Monday, July 02, 2012

If he's hit you once, he'll hit you again.

I've been stewing over Roberts' snide little line, "It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices," over the weekend, getting madder every time I think about it.

All those laws you guys have struck down as unconstitutional over the last couple centuries, whose "political choices" were you protecting us from those times? Had those other laws been imposed on us by insidious outsiders or something, so you could protect us from their consequences, but we gotta bend over and take this one because it turns out Nancy Pelosi is not actually from Betelgeuse?

The reaction of the GOP loyalists has been amusing, too. They've spent the last several days staggering around the internet, sporting a shiner and telling us they ran into a doorknob and that John Roberts really does love them and he always buys them flowers to make up afterwards. It's just pathetic.

Keep telling me how it's important for me to vote for Romney because of the potential SCOTUS nominations coming up, and we wouldn't want Obama to get to appoint a liberal like that Roberts guy. (And let's not forget that the Massachusetts governor was for health care before he was against it...)


Joseph said...

So, is there any political figure you aren't pissed with?

To borrow an AlGoreism, there's an unintended consequence or two on that knife sticking out of America's back. The GOP got a gift of scaring a crapload of folks who probably couldn't get motivated enough to vote for Romney into heading to the polls in an attempt to put Chimp B in the oval office.

That and now Chimp A looks like a total douche nozel for emphatically chanting "it's not a tax" even though his lawyer argued in front of the court that it is a tax.

Honestly, I feel worse about this ruling as it means that .gov can make me do whatever it wants as long as it's called a tax. "You! Stop smoking and loose 50lbs or pay us $4,000 a year until you do!"

Dave said...

Don't worry, Joseph, that probably won't happen. This decision may blow a big enough hole in the 10th amendment for the ruling class to pass any law as a tax, but they probably know better than to mess with the bread and circuses. A law requiring turning off the TV, putting down the chips, and working out would have pissed off plebeians rioting all over the nation shortly after passing.

Pakkinpoppa said...

Don't mess with the "reality" on TV or the folks who eat, sleep, and dream Khar....Karr....Kurr....(Cardashean? it flags me no matter how I try to spell it) will, waddle downtown and get pissed.

I like this ruling. I recall Total Recall where air is charged for. Uh oh...bad idea to put out there.

"Kohagen! Gibb duh peeble ai-ah! Led demm breed!!!"

So, we can be taxed at whim if a behavior isn't liked. Swell.

perlhaqr said...

Yep. We're pretty much right fucked.

Gary Johnson 2012!

Divemedic said...

While I agree 100% with Tam's post on this matter, it isn't as though charging you a tax for not buying something is anything new.
If I don't buy a house, I pay higher taxes because I don't get the mortgage interest deduction.
If I don't get a student loan for college, I pay higher taxes because I don't get the student loan and tuition deductions.
ad nauseum, ad infinitum

Panamared said...

I don't know if it was his intent or not, but what the Chief Justice has done is show us why it is necessary to abolish the present taxing system. The only reason that Romney is a better candidate is that we know that Obidiot will not give up the power that allows him to control the masses. Any chances that Romney will give up this power are slim, but he might surprise us.

DanH said...

I laughed so hard when conservative people tried to say, "but he closed the Commerce Clause loophole!" I was thinking, so what? he just created a bigger one with the new "power to tax" loophole

Alien said...

I've been chewing on this one as well, and wondering if this will turn out to be The Final Straw.

I doubt that for most of the country's occupants and residents it will, but for some of us it certainly is. When one cannot depend on the enumerated structure of the Constitution to perform according to specifications because of what amounts to not a lot more than a whim on the part of one of the thirds, the list of available boxes gets shorter.

One one hand, Roberts has a point: We The People should never have allowed most of the people in Congress to be in Congress, nor should we have allowed Congress to assume as much power as it has (the same can be said for the executive branch, and the federal court system as well). On the other hand, the concept of "checks and balances" was meant to have each of the three branches working against each other; from conflict comes constraint.

Since it's apparent that doesn't work anymore, perhaps it's time to review the whole thing and make appropriate adjustments; I'm referring to the name of the place, "The United States of America," not "America With An All-Powerful Central Government And Fifty Insignificant Political Subdivisions."

To that end, I'm seeing a few governors (so far) lining up against the latest proclamation from Washington. As a reminder, the same thing happened leading up to 1861. Which, if the general unpleasantness of the following four years can be avoided, may not turn out to be such a bad thing.

