I’m not robbing a bank, I’m making a withdrawal.
I’m not dealing drugs, I’m assisting recreational activity.
I’m not cheating on my wife, I’m helping a friend.
And according to Chief Justice Roberts, I’m not making someone buy something, I’m levying a tax. Never mind that the Supreme Court does not possess that power.
Typical of the radical mentality, if something is too bothersome, too uncomfortable, simply change the name and voila – fixed. No, really, it’s not Governmental tyranny, it’s . . . it’s . . . a tax. Yeah, that’s it, it’s a tax. Ahhh, there now. Much better.
How is it that Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts can miss this? I am not privy to the esteemed jurist’s intellectual level, but I would be willing to bet that it is, at the very least, somewhere within the nominally average fluctuation parameters. And if so, then he must know the degree of elasticity he is using to break the limits of the cannon, the limits of the English language, the limits of common sense, for Pete’s sake!
If I were to say, No, I did not help that guy steal that car. All I did was leave some instructions under the windshield wiper on how to jimmy a door lock and hot-wire an engine.
If Judge Roberts were your twelve-year-old and gave you the adolescent equivalent of his reasoning for his decision last week, he’d be cleaning the garage, yard, kitchen, and basement everyday for the next six weeks.
That is, unless you’re a parent along the lines of the Mainstream media defending Bill Clinton’s indiscretions. In that case, you would not punish the wayward child, you would rather marvel at his cleverness.
I have only the following three conclusions available to me regarding Roberts’ decision on The Affordable Care Act:
1. Our fine judge is woefully ignorant, even fatuous of all things legal. Highly unlikely.
2. He has been paid off, either financial or personal. Doubtful. After all, I hardly think he, or anyone in his position, is anywhere near destitute.
3. He’s a Leftist hitherto hidden in Conservative or Moderate clothing.
Which of these best fits the bill? Of course, the third is the most plausible, but history has shown that the first two are not beyond the realm of possibility.
I think number three. What makes the third option so attractive is the lengths to which Roberts went in order to pound that square peg of aiding the shortcomings of the President’s attorneys into the round hole of calling ObamaCare a tax.
Other than one of ideology, why would he not just let the lawyers stand or fall on their own arguments? Did any of the others jump in and act as a ‘life preserver’ for the lawyers against? Alito not withstanding, Kennedy more so, I’m sure Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia would never dream of such brazen fealty, regardless of their political principals.
(My hesitation to put Alito with Thomas and Scalia is only because I’m not as familiar with his history as I am the other two. As for Kennedy, I was almost as shocked at his decision as I was at Roberts’)
If I am right, then there are more grave worries with our most high and lofty court ahead. There will be other decisions to make, other cases brought before these sage and scholarly soverignettes.
We can only hope that the individual members of The Union will have the courage and political will to re-embrace the tenth amendment, re-gain States Rights, and exert the powers given them by our Constitution.
It is time.