Thursday, June 28, 2012

SCOTUS Hands Victory to National Socialism

Is there anything more to be said?


Beefy Levinson said...

Next up: a tax on not providing contraceptives to your teenage children, a tax on not sending them to public schools, a tax on not procuring an abortion if you "can't take care of" your unborn child...

Anonymous said...

This means that the Supreme Court is indistinguishible for Hitler's puppets. Will you be calling for a July Plot?

Ralph Roister-Doister said...

Well, yes and no.

I am sympathetic to Roberts' point that it is not up to the SC to pass judgment on the wisdom of bills such as this one -- only the legality. All Roberts is doing is reminding people that courts were never meant to be instruments of political will. That is what strict constructionism is, after all, and strict constructionism is supposed to be what conservatives favor in their judges. He is forcing them to go back to the woodshed and do it legally -- then see if it still can be made to fly.

This is the people's mess. They elected Black Jesus president. They gave him a congressful of apostles in 2008. You look at polls regarding Obamacare, and all the "gimme" provisions are tremendously popular, while only the "take" provisions give anyone pause. Everybody whines about the venality of our politicians, when it is the venality of the people who elected them that ought to be examined at greater length.

The problem is what it has always been: the seven deadly sins.

Pertinacious Papist said...


I appreciate this interpretation of what Justice Roberts did, which is how he himself appears to explain it. Yet I am jaded enough by both his record of recent judgments and the Realpolitik afoot in Washington that I can't avoid the suspicion that even his rationale is simply another instance of instrumentality of political will.

Was he, as Krauthammer has suggested, simply attempting to maintain the respectability of the Court as an institution by avoiding the appearance of partisanship? Had he succumbed to temptations of personal reputation and advancement and grandstanding?

The laws can be twisted into pretzels with sufficient motivation.

Then again, you could be right.

Either way, prospects are pretty dim.

JFM said...

Let's see: advanced medical technology that vastly eliminates suffering, costly though, and the mindset that no one should have to suffer. The result: the idea that somehow we have to make extensive health care accessible for everyone... oh, and laptops... and, oh, advanced degrees... and oh, contraception....

We have educated a generation that people need and deserve things they in no way can afford on their own, and then we are shocked we shift gears and think the government should provide it?

WHy are people surprised?

Likewise, we excuse Bohemian sexual ethic in our heterosexual kids, and then are dismayed at easy divorce and the idea of gay marriage? Obama is simply the perfect and African-American expression of all the ideals public education has extolled at taxpayers expense and lenience for years now.

Pertinacious Papist said...

An Argentinian friend who spends a great deal of time in Europe made this observation: socialism in Europe has a very different cultural context than socialism in the United States. Europeans typically live in a cultural context of social restraint, social conscience, and a sense of commitment to the greater good that prevents abuse of the social welfare system. Americans, by contrast, have permitted the emergence of an entitlement mentality that has promoted precisely the abuse of the system that leads to its self-destruction. For a large part of the population, there is NO social conscience, and no sense of obligation toward the greater good, and abuse of the system runs rampant.

I am not Spartacus said...

I think the wrong approach is to blame the weak when the powerful take decisions that corrupt basic morality.

I do not think I have ever had a real choice when it came to voting for which POTUS Candidate would end-up being the errand boy of the establishment.

To me, it is impossible to imagine a situation where the establishment would let stand for election a man who could potentially dissolve their power.

This November, join with me and stay home and drink some cabernet and listen to Vivaldi

Anonymous said...


I agree with most of what you say, but who would the "weak" be here?