Thursday, June 28, 2012

The Judicial process is Not a Legislative mechanism.

Picture from Examiner.com
Democrats intimidated Chief Justice John Roberts and he cringed, bottom line, he cannot do for Americans what Americans have to do for themselves.

Supreme Court's job is to merely interpret law and exercise judicial restraint. It is absolutely critical that 
the Supreme Court keep within Constitutional bounds by NOT engaging in judicial activism. Americans cannot count on Roberts or Justices to do for them what they can do for themselves. That is, exercise their individual right to vote for or against their representatives, their policies and their presidents. Elections have consequences, when majority of the Americans vote for Obama, this is the consequence of  their vote. "The Change" Obama promised. Whether you love John Roberts or are totally disgusted by his cowardice ( as seen by 2 differing views on his decision), thank God this is America, because there is still hope for those who disagree with this ruling. Act to repeal or live with it. 


John Roberts's vote : Understandable


via Red State.com
Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. 


First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.
Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.
Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.
Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically read the entire Article here. 
John Roberts's vote : Disgusted
Via Thomas Crown: 


We do not choose justices, on our side, because of policy results; we choose them for process, which we believe will usually, but not always, produce better results. Process matters in the law, because process is the law. When the law upon which the majority of our citizens through their representatives have agreed is followed, the result is axiomatically better either substantively or educationally, that is, because it shows us where our process is wrong. 
This is even more important where the Constitution is involved, because the certainty of those processes is the bedrock on which our legal order is predicated. No certainty, no order; no order, no inferior laws.
While we should care about the Court’s result today, what should frighten us is the process used to achieve it. What Roberts did today is to deflect mounting criticism of the court - including revived court packing schemes!  - from the left. Robert knows, from decades around conservatives, that we are no threat to the judiciary; not put too fine a point on it, we're like black voters with the Democrat Party. We'll keep taking the abuse and coming back for more.
To preserve the Court’s institutional legacy, and to avoid an expansion of the Commerce Clause — a bete noire to the conservative movement for decades untold — he instead expanded the Taxation power. There is now literally no national policy that cannot be effected by placing in opposition to that policy a monstrously large tax, with the threat of fines, bankruptcy, and jail on the other side. None.
The idea that the mandate is a tax, and one allowed by the Taxation power, is facially ridiculous: You face a tax for existence, and can only escape it by paying for private insurance.
Taxation, as the Founders recognized, is an arrogation of power to the government. The power to tax is the power to control.
This is not to say we would have been better with Harriet Miers, or indeed, with anyone else. It’s to say that the Chief, who made the protection of the Court’s institutional image and entirely persuasive power his foremost goal, has gutted the limitation on enumerated powers to achieve that goal.
The result is awful. The process is worse.

No comments: