In response to:

What Will You Say Next Year, in Two Years, and in Five?

radio talk shows Wrote: Jun 30, 2012 1:29 PM
What am I missing here? I thought the job of the Supreme Court was to interpret the Constitution as it applies to pending law. All this other happy horse s(*& is just eyewash.
John1921 Wrote: Jun 30, 2012 2:06 PM
Let's start with one of Life's Truths -- the right thing to do is simple, and hard; the wrong thing is complex, nuanced, out-of-the-box; and easy. O'bwanaCare is un-Constitutional. The 'mandate' is un-Constitutional as a direct tax, an excise, an income tax, or as a penalty (because the central govt has no authority to regulate the practice of medicine, except in DC). Roberts came to his moment of truth, wet his pants, and ran like a rabbit. Snivelling cowardice is never pleasant to watch, but Roberts chickened out on center stage. Why anyone would aspire to follow the path of John Marshall, a political hack and liar, I haven't figured. The Constitution specifically incorporated the Common Law of England as the foundation of the US legal sy
John1921 Wrote: Jun 30, 2012 2:23 PM
stem. Under that system, no English court had the power to void an act of Parliament as un-Constitutional, although acts could be void for vagueness. To boot, any decision/ruling of any English court could be reversed by vote of the House of Lords. Obviously, there was no provision for judicial review/supremacy in the Constitution, as ratified. We might also note that the "power to tax = power to destroy" consideration was exactly the reason the Federalists (think, Leftists) highjacked the Articles of Condederation in the first place -- under the Articles, the central govt had no taxing power.
John1921 Wrote: Jun 30, 2012 2:34 PM
Recall that these same leftists/Federalists were treasonously aiding the Brit enemy during the War of 1812. Heck, the same white-hating Radical Republicans were the carpetbaggers and scalawags enforcing our first Affirmative Action program against whites during Reconstruction. Anybody who thinks it's too early to judge the French Revo is an idiot or a bloodthirsty Leftist deviant. Chou was both, in spades (sorry, Eric H). Edmonf Burke figured it all out before the Reign of Terror. But for every single Leftist who ever lived, the RoT was the justification for the Revo, not an aberration. Learn it; live it.

Over at I have ventured the opinion that perhaps --just perhaps-- originalists will eventually recognize Chief Justice Robert's decision and opinion yesterday as a bit of judicial genius that will be his Marbury v. Madison --the case that at first glance seemed a win for an executive whom the then Chief Justice opposed but which was in reality a huge win for the Court and the original design of the Constitution.

We won't have even a preliminary assessment for at least four months, and even if Mitt Romney wins the presidency, the success of this...