A sampling of reasons why SCOTUS was wrong

Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.
Here are a few other places on the Internet that agree with my personal opinion, the Supreme Court has made the wrong call on Obamacare.

Via Joel Pollak at Big Government;
For conservatives, it will be difficult not to see the Court a political institution whose rules and culture are hostile. It is now customary for Republican appointees to become more left-wing over time; the reverse almost never happens. The answer cannot be to win more elections. A bigger shift, in the legal academy perhaps, will be necessary to restore what conservatives consider the Framers' constitutional vision. And that could take generations.

The Supreme Court has made a wrong decision, for the wrong reasons, in defense of a wrong policy. If citizens do not rush to the polls to undo what has happened--and after today, I am not certain that they will--our health care system will be ruined, our Treasury bankrupted, and our Republic endangered.
Ben Shaprio also at Big Government re-questions John Roberts as a SCOTUS pick;
Now, I wasn’t a prophet or a genius. I was a first-year student at Harvard Law School when I wrote these words. I knew that Roberts was a bad pick because he didn’t have a proven track record of adherence to the Constitution. He was picked by President Bush because Bush knew he didn’t have a track record – and he knew that Roberts would sail through the confirmation process without a hitch.

That should have been an indicator that Roberts was a rotten pick. Nobody doubted Robert Bork’s originalist credentials. Nobody doubted Clarence Thomas’. Nobody doubts Judge Janice Rogers Brown’s. But nobody had any reason to buy into Roberts as an originalist. Yet they did.
At Heritage Foundation, they see the folly also;
The effects of the decision will be felt far beyond ObamaCare. By allowing government to require Americans to buy a product or service at the federal government’s direction, the Court has seriously damaged the principle of limited government. The decision announced today could open the door to even more dictates from Washington for generations to come. Indeed, anyone who has any doubts about this need only read the Court’s suggestion that Congress could force Americans to buy energy efficient windows or pay a tax.
At American Thinker, some begin to wonder if it's all over now;
Welcome to socialized medicine in the U.S.A....

Roberts is the latest in a long line of supposedly "conservative" Republican Supreme Court appointees to vastly expand government power...

Obviously, hitching conservative fortunes to Republican judicial appointees, and the Republican Party generally, has been a failure. Is it time for a conservative third party?

...The United Sates is not "becoming" socialist. It is already socialist. The Federal government spends approximately 25% of GDP, and when you add in state and local taxes, the average government take is closer to 40% of GDP - and higher for some income brackets. And frankly, a lot of people like it that way...

The SCOTUS simply made America more socialist than it already was. How are conservatives going to convince large segments of the public to give up their socialism? Is it even possible to do so?

...Conservatives have lost on almost all major issues -- from abortion to socialized medicine to affirmative action to illegal immigration to gays in the military. Is it even possible to advance a conservative agenda any more in the United States as presently constituted ?
There's plenty more of opinion like that, but the worry is there clearly is not enough of opinions like that.  You can try to spin the tactical victory on the tax versus Commerce Clause as much as possible (as many conservatives already have), but the truly big loss for America is the damning precedent this sets, as well as the political loss of having a 'conservative' Chief Justice either not turn out to be so conservative or else being bullied into being not so conservative in the name of having the court remain above the political fray.  A loss is a loss is a loss.  A win in November in the Senate, Congress and White House does not do enough to undo a court ready to drop liberal opinions upon the nation, regardless of reason, and more importantly, willing to distort both the intent of a law and the spirit of the Constitution in order keep it's hands unbloodied.

The country lost, at least in the eyes of those awake enough to still care.

7 comments:

  1. Mitt Romney won the election today. The rest will be mere theater.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The federal government can now constitutionally mandate behavior by attaching a monetary penalty, plus they are apparently able to "tax" anything and everything without a constitutional amendment like the income tax. Maybe in the future a Republican legislature will "tax" people for voting Democrat.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Republic will not be endangered it will be destroyed!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.com/2012/06/cheif-justice-roberts-shoes-himself-to.html

    http://rationalnationusa.blogspot.com/2012/06/real-meaning-of-scotuss-aca-obamacare.html

    Chief Justice Roberts was Brilliant writing for the majority. SIMPLY BRILLIANT. Think outside the ideological box and think long term people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you don't make it to the long term, the point is moot. All Justice Roberts managed to do was secure the supposed neutrality and the image of the Supreme Court. That is not unimportant, but could Roberts not have achieved the goal of limiting the Commerce Clause without having to cede the world on the net effect of the law? No one pushing the PPACA called it a tax, ever. So why was the twisting necessary?

