see the rational here. Roberts says that the Commerce Clause can't be used to compel anyone to DO something. Fine. Yet here we have an example of a compelling by stating that if you DON'T buy health insurance, you get to pay a fine - and a hefty one. Businesses are also under similar compulsions - either buy health insurance OR pay a fine. This is compulsion. It is only SLIGHTLY different than saying you will pay this or I put you in jail - which, incidentally, is the NEXT step if you choose NOT to pay the "tax". So while Roberts makes this comment about the Commerce Clause, what he really does is say, "You can't use the Commerce Clause, but here's how you get to do whatever you want anyway. Just make it a tax." That isn't any victory. That isn't any improvement in our overall lot; that's instead a clear signal that Congress CAN, in effect, do whatever they want.

The OTHER problem with this whole decision is that the bill wasn't written as a tax - it was a "penalty". Even more egregious! And IF what he says is true, then it SHOULD have been found unconstitutional. Roberts instead simply changed what the bill said to "mean" it's a tax. THAT is judicial activism.

You cannot pretend that something is not a compulsion simply by pretending that it's a tax. That makes EVERY act of Congress - and perhaps even the courts - a "tax". You are now only playing with words. I realize that the courts often do just that - one of the frustrating things about not only the courts but government in general. It pretends that something isn't what it plainly IS by saying that you can do this or that alternative. So it's a "privilege" to drive - and your alternative is walking. Can't ride a horse anymore because that's illegal. Well, the basics is that it is NOT an alternative to walk - one of those things that gets released cons in trouble in that they have their drivers licenses taken away - and then are expected to find work (within walking distance I guess). Still courts maintain that fiction so that they keep that power which rightfully belongs to the people.

As for the court being divided on party lines, it is, indeed so divided. There are the 4 jerks that think you can do anything you want if its "for the good" ... of something. But the constitution doesn't GIVE the government, in any branch, such power. Whether it is for the good or not. THAT is what we want to re-establish. And just as it was destroyed along party lines, so it must be re-established along party lines. ?So what's the beef. ?Like Bader-Ginsburg or Breyer or Sotomyor or Kagan AREN'T  party-liners.

There was a REAL opportunity to redefine the federal government to far less breath of scope here. It was blown by Roberts. He could just as easily joined the minority and made it the majority. Sure, it would have been hailed as political. But EVERYTHING is political, especially when the libs don't get their way. ?Why are we suppose to cry over that. We ought to be joyful and hailing such with gladness. Think of Heller - had it NOT been a "political" decision to UPHOLD the plain language AND the original intent, as repeatedly shown by the writings of the times, we would have been in real trouble. Think of Roe v Wade - a "non-political" decision for "women's rights" that is simply horrible law, no matter which side you are on. Well, THIS is horrible law, no matter which side you are on.

[Panhead Bill]

Dev, let me preface by saying that I haven't read the decision or the 2600 pages of obamacrap - I mean care.  My info thus far has been from various summaries, so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt.

 Although I don't agree with the decision and think it should have been found unconstitutional, I can logically understand how Roberts came to his decision. As far as calling it a tax vs penalty (or a gift for that matter), I'll analogize. If a law calls a sign at an intersection a "yield" sign, but its a red octagonal sign with the word stop written in big white letters, and in spite of what they call it, the law specifically states you have to stop at it, I think a court would be justified in saying it's a frickin stop sign. Likewise, if the health care law has the elements of a tax (and honestly this is something I don't know-the elemental part of it-I'm not a tax lawyer and barely passed tax law in law school ), but for political reasons they call it a penalty - it's still a tax.

Don't get me wrong, I don't like the law. I think it's a crappy law. I think it'll have far-reaching negative economic and legal ramifications. But, that doesn't make it unconstitutional. I honestly think it's interpretation could've gone both ways looking at it intellectually, not politically.  Unfortunately we elect people and give them authority and power (albeit not unlimited). But an over-use or over-extension of that power, though unwise, is not always unlawful. That's why we have to be careful about who we elect.

I don't think obamacare is remotely comparable to Roe v Wade or Heller. Those cases are both polar opposite extremes of what we're talking about here. In Roe they quite literally had to make sh&@ up to find constitutional protection. I think the decision said something to the effect of there being "penumbras" and "emanations" from the 4th Amendment from which they derived the right to privacy protecting abortion. On the opposite end of the spectrum is Heller, where the straightforward exact words in the Constitution were there to support the decision. Obamacare falls somewhere in the middle, admittedly closer to the Roe end of the scale.

A couple quick closing points - anything that the congress does or passes can be taken down the extreme slippery slope towards government control, that's why it's so important to send the right people there. I would define judicial activism (and this is just my own definition - pulled out of my hat without much thought, so cut me a little slack) as judges either creating law from the bench (see my example of Roe above) or relying on guidance from other than our Constitution, not interpreting a provision of the Constitution differently than I would. Obama and the dems wrote obamacare. Roberts didnt expand on it, he simply didn't think it was a fragrant Constitutional violation. I don't think this was an example of judicial activism, maybe bad judgment, but not activism. Heck, he went pretty much as far as to say it was a bad law, and it's up to us to hold those that enacted it responsible.

anyways, that's my $0.02 for now. Now let's stop arguing about what's done and get on the ball and get better people elected!