I'm still ordering more 308 this week, however.

Mike in KY said...

Tam, I feel like the guy in the old Skin Bracer commercials... "Thanks. I needed that."

Bubblehead Les. said...

Well, let's see what We the People can do that's Legal and Constitutional to Stop the Insanity.

We can Vote. Hmm. That doesn't seem to help.

We can Petition for Redress of Grievances. Hmm. Professional Lobbyists seem to have that sewn up, plus they can donate more money to Re-Election Campaigns than we can. So that won't work.

We can complain to the Media. Hmm. Free Speech seems to be reserved for the MSM, who are just Propaganda Shills. And how many can be reached through the Blogosphere? So that helps a little, but not enough to overcome the Insanity.

We can use the Courts. Hmm. The Courts seem to full of Political Hacks who refuse to follow the words "SHALL NOT..." even though it's their Job. So that doesn't work. Then we just had Chief Justice John Kerry Roberts, who was FOR Repealing Obamacare before he was AGAINST Repealing it, so now what do we do?

We can call a Constitutional Convention. Hmm. Need to have 2/3 of the Legislatures call for the Convention, then propose Amendments that 3/4 of the States then have to Ratify. So that will take 34 States to call one in, then 38 to Ratify any Changes. Yeah, they can't even have normal Business in a State House w/o being "Occupied" by tens of thousands of Thugs, while the Tax Payer Paid State Legislatures run away. So that won't work.

And that's ALL that We the People can do that's Legal and Constitutional under the Current System.

So we're back to the Usual 3 Options. We can learn to LIKE the Current System, or we can go along, mumbling under our breaths, but not doing anything about it, or we can Overturn the System through Force.

Unless, of course, some Barbarian Horde hits us from outside, but I doubt 10 Million Chinese Marines will be hurtling across the Pacific, waving Mao Banners while landing at Malibu anytime in the near future.

That's all I can come up with. I really hate the idea that we need a Bastille Storming/Civil War/Revolution to bring back some Sanity, but I can't see any other way out. Somebody come up with a better idea, PLEASE?

Anonymous said...

First off, the top priority in Congress is re-election. Think back to 1994 and the anger of the pro-gun folks in helping to change Congress.

The same thing will be needed to scare the "pro-tax" Congressfolks. No other way can work. Yeah, the taxing thing may be constitutional, but if they're afraid to do it...

Romney can't "save" us, but I doubt he will be an activist in destroying us. Obama is following the advice and ideas of his avowed mentor, Saul Alinsky. That's more than enough to get me to vote for Romney. (I tried pointing that out in 2008, FWIW.)


Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,"

This comment really pisses me off. When the consequences of those political choices include violating the Constitution, then it is exactly your job to protect the people from those consequences! The Constitution was written to protect the minority against the tyranny of the majority, and the Court's job is to tell the other branches "You're not allowed to do that!" and to do so in the face of popular opinion, legislative pressure, and executive pressure!

The reason SCOTUS appointments are for life is so that the Justices won't see a need to bow to a popular majority. The reason the only mechanism for involuntary removal of a Justice is impeachment, and only for "treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors," is so that Congress's power to intimidate them into supporting a power grab is limited as much as possible.

Congress and the President are there to carry out the will of and act in the best interests of the majority. The Supreme Court is there to ensure that the minority aren't trampled on by the others. If Roberts doesn't understand that, he needs to resign, today.

rickn8or said...

Obama, Romney. As I said on Roberta's site, I'm tired of having to make a choice between a broken leg and pneumonia.

ASM826 said...

Done blogging. Over, stick a fork in it. Between your post of March 15th and this decision by the courts, there's no longer any point. I'm still reading blogs, it's like sitting with friends in the Forum discussing the downfall of the Republic while we wait for the Visigoths.

If the function of the Supreme Court is not to protect the Constitution, then it has no function.

Ken said...

Any correlation between the fruits of ordered Liberty and those of Manifest Destiny are strictly spurious.

Just sayin', is all....

fast richard said...

The argument for voting for Romney because of SCOTUS nominations is much less persuasive than it was before this ruling. Not that my presidential vote has much impact. The only time I voted for the guy who won my state's electoral votes is best forgotten, or chalked up to youthful ignorance.

