Jun 28, 2012 Political
Time has passed since the SCOTUS ruling this morning and I have had a chance to review the opinion of the Court. I still contend that John Roberts participated in judicial activism by calling the penalty a tax when the law, Congress and Barack Obama himself said it was not a tax. It is not up to members of any court to rewrite what a legislative body has written. I am not so sure my earlier claim that Roberts betrayed America is accurate. It feels like a betrayal because he is supposed to uphold the Constitution, not write law but how it feels and what it is are two different things.
But, and this is a big but, he did rule that the Commerce Clause could NOT be used to enact Obamacare (now Obamatax). This is an important thing because it is now settled law that the government cannot compel people to buy things with a Commerce Clause argument.
All along the penalty was seen as a tax by Republicans. Democrats knew it was a tax but could not call it a tax because that would have spelled doom. Obama promised not to tax the middle class and he is on record as saying that people should not get health care by taxing the middle class. So, they had to call it a penalty.
John Roberts, as Chief Justice, was in a precarious position. Liberals were bemoaning the defeat of Obamacare and were all ready with their attacks on the conservative part of the Court. You will notice they never call the four solidly Democrat votes activist, only the conservative votes. in any event, he needed to do something that would uphold conservative principles, reign in government but also give the appearance that the Court is not activist.
Roberts achieved this by declaring that the mandate could not be enacted under the Commerce Clause. That was simple enough and it is sufficient to take the teeth out of future attempts to use Commerce for government expansion.
Roberts, once he asserted that Commerce could not be used to force the mandate acknowledged that Congress had the authority to tax people. He therefore called the penalty a tax which is what it was all along and is what Republicans said from the start.
While I think this amounts to judicial activism I think it was activism that appeared to give the left what it wanted and at the same time smacked them in the head.
Roberts declared that the penalty is a tax. This ruling now means that Obama has enacted the largest tax increase in the history of the world and he did so primarily on the middle class. Roberts gave Obama the outcome he wanted and at the same time demonstrated that Obama is a liar because making this a tax negates the vehement protest Obama made that it was NOT a tax. It also negates his statements that he did not believe everyone should get health care by levying a tax on the middle class.
The ruling also takes away the perception that the Court is political. If Roberts accomplished this while putting the screws to Obama then he is smarter than I originally believed.
He also energized the majority of people in this nation who do not want Obamacare and he gave Mitt Romney a huge gift at the same time. Obama cannot campaign on an activist Court striking down Obamacare but Romney can campaign on Obama being a tax and spend liberal who has given us the biggest tax increase in history. It would appear as if the ruling had a good effect on Romney as his campaign claims to have received about a million dollars in donations just three or four hours post ruling.
I still believe Roberts engaged in judicial activism but I am not as convinced he betrayed the Country. My initial reaction was based on the reports that the mandate was upheld. My belief was that the Commerce Clause argument was allowed to stand and that we could all be forced to buy things under this scheme.
Since this is not how it played out my assessment was hasty and incorrect. I offer an apology to Roberts for my assertion that he betrayed the country.
Like I said, he engaged in judicial activism (which the left is fine with because it went their way) and I am never in favor of that. I believe all branches of government should stay in their own lanes and things will work better.
Time will tell how this plays out and I am interested in seeing how the polls taken after the ruling trend. I think that while liberals celebrate the “victory” they achieved today they are worried because they are aware of what the ruling means for November.
To be sure, Obama (an alleged Constitutional Law Professor) had his mandate ruled unconstitutional. The law was only upheld when the Court changed his penalty to a tax and removed Commerce from the equation. So Obama, in winning, got it wrong. This is not something one would expect from someone who claims to know the Constitution.
I think this ruling might end up being a genius move and might end up costing Democrats. Many lost their seats in 2010 because of Obamacare. That was the only issue on the table and they lost.
Now, millions of seniors and many others who regularly vote as well as those who are opposed to the law and will certainly vote, are energized and will get out to defeat Obama.
The SCOTUS issued its ruling today.
We issue ours in November.