Bill

[Devereaux]

Bill - thank you for your comments. They are carefully thought out. They also appear to be those of a lawyer.

I absolutely confess that I am NOT a lawyer. I don't think like a lawyer; that can be construed as either a strength or weakness. I tend to look at things from a basically logical point of view. I know a LITTLE case law, and listen to others that actually have significant legal expertise, including constitutional law. Most have said that the ruling was completely discombobulated. It made no sense vis a vis precedent, previous findings, OR the constitution. Indeed, from what I have been reading, it seems most of the commentators (eg. John Yoo) agree with at least my basic sense of what happened, although I must admit that I feel a lot more like the republic died with this ruling. Epstein has held that while this was a complete distancing from previous findings, it was not nearly as radical at NLRB vs Jones. THAT led to horrendous excursions of government and pretty much unbridled governmental growth - at least for that period. We have FDR to thank for that.

I fully agree with you that it appears to be an unconstitutional law, at least as I understand the constitution. I again state that I am not a lawyer. But I HAVE read not only the constitution but also how it was formed, what the arguments were for each of the sections, etc. So I have a sense of what the people of the time worried about, what they thought, what they were not happy with, etc. This is hardly a constitutional scholarship position, but more a somewhat informed citizen.

So I grasp your arguments. I appreciate your clarity of comment. I simply think you and I are going to have to agree to disagree - at least for a while. And I surely agree with you that we need to vote in people that will have more of a sense of constitutionality than the group that has been in there up to now. Indeed, to that end, I plan on volunteering to help re-elect my representative, who was a freshman in 10 and has had a great voting record. And meets with his constituents to state his positions and hear their comments.

[Panhead Bill]

Damn lawyers!



Actually, I don't think we're disagreeing in principle. I'm just saying that I can see how he came to his ruling, and I don't think it's as catastrophic precedent-wise as people fear.

Now, if it doesn't get repealed .... that's another story (but then again, that doesn't have much to do with the court end of things).

Good on 'ya for volunteering for your local guy!  Wish I had the time to do the same.

Bill

[Devereaux]

Make some time, Bill. This IS an important election. It needs us all in, so to speak. If we lose, it shouldn't be because we didn't give it our all.

[PoliticsAndGuns]

Make some time, Bill. This IS an important election. It needs us all in, so to speak. If we lose, it shouldn't be because we didn't give it our all.

I cannot agree more. This election will be the difference between starting the road back to being the freeest (sp?) nation on the planet or just another European country headed for bankruptcy and enslavement of its population.

My show on Monday will have a lot to say about this even though it is not gun related, because I feel it is critical to the survival of our way of life that we defeat Socialisim now and turn back the tide towards self reliance and liberty.

Paul

[Panhead Bill]

You guys are absolutely right - thank you for the challenge. Now to figure out what to do, our congressman is in a safe seat that's pretty much unopposed. Unfortunately, our senator is the same - safe seat and pretty much unopposed, but unfortunately she's horrible - Feinstein. I haven't even heard who is running against her.

It's weird being in a conservative area in a liberal dominated state.

Bill

[SirBrass]

I'm pretty much convinced that California is the political equivalent of a gangrenous limb:  the only way to save the body is to cut it off.

Get the heck out why you're still allowed.

[Devereaux]

Bill - I have sort of your problem except that I have been blessed with a congressman who is on MY side - for a change! So I luck out.

Money isn't everything, or the only thing, but it sure helps. And this election WILL be expensive, as people get to express themselves. You want to speak, you need cash - mostly.

So let me suggest, first and foremost that you send a few nickles and dimes to people who are in a tough fight and could use the cash. There are a bunch of them out there. Hatch defeated a guy who probably would have been a much better senator from Utah. Maybe he could have used an extra $50 from a couple of us. I know that I sent money to Scott Walker in Wisconsin because it's a sister state AND he's on the right side of justice.

You seem to have some flair for writing. Write letters to your local newspapers discussing some of these issues. I realize that papers aren't read anymore like they once were, but it only costs you the price of a stamp - and not even that if they have an e-mail way to speak to them. It is one way of getting a discussion going in your neighborhood. Write something thoughtful (and it's clear you can be thoughtful) and see who says what.

I have some time ago begun writing my congressman (and woman before, who was a complete loss) and senators (DURBIN! Imagine my influence!) simple comments, most support or don't support various bills. I realize it often doesn't count, but I CAN tell you that they notice. I now get e-mails from Emir Durbin about this or that issue. We don't agree, but his office has noticed that I notice. WAY more of us need to do this. I keep putting up the www.congress.org site as a simple place to go, where your zip code will get you an e-mail form with the pres, senators, and congressman on it; you can uncheck any as applicable. You simple make up a simple statement and send it. VOILA! You are a citizen on record. Imagine if 75% of all Americans did that. ?Think it might make some of the guys be a little different in their voting records.