Bubblehead Les has quite a litany of reasons why the sky is falling and we are all doomed. I'm not quite ready to accept that all is lost. I don't think we can move in the right direction via federal action. The only rays of hope I've seen lately have been at the state level.

Despite being ""Occupied" by tens of thousands of Thugs, while (part of) the Tax Payer Paid State Legislatures ran away" Wisconsin made some progress in the right direction in the past two years.

Many years of voting for Libertarian party presidential candidates didn't do me any good and I eventually gave up on them ever becoming a political party rather than a religious cult. I don't expect anything worthwhile from them.

I have come to the opinion that someone who does nothing more than vote every two years cannot call themselves a reponsible citizen, and has no justification for complaining about the choices being offered. I now concentrate my efforts at the level of State legislative races. I think much of the overreach at the national level involves the federal government getting into issues that should be left to the States.

Pakkinpoppa said...

I had an idea a while back.

There's always the stereotypical image of mobs....pitchforks and torches. Mostly because said mobs arise in Europe, and...well, apparently in those movies the prop department was lacking.

Since most of us don't do much with hay, my idea was simple, dinner forks. And matches. Kind of scale it down.

But the idea was a while ago. It got muddled during the whole "having a kid time" and "fighting to keep him" time and now the "raise him as best I can by myself so I don't get much of my own time".

Maybe a photo of a fork and a match, kind of like those "light a candle for gun violence" pictures? Maybe use that someplace to register the level of discontent with the current crop of pols?

Just a thought.

Anonymous said...

rickn8or said...

"Obama, Romney. As I said on Roberta's site, I'm tired of having to make a choice between a broken leg and pneumonia."

We may not like it, but we're going to end up with either a broken leg or pneumonia. Thinking otherwise - at this point - is just a fantasy. So, pick your poison, because if you don't someone else will pick it for you.

As to SCOTUS nominees, Romney's might turn out to be truly bad, but it's a near certainty that Obama's will be.

It's like a choice between playing Russian Roulette with three chambers loaded (Romney) or all six (Obama). Not a great choice, but realistically all we've got. Again, the choice will be made whether you participate (vote), or not...

Jake (formerly Riposte3) said...

"As to SCOTUS nominees, Romney's might turn out to be truly bad, but it's a near certainty that Obama's will be."

On the other hand, Obama might get to replace a "conservative" Justice, but it's a near certainty that Romney will get to.

Remember, the "conservatives" tend to hang in there when a Democrat is President, and wait a Republican is President to retire. What are the odds that one of the "conservatives" will die, versus the odds that Romney's pick will not be a closet liberal?

mikee said...

Bluto: Hey! What's all this laying around stuff? Why are you all still laying around here for?
Stork: What the hell are we supposed to do, ya moron? We're all expelled. There's nothing to fight for anymore.
D-Day: [to Bluto] Let it go. War's over, man. Wormer dropped the big one.
Bluto: What? Over? Did you say "over"? Nothing is over until we decide it is! Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!
Otter: [to Boon] Germans?
Boon: Forget it, he's rolling.
Bluto: And it ain't over now. 'Cause when the goin' gets tough...
[thinks hard of something to say]
Bluto: The tough get goin'! Who's with me? Let's go!
[Bluto runs out, alone; then returns]
Bluto: What the fuck happened to the Delta I used to know? Where's the spirit? Where's the guts, huh? This could be the greatest night of our lives, but you're gonna let it be the worst. "Ooh, we're afraid to go with you Bluto, we might get in trouble." Well just kiss my ass from now on! Not me! I'm not gonna take this. Wormer, he's a dead man! Marmalard, dead! Niedermeyer...
Otter: Dead! Bluto's right. Psychotic... but absolutely right. We gotta take these bastards. Now we could do it with conventional weapons, but that could take years and cost millions of lives. No, I think we have to go all out. I think that this situation absolutely requires a really futile and stupid gesture be done on somebody's part!
Bluto: We're just the guys to do it.
D-Day: [stands up] Yeah, I agree. Let's go get 'em.
Boon: Let's do it.
Bluto: [shouting] "Let's do it"!
[all of the Deltas stand up and run out with Bluto]
Share this quote

Anonymous said...


