George Will and the silver lining...

[Larry Gude]

George Will: Supreme Court gives conservatives a consolation prize - The Washington Post

By persuading the court to reject a Commerce Clause rationale for a president’s signature act, the conservative legal insurgency against Obamacare has won a huge victory for the long haul. This victory will help revive a venerable tradition of America’s political culture, that of viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint, searching for congruence with the Constitution’s architecture of enumerated powers. By rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale, Thursday’s decision reaffirmed the Constitution’s foundational premise: Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, “the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.”

Any democracy, even one with a written and revered constitution, ultimately rests on public opinion, which is shiftable sand. Conservatives understand the patience requisite for the politics of democracy — the politics of persuasion. Elections matter most; only they can end Obamacare. But in Roberts’s decision, conservatives can see that the court has been persuaded to think more as they do about the constitutional language that has most enabled the promiscuous expansion of government.

For link-phobes, Will is saying that the Roberts court, by embracing that this, the mandate, is a tax and therefore within constitutional limitations and NOT permissible under commerce clause arguments, that while we may be pregnant, it wasn't rape. There is a HUGE distinction there, point being that taxes we, the people, can vote up and down; normal hum, drum legislative stuff that we express our pleasure and/or dissatisfaction at the ballot box whereas if the mandate was approved under commerce clause arguments then, THAT would have opened the door to ever more government expansion and intrusion.

It is normal for George to find the rational, dry, logical reasoning in a given issue. It is NOT normal to see him expressing so much optimism. I guess, as a conservative, we find the joy where it is. Will has a huge point. However, either way, we are, at present, still knocked up and it is a LONG way to seeing we, the people, actually stand up and vote for less government.

Roberts has handed us, via the legislature, an opportunity to reject the mandate on the shifting sand of public opinion our republic is built on. This decision, if anyone cares to step back from the ledge is now THE issue that will spell either the end of Obama's re-election hopes or the re-affirmation and continuing approval of Too Big To Fail. Roberts has, bravely and, rather brilliantly, stood in front of the federal leviathan and is now looking at us;

"You voted for this. Now, how bad do you really want it?"

My opinion of Roberts has just soared.

 

[vraiblonde]

That is way too many big words for me to decipher.

that while we may be pregnant, it wasn't rape

However, we are still in fact pregnant.

Help me understand how we can reject what is essentially a tax?

Are you suggesting that voters might vote against it, or even have the option to vote against it? Or perhaps voters might vote against Congresscritters who support it?

That is an enormous and unrealistic leap of optimism.

 

[Larry Gude]

However, we are still in fact pregnant. Yup

Help me understand how we can reject what is essentially a tax?

Are you suggesting that voters might vote against it, or even have the option to vote against it? Or perhaps voters might vote against Congresscritters who support it? Yes.

That is an enormous and unrealistic leap of optimism.

Yes. Which, as I say, is out of character for Will.

However, Roberts has done a HUGE thing; Declared limits on use of the commerce clause which has been used to cause all sorts of mischief and governmental growth and intrusion. This has ENORMOUS implications.

The bad news is, as you point out and I agree, that it's all on us, we, the people.

That is also the good news. Your take away from all this is that the court has done a good job; it has set up a Thou Shalt Not Pass sign. A very, very big one. If the mandate had been accepted on commerce clause grounds, (keep in mind it was rejected on those grounds) it would just be same old, same old, out of control congress, compliant court.

As is, the mandate has been, instead of codified in the huge, sticky mess of commerce clause that is virtually impossible to get rid of, the mandate is now JUST and MERELY a tax and that is one thing congress does act on. Sometimes raising, sometimes lowering. However, it is CRITICAL to keep in mind that now, instead of joining the ranks of Social Security and Medicaire and so forth, the affordable care act is just hum drum stuff VERY subject to actual action in the legislature.

This mess is much more important point than it may seem. Commerce clause approval = rape. We have no choice. We just grow to accept it. Tax = it's much, much more likely and subject to legislative action.

 

[Tilted]

My opinion of Roberts has just soared.

I think there are indeed some silver linings in this decision, and I may have some more specific thoughts along that line later.

For now though, I wanted to post to say: No fair, you can't have him, I liked him first.

 

[Larry Gude]

I think there are indeed some silver linings in this decision, and I may have some more specific thoughts along that line later.

For now though, I wanted to post to say: No fair, you can't have him, I liked him first.

We are fighting over a man in a robe???


