reuters
Chief Justice John Roberts
One of the messages from the Supreme Court decision on the Affordable Care Act on Thursday got lost. It came directly from the Chief Justice himself in the decision; Keep your political fight among the politicians, not in the court.
You didn't see that? It's right here: "Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
Now, I am not a constitutional scholar but I read that as "if you disagree with the actions of your elected officials... throw them out of office in the next election." As fortune would have it, a person who understands the law very well and who previously worked with the Chief Justice spoke on Rachel Maddow's show Thursday night:
Neal Katyal, former acting U.S. Solicitor General said this:
"You saw not just the Chief crossing party lines but also Justices Kagan and Breyer also doing so today to strike down a piece of the affordable care act as unconstitutional and so I think ultimately what this decision is, is a resounding victory for the rule of law. Of the idea that, let's all take a step back and view this stuff apolitically and just as matters of straight up law and you know if Republicans are right and the affordable care act is bad law, repeal it but don't run to the courts every time you don't like something and try to get it struck down as unconstitutional."
So the Chief Justice likely included a message to politicians who would bring their dislike of laws to the court to be overturned when turnover of elected officials isn't an option: don't do it.
"When a court confronts an unconstitutional statute, its endeavor must be to conserve, not destroy, the legislation"
So again, "Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation's elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."
Or as I would have put it... Elections have consequences, so register to vote and then vote.
Leave a Comment:
Of course, that is where this issue is headed again. This bill of goods was never sold to us as a tax, it had the tax clause in it initially changed to a penalty, the Solicitor General argued the constitutionality of the Act as coming under the Commerce Clause, not the Taxing Power of the Federal Government before the Supreme Court. And at the lower level Federal Court hearing the combined suits of the states they ruled against the taxing constitutionality argument. By fixing on this bizzare rationale to approve the constitutionality of the mandate and the Act in its entirety by reaching for the taxing power of the Federal Government, the Suprement Court ruled without the opposition ever having had the ability to argue against such an outcome, not at the Congressional law making process, not in the lower courts, not in the presentation of the case against the Act at the Supreme Court.
So it behoves us to start back at the Congressional level again, and repeal this unlawful Act and begin anew to fashion something workable that concentrates on reducing the costs of getting health care and heath insurance. And to do something simultaneously with the unmanageable and potentially bankruptcy causing entitlements programs of Medicare and Medicaid that have grown in their expenses so quickly thru the last decade.
Your problem is not with ObamaCare, or its justified tax provision, nor Chief Justice Roberts. Your problem is with Marbury v. Madison (Judicial Review) so go back and read your history. Furthermore, Chief Justice Roberts couldn’t give a hoot (euphemism) about your feculent language and rhetoric due to his lifetime appointment. Thanks
Jose: check your history books. John Roberts was a George W. Bush appointee to the Supreme Court and the Bush v. Gore decision came before Bush took office. Your theory doesn't compute, amigo.
Sorry, that got misplaced...should have been a reply to Jose's comment below.
But as to Gene Witt, ever hear the expression "The court has ruled, now let them enforce it"? Or regarding the turmoil after the Supreme Court's decision in Rowe v. Wade, the Congressional action taken known as the Hyde Amendment? The people elect their Chief Executive and the Senators and Congressmen, and there is recourse built into our system by its framers that allow for buttressing against the onslaught of Judicial Activism. How's that for some "feculent" language, light weight?
Grandpa is all over factual errors except his own... He calls the ACA an "unlawful act," but hey, the Supies said otherwise, and he still doesn't get it.
And the correct word would be "hypothesis," Fuzzie...
And a little historical background on that "Let them enforce it" bit of shinola. That statement came from Andrew Jackson over a decision ruling unconstittuional a decison that evicted Cherokees from Georgia and North Carolina from lands they owned, having been legitimately assimilated into the larger American Society. That was Andrew jackson's racism at its worst, and I'm in agreement with Native Americans that his portrait has no place on our $20 bills. It was the only time in history a sitting president defied a SCOTUS decision.
Blah, blah blah blah.
Here's what Mitt Romney said about the mandate when HE was pushing it in 2005:
So, contain your breathless outrage. This is the ultimate conservative idea, per your party's putative leader. Carry your own insurance (if it is within your means) or pay the tax.
Deal widdit.
Romney and the combined leading lights of the legislature, medical, and insurance institutions in Massachusetts fashioned an intrastate health care insurance program, and it had anintstate mandate enforced by a fine, or penalty. The federal ObamaCare program is ruled unconstitutional as it infringes on the states' powers to promote and regulate the businesses of insurance and medical services within their separate states. That much we are assured of, fool.
Congratulations Americans.Wish it could be Universal health care like we have in Canada.I'm 65 years old and only remember my parents talking about having to pay for medical care.We have ins for extras like dental,private rooms, drugs.We can choose what we want.I choose only dental for 40.00 dollars a month.I did not appreciate our system so much until I listened to your debates.
Yeah, how is your outcome's on breast, prostate, and colon cancers compared to the US system, where preventative services aren't strictly rationed (yet), and where both our non profit and for profit cancer care centers receive their share of Canandians coming in looking for life extending and saving treatments, lamiepie? You get what you pay for in goods and services, you know? There is no free lunch anymore!
