Skip to main content

Roberts' Ruling


Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. R...
Official 2005 photo of Chief Justice John G. Roberts (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
(This post is also published at my Connecticut Living blog at wordpress.com)
The conservative talkers are still buzzing over theories as to why Roberts came down the way he did on the Affordable Care Act.  Some assert that he caved to pressure from the Obama administration and popular media, feeling threatened by an overwhelming flood of support.  Others say he acted in a way that he knew would deliberately energize the conservative base this election season (truly, Romney did raise a lot of money right after the ruling came out). Personally, I have my own idea as to why he ruled as he did on the subject of the legislation's constitutionality.
In my opinion, it's a stretch to call the mandate is a "tax," especially when the proponents of the bill repeatedly emphasized that it is not.  I suspect that most people would agree with that.  So, why did he come up with that one?  I think he was looking for any way he could find to not have to scrap the law, because he knows it is not the court's job to play politics and strike down laws -and he did not want the court to be conceived as a partisan body ruling only on majority ideology and not with the constitution as the main basis of its decision-making.
Roberts indicated when rendering his decision that it is not the court's duty to save us from the consequences of our political decisions.  We knew full-well in 2008 what we were getting when we elected our current president to office.  He did not hide his healthcare agenda.
So, while I don't agree with the notion of the mandate being a 'tax,' I get the reasoning behind his very thin excuse for letting the law stand.
Many people know my stand on health care and this legislation.  While I see much good intent with this act, I also see much opportunity for government overreach in the form of intrusion into our personal lives and decision-making ability.  Perhaps a common sense libertarian-style approach is in order.
So I believe Roberts went the way he did because he knows it's our job to rid ourselves of this unpopular legislation if we so choose.  We do this not by engaging men and women who sit on high banging gavels and wearing long black robes -- we do it with a ballot box.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Treason or Patriotism?

Many years ago, the Democrats couldn't wait to get all of the facts surrounding Watergate out in the public eye. The Washington Post has been celebrated as a bastion of the free press recently in a movie (which we have yet to see, but plan to).


Now, the idea of releasing a memo that may indicate wrong-doing on the part of the FBI and DOJ is hailed as treasonous by some who would prefer the secrets remain secrets. I have seen or heard of nothing in the recently released memo that would appear to compromise national security -- have you?

Hate Speech

The amount of vitriol directed at President Trump seems to be unprecedented. At least, that is what those on the right seem to think. Of course, I remember plenty of criticism and hate speech hurled at President Obama during his time in office, as well. I don't think I really need to mention President George W. Bush, do I?

There has never been (in my lifetime) such a level of animosity between opposing viewpoints as I see in today's America. Democrats hurl murderous accusations against the Republicans for their healthcare proposals and those of a conservative view sling accusations of incompetence and hypocrisy back at them. Of course, either side is generally pretty good at documenting their accusations with freshly spun 'facts.'

No matter where you fit into the political spectrum, it is important to note that such contention is counter-productive. Whenever people react at the behest of their emotions, clear-headed and rational decisions are nowhere to be found. Moreo…

Comey Testimony

It's been a while since I have seen the kind of hype that there has been around having Director Comey testify in front of the Senate today. It seems worse than Watergate! There also seems to be no evidence thus far except for of the here-say variety .

No less than 5 times did he call President Trump (or his administration) a liar. Aside from what that does to the office of the President, it takes away from getting things done that so desperately need to get done. Now, please don't misunderstand, if there has been serious wrongdoing on the part of the Trump administration, then they need to be called out on it. We have already recently had 8 years of "anything-but-transparency" in Washington.

Reading the New York Times would lead one to the conclusion that this was a bad day for the Trump administration. I'm not so sure of that. I'm not huge fan of the President, but have to say that I did not hear anything qualifying as evidence to bring about impeachment pro…