Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

Roberts: The wisdom of Solomon on bath salts

Written By: Bob - Jul• 01•12

This is just about as detached as I think a Chief Justice can get.

I am told by two sources with specific knowledge of the court’s deliberations that Roberts initially sided with the conservatives in this case and was prepared to strike down the heart of this law, the so-called individual mandate, of course, that requires all Americans to buy insurance or pay a penalty. but Roberts, I’m told by my sources, changed his views deciding to instead join with the liberals.  He withstood–I’m told by my sources–a month-long desperate campaign by the conservative justices to bring him back to the fold and that campaign was led, ironically, by Justice Anthony Kennedy and why that’s ironic is because it was Justice Kennedy that conservatives feared would be the one most effort, of course, was unsuccessful, Roberts didn’t budge, the conservatives wrote that astonishing joint dissent united in opposition and Roberts wrote the majority opinion with the four liberals to uphold the President’s signature achievement.

Roberts made the absurd determination that Obamacare was a tax… even when everyone who championed the law, from the lowliest legislator to the then Speaker of the House to the President of the United States who signed it into law, swear up and down that it wasn’t written as a tax, wasn’t meant as a tax, and isn’t a tax. Apparently, he’s claiming the right to declare a law a tax after the fact. How is that remotely constitutional?

Roberts also ignores the fact that if this particular law is a tax, it is unconstitutional since it began in the Senate and all bills raising taxes must originate in the House.

The Chief Justice’s decision isn’t the wisdom of Solomon using the ploy of “splitting the baby,” to make a wise decision, but was the pathological massacre of said infant for no logical reason at all.

Way to pick ’em, Dubya.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


  1. Junk Science Skeptic says:

    In theory, SCOTUS decisions should be guided solely by the Constitution, but in reality, far too often, that’s not the case.

    So follow along for a moment with this plausible scenario:

    Once the court rejected the law as presented (i.e. not a tax, and permitted by the Commerce Clause), the Constitutional part of the argument is done, and in that, conservatism won the day.

    But then we move from the technical side over to the realities of the world outside the Supreme Court. If Roberts sticks with the Court’s technically correct decision against the penalty/Commerce Clause, several bad things happen, including:

    1. The liberal base is energized in a way that Obama has thus far failed to do during this campaign season, likely giving Obama 3-5 percentage points in the general election.

    2. The liberal commentariat goes (deeper) into full propaganda mode, misreporting the decision and the logic behind it, causing yet another generation to mistakenly believe (a la Bush v. Gore), that the SCOTUS is just another political body.

    3. The race hustlers in DC and elsewhere use the decision to incite deadly violence during what is already shaping up to be a hot, violent summer.

    4. In setting a precedent here and now by rejecting Obamacare outright, the door is opened to a more liberal future court to easily overrule laws enacted by a more conservative Congress.

    So what does Roberts do? Stick with the technical answer to win the battle while losing the war, or approach the situation from a more intellectual level?

    First and foremost, it is now irrevocably recorded in law and history that the Roberts court has deemed Obama to be a liar, with the ruling that the mandate is, in fact, a tax, and also that Obama and his lackeys were fools to pursue this under the Commerce Clause. Those items right there, along with slamming the door on future Commerce Clause abuses, were alone worth the price of admission.

    Second, in spite of siding with the Court’s liberals on the final decision, Roberts specifically admonishes the American people that overturning misguided policy is a power that rests solely in the hands of the people, and that process should be carried out at the ballot box just a few months hence.

    So even though Roberts votes with the majority to uphold Obamacare, he’s all the while giving the American people a wink and a nod, telling them that yes, the law sucks, and that it’s up to the people to ensure its repeal at the ballot box in November.

    While Romney has been getting better at energizing the conservative base, Roberts just handed him an easy five extra points that could have just as easily gone Obama’s way if Roberts wasn’t looking at the larger picture.

  2. mytralmann says:

    Roberts is a weaker man than I supposed. I thought he would teach BO that berating the court in front of congress and the world was not acceptable behavior. Or just do his job and rule what was pretty clear to all that allowing the commerce clause to in turn allow anything congress wanted was the end of his precious court as a deciding body and , as a bonus,simultaneously sink O, a constitution hater and enemy of the SC if there ever was one. But he chose another way.
    His fate as a player may depend on R getting elected since he will appoint at least 2 justices of maybe 3 and we can be sure they will at least look conservative to begin with. Then he could increase his power by becoming a swing vote. But If O is elected, he will appoint more constitution hating lackeys like the wise latina and the little dean. And they will make sure Roberts writes the minority “conservative” opinion for the rest of his term unless he wants to throw away his integrity completely and simply phone it in as part of a corrupt ideological majority he helped to create

  3. Cole says:

    Roberts didn’t side with Obamacare because he’s playing some smart game to save the Republic. Or to help Romney’s chances. He did it because he’s become a DC swamp creature.

  4. harp1034 says:

    I wonder if they did not make Roberts an offer that he could not refuse?
    On the other hand look at his background. He has never been a real conservtive. Neither was George W. Bush.

  5. SDN says:

    Roberts is simply playing his role in “stitch in time that saved nine” 2012 edition. Citizens United and Heller primed the pump just as the New Deal strikedowns did in 1936, prompting O! and his lackeys to issue threats like FDR. This is the result.

    From Andrew Jackson through Lincoln to FDR to Obama, the Court has always been a paper tiger, whose rulings only matter if someone enforces them. Ultimately, we the patriotic will, through the ballot box or the bullet box.

  6. Junk Science Skeptic says:

    Here’s a far more eloquent take along the lines of what I expressed above: