More On The Roberts Fiasco At SCOTUS from CBS--Holy Cow What A Mess...

And remember, ya'll. We're stuck with this amoral cowardly turkey for life.

Which makes electing a fire-breathing conservative Senate imperative, so that the next appointments make Roberts irrelevant. He can play golf, go to cocktail parties, give commencement speeches, but he needs to be put in a position where he never ever influences public life again.

CBS News reports the shameful episode--linked above, excerpted a bit below.

Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this." 

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate. 

But, why would he do this, and how did he accomplish the coup? Read on, ya'll. It jes' keeps gittin'
slimier and slimier:

Because Roberts was the most senior justice in the majority to strike down the mandate, he got to choose which justice would write the Court's historic decision. He kept it for himself.

(In other words, he hijacked the process, and performed a 'switcher-oonie' on his colleagues. A classic three-card monte.)


Over the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it. 

Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the Court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.

But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public. 

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

The Fix Was IN, ya'll. Roberts voted to strike down, then hijacked the process, then revealed his true intentions. This explains why several colleagues will no longer engage him in debate. From this point on, they have to assume when his lips are moving--he's lying.

The Executive Branch is in the hands of lawless hustlers. The Senate is in the hands of Obama's enablers. The House is breathing fire, but can't get much done, and the Supreme Court is about to grind to a standstill. The Chief Justice is a duplicitous, vain hack, and the other Justices know it.

This is a recipe for really, really, really bad trouble. Until grown-ups retake the Senate, and pay freaking attention to the people they appoint to lower courts, we are in for a world of hurt.

The Orders To Nullify Any Adverse Consequence From The Court Were Already Drafted, or, How The Obama Administration Is Shredding The Constitution One Provision At A Time...

Roy Beck from Numbers USA, obviously not a disinterested commenter, weighs in on today's ruling:

In his dissent, Justice Scalia was much more specific, citing the Obama administration’s announcement just two weeks ago that it would refuse to enforce the law against illegal aliens who would benefit from the DREAM Act amnesty that Congress has rejected three times.
"After this case was argued and while it was under consideration," Scalia wrote, "the Secretary of Homeland Security announced a program exempting from immigration enforcement some 1.4 million illegal immigrants under the age of 30.

"The president said at a news conference that the new program is 'the right thing to do' in light of Congress’s failure to pass the Administration’s proposed revision of the Immigration Act. Perhaps it is, though Arizona may not think so. But to say, as the Court (majority) does, that Arizona contradicts federal by enforcing application of the Immigration Act that the President declines to enforce boggles the mind." 

As if to underscore Scalia’s assessment of the current administration as a nullifier of congressionally-passed laws, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano only hours after the ruling, announced that she would suspend yet another enforcement required under federal immigration laws. Because the Court ruling will result in a lot more illegal aliens being brought to the attention of the feds, she said, her department will suspend the 287(g) program in Arizona, and pledged that nothing in the ruling will interfere with the administrative amnesty announced last week. 

Only hours after the ruling...which says in effect--Screw the Congress, screw the States and their prerogatives, screw the Constitution, screw the Rule of Law, and screw you if you disagree with us.

If we don't like some provision of the law, we'll just ignore it!

Screw you!

(By the way, we'll always enforce the collection of taxes...)

ObamaCare Under The Gaze Of The Supreme Court

OS has been traveling--a lot.  Moh', latuh on all that.

It was good to come home and find Doug Mataconis' coverage and insights on the case now being argued before the Supremes.

So many millions of words are now spewed to us daily, on any subject. Mataconis does have the gift of sorting through it all. In general, he does not have a particular political axe to grind, which is admirable.

Therefore, OS refrains from any words on the subject for now, and refers his patient readers to the link above.

OS does wish to note that we as a nation, as inheritors of the great Common Law tradition of England, are blessed to still have a Supreme Court where these great controversies can be argued, instead of having them settled by royal fiat and/or blood running through the streets.

We need always take care that this great inheritance remain healthily in place.

The Moment That Will Haunt Obama For Life

This is behavior to be expected of politicians like Chavez, or Peron. It is the politics of the banana republic.



The bell can never be un-rung, the toothpaste pushed back into the tube.

This is the Real Obama, and the Real Democrat Party.

If you live in the United States, ponder this moment, and what it portends for our republic.