Conservative Arguments Against ObamaCare 'Misguided, If Not Frivolous,' Suggests NYT's Court Reporter
New York Times legal reporter Adam Liptak used his Friday lead (five other reporters contributed research) on Obama-care being upheld at the Supreme Court to take another crack at the argument by conservatives and libertarians, the so-called broccoli argument "as misguided, if not frivolous."
Conservatives took comfort from two parts of the decision: the new limits it placed on federal regulation of commerce and on the conditions the federal government may impose on money it gives the states.
Five justices accepted the argument that had been at the heart of the challenges brought by 26 states and other plaintiffs: that the federal government is not permitted to force individuals not engaged in commercial activities to buy services they do not want. That was a stunning victory for a theory pressed by a small band of conservative and libertarian lawyers. Most members of the legal academy view the theory as misguided, if not frivolous.
Lester Jackson had previously noted a front-page attempt by the Times' s economics writer James Stewart "to belittle the broccoli example as a far-fetched 'notion' of right-wing extremists" at The American Thinker.
In February Liptak notoriously argued that the U.S. Constitution was old and busted for failing to provide such 'rights' as free health care, writing "The United States Constitution is terse and old, and it guarantees relatively few rights."
While conservatives feel betrayed by Roberts, Liptak's "news analysis," also on Friday'sfront page, praised "Roberts’s Delicate Twist."
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has a favorite quotation from one of the giants who preceded him on the Supreme Court. Assessing the constitutionality of a law passed by Congress, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once wrote, “is the gravest and most delicate duty that this court is called on to perform.”
In finding a way to uphold President Obama’s health care overhaul law on Thursday, Chief Justice Roberts performed the task with exquisite delicacy. That he did was a surprise from a judge whose rulings and background, including legal work in the administrations of President Ronald Reagan and the first President George Bush, suggested a conventionally conservative worldview.
....
But the chief justice’s defining and delicate role in upholding the health care law will always be associated with his tenure.
On the one hand, he said, the law’s requirement that most Americans obtain health insurance or pay a penalty could be justified under Congress’s power to levy taxes. The four liberals agreed, though they would have preferred to sustain the law as a regulation of commerce.
But the law could not be justified in that way, the chief justice went on, and here he was joined by the court’s four more conservative members.
- Clay Waters's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
"Five justices accepted the
Submitted by redfish on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:20pm.
"Five justices accepted the argument ... that the federal government is not permitted to force individuals not engaged in commercial activities to buy services they do not want.
Not five justices, all 9 justices accepted that argument.
WHere's the outrage?
Submitted by Jimbo on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 2:32pm.
Why is noone questioning why Kagan did not recuse herself from this decision? She was in the room when it was being created. She recused herself from the AZ decision. How is this any different? I have not heard a single word on the topic.
And you won't.
Submitted by rhondacoleridge on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 3:24pm.
And you won't.
as the White House is Flushed Out-
Submitted by JIMMY1660 on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:27pm.
come November-the new President with executive order-will Flush this new Tax Bill down that same Toilet.
the 2010 midterms showed the rally point-OBAMACARE-
THE TEA PARTY WAS FORMED
THE TEA PARTY MADE SURE CONGRESS CHANGED FACES
as the Tea Party reformulates
buckle up full go-lock and load her we go again.
once the hurricane named TEA PARTY gets through-
The pendulum will swing back right.
Maybe
Submitted by Jimbo on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 2:10pm.
Maybe a Republican will win in November. Unfortunately, I no longer have any confidence that this is a given.
Assuming one does, it is possible that this "tax" will be repealed. Unfortunately, you cannot repeal legal precedence. That's the tragedy of this who thing. Forget about Obamacare. The next liberal in charge will reenact it along with whatever other "taxes" he can impose to get his subjects to bend to his will. As was stated early in the SCOTUS hearings, 'this ruling fundamentally changes the relationship between the Federal Government and the citizens [subjects]'. Most people are failing to grasp that or to understand just how far reaching this decision is.
The four liberal justices
Submitted by freecitizen on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:36pm.
The four liberal justices would have agreed with any legal justification that would allow them to endorse this policy. They are not exactly supporting it on its legal merits.
How is that thinking
Submitted by NYCMiddle on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:56pm.
deemed, "misguided, if not frivolous" when it actually carried the day.
The ACA was upheld on other grounds - that it was a tax.
The Administration's Commerce Clause argument was defeated.
Ugh
SPLIT DECISION
Submitted by Gary A.A. on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 1:58pm.
CLEARLY, ROBERTS WAS INTENT ON A SPLIT DECISION. IN EFFECT, ROBERTS GOAL WAS TO RETAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE COURT WHILE RULING THE COMMERCE CLAUSE WAS RESTRICTING BY LAW. IN SHORT, BY CONCURRING IN PART AND DISSENTING IN PART, ROBERTS IS SUGGESTING THE PUBLIC, THROUGH ELECTIONS, HAVE A PIVOTAL ROLE TO PLAY IN OUR POLITICAL AND JUDICIAL PROCESS.
DID ROBERTS
Submitted by NYCMiddle on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 2:00pm.
DELIVER HIS WRITTEN OPINION ALL IN CAPS AS WELL?
It is NEVER frivolous to argue for the Constitution
Submitted by c5then on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 2:06pm.
It's just that 5 members of SCOTUS didn't do that this time.
You would have to believe that the liberals all agree with the Dred Scott decision, because after all, the SCOTUS ruled a particular way, so it must have been correct. As if none of the 9 justices were capable of making a mistake, let alone a majority of them at the same time.
No. What Roberts and the others have done is eviscerated personal liberty and handed Congress unlimited power to tax whatever inactions they wish. To do that required Roberts to completely re-write the arguments that were made before the court and to partially re-write the law itself in his opinion.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
How misguided and frivolous
Submitted by fadeinlight on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 2:14pm.
How misguided and frivolous is the "broccoli" argument when it's already happening? One has to but look at some of the legislation going on in New York City to see that the government is only more than happy to intrude upon our eating habits--banning salt and large sodas, for example.
But it's time that we just stopped and realized that these liberal pundits aren't even trying to make a valid point anymore: all they're doing is spreading propaganda that doesn't necessarily have to be attached to any sort of reality. How could one possibly make a claim such as this and even think it remotely true? For that matter, how could they believe even -half- of the claims made by the liberal media claimed on this website?
These Liberals do -not- view facts as a necessary component of any argument, nor have they -ever- viewed them as anything other than an annoying inconvenience to what really matters to them: feelings. They will delude and cloud everything to a haze so long as people are happy in their dreamworld.
This is their strategy: they make an outrageous claim, Conservatives go nuts trying to debunk it, and by that time they've already made another and moved on. We are exhausting ourselves by even bothering to do so. It is time we took a more action-oriented approach, and started hurting "feelings" rather than trying to reason with the unreasonable.
The Umbrella
Submitted by Jimbo on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 2:22pm.
Good points.
I have found myself over the past few years referring to this nation in the past tense. Our undying desire for political correctness was a contributing factor in our downfall. It provided a fertile environment for outrageous claims and outrageous actions for those who wished to do this country harm. They always knew they could run for cover under the umbrella of political correctness - and so they did.
And don't forget ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 6:49pm.
Affirmative Action.
Political Correctness = bad.
Affirmative Action = bad.
Political Correctness + Affirmative Action = the end of America.
And if by chance that combination doesn't finish us off, the morons in D.C. will.
MD
How misguided and frivolous
Submitted by fadeinlight on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 2:14pm.
How misguided and frivolous is the "broccoli" argument when it's already happening? One has to but look at some of the legislation going on in New York City to see that the government is only more than happy to intrude upon our eating habits--banning salt and large sodas, for example.
But it's time that we just stopped and realized that these liberal pundits aren't even trying to make a valid point anymore: all they're doing is spreading propaganda that doesn't necessarily have to be attached to any sort of reality. How could one possibly make a claim such as this and even think it remotely true? For that matter, how could they believe even -half- of the claims made by the liberal media claimed on this website?
These Liberals do -not- view facts as a necessary component of any argument, nor have they -ever- viewed them as anything other than an annoying inconvenience to what really matters to them: feelings. They will delude and cloud everything to a haze so long as people are happy in their dreamworld.
This is their strategy: they make an outrageous claim, Conservatives go nuts trying to debunk it, and by that time they've already made another and moved on. We are exhausting ourselves by even bothering to do so. It is time we took a more action-oriented approach, and started hurting "feelings" rather than trying to reason with the unreasonable.
Big question
Submitted by texusmc on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 2:28pm.
Why was it a 5-4 split and not a 4-4 split? Kagan should have recused herself from this vote altogether.
does anyone have any clarification? (links to back it up)
Great minds
Submitted by Jimbo on Fri, 06/29/2012 - 2:35pm.
Great minds think alike. I just posted the same question somewhere else in this thread. She recused herself in the AZ immigration decision, and I can't fathom how this is any different. However, had she done so, and Roberts still jumped ship, it would have ended in a tie. In a SCOTUS tie, the result is effectively a non decision - the lower court ruling stands. I do not know if a SCOTUS tie can be re-heard however.
Well NB, thanks for screwing
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sat, 06/30/2012 - 3:20am.
Well NB, thanks for screwing upo the board, any of you guys moonlighting for the DNC? Do we really need this moronic twitter tweets?
Well NB, thanks for screwing
Submitted by LAM SON 719 on Sat, 06/30/2012 - 3:20am.
Well NB, thanks for screwing upo the board, any of you guys moonlighting for the DNC? Do we really need this moronic twitter tweets?
I dont need em
Submitted by Boudin on Sat, 06/30/2012 - 8:13am.
But then there is a lot I dont need.
Agreed, on the Twitter "tweets".
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/30/2012 - 10:28am.
Nothing but a waste of bandwidth.
Much like health care, I don't see anything good with Disqus.