      Where in this opinion does it require that the court allow the mandate to stand as a tax?

      "Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority. Congress already possesses expansive power to regulate what people do. Upholding the Affordable Care Act under the Commerce Clause would give Congress the same license to regulate what people do not do. The Framers knew the difference between doing something and doing nothing. They gave Congress the power to regulate commerce, not to compel it. Ignoring that distinction would undermine the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and enumerated powers. The individual mandate thus cannot be sustained under Congress’s power to “regulate Commerce.”"

      That paragraph could still have been written with the law overturned in the spirit it was written - as a mandate.

      Yes, there is a silver lining in the Roberts opinion, but it is attached to a major #@$^#ing cloud of legislative and economic badness. Taking more short term steps in the wrong fiscal direction with the knowledge that over decades to come, the Commerce Clause win will materialize is not overly helpful at this juncture. It's not just the Commerce Clause implications that go beyond an Act which might be repealed under the right circumstances. The fiscal problems with this Act are quite a big deal too. Let's hope that the nation lasts long enough to see that silver lining, which will indeed take decades to fully materialize.

      Delete
  5. .

    "Here are a few other places on the Internet that agree with my personal opinion, the Supreme Court has made the wrong call on" ACA.

    "This is no longer America. You no longer have the opportunity for the American Dream."

    "THIS IS WAR."

    No its not. This is the rule of law. You are making a utterly foolish spectacle of yourself doing the 'chicken little - the sky is falling' routine.

    This is USA, the will of the people, and how the system works. The people's Congress passed the ACA. The President of USA has signed the ACA bill into law. The Supreme Court of USA has declared the ACA constitutional.

    Get over yourself.

    "Barack Obama swept into office in 2008 with a promise of hope and change, but in reality he’s fundamentally changed America –JUST AS HE SAID HE WOULD – and that “change” is to effectively dash all hope for any kind of future whatsoever."

    You have forgotten USA is the land of the free, home of the brave? Having a safety under the high-flying trapeze artist does not prevent the artist from being any better or worse than the individual wants to be.

    The crux of the matter is so simple. You have convince yourself that you do not want a safety net for yourself (for reasons known only to the universe). It pi$$es you off to no end to think that there are others who do want a higher quality of life and are willing to pay for it.

    "You, we, me — we’re all slaves now."

    Living in an advanced, modern, civil society makes one a slave?! Really? No. You do not want others to have what you do not want.

    Ema Nymton
    ~@:o?
    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "THIS IS WAR?" "slaves"? Don't make up quotes and attribute them to me Ema, it's unbecoming.

      As for your other points...

      Laws can be good, or they can be bad. So too, the Rule of Law. I would not suggest a violent revolution against the rule of law, but it does not mean I cannot disagree with the law itself. Because I do not share your view of this particular law, do not assume I've suddenly become an anarchist.

      As for the chicken little comment, what is $5 trillion in new debt in under 4 years supposed to portend? All this president knows how to do is spend other people's money. Forgive me if that fills me with something less than confidence. The PPACA will be more of the same. Ema - the sky hasn't fallen, but the program is simply not viable. You can't increase the demand for medical care by adding tens of millions of people, while simultaneously shrinking the supply of medical practitioners and insurance provided by employers (and yes, those will be the effects of this) and not create a shortage. It's simple supply and demand.

      What were Medicare and Medicaid supposed to provide? Health care. If they were working properly, the PPACA would not be needed. Again, this does not instill confidence that this will work. There are safety nets aplenty already Ema, and they are full of holes. How many nets do you want? And yes, by imposing restriction after restriction, rule after rule, and encumbrance after encumbrance, cost after cost on American enterprise, you are indeed prevent the trapeze artist from being able to be the best trapeze artist he can be.

      I live in Canada. We have single payer health insurance, the ultimate road this PPACA boondoggle will lead down. It is atrocious. Our health care system is short on doctors
      (many of whom instead traveled to the U.S. to practice instead where they were unencumbered by earnings caps). Our health care system is plagued by wait times. People with money often travel to the U.S. for their health care needs, particularly surgeries. You will regret travelling down this road.

      Lastly, your straw man arguments are not grounded in a proper overview of the facts. People who want a higher quality of life and are willing to pay for it, can do so under the pre-PPACA system. What you want, is for someone else to pay for it for them. Why don't you just admit it?

      Delete

Commenting here is a privilege, not a right. Comments that contain cursing or insults and those failing to add to the discussion will be summarily deleted.