John and Jane Roberts and D.C. Cocktail Parties – I told you so!

The Watcher of Weasels Council has a new feature posted every Monday morning. A few of the Council members and a few blogger friends of the Council are asked a question related to current news. This week was my first time to be included. The question:

John and Jane Roberts

What is your reaction to the Supreme Court Ruling on ObamaCare?

My  bottom line was that perhaps Justice Roberts yearned to be the cool guy at D.C. cocktail parties. The photo makes my point. Didn’t I nail it? Aren’t they a gorgeous couple, Mr. and Mrs. Chief Justice John Roberts. Never again will they have reason to expect dirty looks as they mingle at a tony Georgetown residence. Now they can co-mingle comfortably, be the stars of every Liberal event (unless Sarah Jessica Parker, Oprah or George Clooney are there – no one is cooler than that trio), toast with Moët et Chandon Dom Perignon or Veuve Clicquot La Dame and not have to pay for it.

The future is rosy for John Roberts and his Catholic, attorney wife Jane. After all, the Catholic vote was a major event in Obama’s ascendancy. The government will pay for abortions and birth control, and only Cardinal Timothy Dolan will bare his teeth should they cross paths…maybe.

Council Member JoshuaPundit gave some interesting past history in his answer. Here’s a snippet:

There’s actually an historical precedent here. Chef Justice Charles Evans Hughes did pretty much the same thing after the 1936 elections, when FDR threatened legislation to pack the Court with 6 more FDR-appointed justices after the Court knocked down some of the more questionable New Deal programs. Hughes and Justice Owen J. Roberts panicked and switched positions, upholding most of the rest of Roosevelt’s agenda and ushered in the beginning of America as Welfare State.

Read it at Watcher of Weasels Council and visit JoshuaPundit here.

My answer to the question was:

I agree with the dissenting Judges Thomas, Kennedy, Scalia and Alito that the opinion that ObamaCare can be read as a tax is “verbal wizardry.” From the dissent, I learned that if the legislation had been written as a tax, which we know it was not, it would have been found in Title IX, rather than Title 1 of the Act where the mandate was located. We know that had Congress voted on a tax, many Democrats would have voted ‘nay.’ We know, and the dissenting Judges write, that without certain “quid pro quos,” (like the Cornhusker Kickback and other backroom deals) it would not have passed.

I can see no constitutional principle upheld in the Court’s decision to view something a tax that is clearly not. There was a time in our history when taxes were a privilege, a support of our country that we gladly paid for the liberties this Nation provided. That idea has been out-dated for a very long time now, as politicians have picked our wallets clean. Now our taxes are penalties, and our penalties are taxes.

I have not been convinced of any of the explanations for why Roberts opined as he did, and so I have no opinion, but my best guess is political pressure. If that is true, it’s a very sad day for America when the highest court in the land, and the Chief Justice, can be bought for the price of popularity at D.C. cocktail parties.

Read the ‘opinings’ of the following bloggers at Watcher of Weasels Council, and visit their blogs here: Robert Avrech from Seraphic Secret, Terresa Monroe at Noisy Room, The Razor, Rhymes with Right and Bookworm Room.

Doug Ross has a concise look at how and why Roberts did what he did. Take a look at the options: Vanity, More Nefarious Threats or Promises. What’s your pick?

Linked at BadBluethe baddest news on the planet! Thank you!

Linked at Grumpy Opinions – thank you!

2 Pingbacks/Trackbacks

  • Pingback: Maggie’s Notebook | Grumpy Opinions()

  • I might be wrong, but if a strong enough GOP is put into place– and a couple whining RINO’s STFU the Justice might find he likes the idea of retiring.. After this it won’t take much to convince people his seizure medications are affecting his judgement

    Publius Huldah sent me a paper she wrote about the decision- she wants all “five lawless judges’ impeached. She didn’t say it, it wouldn’t be ladylike but I’m not sure she’d object watching them hung

  • Pingback: Nice Deb()

  • Ed Wallis

    WELL SAID! This ruling is nothing short of “The John Roberts ENABLING ACT of (strike 1933) 2012”.

    • Ed, good comment. Thanks for stopping by.