I am praying that we take a lot of seats in the Senate, gain more seats in the House and send Obama back to the street corner where he belongs.
UPDATE: One last note. I read something that is intriguing. Since the Court has ruled this is a tax the Senate only needs 51 votes to overturn it. If Romney wins the presidency and we maintain the House we would only need 51 Senate seats to overturn Obamacare. It could not be blocked by needing 60 votes because it is a tax. I think Roberts might have done us a favor but the rest is up to us. We need to win big.
Never surrender, never submit.
Oct 7, 2010 Political
A white man was arrested for fighting with police after a traffic stop. Jeffery McGowan had a plea deal with the prosecutor to plead to a lesser charge and serve three months probation. The police officer involved was not injured in the scuffle and had no problem with the agreement especialy since the defendant had no criminal record.
The one person who opposed the deal was the judge, Joseph Williams, who took exception to a deal that “only goes to white boys.” Then Williams let his racist views show:
In court, Williams told Assistant District Attorney Brian Catanzarite that he “for some reason comes up with I think ridiculous pleas whenever it’s a young white guy,” according to The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. “I’m just telling you what my observation is. If this had been a black kid who did the same thing, we wouldn’t be talking about three months’ probation.” MSNBC
Yes, this is his observation but he is wrong. Our judicial system is based on the merits of the case. If a black man had been involved in this incident and had no criminal record, and that is the key, he would have been offered the same deal. The reality is that many of the black men who pass through the judicial system have criminal records and it hurts their chances of getting a better deal. However, the judge also seems to ignore the revolving door that the justice system has become. All too often young black men are out of jail on one or more charges when they commit another crime. Does this racist judge expect us to give that kind of person the same chance at redemption as a man, white OR black, who has no criminal record?
Judge Williams recused himself and the plea was accepted by a white judge who did not call anyone a boy and had no claims about one race getting a better deal than another. In other words, he did his job as a judge.
I can just imagine how the left would go bonkers if the defendant was black man and a white judge said the plea deal was something only black boys got. Imagine how much more deranged the left would be if a white judge made similar comments. There would be calls for his resignation or impeachment. There would be screams of racism and Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson would be marching in the streets “No justice, no peace.”
This judge’s racist remarks will likely not be addressed. He is just speaking truth to power and trying to convince us that blacks are thrown in jail for being black instead of committing crime.
So can someone ask Judge Williams if he thinks the New Black Panthers who were let off the hook after intimidating white voters received a deal that only black boys get? Because we all know if white guys had done that Eric Holder would have screwed them to a wall.
Just like Homey the Clown, Williams don’t play dat…
Never surrender, never submit.
Dec 1, 2008 Political
A former chairman of the Bar Council is calling for an international court for the environment to punish states that fail to protect wildlife and prevent climate change. Telegraph UK
Stephen Hockman wants to have a court similar to the International Court of Justice but he wants this court to be the International Court of the Environment. The court would be responsible for forcing countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions. The court would also fine countries or companies around the world for failing to protect the environment and endangered species.
The last thing we need is an Environmental Court of Nannyism. We do not need to give away our rights to outside agencies. This country has laws and law enforcement agencies to deal with companies that violate the law with regard to the environment. We need to focus on real violators and stop creating rules and expectations that are nearly impossible to meet, have little or no benefit, and drive costs way up.
This hair brained idea is being presented to a symposium at the British Library and no doubt there will be morons that sign on to it. This would be a huge mistake. Giving away our sovereignty is not the correct thing to do. Our courts and our system of laws can best address the issues faced within our boundaries.
As with any bureaucratic program, this idea has the potential to create havoc and cause misery that will be beyond our control and leave us no avenue for redress. How far will these people go? Will they go after the states (or other geographic areas) within nation states? Will they try to ban hunting because it involves killing animals? Will they refocus on individuals who they believe are not living up to the arbitrary standards they will impose?
Our country is a sovereign nation and we have rights that are guaranteed under our Constitution. Those rights should not be decided by a bunch of nannies sitting in the Hague.
If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader.