Skip to main content

View Diary: Why Obama: To fight for progressive values (128 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Connecting past to present , Robert Parry gives.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Loge

    ..a historical viewpoint exposing the ideological and partisan Roberts decision:
    Roberts embraces the right's fake history

    Exclusive: The U.S. Supreme Court went to the brink of striking down a major act of social legislation for the first time since the New Deal before being pulled back by Chief Justice John Roberts. But he still gave right-wingers a consolation prize by enshrining into legal precedent their false founding history, writes Robert Parry.
    Curtailing Federal power by cherrypicking:
    Although giving the Affordable Care Act a thumbs-up by citing Congress’ taxing authority, Roberts gave a thumbs-down to Congress’ reliance on the Commerce Clause to justify the law’s legality. In that part of his ruling, Roberts, in effect, rewrote the nation’s founding document, second-guessing the Framers’ decision to grant Congress sweeping power to regulate interstate commerce.
    To undo James Madisons work:
    In Federalist Paper No. 45, entitled “The Alleged Danger From the Powers of the Union to the State Governments Considered,” Madison wrote: “If the new Constitution be examined with accuracy, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of NEW POWERS to the Union, than in the invigoration of its ORIGINAL POWERS.”
    Roberts decision was motivated by legacy concerns and a partisan agenda - not merely upholding the constitution:
    Yet, Roberts joined his right-wing colleagues in saying that the Commerce Clause only allows regulation of “existing commercial activity” and that the insurance mandate “compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product,” a principle that Roberts said could lead the federal government to require other mandatory purchases.

    However, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the four more liberal justices, noted the fallacy of Roberts’s argument. “Unlike the market for almost any other product or service,” she wrote, “the market for medical care is one in which all individuals inevitably participate.”

    In the end, Roberts found a way to square his right-wing ideology with his concern that a five-to-four partisan vote to strike down a major piece of social legislation — for the first time since the 1930s — would damage public faith in the Supreme Court.

    Thx Armando - this comment (of mine) says very little, yet I thought Robert Parrys' background connection was a valuable addition

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site