- Special Sections
- TV Listings
I'll say one thing for the Supreme Court: wait, hold that thought, after their decision on Obamacare, I'm not in the mood to say anything for the Supreme Court. Last week's decision was bad. After finding out that Justice Roberts sided with the leftist wing of the court and threw us and the American economy to the wolves, I have one burning question. Is it too late to take another look at Harriet Miers?
For those of you who don't remember, Harriet Miers was the woman George W. Bush suggested for nomination to the Supreme Court before Roberts. Apparently she had been hanging around the White House a bit too much (kind of like Biden I guess) and George Bush needed to find something for her to do. Anyway, the way that went was conservatives raised a real fuss about nominating her because she appeared to be unqualified. Boy, good thing for us she didn't get that seat on the Supreme Court, she might have voted to uphold some really out there unconstitutional law, such as Obamacare. We sure dodged a bullet on that one, good thing for us Roberts was nominated instead.
Okay, I'm willing to admit that the result of this may be a period of hyper-activity by conservatives and tea party activists. I will also say I believe such activity would probably be just what the doctor ordered for our country. So if that's the case, and Obamacare has at last been properly named a tax, and not only that, but in such a way as no person with a room temperatur...., actually, I don't see how any sentient human could have missed this one. I mean of course other than people such as Chris Matthews and David Letterman, but I did say sentient. Anyway, back to what I was saying, Obamacare has once and for all been labeled as a tax for all to see. While this is headline news, in reality, pretty much everybody on the right already understood the financial mechanics of Obamacare.
When you see people being interviewed on the nightly news who state something about enjoying the benefits of "free" medical care, or free insurance, trust me, those people aren't conservatives. Conservatives understand that nothing is free and everything has to be paid for by somebody. I think a lot of the people on the left also understand this, but since they are perfectly okay with somebody else paying for what they want, they won't admit it.
Even if the recent Supreme Court ruling does result in a conservative backlash ending in a complete rollback of the liberal agenda (I hope), I'm still not sure it's worth it.
We often label the United States Supreme Court as the court of last resort. The way our legal system and government is set up is that nearly any dealings citizens have with the law or government are at least subject to over watch by some higher entity, which has the right and/or duty of review. At the end, or top, of this lengthy process of review is the United States Supreme Court. The duty of this court is to deliver evenhanded decisions based solely on The United States Constitution. While this is an unwieldy way to do things, it is meant to keep the system honest and evenhanded. As somebody who has spent time in places where this "right of review" doesn't exist, I happen to think it is one of the most important facets of our government. Unlike a lot of things our government does, keeping close watch on decisions concerning interaction of government and citizens is very important. One of the reasons the EPA has grown into such an out-of-control, runaway institution and is so feared, is because of the limited (nearly non-existent) oversight from elected officials or judges the EPA receives.
I've read and heard plenty of opinions in the last few days which laud John Robert's decision as some kind of deep thinking, over the horizon looking, salvation of the American System. I even read one opinion where the writer basically said that we (I assume everybody but the writer and John Roberts) don't understand the decision because Roberts is playing chess while we are all still playing checkers. If I understand the people who are opining along these lines, the Supreme Court decision was actually good for our republic because Roberts has a very accurate crystal ball and he knows exactly how everything is going to work out, thus his ruling is the perfect catalyst at the perfect time to "fix" our problems. If only the rest of us were as smart as he is, we would understand he's really helping us and doing the right thing.
While I personally disagree with this line of thought intensely, I know one person who should be doing a dance around his office saluting the affirmation of his way of thinking. That person is Michael Bloomberg, the elected mayor, and self appointed diet czar of New York City. Like Justice Roberts, Mr. Bloomberg seems to think he knows what's best for citizens and clearly wants to take his city (personal kingdom) down the path of what he thinks is best, despite what the people in his city (subjects) think about it.
Forthose of you who think what Roberts ruled and Bloomberg wants are two totally unrelated issues, we come to my next point. The Supreme Court pretty much just told the legislative branch that they can tax anything. With this kind of precedent, Bloomberg no longer has to try to ban "sugary" (whatever that is) drinks over sixteen ounces. Now he can just fin...., sorry, I mean tax any establishment or individual who serves or imbibes in more soda than he thinks is good for them. Just wait until Michelle Obama figures all of this out. You think there were food police looking over the shoulder of our school age children when they ate lunch before, now not only are those food police going to work for the IRS, you are going to pay for them with your fines. Notes from school will stop being about PTA and homework, now they will be fines levied under the power of Roberts "deep thinking" ruling. That's okay though, you will be so mad about the "tax" the government (for your own good by the way) just hit you with for being a little overweight and/or driving an SUV, you'll barely notice what's going on at your child's school.
I personally have no idea why Roberts ruled the way he did, but it may well be he actually thinks of himself as a conservative and plans for his affirmation of Obamacare to be just the thing to turn the country around. However; if that is what he's thinking, that's a leftist point of view. That train of thought, meaning he considers he knows what's best for us and he's going to do it no matter what the actual law is, is exactly how socialists, and communists think, it's not how conservatives operate.
One more thing, and this is probably the worst part, this ruling didn't just tell the legislative and executive branch they can force citizens to buy anything they want, or financially dictate personal behavior in any way they want, as long as they label it a tax. It also put the legal precedent for that kind of legislation in the law books. Whether or not you can be forced to purchase things against your will, or financially coerced to behave in ways detestable to you, by a "tax" is now settled law. The greatest legal system on the face of the earth was just used against you instead of for you, can you hear the clink of the shackles yet?
I don't know it it's fitting, or merely ironic that this column will be published on the Fourth of July.
Bruce Kreitler is the author of Obamageddon (the Culmination of the Progressive Looting of America) and posts this and other articles at BruceKreitler.com.