Folks... Charles Krauthammer is a bright guy. No doubt about it!
Furthermore... when he's right, he's right!
The thing is... strip away the rhetoric and Krauthammer is... if not a RINO... an Establishment Republican "pragmatist" willing to employ his God-given gifts to the ill-pursuit of providing cover for GOP degeneracy.
As a case in point allow me to "Barkerize" Krauthammer's latest bit of propaganda on behalf of the GOP Establishment:
* * * * * *
It's the judiciary's Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John
Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the
constitutionality of ObamaCare.
No, my friends... not "the liberal wing" of the
Supreme Court... but rather the anti-Constitutionists - those who spit upon the
Constitution and the Rule of Law whenever it suits them for whatever ideological
or personal gain is at stake.
My friends... one cannot "uphold" the
constitutionality of something which is blatantly unconstitutional.
Just as a "show trail" with a pre-determined
outcome is not an actual "trial" in the sense of justice, neither is
deliberately ruling something constitutional which is clearly unconstitutional
an example of upholding the Rule of Law. Indeed, Justice Roberts and his fellow
anti-constitutionist have knowingly and deliberately made a mockery of our
Constitution and of the very Rule of Law they are sworn to uphold.
How?
By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of
all time.
"Finesses."
I'll be honest... when I read that line I fantasized
about how satisfying it would be to put a bullet into the head of Charles
Krauthammer.
How disgusting. How evil. To portray Roberts' betrayal of
our Constitution (and thus of the American People) a "finess" - as
in, "The assassin planned the murder with such finesse!"
No, Mr. Krauthammer... there is nothing to admire in
Roberts betrayal of the nation.
He managed to uphold the central conservative argument
against ObamaCare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge
to uphold the law...
Bull. There was no "dodge." There was only
betrayal. Betrayal of the Constitution... betrayal of the Rule of Law...
betrayal of "We The People."
Damn John Roberts to hell and when you read or listen to
Krauthammer in the future never forget these intellectual gymnastics he's
willing to employ in order to avoid the necessity of facing reality when the
reality reflect shame against the Republican Establishment - against the likes
of George W. Bush who appointed Roberts Chief Justice.
...and thus prevented the court from being seen as having
overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this
administration.
What a sad, sick, distorted way of looking at things
through a political lens where partisan gain trumps Truth and Integrity each
and every time.
Had Roberts ruled WITH the Constitution as opposed to
AGAINST the Constitution then this would have been the perfect springboard to
return the High Court to its proper role as a PROTECTOR rather than manipulator
of the Liberties given us by our Founders via our Constitution!
Why did he do it?
Because he could. Because he made the judgement that
doing so would serve his "legacy."
Because he carries two identities. Jurisprudentially, he
is a constitutional conservative.
Er... clearly NOT!
Institutionally, he is chief justice and sees himself as
uniquely entrusted with the custodianship of the court’s legitimacy, reputation
and stature.
Which he has further tarnished!
Again... fellow Americans... there is no honor in
dishonoring one's oath of office! There is no honor in trampling the Constitutional
Liberties of the American People given us by our Constitution!
As a conservative, he is as appalled as his conservative
colleagues by the administration's central argument that ObamaCare's individual
mandate is a proper exercise of its authority to regulate commerce.
Or... he's not... and he simply attempted to "finesse"
his betrayal of the Constitution by muddying the waters.
That makes congressional power effectively unlimited.
Roberts betrayal makes congressional power effectively
unlimited!
Mr. Jones is not a purchaser of health insurance. Mr.
Jones has therefore manifestly not entered into any commerce. Yet Congress
tells him he must buy health insurance — on the grounds that it is regulating
commerce. If government can do that under the Commerce Clause, what can it not
do?
"The Framers ... gave Congress the power to regulate
commerce, not to compel it," writes Roberts. Otherwise you "undermine
the principle that the Federal Government is a government of limited and
enumerated powers."
That's Roberts, philosophical conservative.
Does Krauthammer actually believe this tripe? Frankly I
find it hard to swallow. Sadly, I can no more view Krauthammer as a man of
honesty and integrity than I can Roberts.
Folks... later on I'll be posting the dissents. Until
then, though, you can take my word that there's simply no excuse for Roberts
actions... no matter how hard Krauthammer tries to take your eye off the ball
with these nonsensical arguments of his.
But he lives in uneasy coexistence with Roberts,
custodian of the court, acutely aware that the judiciary's arrogation of power
has eroded the esteem in which it was once held.
