Now Let’s Turn To Our Other Guest On What He Thinks Chief Justice Roberts Intended . . .

Someone sent me this screen shot from yesterday’s coverage and asked how I was able to join Chief Justice John Roberts in discussing the health care ruling. Frankly, I thought arriving at the studio in his robe was a bit much but I appreciate his participation in the coverage. It is, however, a bit unfair to reply to analysis by your co-panelist with “well, that is not what I meant.” I think I have a slightly better handle on his own intentions, fears, and feelings after doing this type of work for a couple decades. Indeed, I have been known to go into a deep trance on television and channel the thoughts of James Madison (as well as Thomas Paine’s bartender).

It was a busy day Thursday. I began in MSNBC then went to Fox (Special Report) and then finished with Piers Morgan at CNN with stops in between for NPR segments. It was fun to have exchanges with other professors and lawyers on the meaning of the case. While we disagree on the meaning and implications, I found the level of analysis for the various experts to be quite high and insightful. And, of course, I wish to extend a special thanks to my pundit pal, JR.

25 thoughts on “Now Let’s Turn To Our Other Guest On What He Thinks Chief Justice Roberts Intended . . .”

  1. It is important to me that no one thinks the ‘Ralph Adamo; posting here is me, Ralph Adamo who lives in New Orleans. As he this RA a chronic, opinionated poster, I have asked him to identify himself in some way that makes the distinction between us, as his opinions — generally pre-packaged — are not ever mine.

  2. Wrong, leecaroll. A judge who follows the law, will study the facts of the case, the arguments of the respective parties, and the applicable law, and then, and ONLY then will reach a decision. A fraudulent judge STARTS with the idea of “I’m going to find in favor of X……. now, on what pretext can I do so, and how do I have to twist the law, distort case law, pervert the meanings of words, or ignore the law altogether to reach the decision that I want to reach in the first place?”

    In the ACA case, Roberts and his clerks started with a very broad law, and perverted it by asserting that it applies to everything, rather than in the context that its writers intended. To do that, Roberts perverts what the very word “tax” (as noun) means. Even Congress, with its penchant for every conceivable variety of tax, as NEVER defined tax in the way that Roberts and his clerks did. That is because even Congress through the centuries has understood the meaning of the word “tax,” and that it could not possibly be a levy for NOT doing purchasing some good or service.

    And, as I suggested the Supreme Court does this sort of thing ALL of the time. For example, in the case of Garcetti v. Ceballos, Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion, and perverted the 1st Amendment. The issue had to do with what free speech protection a government employee should have.

    What was Kennedy’s legal destination in Garcetti? He wanted to attack free speech and promote waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the U.S. Government (which, not surprisingly was ALSO an objective of the ACA decision, as Roberts’ decision in ACA helps to promote waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the health care industry).

    But how as Kennedy and his clerks going to find a way to say that Ceballos, as a government employee, had no free speech rights? The facts favored Ceballos, the law favored Ceballos, and all but one of the circuit courts had ruled on similar cases that would have favored Ceballos. No problem! The majority team just INVENTED a pretext, knowing full well that the conclusion they reached was fraudulent.

    The conclusion for Ceballos? Kennedy wrote that although government employees generally have free speech, they don’t have free speech when they are speaking about matters that are part of their job duties. In other words, the NEW law is that free speech depends upon your OCCUPATION. Thus, if you’re a government inspector, and during one of your inspections you uncover, say, a $7 billion government fraud scheme, or a company violating environmental laws by poisoning public water supplies, and your government boss tells you that you are not to put it in any report or to mention it to anyone, your boss can fire you or put you in Sibera if you do, and you have NO free speech protection. However, if a government janitor happens to discover those same things, the janitor is protect under the 1st Amendment because the janitor’s job duties don’t include identifying waste, fraud, abuse, violations of law, etc. Through this pervsion of the law, the VERY people MOST likely to protect the public are SILENCED. Are you getting it yet?

    The general objective of this Supreme Court are now clear: If a decision comes before this Court that gives the Court the opportunity to ATTACK the rights of Americans, this Court will do it, especially if they have to pervert the law, distort the meaning of words, and engage in endless literary masturbation to do so.

  3. Ralph Adamo,
    1) And? Of course a judge will look for the law to back up his decided opinion of the case. Of course they have clerks to do much (most?) of the work..
    2)”fraudulent interpretations of existing laws” I assume it is fraudulent if it is not your interpretation but legitimate if it is (and that means the general you, Everyone interprets everything through their personal perspective and belief.)

  4. Brad, you are correct with respect to the authority on taxaation cited in Roberts’ opinion. But that changes nothing about what I’ve said about HOW the decision was reached. The legal destination was chosen, and Roberts and his clerks went to work inventing a basis for reaching that destination.

    In so doing, of course, as I also discussed, when you create this kind of new law out of fraudulent interpretations of existing laws, you end up with nonsense and are forced to engage in literary masturbation. Now, admitedly, Roberts and his clerks are highly skilled in literary masturbation. That is how they got to be in the positions they are today. But is literary masturbation nonetheless.

    When you boil it all down, the maturbatory trick that Roberts and his clerks came up with is an entirely NEW definition of what a tax is.

    So what is a tax?

    It is a fee levied by a government on a product, income, or activity. If tax is levied directly on personal or corporate income, then it is a direct tax. If tax is levied on the price of a good or service, then it is called an indirect tax.

    Note the word ACTIVITY. That is key. The definition does not include any notion that payments may be extracted from individuals or entities for NOT doing something. In the U.S.A., lawmakers have been very creative in developing all kinds of new taxes. But can you name a single other example of there being “a tax on going without…anything.” Governments tax things or actions; they do not tax that which is nonexistent.

    That is the bottom line. All the rest is literary masturbation to justify reaching the predetermined legal destination.

  5. S. D. Jeffries 1, June 29, 2012 at 3:10 pm

    Did Roberts redefine the penalty for refusing to procure health insurance as a tax? Or did his opinion define the mandate as a tax?
    I thought I knew the answer but you have given me something to look up (actually I hope someone else looks it up and then I’ll know). I thought he was defining the penalty as a tax b/c it is enforced by the IRS, but it could be that the mandate is a tax that you pay by either buying insurance or by paying additional tax (the penalty) to the IRS. If the mandate is the tax, then the tea party folks may be right in calling it the largest tax ever.

    Interesting tie-in with Mark’s Saturday article. I had one idea, now I have two. You, clever person that you are, had two to begin with.

Comments are closed.