In any event, the biased, reflexive GOP'er in me liked him from day one because he was nominated by a GOP'er. To my minimal credit, his confirmation process gave me actual reason to like him and, subsequently, other stuff he's done, lectures, writings, stuff outside the court, impressed me further.

 

[SamSpade]

Repeal the tax.

Yeah. I said it. Leave Obamacare, but repeal the tax.

 

[Odessa78]

Mark Levin vs. George Will: Radio talker lashes out [AUDIO] | The Daily Caller

 

[jetmonkey]

it's all on us, we, the people

Well that's bad news. The people are ####ing stupid.

 

[czygvtwkr]

I think he is trying to make a chocolate souffle out of a pile of dog $h!t.

 

[vraiblonde]

Well that's bad news. The people are ####ing stupid.

Yes, and leaving it up to them hasn't worked out so well for us up to this point.

What else you Roberts apologists got?

 

[Larry Gude]

Well that's bad news. The people are ####ing stupid.

In a land that is supposed to be and was built to be 'of, by and for' the people, that's pretty much the whole ball game. I will still take it over dictators, monarchs and socialism.

:shrug:

 

[Larry Gude]

Yes, and leaving it up to them hasn't worked out so well for us up to this point.

What else you Roberts apologists got?

...says the Dictator Lobby.

 

[vraiblonde]

...says the Dictator Lobby.

Have you ever read Lord of the Flies?

 

[Larry Gude]

Have you ever read Lord of the Flies?

No. Take away point? or just go read it?

 

[vraiblonde]

No. Take away point? or just go read it?

You should read it, but here are the Wiki cliffnotes:

Lord of the Flies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And here are the Spark Notes defining the allegories:

SparkNotes: Lord of the Flies: Themes, Motifs & Symbols

We have no real leadership in this country; the people running things are money grubbers, power mongers, and special interest groups doing anything they can to gain and keep control of the citizenry. The kids are running amok and no longer have interest in civilization because they either don't remember what it was or have power or perks that they don't want to give up.

 

[Larry Gude]

We have no real leadership in this country; the people running things are money grubbers, power mongers, and special interest groups doing anything they can to gain and keep control of the citizenry. The kids are running amok and no longer have interest in civilization because they either don't remember what it was or have power or perks that they don't want to give up.

Ok, but, other than that, it's a nice place, right??

 

[Larry Gude]

Krauthammer on the job today! Excellent piece to further grasp what is going on.

Charles Krauthammer: Why Roberts did it - The Washington Post

Why did he do it? Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he is a constitutional conservative. Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation and stature.

Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is telling the nation: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.

 

[Larry Gude]

And MORE good news for actual, real conservatives who think there is too much gummint going on out 'dare;

Medicaid mystery at SCOTUS - PostPartisan - The Washington Post

This outcome gives the Red states that brought the lawsuit brand-new leverage. It will be a lot easier for them to tell HHS to take its Medicaid expansion and shove it. True, they would be forfeiting huge dollars in the short run — but don’t forget that GOP governors like Rick Scott in Florida, Scott Walker in Wisconsin and John Kasich of Ohio turned down big grants to build high-speed rail, because of the risk of future liabilities that the feds would not cover. In short, one of the main ways the Affordable Care Act achieved universal coverage – Medicaid expansion – may have been weakened, significantly.

...and;

Why? Ginsburg explained, in essence, that half a loaf was better than none; this was the only way to ”conserve” Congress’s “dominant objective,” even partially. Thus did the first Supreme Court ruling ever to hold a federal-state spending program unconstitutionally coercive — a ruling that inevitably opens the door to more such challenges to federal programs in the future — receive a bipartisan imprimatur.

People, there is MUCH to be encouraged about from this court.

 

[jetmonkey]

In a land that is supposed to be and was built to be 'of, by and for' the people, that's pretty much the whole ball game. I will still take it over dictators, monarchs and socialism.

:shrug:

Those people are not the people we have now. Do you read these forums at all?

 

[Larry Gude]

Those people are not the people we have now. Do you read these forums at all?

'Those' people? Which 'those' people? The ones who were for slavery? The ones who wanted women in the kitchen and not voting? The ones terrified of gay people? The ones who thought Social Security and the Great Society were good ideas? The ones who interred Japanese Americans, born in the US citizens?

Maybe the ones that thought Europe's endless squabbles were worth the lives of 180,000 US troops dead and millions more crippled for life in 1918, many of who had intentionally left those squabbles behind, or thought they did?

Just who are 'those' people?