Chief Justice Roberts "grew"...

"It's constitutional, b_tches." -Tweet by Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee and former top White House aid to President Obama, Patrick Gaspard (born in Kinshasa, Zaire)

Notice how total the reversal of the Court’s role has been. It began with the duty, according to Hamilton, of striking down new seizures of power by Congress. Now it finds constitutional virtually everything Congress chooses to do. The federal government has assumed myriads of new powers nowhere mentioned or implied in the Constitution, yet the Court has never seriously impeded this expansion, or rather explosion, of novel claims of power. What it finds unconstitutional are the traditional powers of the states. -Joe Sobran years ago in "How Tyranny Came to America"

Sad day for Chief Justice Roberts. He found a way to make nice but it required him to abandon the merits of the case and his own integrity. He himself decided to uphold nationalized health care and he did it by claiming it is the very thing President Obama denied. Chief Justice Roberts is so very helpful. Hopeful.

President Obama rammed the leviathan through Congress by endlessly denying it was a tax.

President Obama: "This is absolutely not a tax..."

But when he sent his lawyers in to SCOTUS to defend his legacy, he reversed himself and claimed nationalized health care is a tax. In other words, he had lied to us--our President, that is--and Chief Justice Roberts saw the path to his "growth" (as the NYT would put it) lay through that lie...

Honestly, I can come to no judgment other than that this was another one of those useful lies that are the normal method used by our public servants to ram through radical social change. I am disgusted by this craven act by Chief Justice Roberts. His words today in issued in the majority opinion upholding nationalized health care have little to do with the merits of the case and much to do with politics and Chief Justice Roberts' personal reputation.

Again and again SCOTUS appointees of Republican presidents betray their former legal commitments and break their vows to submit to our U. S. Constitution. Moving inside the Beltway makes it next to impossible to live in integrity of word and action and no one has more pressure on them to cave than SCOTUS justices.

Read the dissent by the men (get that?) who honored their vows. They honor the rule of law.

Tim Bayly

Tim serves Clearnote Church, Bloomington, Indiana. He and Mary Lee have five children and fifteen grandchildren.

Comments

"'It's constitutional, b_tches.' -Tweet by Executive Director of the Democratic National Committee and former top White House aid to President Obama, Patrick Gaspard"

Well, that's certainly classy, isn't it?

The only good thing about this is that it provides a ton of ammunition for the Romney campaign. By making it a tax, that means that Obama and the Democratic Congress just passed the largest middle-class tax hike in American history. Expect that to be used in every Republican campaign ad this fall. In fact, $300,000 was raised for Romney 2012 in the past 75 minutes.

....released a statement noting that they were extremely gratified with this decision, and repeated a call for compensation for destruction of company property in Boston Harbor.

I don't get it. Isn't Romney's vision for health care basically the same as that of Obama's?

"Read the dissent by the men (get that?)"

 

Oh. my. Stars and Stripes!

 

Lucas,  Yes.  Romney's MassCare was one of the models for "Obamacare".  Romney's comeback to that, of course, was that his model was a sate-level one, not meant to be nationalized.

Kamilla

Ann Coulter actually has some good articles comparing Romney's Massachusetts-based healthcare plan to Obama's federal plan. What's good for a small, left-leaning state might not be good, and certainly isn't Constitutional, to enact for the entire country. There's a lot more to it than that, of course, but that's the gist of her argument. I would suggest looking through her archives.

"Justice" Roberts should be impeached.

It won't happen, but it should.

Now... REPEAL.

I found it very interesting that the other four conservative judges voted to repeal the whole thing which is what we were hoping would happen.   But many Republicans were already folding on Obamacare like a house of cards (no surprise there).

Many supposed conservatives were saying "Let's keep what people like. Let's leave kids on their parents health insurance plans up to age 26, let's require some type of  open enrollment to people with preexisting conditions, let's  close the Medicare Part D "doughnut hole",  let's leave the lifting of the lifetime insurance caps." And I doubt any of them were going to get the money back from  states like New Jersey who have already received, if memory serves me, aprox. fifty  million dollars with another similar amount to follow to subsidize their state retiree health care plans (thanks Chris Christie).  

It was obvious most Republicans were either in favor of Obamacare (while pretending to be against it) or were afraid to rescind what they perceived voters want to keep. Obamacare is a race to the bottom for our medical system.  And the U.S. is now heading for the bankruptcy cliff even faster than we were before.    God help us! 

Blessings,

Nancy

1st a clarification I'm a Presbyterian currently living in Plaquemine, LA(where football is king).

I'm not 2K as defined by Westminster CA or D. Hart as I beleive there are certain moral issues such as abortion/euthanasia that the church should proclaim as sins in the public square.

But I'm trying to wrap my head around the question of why & how is obama-care a Christan issue that should be proclaimed from the pulpit or from a pastor on his blog? It seems that big governement issues are things which Christians might legitmately disagree. Can you clarify?

Do Christians lessen their effectiveness on the big issues (such as abortion/euthanasia/gay marriage) when we   identify opposition to an issue such as obama-care as the "Christian" position?

I was at a dinner last night where there were mostly DC lawyers. Most of them were liberal, of course, and they were all fawning over Obama and the upholding of the healthcare mandate. One attorey in particular had said that she had not only predicted the outcome, but predicted who would be for or against, and also said that Roberts would be the swing vote (as opposed to Kennedy, which is usually the case.) Someone asked her how she knew that about Roberts. She laughed and casually said, "Because I know John. And I know that he is not political and won't legislate from the bench." I think my tongue was bleeding at the end of the evening from biting it for so long.

I've responded to several comments above in this new blog post. Thanks for keeping me on my feet. Love,

>> "Because I know John. And I know that he is not political and won't legislate from the bench."

Where some men see politics and climb magnificently above the fray, other men see principle and mount their weary horses. The smug certainties of the jaded...

Love,

Add new comment