Face facts: the ruling is irrelevant. It is merely a symptom of a much deeper rot. The problem with America is THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

The vast majority are dependent, in one way or another, on government largesse. Few, a very few, might be willing to risk it all for a chance at freedom. But, then what? Who wants to be vilified, ostracized, even killed for ending the gravy train? The Proles want what they want, and they're gonna get it. Elsewise, the whole place will burn. Roberts did the logical, but cowardly thing: Why SHOULD he risk HIS neck out for an ungrateful bunch of curs (aka, the American electorate)? The People want their stuff, and Roberts is merely letting us have it -- good and hard.

In a way, Roberts did what many of conservatives and libertarians have advocated for years in other areas of American life: he removed the "safety net". From this point forward, it will be one of three outcomes: (1) slavery for all (high probability); (2) reconstitution of the Republic (very low probability); or (3) secession, dissolution of the Union, and civil war (moderate probability). There might be a future for a liberty-based polity, but it won't be in what we now call "America". And it will be up to us, not the USSC, to choose the path. If there is any life remaining in the body politic, there is still hope. For my part, I think we're no different from Greece and we'll be fighting over the last piece of toast amidst the ruins of what once was a great Nation.

Kristophr said...

Bubblehead Les:

There is a solution, but no one wants to get off their ass and implement it.

Join your local Republican Party. Become a precinct committee person.

Work to get pro-liberty folks nominated to office, instead of just whining about how the folks that did get off their asses chose nominees that you don't like. If you don't get what you want this year, support the nominee, and work harder next year.

Political parties are easy to take over, once you get volunteers to pack the committees.

But getting those people to actually do something like that instead of just whining on the Internets ... now that is something that is hard to do.

Kristopher Barrett
Republican Party Precinct Committeeman
Wyoming district 1-9

SpeakerTweaker said...

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

I would like to hear the succinct, non-lawyerese version of just what the hell CJ Roberts believes his job is.

I'm getting damned tired, too, of folks telling us to read between the lines to see just how much of a genius Roberts is by making it a tax and gutting the Commerce Clause. No, he did not gut the Commerce Clause, and no, he's not a genius by figuring out a way to hand Romney the election by being both for and against Obamacare in his opinion.

Any observance of that kind of "genius" from the bench only further proves the political machinations of the Court, thus showing both that it's Politics As Usual no matter what branch you climb, and that Roberts is still an asshole for figuring out a way to further prove that the is still without limit.

Yeah, John-Boy. Just what, exactly, is your job?

Anonymous said...

"I'm still reading blogs, it's like sitting with friends in the Forum discussing the downfall of the Republic while we wait for the Visigoths."

The sad part, most of the not upper class and bureaucracy generally WELCOMED the arrival of "barbarian" lords.

_Anything_ to get away from the crushing taxation and general nastiness of the later roman empire and escape to the humane traditional law and taxation of the "Barbarian" lords.

Borepatch said...

I have to say that (while IANAL) if Congress passes a law that says "Everyone's taxes go up $500, but you get a $500 tax credit if you buy foo" then it likely would pass any Constitutional muster based on reading Article I.

The good news is that Americans *hate* taxes, they always have, and nothing looks like that's fixin' to change even in this day and age of HopeNChange.

Sure, they like takes on some other dude, but the kind of money the Democrats are always talking about means that it's on everybody.

The Stupid Party is not called that for no reason, but if they can't make this a pair of concrete galoshes for competitive districts and sweep the election this November then they deserve to go the way of the Whigs.

And that (I think) was the point of your post. What I'd add is that the amount of rage going around suggests that this is the GOP's last chance, and that Whigdom may be the next stop of the train after Mittens is done with his "compromise will bring in the vast middle voting bloc".

But we should thank Roberts because he forced this issue. It's clearly political, and needs to be dealt with as such. If the GOP won't then someone else will.

steve l said...

playing the percentages, 20% of the republican appointed justices voted for it. 100% of the democrat appointed justices voted for it.
0% of libertarian appointed justices exist or will within the next term. I like Gary Johnson, would rather he be pres than Mittens, but I've voted libertarian enough times to know just how effective that is.

Kristophr said...

In fact, I'm going to throw that gauntlet down, in case I was too fucking subtle.

You don't like Republican actions, appointees, or nominees?

Show us what you got. Take us over. Make us do it right. Do you even know where your county party meets, or when?

That gauntlet is just sitting there, on the ground, calling you a lazy coward.

Fill yer hands, you sonofabitches.

Jayson said...

Bluto? A fine American. But I prefer my philosophy from another great American- Booger:

"I say we blow the f*ckers up"

Metaphorically. And if that doesn't work...

