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

Remembering Why

I was watching Bill O'Reilly this evening as he interviewed Tony Orlando, who has agreed to perform at the Armed Services Ball. Not only is he doing it for the veterans, he is doing it for America -- out of respect for our tradition of a peaceful transfer of power. He made it clear that, had Hillary won and asked him to perform, he would do the same. It is not a partisan thing. It's about America, not an individual. Bravo, Tony. A true patriotic American.

Think, not react...

The 'action-reaction' scenario that has been playing out between progressives and conservatives is a situation that is becoming increasingly counter-productive and harmful. This is obviously not something new; the battle between left and right has been raging for a long time and those flames were also well-fanned by the previous administration and ineffective congress. Sadly, what happens is a loss of focus on issues that we should be working together to solve and increase in counter-productive squabbling. The level of immaturity being witnessed as coming from our 45th president is unfortunate. Less use of Twitter would serve him better, provided he actually took the time to build better relationships with key figures in the media. Some of it has been nothing short of childish and the sort of thing I might have engaged in as a 12 year old, were Twitter in existence then.

President Trump's tendency to engage in knee-jerk reactions is unfortunate. A case in point is his exec…

Just a bit of DISGUST...

I've got to admit I expected more from the do-nothing body we call Congress with its GOP majority at present. Instead, we got more of the same old tired rhetoric we have been getting for the past 7+ years now about how terrible Obamacare is.

The plan they managed to produce after all this time (Paul Ryan's) is not much better than what is in place and apparently leaves a lot of middle-class people financially screwed. I understand it polled with a 17% approval rate. All I know is the many votes over the past few years to repeal it were nothing more than political grandstanding --  a waste of time and taxpayer money. All the Republicans seem to be able to do is criticize and come up with little to offer themselves. They cannot even seem to reach a consensus among themselves (a problem they have had as long as I can remember).

Personally, I have felt for a long time that they should simply fix what is in place so it works better and offers more flexibility with lower costs. I th…