Judicial Betrayal

Betrayal is hard to take, whether in our personal lives or in the political life of the nation. Yet there are people in Washington -- too often, Republicans -- who startliving in the Beltway atmosphere, and start forgetting those hundreds of millions of Americans beyond the Beltway who trusted them to do right by them, to use their wisdom instead of their cleverness.

President Bush 41 epitomized these betrayals when he broke his "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge. He paid the price when he quickly went from high approval ratings as president to someone defeated for reelection by a little known governor from Arkansas.

Chief Justice John Roberts need fear no such fate because he has lifetime tenure on the Supreme Court. But conscience can be a more implacable and inescapable punisher -- and should be.

The Chief Justice probably made as good a case as could be made for upholding the constitutionality of ObamaCare by defining one of its key features as a "tax."

The legislation didn't call it a tax and Chief Justice Roberts admitted that this might not be the most "natural" reading of the law. But he fell back on the long-standing principle of judicial interpretation that the courts should not declare a law unconstitutional if it can be reasonably read in a way that would make it constitutional, out of "deference" to the legislative branch of government.

But this question, like so many questions in life, is a matter of degree. How far do you bend over backwards to avoid the obvious, that ObamaCare was an unprecedented extension of federal power over the lives of 300 million Americans today and of generations yet unborn?

These are the people that Chief Justice Roberts betrayed when he declared constitutional something that is nowhere authorized in the Constitution of the United States.

John Roberts is no doubt a brainy man, and that seems to carry a lot of weight among the intelligentsia -- despite glaring lessons from history, showing very brainy men creating everything from absurdities to catastrophes. Few of the great tragedies of history were created by the village idiot, and many by the village genius.

One of the Chief Justice's admirers said that when others are playing checkers, he is playing chess. How much consolation that will be as a footnote to the story of the decline of individual freedom in America, and the wrecking of the best medical care in the world, is another story.

There are many speculations as to why Chief Justice Roberts did what he did, some attributing noble and far-sighted reasons, and others attributing petty and short-sighted reasons, including personal vanity. But all of that is ultimately irrelevant.

What he did was betray his oath to be faithful to the Constitution of the United States.

Who he betrayed were the hundreds of millions of Americans -- past, present and future -- whole generations in the past who have fought and died for a freedom that he has put in jeopardy, in a moment of intellectual inspiration and moral forgetfulness, 300 million Americans today whose lives are to be regimented by Washington bureaucrats, and generations yet unborn who may never know the individual freedoms that their ancestors took for granted.

Some claim that Chief Justice Roberts did what he did to save the Supreme Court as an institution from the wrath -- and retaliation -- of those in Congress who have been railing against Justices who invalidate the laws they have passed. Many in the media and in academia have joined the shrill chorus of those who claim that the Supreme Court does not show proper "deference" to the legislative branch of government.

But what does the Bill of Rights seek to protect the ordinary citizen from? The government! To defer to those who expand government power beyond its constitutional limits is to betray those whose freedom depends on the Bill of Rights.

Similar reasoning was used back in the 1970s to justify the Federal Reserve's inflationary policies. Otherwise, it was said, Congress would destroy the Fed's independence, as it can also change the courts' jurisdiction. But is it better for an institution to undermine its own independence, and freedom along with it, while forfeiting the trust of the people in the process?

You need to be a member of The Patriots For America to add comments!

Join The Patriots For America

Email me when people reply –

Replies

  • The SCOTUS has failed the people of America, and has been doing so for years.  The decline in America of responsibility, morals, and belief in the supernatural power of GOD is directly related to decisions by the Supreme Court since 1963; they have legalized abortion, removed prayer and the Ten Comandments from schools, encouraged anarchy in family and relationship structures and discipline, all under the guise of freedom, for a few examples.  There is no such thing as real freedom without responsibility, discipline, moral courage and integrity.  This latest ruling by the Chief Justice is just one more step in the decline of the standards that were the foundation for Freedom in our great country.  Examine each Supreme Court decision during the last 50 years closely and you will see how they have lead us down the road to moral decay that will eventually destroy our society if not corrected soon.

    • Well said Lowell..........and on the mark.

    • Absolutely Lowell. Well said. I'm afraid we have so many turncoats in our government we cannot figure out who to trust. When that happens we have no choice but to clean house. November seems a good month to start. 

  •     Agree Tom  Sowell and Ron Paul have it correct ..

     

  • We all agree this is a betrayl and unconstitutional. So how do we impeach these judges and politicians who are ignoring the Constitution and fundamentally and radically changing our form of government into a socialist dictatorship?

  • Thanks.

  • This whole thing is about the Feds wanting to 'Pass the Buck'! They created this thing and now they are passing it off to be force ably funded by us citizens and the 'States': States and cities that are going 'Bankrupt' because of this as I write. To put the cap on it, our Supreme Court, our 'Protectors', have thrown us to the 'Wolves', saying we citizens need to do a better job electing representatives. We really are running out of 'Peaceful Options here  and that scares the hell out of me! If a violent 'Uprising' or 'Revolution' actually breaks out, this country will collapse and be devoured, never to rise again!

  • It's up to us to reverse the tidal wave of socialism that is generally supported by the Congress and SCOTUS.  There is help at this url  http://fightfiercely.com/uploads/-_FF_Voter_registration_drive.pdf

    全民斗牛_全民斗牛手机版
    全民斗牛【官方唯一认证网址:CP551.COM】全球信誉最佳投注平台,注册充值就送8-8888元,专属美女客服一对一在线服务,各种高品质游戏,充值快提款快!致力提供最舒适的体验,巨额奖金等你领取...
  • " we the people" must vote OUT ALL democrats, especially the dam black caucus.

    they are absolutely turncoats.

    they took an oath to uphold the constitution of the USA and have at every corner

    voted socialism,communist,marksism. they now call themselves "progressives?

    this makes them traitors to the constitution!!

    vote conservative. we must win the senate,house and the presidency.

    if this nation is to continue as the UNITED STATES of AMERICA!!!!

    "I'll take the MORMON over the MORON!!!

    old sarge,'nam vet,'68,'70

    lrrp/abn

  • I came across this very compelling argument FOR the Chief Justice: It's from the website - Vision to America (July 3rd) * Did Roberts make Conservatives a Trojan Horse? - and the whole text can be read on - IJReview - website (www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-ri...).

    Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. . . .

    Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. . . . Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

    Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. . . . If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. . . .

    Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. . . .

This reply was deleted.