SteveO said...

Unless the people become better educated, expect more of the same. Yes, I know YOU'RE smart - what are you doing to spread the word?

Romney 2012: Forward, a Little Slower.

SteveO said...

Romney 2012: Slow the Decline.

Anonymous said...

Kristopher, I get what youre saying but I have little faith. A local conservative radio host here in my liberal section of Oregon says much the same thing you do.

The problem is the GOP here is mostly worthless and won't anytime soon change their tune until they've failed utterly and completely. I don't see where we have the time to march through the institutions of the party or society.

Anyway, I'm sure I now hate the term "silver lining".

Anonymous said...

Romney and a socialist health care system? Well...he was doing what his electorate WANTED done. Obama does his thing knowing his electorate DOESN'T want it done.
Wouldn't it be nice to have a President who does what his electorate wants? There's a real difference between the two.
Besides, Mass would have 'free' health care even if he had vetoed it, wouldn't he?
Yes, they would.

Brad K. said...

I don't think Reagan was all that smart. But, he did know good people, and he managed to pull a good team together to do good things, well maybe except for Iran-Contra and drugs for guns.

What I look at is Obama, a narcissistic, depressed guy with very few good people around him. No one would work with him while he served in the Senate, and very few of his "team" today are getting anything worthwhile done.

And that is the reason I want a change in the oval office. Because Romney doesn't have a reputation for sucking up to big labor bosses, he doesn't use slum lords for personal advisors.

As a Republican, I think I would prefer to see the Republican convention draft Hilary to run, with Herman Cain as VP. I mean, Hilary is at least a good a Republican, as the term has been used in the last few elections, as the other guys.

The last thing I want to see is another four years of Obama, only with experience and no looming re-election to limit the insanity.

Anonymous said...

I'm with Tam. I am not with the "vote for the guy who invented Obamacare so he can appoint another justice like Roberts" crowd. If anything the reaction from a lot of Republican pundits and bloggers was even more disgusting than the decision itself. I have concluded that the Republican party needs to go away before we can actually get a limited government choice. Too many mindless partisans rooting for the home team, no matter what. I am not voting for Romney or any other Republican.

Anonymous said...

Obama appointed Elena Kagan, who shamelessly heard the case and voted on it, and didn't recuse herself as she ought properly to have done.

That's bad. That by itself is reason to vote to get rid of Obama. He appointed her, he'll appoint others like her. No guarantee Romney will do better, but Obama's a known quantity, and not in the comforting sense of the term.

Mike James

Anonymous said...

"I am not voting for Romney or any other Republican." Anonymous 5:20 PM

Ever get the feeling that you're attracting Mobys?

Mike James

Joseph said...

Before this decision, if we wanted to pass a Constitutional Amendment against this nonsense, it would have to read:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. We REALLY REALLY mean it this time! Honest!"

Now, it just has to say:

"The Federal government shall not tax any lack of activity."

That might be a little more reliable ... until the next lurch by the Supreme Court.

Joseph said...

The leftward drift of formerly-conservative Supreme Court Justices can be explained fairly easily. Much of the time, conservative is a synonym for "willing to crack down on people who are Not Like Us." When such a conservative becomes a Supreme Court Justice, the people who are Like Us changes from the middle classes to the political activist class and the people who Not Like Us changes from the underclass to those outside the "bubble."

If we want a conservative Justice, it might make more sense to appoint a liberal/libertarian ideologue than a typical conservative.

jed said...

I too continue to be miffed at Roberts. Apparently, Nancy Pelosi has bigger balls. You might find this CBS analysis of why Roberts switched interesting. Speculative, sure, but supposedly based on some inside information. Roberts was becoming increasingly concerned about the reputation of the court -- again, what exactly is their job? Plus some nice verbage about how there wasn't any doctrinal background for a ruling. ORLY? Hmm, I guess the actual Constitution isn't a good enough precedent. Nice quote from Roberts himself there too: "The framers created a federal government of limited powers, and assigned to this Court the duty of enforcing those limits." Oh, but not when it might make the current administration look bad?

Count me in with the folks who think that electing Romney won't make all that much difference either.

Kristophr said...

Mike James: "Ever get the feeling that you're attracting Mobys?"

No, just big L libertarians who think they can make the folks in the Republican party nominate some ultimate wookiesuiter candidate by threatening to vote for a communist asshole.