If you aren't yet, join the NRA. Notice that NINETEEN democrats joined the republicans in the vote to censure Holder. ?Know why - because the NRA came out in favour of the vote. So clearly the NRA has some clout. It was the point Shelton, and I, and others, were trying to make back at the last election. It isn't the perfect organization, but when it gets behind the right positions, it can be very helpful.

Lastly, bring up subjects here - and any other forums that you might find such proper. Discussion is the lifeblood of a society, and we don't talk these things out nearly enough. Look at your and my discussion on this ruling. It may not have quite made us agree, but there were LOTS of interesting points raised. Stuff people need to hear, read, and hopefully make comment on. We are Americans only to the degree that we are engaged in our nation, society, and culture. So back during the "muslim wars" here we had lots of interesting comment, some for, some against. Some well-thought out, some not so much. But it was eminently American. This election is going to be really important - at least to us conservatives. It gives us a chance to move OUR agenda forward. I am hardly wildly enthusiastic for Romney, but as Ann Coulter said, I would vote for Jeffrey Dalmer before I would vote for Obama. And while last presidential election I only made up my mind to vote for McCain (a seriously flawed candidate) while I was in the voting booth, THIS time there is NO QUESTION in my mind that I am voting for Romney - if only because it is AGAINST Obama. But we will ONLY prevail if we get people fired up on just how bad this all is and why we HAVE to change it. That comes with discussion.

And sorry! Not trying to be your dad.

[Panhead Bill]

Nah, don't be sorry Dev - I wish more people were as passionate, yet as reasonable as you (aside from in I-net forums).  You've posted some great ideas, some I've been doing, some I need to do, some I need to do more often. Been an NRA member for years now, epl membership now; and I write my congressman and senators, whether it will do any good or not. The congressman (well, the one I had - they recently gerrymandered our districts around) would get letters from me so that he knee he had some support and was on the right track. Senators Boxer and Feinstein, at least they got something telling them where I stood. Like you, I'm now on Boxer's email list so I can keep an eye on what she's doing. Good idea about supporting out-of-the-area races. That's something a lot of people don't think about, but Walker is a good example - as well as the guy that beat out Daschle in North (or was it South) Dakota a few years back. They probably wouldn't have won without outside support and yet they've made a difference in the balance of power.

Some letters to the papers would do some good to get people fired up - like I said, I'm in a conservative area, but people tend to be real discouraged to the point of saying to heck with it. Can't let that happen.

Bill

[Panhead Bill]

Btw Dev, that I have a flair for writing might be a slight stretch, but thank you.

My biggest problem, is that I'm usually thinking faster than I'm putting stuff down and miss stuff I'm trying to say. Oh well, I think I get my point across - usually.

Bill

[Devereaux]

Nah, you write well. You say reasoned things. I may not agree with you but I can understand what point you are making - which is WAY more than I get out of lefties.

Speaking of the original subject of this thread, I am noticing that there are two distinct camps that are evolving. One holds as you did that this was a clever move by Roberts to snare the democrats and force them to face the music over Obamacare. The other is what I said - this is a horrible decision.

What seems to me to be accurate is that:
a) this was bad law.
b) there are a whole boatload of pissed off conservatives AND "moderates" about this whole affair. REALLY fired up the whole conservative side. I don't see that on the left - only a sigh of relief that they dodged the silver bullet. One column that I recently read makes the point that Romney is probably capable, skilled, efficient - but he does NOT stir passion. He just can't get people fired up. Well, like it or not, this decision certainly did. There are many hurdles to Romney come November; this has taken away one of them.

As a total aside, I hold that IF this is a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" it needs to have laws that are easily understandable. You can say they need to be written in English, but what I am saying is NOT in legalese. If a law says something, it should be patently obvious what it says, else we lose the "by the people" part. The constitution was written that way - it is only many years of obfuscation by the sea of lawyers that has led it to be what it is today. Our own venerated 2A is a great example. MOST people have a realistic idea what it says. But the lawyers have been trying to hide that for years. And now, except Heller we would be STILL pounded (and to some extent still are) with silly statements that it REALLY means the GOVERNMENT is to be armed! How totally contrarian to what ALL the people of the time thought!

[Panhead Bill]

Well, the more I hear about the decision I'm disliking it even more. Remember, I'm coming from a position of not agreeing with it, but understanding it. But my opinion has been based on certain assumptions that I'm starting to think are incorrect.

I don't know if it's naïveté or just wishful thinking on my part that likes to think that the Supreme Court is not making decisions with any political strategy in mind. However, in any event, the ruling is probably one of the best things that could've happened to the Romney campaign - getting conservatives even more fired up against Obama.

As far as your aside goes, Dev, I agree. It's outrageous that people need lawyers just to figure out what the heck a law says. Take CA's gun laws for example - they're a nightmare, with elements being spread throughout the code. Hell, CalGuns had to put together a 2-page flow chart just to figure out if a rifle is legally defined as an "assault weapon.". We need to stop electing lawyers (unless I were to run for office, that is).

Bill