WHAT ROBERTS DID WAS TO ADD ANOTHER CHAPTER - PERHAPS THE
MOST HARMFUL ONE YET - TO THE ANTI-CONSTITUTIONIST JUSTICES ARROGATION OF POWER
IN DIRECT CIRCUMVENTION OF THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES!
Most of this arrogation occurred under the liberal Warren
and Burger courts, most egregiously with Roe v. Wade, which willfully struck
down the duly passed abortion laws of 46 states. The result has been four
decades of popular protest and resistance to an act of judicial arrogance that,
as Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg once said, "deferred stable settlement of
the issue" by the normal electoral/legislative process.
My friends... again... it's not "liberal vs.
conservative." It's Constitutionist vs. anti-Constitutionist. Ideology
should play no role in Supreme Court rulings. The only question the Supreme
Court has the responsibility to fulfill is to PROTECT the Constitution and its
Amendments as written and intended by the writers and enactors to be read! This
ruling BETRAYS this responsibility! It doesn't uphold the Court's reputation -
it further blackens it!
More recently, however, few decisions have occasioned
more bitterness and rancor than Bush v. Gore, a 5-4 decision split along
ideological lines. It was seen by many (principally, of course, on the left) as
a political act disguised as jurisprudence and designed to alter the course of
the single most consequential political act of a democracy — the election of a
president.
Bush vs. Gore was the right decision. Not because it put
Bush into office, but because it upheld the Constitution!
Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it
did affect the reputation of the court.
Because far too many conservatives refuse to fight for
the Constitution! Because far too many conservatives refuse to explain the
constitution and make the case for the Rule of Law according to the
Constitution!
Folks... Krauthammer stands as an example of my point! To
him it's all about politics! Note: So far he hasn't once joined with me in
stating the obvious - that Chief Justice Roberts betrayed his oath of office by
knowingly and deliberately refusing to strike down clearly unconstitutional
legislation (ObamaCare) in defense of the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and "We
The People."
My friends... sad to say, it is the Krauthammers of
"conservative" punditry who are to blame for ongoing decline of the
American Republic almost to the same extend as we can blame the Left. Indeed,
the faux "Right" - such as Krauthammer - deserve more of our scorn
simply because they KNOW better yet refuse to do what's right! The Left on the
other hand... at least they have the self-respect to openly acknowledge that
they don't believe the Constitution as written deserves allegiance!
Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with
ObamaCare.
I have no idea what Krauthammer is babbling about here.
Hence his straining in his ObamaCare ruling to avoid a
similar result - a 5-4 decision split along ideological lines that might be
perceived as partisan and political.
Again... I'm fantasizing about beating Krauthammer to
death... this time with a two-by-four...
Folks... this is nonsense! Even if Roberts knowingly and
deliberately upheld a clearly unconstitutional law out of the "best of
motives" the fact remains... he betrayed his oath! His job is to rule
ACCORDING to the Constitution - not in spite of it... not even with "the
best of intentions."
Krauthammer is an enabler - nothing more. Krauthammer
should be ashamed of himself, but clearly he's not. Krauthammer long ago made
his decision as to where HIS loyalty lay... and unfortunately... it
"lies" with the GOP and not with "We The People."
National health care has been a liberal dream for a
hundred years. It is clearly the most significant piece of social legislation
in decades. Roberts' concern was that the court do everything it could to avoid
being seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping
legislation passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.
The JOB of the Supreme Court is to ensure that
"sweeping legislation" that DOESN'T pass Constitutional muster is
stricken! Instead, Roberts and his anti-Constitutionist colleagues have
enshrined clearly unconstitutional legislation into law!
How to reconcile the two imperatives — one philosophical
and the other institutional? Assign yourself the task of writing the majority
opinion. Find the ultimate finesse that manages to uphold the law, but only on
the most narrow of grounds — interpreting the individual mandate as merely a
tax, something generally within the power of Congress.
No. (And Krauthammer KNOWS better!) Krauthammer's
scenario would have made sense had Kennedy been on the anti-Constitutionist
side on this one, but... KENNEDY WASN'T! Kennedy was on the side of the
Constitution on this one! Kennedy would have been in the majority CORRECTLY
ruling ObamaCare in its entirety unconstitutional! It was Roberts who betrayed
the Constitution! Indeed, as will be shown when I post the dissents, Roberts
PROACTIVELY sought to betray his oath and stab his Constitutionist colleagues
and the American People in the back!
