According to some folks who are disgruntled with the Supreme
Court’s ruling on ‘Obamacare’ the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme
Court is a traitor. This is a truly
unfortunate claim for a couple of reasons.
First of all, the word “traitor” in this context brings with
it the suggestion of treachery not just to conservatives or the Republican
Party, but towards America as a whole.
People who disagree with you are not traitors. Calling them traitors is lazy, stupid, and
not any part of a productive discussion of anything. I think people who want to use military force
on Iran are completely wrong, but I don’t think they are purposely trying to
destroy or betray the country so I wouldn’t use that accusation as a part of my
argument that they are wrong. I would
just rely on real evidence.
Second, this use of traitor assumes that one should have a
pretty strong allegiance to one’s party.
Many folks seem to be assuming that these days. It has appeared to be the case that more than
one Republican leader has placed the good of the party above the good of the country. That’s really the only way to explain the
last two years of ‘strategy’ on the part of the republican leadership in
Congress. A continued economic
depression seemed to be seen as a small price to pay for the removal of Obama
from office. Party allegiance is
important, but I think it has to be tempered a little bit more by allegiance to
country and a commitment to addressing the problems facing the country.
Third, Supreme Court judges are not supposed to vote along
party lines. They are actually supposed
to apply the law of the land. Chief
Justice John Roberts is not supposed to check with Republican Party leaders
before he writes his opinions. The
judiciary, after all, is a separate branch.
You don’t have to agree with the Supreme Court’s
decision. You shouldn’t, however, go
around calling it treachery. That is lazy
and irresponsible. If you are going to reach
a conclusion on this, try and make it one that is supported by actual logical
premises rather than name calling and innuendo.
Then we, your fellow citizens who disagree with you, might be able to do
the same and, wonder of wonders, we might even find ourselves in a
dialogue. I don’t think that would be too
vile.
"Third, Supreme Court judges are not support to vote along party lines. They are actually supposed to apply the law of the land. Chief Justice John Roberts is not supposed to check with Republican Party leaders before he writes his opinions. The judiciary, after all, is a separate branch."
ReplyDeleteThe problem with you argument is that the liberals always vote along party lines just as they did this time. But I don't suppose you have a problem with that do you? Just because they aren't the majority does not mean that they don't do the same exact thing or that they're right to do it.
I don't actually think "liberals vote along party lines" on the court. I think most of the examples you could come up with to support your point are actually situations where the justices voted consistently with their judicial philosophies. (feel free to share some examples) What I like about what Roberts did here is that he stuck to his judicial philosophy. He didn't all of a sudden become the lead justice in an activist court. I don't agree with his judicial philosophy, as I am not a strict constructionist and don't have a problem with activist courts, but I admire his consistency. I think to strike down 'Obamacare' the court would have had to get the law wrong and do what at least three justices have no problem doing, ignore their judicial philosophy in order to achieve a particular end result.
DeleteOh, and based on how Roberts answered questions during his confirmation hearings, this is treachery. Roberts rewrote the law. This was not a tax because it does not pass the 'general welfare' part of taxation powers.
ReplyDeleteWhat Roberts basically ruled is that the government may not force you to purchase a product but it can tax the hell out of you if you don't. So if congress passes a bill that says all drivers must have a vehicle that gets at least 25mpg, they can't force you to buy that vehicle but they can tax you whatever they see fit if you don't. That should scare both republicans and democrats alike.
Roberts found that the government action here fell within the federal; governments power to tax. How is that treason? Did he commit to not voting this way during his confirmation process? Did he commit never to support a tax? Did he commit to always help out Republicans? This is the problem I have with calling him a traitor ... you can disagree with his ruling, I'm not saying anything about that, I'm just saying I don't like it when your problem with his ruling is just that he disagreed and as a Republican appointee he's not supposed to. I find that reasoning lazy and dangerous.
DeleteThe United States Constitution, Article One, Section. 7:
ReplyDeleteClause 1: All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.
The bill that was passed was one the one the Senate wrote, not the House. The House had a bill, but it was not sent to the Senate because Scott Brown was just elected and it would not have passed. So Pelosi used the one that originated in the Senate and just voted on that.
Here is the argument that it origiated in the House: http://www.forbes.com/sites/kellyphillipserb/2012/06/29/if-the-health-care-law-is-really-a-tax-law-is-it-doomed-on-procedure/
ReplyDeleteWhat I think is truly amazing is the amount of hand wringing that a bill to extend healthcare to all Americans that is actually heavily influenced by what were a few years ago Republican ideas. Is it so bad that we take a few steps towards getting Americans health care (even if not perfect) and that Obama gets credit for it?
Just to be clear, this is my point here: it is wrong to call the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court a traitor when he authors a decision you disapprove of. I made this my first post on the decision because I thought that it was an argument that just about no one would disagree with. I think it is important to emphasize common ground, and even more important to clean up our discussion so we focus on the issues and don’t traffic in scare tactics and insults. There is no reason we have to question someone’s loyalty to whatever group, let alone their citizenship, when they disagree with us. We usually think of a traitor as someone who betrays his or her country. Miriam and Webster define a traitor as “one who betrays another’s trust.” If you think John Roberts was a traitor, how did he betray the country? If he didn’t betray the country, whose trust did he betray? The conservatives? The Republicans? Are Supreme Court Justrices supposed to have allegiances to poolitical parties or ideological causes? I really don’t think those questions can be answered satisfactorily and I don’t understand why we need to go there. What I really don’t understand is why we can’t just focus on the substantive issues at hand.
ReplyDelete