Anonymous said...

Mike James: "Ever get the feeling that you're attracting Mobys?"

No, just big L libertarians who think they can make the folks in the Republican party nominate some ultimate wookiesuiter candidate by threatening to vote for a communist asshole.

How about small government conservatives who are damned tired of being betrayed. I have voted straight Republican for years now without much to show for it. And I am not trying to get the Republican party to do anything. Just announcing that I am gone.

fast richard said...

If anyone is looking for a wookiesuiter candidate to support this year, consider Kurt Bills of Minnesota. He got the nomination for US Senate on the strength of the Ron Paul delegates who dominated the state Republican convention. He is a relative newcomer to politics and a high school economics teacher.

His understanding of economics is closely aligned with libertarian principles. His biggest handicap is likely to be fundraising. He is neither part of the Republican establishment, nor a nationaly known fundraiser, as were his two competitors for the nomination.

Also, watch for fireworks on the floor of the national Republican convention if there are very many states where the delegate count is at all like Minnesota's. It does not reflect the straw poll from caucus night that the media reported. Ron Paul is not going to be on the ticket, but his supporters are shaking up the party.

Joe in PNG said...

I think the problem is that many Big L wookie suiters have come up with a mental image of the perfect canidate- one where you min-maxed all the good part of Ron Paul, Ronald Regan, John Gault, Professor de la Paz, and a few others. A man who with a quick wave of his hand can magically dismiss all the bad stuff in the USA- a person who can get his way without all that nasty compromise nonsense.

Sadly, this guy doesn't exist (and if he did, the bastard's lying)- so you got to go with what you got.

Frank W. James said...

This whole mess is just another reason why I've become a political athetist, I don't believe in anybody...

All The Best,
Frank W. James

Kristophr said...

Anonymous 9:29PM: Did you ever try to get a better candidate nominated, by participating in the party?

Or do you just sit in front of the TV and bitch because the people who actually do the heavy lifting don't nominate candidates you like?

Don't let the door hit your ass on the way out. Enjoy voting for Obama, some Libertarian, or some kook.

Or even just not voting. Let others make the big decisions for you! That always works out well.

Epsilon Given said...

"I'm getting damned tired, too, of folks telling us to read between the lines to see just how much of a genius Roberts is by making it a tax and gutting the Commerce Clause. No, he did not gut the Commerce Clause, and no, he's not a genius by figuring out a way to hand Romney the election by being both for and against Obamacare in his opinion."

This makes me about as mad as the Roberts' Decision itself. Roberts could have strengthened the Commerce Clause by siding with the dissent! He could have handed Romney the election by siding with the dissent! But he didn't, in either case, and he handed the Government greater powers than they already had.

Of course, if I recall correctly, the "tax" could still be declared Unconstitutional, but we'd have to wait until the tax takes effect, and then wait another two years before it arrived into the lap of the Supreme Court again. Yeah, way to go, Roberts!

Somewhat surprisingly, Rush Limbaugh gets it. I remember, a couple of days ago, wailing on those who would have their insurance and thus support this "Affordable" "Care" "Act" (yes, it deserves quotes for each and every word, separately), as people who are selling out their Constitution for a little bit of insurance.

It drives me nuts that people are defending Roberts on this decision, as something brilliant. The best that can be said about it, is that it's not absolutely disastrous, we hope--but the jury's even out on that!

And while I see Romney as a "beacon" for repealing this monstrosity, I don't see very much "hope". I'm voting for him, but as I do so, I'm preparing for Revolution as well. I have little hope that he will change things.

Windy Wilson said...

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices".
Did Chief Justice Roberts just provide an argument to repeal Marbury v Madison? The case that established the role of the Supremes as the deciders of what was and was not Constitutional? I forget which case, but a footnote -- A FOOTNOTE in once case became the whole basis for the decision in another case in the 60's.

My Administrative law professor, now sadly departed, said that the states could be abolished because the power of the Federal Government had expanded so far. This was after I had Constitutional Law and confided in him that in each chapter I would read the case, say to myself, "they can't do that", and read the decision, and say to myself, "sonofagun, they can!"
The Administrative state is completely without limitation. As a matter of fact (and dismay and consternation), since the Police department is an executive branch department within the states, the court prosecutions could be handled as administrative actions, similar to disputes regarding Social Security, with no (current) insult to the Constitution of the United States.