Still think Roberts came around pretty much out of Vanity. With Kennedy getting all the publicity, and Time Magazine calling him "The Decider," I'll bet Roberts voted to put Kennedy and the press in their place. This is the John Roberts Court, by gum, and John Roberts makes the key decision on the most important piece of social legislation in a long time. Now everyone will talk about John Roberts.
I'll take the win. With Kennedy getting old and turning into a Scalia justice, victories will be fewer and fewer.
the Lawful Affordable Care Act is the Law, lets go back and repeal the Iraq War lets refuse to pay Halliburton, because taxpayers are tired of waging wars that are predominately being fought to LINE the pockets of the military industrial complex...Lets embrace the ACA, or make it better by actually having a single payer which will reduce costs all around....and please make the whiners shut up
I wish Justice Roberts would have decided that his court was going to be apolitical before he made all those political decisions including that corporations are people and that Bush beat Gore for President! QUICO!
Excuse me, Jose. Roberts was APPOINTED by Bush. The Court you refer to which decided Bush V. Gore was the Rehnquist Court.
Makes this all the more resounding of a statement. I have had many interpretations of what is going on with Roberts, but this one is the one that I like the best, as it makes the most sense. Roberts has told the Teatoddlers to win elections and convince voters, not run crying to him every time a law passes that they don't like.
He is a poster child for judicial independence, and I'll never complain about lifelong appointments to the Court again. See, Roberts needs nothing at all from the GOP, or the Tea Party, for the rest of his life. He is the Chief Justice. All he has to look forward to is his place in the history books, and I'm sure his credibility matters just a tad to him. And honestly, real conservatives have about had it with the idiots of the Tea Party. I've heard from a couple recently here . . . people I never thought would pay attention to the mendacity.
It would be nice if politicians would just do their job. In my experience of work/job tasking; a need is identified, discussion with key people is accomplished, possible solutions are agreeded upon and corrective action is taken. So to me solving problems only become difficult when I push forward my own adgenda instead of working toward a combine solution to the problem at hand.
Politicians positioning themselves to be reelected while not effectively addressing the will of the people should be kick out of office.
STEPHANOPOULOS: But you do concede -- and you keep wanting to use the word penalty -- you do concede that the law survived only because Justice Roberts found this to be a tax?
LEW: You know, I think, if you look at the decision, which is a very complicated one, you know, there are arguments that support different theories. There was...STEPHANOPOULOS: But the argument of Chief Justice Roberts is that it's a tax.
LEW: He -- he went through the different powers that Congress has and he found that there is a power, whatever you call it, to assess a penalty like this.STEPHANOPOULOS: He called it a tax. So you're conceding that?
LEW: I'm saying that it was set up as a penalty for people who choose not to buy insurance, even though they can afford it, and for that 1 percent, we call it fair. Lew’s assertion of the opinion being complicated, even though the part we’re discussing is explicitly clear in the written opinion, highlights the progressive left’s inherent condescension. I guess the vast majority of Americans, who aren’t members of educational elite with learned diction, can’t possibly understand the difference between a tax and a penalty. How progressive of them? Mr. Lew’s shameless spinning and distortion of the facts even has liberals in the media saying he’s wrong.
See this is desperation, this is fear. The Obama administration knows damn well if people UNDERSTAND they are going to be paying huge taxes, he is done in Nov so they spin like this and everyone can see its an all out lie. Even a few liberals care about their reputations to call them on it. IT IS A TAX. PERIOD. Roberts said it is ONLY CONSTITUTIONAL IF IT IS A TAX. hey libs, don't you just love Justice Roberts for causing Obama even more grief. #ixzz1zUQfgBF0
What I don't get is the sheer arrogance of righties who don't realize we on the left recognized that Bush's two wars on the country's credit cards would have to be paid for by taxes sooner or later. Yet the Shrub persisted in tax cuts anyway, which benefitted his wealthy friends far more than working stiffs...
It's pretty obvious he was listening to Dick "Deficits Don't Matter" Cheney on that one, and operations like Halliburton benefitted at the expense of creating American casualties in Iraq...
Some of us would rather taxes go to keep people healthy rather than sacrifice young Americans needlessly.
Must be nice to have an Etch-a-Sketch brain...
Did you ever hear the expression used "Insurance Poor" Cab Driver? That's where you've purchased so much expensive insurance that you can't afford the payments!
Welcome to ObamaCare!
Create Your Own Election Message?
For the first time in history more than a billion dollars will be spent to try to unseat a President of the United States of America. There is only one way to answer such a prolific monetary challenge to democracy and free speech, people power. Donate as much as you can to the President's campaign for re-election. The other thing that we can do is obvious. We, the people, can offset the financial deficits of the President's re-election campaign by private citizens creating their own messages of support and flooding the internet and market with them in the form of videos, songs, blogs, posters, T-shirts, flyers, etc.
If you are a creative supporter of President Barack Obama, I ask you to consider creating your own messages in support of the president and his re-election campaign (like the one I created above) and send it forth into America. Many of you are supremely talented and I will be excited to see your creativity at work this election season. Let's "even the playing field" and give President Barack Obama an opportunity to complete his important service to America.
For More information visit: