I remember, in college, taking some class which, unbeknownst to me, turned out to be completely about studying Supreme Court cases. I remember, when looking at some incredibly stupid decisions, wondering HOW the Justices could have reasoned their way to such a monumentally stupid decision.
I still do not understand how such stupid decisions happen to a non socialist such as Roberts* — except to go biblical, and to say the problem has its foundation in pride, and the Justices’ reasoning goes downhill from there.
*I completely understand how leftist Justices make stupid decisions. Speaking of: was there ever a less consequential Justice than Souter? Excepting, on the current Court, possibly Sotomayor? Except that the wise latina may be consequentially incompetent. Kagan may be consequentially hacktastic.
Ever hear of Kelso vs. New London in which the court in effect we own property as long as a private corporation can’t think of a better use for it.
There were editorials in 1787 that the Supreme Court had too much power. Roberts was right about one thing, it is up to the public to correct the situation by voting.
Don’t look to judges alone for wisdom. They must be properly informed.
Our constitution put the quest for wisdom into the common man and not just any common man, but Western common man raised upon Locke, Shakespeare and Blackstone, all men whose wisdom derived from a good reading of the Bible.
Judges are a brake, a guard, and not the fund of law. Our law was predicated not on intelligence but on the value of commom law based on Scripture. Support has always been valued from Roman and Greek law, but which, if examined, has so many quirks and variances, that it does not make a whole. Only the 10 commandments and by extension Torah does that.
As we continue in our descent from God’s Law, we will exhibit further more examples of quirks and variances until Law is nonsense. Only the Law of God results in the best rule, prosperity and freedom of man.
I will give Roberts this small (and I mean small) bit of credit – I think his decision was motivated not just by politics but by a genuine belief that courts should overturn laws passed by a legislature only in the rarest of instances. Furthermore, this is actually a conservative principal. However his reasoning to uphold the law was so tortured that it is clear he simply made the wrong decision here.
Big issues can never be resolved by the courts mostly because it is seen as a small group of people. And the left will always see the courts in the same way as the Communists did, another useful tool of the State rather than a constitutional protection.
The crisis of the “Blue” model is real and coming to a head. Only a real electoral change can make the hard choices required stick. A rejection of Obamacare by the court would have muddied the water and delayed judgement day.
Yes, yet another example of Galadriel’s lament:
“And together through the ages of the world we have fought the long defeat.”
– “The Mirror of Galadriel”, Lord of the Rings, Book 2 Chapter 7 by J.R.R.Tolkien
The long defeat indeed. Sometimes it’s hard to buck up .
The Roberts decision demonstrates once again nothing in this world is incorruptible. The natural state of the State has been achieved, entropy by avidity.
It should come as no surprise that in numerous disputes Federal Courts would find against the States by resorting to an increasingly emanative Commerce clause; that in Roe v Wade they would find against the States by the emanative penumbra ‘privacy’. And egregiously again, in the aforementioned Kelo decision, they would find against the individual by resorting to the natural primacy of the state, i.e., that, much like the condition of Schré¶dinger’s cat, the meanings of ‘public’ and ‘private’ could not be known until the Court had heard the case.
And now the Court and the mandate that is not a tax but may be considered a tax but will be levied as a penalty (noncompliance) so as not to be mistaken for a tax, which in fact it is, and is not.
That convocation of great men — the Founding Fathers — had forged something unique in history but history devotes more pages to the fall than the rise. Our fall will be the greatest of all. Repealing Obamacare will change nothing. There are too many fronts, we fight in retreat, we are outnumbered, and we are thick with Quislings and overrun with Chamberlains. It was a good run though.
George Pal Says:
June 30th, 2012 at 11:44 am
much like the condition of Schré¶dinger’s cat
As I saw on another site, sometimes when you open the box you get a pissed-off radioactive cat.
I think the Kelo decision was more along the lines of we own our property as long as a government can’t think of a better use for it.
As for Roberts being right about it being up to the public to correct things by voting, it’s true as a matter of desperation. But in a very real sense, it’s bunk, and I ain’t buyin’ it. It’s true that we the people now have to fight to get the thing repealed. But then there’s the point that, for example, Krauthammer summed up with, “Roberts is telling the nation: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.”
Well, no one ever asked him to make it easy for us; it wasn’t easy even to carry the fight THIS far.
This awful law has virtually never, from its first days in the legislature, had a majority of the American people supporting it. The Republicans did everything they could reasonably do to try to stop it, and the Democrats passed it without a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate.
Roberts’ decision was irresponsible. Everyone involved followed every legitimate procedure that has ever been laid out to get the case to his Court, and he wiffed. Hell, he didn’t even swing and miss. We now are saddled with a law that no majority wants and that has never been debated and passed by any legitimate legislative body–because John Roberts was pleased to re-write the law that came before him and then rule on his re-write. He’s a disgrace.
I think we can safely say John Roberts is a Progressive. 15 or 20 years ago, i couldn’t tell you what a Progressive was. It just wasn’t a description brought up in political debate. I’ll go out on a limb and predict now, that Progressivism may turn out to be the biggest story of the twenty first century And it will rival the horrible naziism of the twentieth century.
A people losing their minds in their own narcissistic cocksuredness of what they have that the world can’t do without.
Anyone who believes (believes, not thinks) DC is reined in via the commerce clause is delusional. Anyone who believes (believes, not thinks) DC will not take this new precedence to allow an unlimited ability to ‘tax’, despite the restrictions of Article 1, Section 8, is a fool. Everything in this decision must be repudiated. DC, sooner or later, must be put back inside the box of the original Constitution which means some amendments must be repealed, starting with amendments 16 & 17.
Leave a Reply
HTML tags allowed in your
comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>
Yep. A historically bad SCOTUS decision.
I remember, in college, taking some class which, unbeknownst to me, turned out to be completely about studying Supreme Court cases. I remember, when looking at some incredibly stupid decisions, wondering HOW the Justices could have reasoned their way to such a monumentally stupid decision.
I still do not understand how such stupid decisions happen to a non socialist such as Roberts* — except to go biblical, and to say the problem has its foundation in pride, and the Justices’ reasoning goes downhill from there.
*I completely understand how leftist Justices make stupid decisions. Speaking of: was there ever a less consequential Justice than Souter? Excepting, on the current Court, possibly Sotomayor? Except that the wise latina may be consequentially incompetent. Kagan may be consequentially hacktastic.
Ever hear of Kelso vs. New London in which the court in effect we own property as long as a private corporation can’t think of a better use for it.
There were editorials in 1787 that the Supreme Court had too much power. Roberts was right about one thing, it is up to the public to correct the situation by voting.
Don’t look to judges alone for wisdom. They must be properly informed.
Our constitution put the quest for wisdom into the common man and not just any common man, but Western common man raised upon Locke, Shakespeare and Blackstone, all men whose wisdom derived from a good reading of the Bible.
Judges are a brake, a guard, and not the fund of law. Our law was predicated not on intelligence but on the value of commom law based on Scripture. Support has always been valued from Roman and Greek law, but which, if examined, has so many quirks and variances, that it does not make a whole. Only the 10 commandments and by extension Torah does that.
As we continue in our descent from God’s Law, we will exhibit further more examples of quirks and variances until Law is nonsense. Only the Law of God results in the best rule, prosperity and freedom of man.
I will give Roberts this small (and I mean small) bit of credit – I think his decision was motivated not just by politics but by a genuine belief that courts should overturn laws passed by a legislature only in the rarest of instances. Furthermore, this is actually a conservative principal. However his reasoning to uphold the law was so tortured that it is clear he simply made the wrong decision here.
Big issues can never be resolved by the courts mostly because it is seen as a small group of people. And the left will always see the courts in the same way as the Communists did, another useful tool of the State rather than a constitutional protection.
The crisis of the “Blue” model is real and coming to a head. Only a real electoral change can make the hard choices required stick. A rejection of Obamacare by the court would have muddied the water and delayed judgement day.
Yes, yet another example of Galadriel’s lament:
“And together through the ages of the world we have fought the long defeat.”
– “The Mirror of Galadriel”, Lord of the Rings, Book 2 Chapter 7 by J.R.R.Tolkien
The long defeat indeed. Sometimes it’s hard to buck up .
The Roberts decision demonstrates once again nothing in this world is incorruptible. The natural state of the State has been achieved, entropy by avidity.
It should come as no surprise that in numerous disputes Federal Courts would find against the States by resorting to an increasingly emanative Commerce clause; that in Roe v Wade they would find against the States by the emanative penumbra ‘privacy’. And egregiously again, in the aforementioned Kelo decision, they would find against the individual by resorting to the natural primacy of the state, i.e., that, much like the condition of Schré¶dinger’s cat, the meanings of ‘public’ and ‘private’ could not be known until the Court had heard the case.
And now the Court and the mandate that is not a tax but may be considered a tax but will be levied as a penalty (noncompliance) so as not to be mistaken for a tax, which in fact it is, and is not.
That convocation of great men — the Founding Fathers — had forged something unique in history but history devotes more pages to the fall than the rise. Our fall will be the greatest of all. Repealing Obamacare will change nothing. There are too many fronts, we fight in retreat, we are outnumbered, and we are thick with Quislings and overrun with Chamberlains. It was a good run though.
George Pal Says:
June 30th, 2012 at 11:44 am
As I saw on another site, sometimes when you open the box you get a pissed-off radioactive cat.
I think the Kelo decision was more along the lines of we own our property as long as a government can’t think of a better use for it.
As for Roberts being right about it being up to the public to correct things by voting, it’s true as a matter of desperation. But in a very real sense, it’s bunk, and I ain’t buyin’ it. It’s true that we the people now have to fight to get the thing repealed. But then there’s the point that, for example, Krauthammer summed up with, “Roberts is telling the nation: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.”
Well, no one ever asked him to make it easy for us; it wasn’t easy even to carry the fight THIS far.
This awful law has virtually never, from its first days in the legislature, had a majority of the American people supporting it. The Republicans did everything they could reasonably do to try to stop it, and the Democrats passed it without a single Republican vote in either the House or the Senate.
Roberts’ decision was irresponsible. Everyone involved followed every legitimate procedure that has ever been laid out to get the case to his Court, and he wiffed. Hell, he didn’t even swing and miss. We now are saddled with a law that no majority wants and that has never been debated and passed by any legitimate legislative body–because John Roberts was pleased to re-write the law that came before him and then rule on his re-write. He’s a disgrace.
I think we can safely say John Roberts is a Progressive. 15 or 20 years ago, i couldn’t tell you what a Progressive was. It just wasn’t a description brought up in political debate. I’ll go out on a limb and predict now, that Progressivism may turn out to be the biggest story of the twenty first century And it will rival the horrible naziism of the twentieth century.
A people losing their minds in their own narcissistic cocksuredness of what they have that the world can’t do without.
Anyone who believes (believes, not thinks) DC is reined in via the commerce clause is delusional. Anyone who believes (believes, not thinks) DC will not take this new precedence to allow an unlimited ability to ‘tax’, despite the restrictions of Article 1, Section 8, is a fool. Everything in this decision must be repudiated. DC, sooner or later, must be put back inside the box of the original Constitution which means some amendments must be repealed, starting with amendments 16 & 17.