America Was Betrayed By Chief Justice Roberts

More than a few conservatives are trying to put a positive spin on The Supreme Courts decision to uphold the Affordable Care Act. For those that find solace in seeing some positives in this decision, may God bless them. I, for one feel that the Supreme Court and particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, betrayed me, and all America with his decision.

Some are saying that by calling the mandate a tax, Roberts has handed the election to Mitt Romney. Maybe or maybe not. To repeal Obamacare in 2013, the Republicans will need to keep control of the House, win the Presidency, and win at least 50 seats in the Senate. There is no guaranty that will happen and it is not the purview of the Chief Justice to try to influence elections.

Some have said that, while we all have been playing checkers, Chief Justice Roberts has been playing chess. They say that Roberts has done America a great service by clearly limiting the Congress’ use of the commerce clause; that Congress may use the commerce clause to force Americans to take part in any particular commerce. That was a rational conclusion by Roberts and, in my opinion, agrees with the intent of the Founders. Based on that conclusion, Roberts should have, at least, held that the mandate was unconstitutional. In fact he did just that. But, then he decided that it wasn’t really a mandate. He took it upon himself to read into the intent of Congress that it was really a tax on people in a certain income level who had decided not to buy health insurance and that Congress does have the right to tax its citizens. Okay. I understand that congress critters are not the brightest and best of the American people but I challenge the Chief Justice to show me one piece of previous tax legislation that does not contain the word “tax” in it. I, also, defy Roberts to find the word”tax” on any of the 2000+ pages of the Affordable Care Act. If this had been a tax bill, it would have originated in the House and not in the Senate as the constitution requires. What Chief Justice , John Roberts , did was judicial activism at it’s worse.

Roberts is quoted in this Yahoo article as saying:

“It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”

The positive spinmisters are telling us this is a good thing; that Obamacare is the fault of the electorate and this issue should be resolved politically. Well, I have a problem with what the Chief Justice said. Even a moron knows that the voters are often misled, lied to, and manipulated by the politicians. When Congress or the president overreach their constitutional powers, the Supreme Court is to act as a check against that happening. The Founders set up the checks and balance system for good reason. Roberts found the mandate to be unconstitutional. So why didn’t he act accordingly?

In my opinion, Chief Justice, John Roberts, betrayed the trust of those that supported his nomination to the Court, he betrayed the constitution, and worst of all, he betrayed the trust of the American people.

If the Republicans do not sweep the elections in November or for any reason do not repeal the Affordable Care Act, which by Roberts definition is now the largest tax increase on the middle class ever, then my grandchildren and yours will be paying for the health care of the baby boomers for the next 35 or 40 years. That makes me angry!

Well, that’s what I’m thinking. What are your thoughts?

29 thoughts on “America Was Betrayed By Chief Justice Roberts

  1. Great post and my thoughts exactly but far from having the energy to articulate them. Burned out from this. Victory was in our hand. What people are not saying is that the precedent that Roberts set will go forever into the future except now instead of the commerce clause used, we will be taxed if we do not do the “right” thing as mandated. No difference whatsoever. You were right Jim before it was well known. It started in the Senate. Tax bills must start in the House. Unconstitutional as well from the get go if a tax.

  2. I don’t take solace in my read of it, but since the forced participation of Social Security and Medicare, this is not unprecedented. Social Security was not called a tax either. It was ruled such much later in a court decision.

    You are right that there is no guarantee that Obamacare will get overturned. It will take not 50, but 60 votes in the senate to overturn it.

    It was weasely what Roberts did, and he did it to protect the court, but it was not a constitutional travesty.

    1. Social Security and Medicare are unconstitutional. Three wrongs don’t make a right. BTW, because it is now defined as a tax, no fillabuster is allowed. It would only require 50 Republican Senators to repeal Obamacare.

      1. Right, it was sent to the house for resolution then back to the senate for approval by 51 votes. BACKMANN was saying the same we need only 51.

      2. Technically, since repealing the bill would add to the budget deficit, one might think it would be ineligible for the same budget reconciliation process that Democrats used to pass the bill, as they did, with only 59 votes. In reality, Republicans could only roll back small parts of the law either with a 51-vote Senate majority or via executive fiat but those parts are so irrelevant that it wouldn’t be worth the controversy. And that will leave other major pieces requiring a 60-vote Senate to repeal, allowing Democrats to filibuster.
        But listening to Romney, if elected, it will all be resolved on day one with a swift swoop of a pen, regardless of Congress.

  3. The Wall Street Journal analyses the decision today in exactly the same terms that we used yesterday in our post – justice Roberts re-writes the statute in order to pass it.

    They agreed with us that it sets a somber and very damaging precedent that in spite of the commerce clause limitations Congress can simply use the power to tax to make us engage in any activity they deem necessary, a long as they call it a tax.

    The WSJ gets it right by sensing that what the Supreme Court did – as Justice Kennedy said in his dissent – in not to interpret the statute but to re-write it, and that this is the precedent that invalidates the strict adherence to the Constitution.

  4. I like the “its not my job to protect the people” quote. A very, very similar quote is in the Operation Dark Heart memoir where Col. Shaffer recounts an argument with his CO that ended the same way. Persons at the top shut down the ID and curtailing of many of the hijackers, for whatever reason.

    Who’s job is it then? His job was to protect the integrity of the Constitution and also the principles it represents. I highly suspect Roberts was just “doin’ his job”. Question is, who are his employers?

      1. Jim, Is that a legitimate defense in a court of law?
        – How do you plead, guilty or innocent?
        – I plead out of Character.

      2. I hesitate to mention, then, mind control. But it is a documented fact that our beloved government has spent boatloads of money on that subject under the banner of top secret national security.
        I get the movie rights, though– The Manchurian Judge.

        I suspect he just plays his part.

  5. I’ve read all the article trying to spin this in a positive light and frankly I liken this to the media trying to spin the Wisconsin recall election into a win for Obama–it simply isn’t true.Roberts may have limited the commerce clause but at the same time he provided the Democrats with a way around it. A pathetic decision in my opinion and this is one time when I agree with Democrats, this is Bush’s fault.

  6. It is true that it’s not his job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices and let’s face it, voting for the empty suit was a dumb move, however if it is his job to be a ‘check’ on the overreach of the president and congress, then he has failed.

    And if it’s not his job to do this either, well then I ask, what is he doing there, what is the point of the supreme court.

  7. Great post Jim.

    The only point we differ on is that I am not disappointed by Roberts, or any other government hack. I expect nothing except what we get.

    This is only one more in a VERY long list of bad decisions. Given the evidence, anyone who expects the court to be the savior against usurpation of the constitution (as written) is badly mistaken.

  8. I get in trouble for this all the time, so why not here? 🙂 (and forgive me if this has already been said, I confess: I did not read all the comments)

    SO, given that Republicans gave us Roberts, and have established a pattern now of generally having some Republican throw a fly in the soup whenever the issue is crucial to maintaining individual rights and liberties, why should we have any confidence that a 100% Republican House, Senate and White House would actually do what they say they will? They haven’t so far, so what’s changed? In fact, Romney has NOT said he will repeal this Obamaination: he has said he will repeal AND REPLACE it!

    In other words, he just wants HIS version so HE can take credit. Well, we already have Romneycare in Mass., so why the hope and faith in a man who is openly telling you he is not going to ‘solve’ the problem we are complaining about?

    I am asking an honest question, but feel free to fire away at me. Everyone else has been. I can take it though, I was a Marine tanker: thick frontal armor 😉

      1. Just one of the many free services afforded to society by the rational right (and because the left is already crazy enough for the rest of the world) 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s