Et tu, John Roberts?

That’s not the first time I disagreed with a Supreme Court decision. Probably won’t be the last.

It is a good reminder me that you can’t count on a small group of folks — no matter who they are — to agree with you. Just ask those who felt the Supreme Court put Bush in power in 2000.

And, after all, they don’t even agree with each other. It was a 5-4 decision. That means 4 Supreme Court justices disagreed with 5 other Supreme Court justices.

I found something a bit humorous while listening to the radio on the way home from work. Several news outlets were featuring folks who were elated by the Supreme Court decision. Several said that they now would be able to afford health insurance.

There’s an old saying in poker, if you don’t know who the patsy is, you’re the patsy.

These folks are the patsies. They currently choose not to buy health insurance. They will soon face a $2,000 fine for making that same choice. Congratulations to them.

It’s as if while cheering a decision upholding someone’s right to slap you, they proceed to slap you. You get a stunned look on your face, then realize, that’s exactly what you were cheering for a second ago, so you raise your hands and cheer again. Hooray! Then they slap you again.

As far as John Roberts goes, perhaps he took the Intrade odds, got rich and figured if the American people really don’t want it, they’ll vote in November.

5 thoughts on “Et tu, John Roberts?

  1. Seth:

    Interesting post.

    Agree with you: political-dupery-under-political-nitwitery-and-in-government-mysticism-we-trust yields only one winner, the politico. The politico entices his dependent political constituency built through taxpayer dollars to believe the newly built constituency is getting over on the “other guy”.

    However, in the end, everyone in the room is duped and only the politico wins. Hollow politico promises always dupe the dependent political constituency [see unfunded entitlement Social Security, see unfunded entitlement Medicare, see unfunded welfare state program Medicaid, see under funded state pensions, see Europe, etc.].

    The fiscal crisis, fiscal cliff and rarely discussed fiscal limit spell disaster for many, many politicos. When your one and only strategy is dependent political constituency built through taxpayer dollars – past, present and future – then spending must continue in order to pay for past, present and future political constituency building exercises. If spending stops, slows down and/or is reduced then your one in only strategy is in jeopardy.

    Yes sir, political-dupery-under-political-nitwitery-and-in-government-mysticism-we-trust !

  2. It’s Not In My Job Description

    Chief Justice John Roberts stated, “It’s not our job to protect the people from the consequence of their political choices.” In doing so, he has abdicated the chief reason for the existence of the Supreme Court – to protect the rights of the INDIVIDUAL or, as Madison warned, to defend the minority from the tyranny of the majority. The Court does this by relying on the original meaning of the Constitution. Indeed, the founders were so concerned with the rights of the individual that they placed the Bill of Rights at the beginning of the Constitution as it was not a mere afterthought, but essential in order for ratification.

    If the majority of the citizens of the United States voted for a new law that made slaves of all blacks, it would be the job of the Court to protect one group of people (the minority who are black) from the consequences of some other group’s (the non-blacks) political choice.

    Now, Chief Justice Roberts neglects that concept and informs us that the minority is stuck with abuses imposed upon them by a majority, i.e. might makes right.

  3. The Roberts decision grants broad new powers to Congress while only restricting the commerce clause in the sense that there is now a minimum threshold (which he set very low). This decision is very, very bad (as I discuss on my blog), and will torment believers in limited government and personal liberties, for a very long time.

  4. I’m sure I’m not aware of all of the details (and it’s likely that nobody will be until after the fact), but this thought puzzles me. If the government taxes (or, if you prefer, penalizes) my employer for not providing me with health insurance AND they tax (or penalize) ME for not buying my own health insurance, isn’t that like double dipping. One would think that the penalty on my employer would be to cover the government’s cost of providing for me, but then what do they do with the penalty money that I pay? Does that cover their excursions to Las Vegas?


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s