Friday, June 29, 2012

"A lie makes Obamacare legal"

Mark Steyn:

... "The United States is the only Western nation in which our rulers invoke the Constitution for the purpose of overriding it – or, at any rate, torturing its language beyond repair."
... Like Nelson contemplating the Danish fleet at the Battle of Copenhagen, the Chief Justice held the telescope to his blind eye and declared, "I see no ships."
If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but a handful of judges rule that it's a rare breed of elk, then all's well.  The Chief Justice, on the other hand, looks, quacks and walks like the Queen in Alice In Wonderland: "Sentence first – verdict afterwards."
... in attempting to pass off a confiscatory penalty as a legitimate tax, Roberts inflicts damage on the most basic legal principles.
... quibbling over whose pretzel argument is more ingeniously twisted – the government's or the court's – is to debate, in Samuel Johnson's words, the precedence between a louse and a flea. ...


Alain said...

I read Mark's take on this on his web site and find that as usual he is spot on. I know others have a different take, so time will tell who is correct.

As an aside I do find grating people who see judges as Right or Left. In my opinion it is, or should be non partisan. Judges either follow the constitution, which they are supposed to do, or they do not. Those who seek to read into founding documents what isn't there should be removed from the bench.

Anonymous said...

The obamatax bill come from the senate, and as the court ruled it is a tax does that mean it must be reintroduced in Congress, as they are the only ones who can pass tax laws.
Mary T to the radio said...

Alain, it's much better for a judge to be seen as left or right than to have them cloaked in some pretense of impartiality like the mainstream media.
Elena Kagan is not impartial.
And no one should believe she isn't.

Dollops said...

Judges should by definition be conservative. "Activist judge" is an oxymoron. To be activist is to advocate, and advocates are meant to argue their cases before judges who then rule from wisdom which comes from precedent, both legal and traditional consensus.