Result? The law stands, thus obviating any charge that a
partisan court overturned duly passed legislation.
Thus... WHAT...?!?!
Thus SHREDDING THE CONSTITUTION and
SHREDDING THE RULE OF LAW is the accurate takeaway!
And yet at the same time the Commerce Clause is reined
in.
Folks... you're gonna be hearing and reading a bunch of self-serving
GOP spin - propaganda - echoing Krauthammer's fairytale. Don't buy it. Don't be
fooled. Even taking Krauthammer's scenario at face value... what's to stop the
next Supreme Court decision from once again expanding supposed "Commerce
Clause" powers? The answer? Nothing! BUT IN THE MEANTIME... the Roberts
decision expands taxing power beyond any reasonable Constitutional scope!
Folks... to borrow an old Vietnam War "joke"...
Roberts burned down the village (our Constitution in this case) in order to
"save" it.
Folks... Roberts has betrayed us... pure and simple...
end of story. Krauthammer is allied (bought and paid for) by the Establishment
"conservative" media. His loyalty is to the GOP and his own career
advancement - not to you... not to me... not to the Constitution... and not to
the country.
By denying that it could justify the imposition of an
individual mandate, Roberts draws the line against the inexorable decades-old
expansion of congressional power under the Commerce Clause fig leaf.
Folks... ObamaCare was upheld. Upheld by John Roberts
conspiring with Ruth Bader Ginsburg... with Stephen G. Breyer... with Sonia
Sotomayor... and with Elena Kagan (who probably should have recused herself).
Try as he might to paint a happy face on this, Krauthammer is simply making a
ridiculous case. ObamaCare was upheld.
Law upheld, Supreme Court's reputation for neutrality
maintained.
This is what I mean, folks... Krauthammer just doesn't
get it! The Supreme Court's ROLE is not to be "neutral" in the sense
that half the time they uphold the Constitution and the other half of the time they
don't...
The Supreme Court's JOB is not to "let" the
Left win half the cases and the Right win the other half!
The Supreme Court's JOB is to protect the Liberties of
the American People by upholding the Constitution EACH and EVERY time a case
comes before it!
My God... what has become of our country? I shouldn't
have to be telling people this! Americans should KNOW this! Americans should
DEMAND this!
Commerce Clause contained, constitutional principle of
enumerated powers reaffirmed.
Not hardly.
That's not how I would have ruled.
(*SNORT*)
Ya gotta give ol' Charley credit for at least HAVING...
NO... SHAME...!
My God, folks... can you believe after all he's written
that NOW he's gonna try and weasel out of it? AMAZING...!
I think the "mandate is merely a tax" argument
is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that.
By "dodge" he clearly means
"unconstitutional." Yet he doesn't have the courage to say that. What
a disgusting human being. What a reprehensible excuse for a human being...
(The "tax" is obviously punitive, regulatory
and intended to compel.)
Umm... YEAH! Not to mention that both President Obama and
the Leaders of the Congress that passed ObamaCare (arguably "passed"
it illegally... the "deeming" and all that; but that's another
posting for another day) under the clear, publicly recorded
"intention" that it was NOT a tax! Indeed... if memory serves the
word "tax" isn't even in the actual legislation!
Perhaps that’s not how Roberts would have ruled had he
been just an associate justice, and not the chief. But that's how he did rule.
Frankly I have no idea what Krauthammer's point is here.
Is he saying that it's excusable for a Chief Justice to spit on the
Constitution - knowingly and deliberately refusing to strike down clearly
unconstitutional legislation - but that as an associate justice one must...
er... should... er... actually abide by one's oath of office?
Seriously, folks... is this ass Krauthammer actually laying
out the groundwork to criticize Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg for
their votes while "excusing" Roberts his...??? (So it would seem!)
(Unfriggin'believable!)
ObamaCare is now essentially upheld.
And the Constitution, the Rule of Law, and American
Liberties are essentially trashed.
There's only one way it can be overturned. The same way
it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress.
ONE... MORE... TIME...
(*PAUSE*) (*GRITTING MY TEETH*)
It is the JOB of the Supreme Court to UPHOLD the
Constitution and to rule any legislation that violates the Constitution null
and void. In this case... as in so many others... the anti-Constitutionists -
led by John Roberts - did just the opposite.
That's undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not
mine. I won't make it easy for you.
And regardless of what Roberts "is saying" he's
WRONG! He's a traitor. He's betrayed his oath and betrayed our nation.
No comments:
Post a Comment