Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Born on the 4th of July
Well, well, well...so the Supreme Court upheld Obama Care...and all the pundits are scrambling to make sense of it all. Some, mostly right wingers, have said it was a "complete sell out" by Chief Justice John Roberts. Many others, including most mainstream outlets, have called it vindication of Barrack Obama's entire presidency. No one, I repeat, no one has asked MediaCopp's opinion...
I'm not sure why that is, exactly. No one, I repeat, no one has come close to my opinion...and what if my opinion is the correct one, hmm? Looking more closely at the debate...the Court could have, a) struck down the law, or b) upheld the law. There are four liberal justices on the Supreme Court: (Stephen) Breyer, (Ruth) Bader Ginsburg, (Elena) Kagan, and (Sonia) Sotomayor. The four liberal justices were rock solid votes for upholding the law. Conversely, there are four solid conservative votes on the Court: (Samuel) Alito, (John) Roberts, (Antonin) Scalia, and (Clarence) Thomas...and then, there's (Anthony) Kennedy, the one lone moderate.
Many pundits immediately assumed that "Chief Justice Roberts must have discovered that Kennedy was sticking with the conservatives," and he "simply changed his vote to preserve the integrity of the Court." Close...but eh-h-h-h-h-h-h-h...no cigar...and yes, the pundits were also in the ball park when they opined, "the Chief Justice knew that by 'siding with' the liberal justices, he would in fact be the justice who would write the majority opinion on this groundbreaking legislation." Again, oooooh, so close...
There was even one political talking head who came so curmudgeonly close as to earn a spot in the MediaCopp Hall of Fame. Yes, this politico even mentioned Gore v. Bush in 2000 and how "Roberts obviously sought to sidestep another partisan boondoggle" by taking the issue right out of the jaws of extremists on both sides of this issue. Did the Chief Justice of the United States of America change his opinion on such an important case, just to avoid a little bad press? Oh, all right, Armageddon- like bad press, I'll give you that.
Why not? I might not go as far as some pundits who said it (Roberts' change) was "obviously the result of President Obama's previous statements likening the Court's potential failure to uphold the law as unprecedented and (even) politically motivated," or because of "the tongue lashing delivered (toward the Court) by Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) on the floor of the US Senate." No, I don't think those two factored into his decision in the slightest.
Still with me? Here we go...I have always said, it is far, FAR easier to sabotage something (someone) than to support and/or facilitate. I think Chief Justice Roberts looked down the road, at least ahead of most others, and saw what was in store for the country should there be another (as I predicted) 5-4 party line decision. Yes, MediaCopp predicted a 5-4 decision, followed by the national media immediately proclaiming the decision illegitimate...and the President and his followers then tweaking the law, of course to the detriment of all. "What?!? What the hell are you talking about? Sabotage? Illegitimate? Followers?
Yes, Buck, I too tend to look beyond tomorrow...or even the day after tomorrow. No, I'm not in the same league as a Supreme Court Justice, but don't you think I could be? On the 4th of July, all is possible...at least for now...
I'm not sure why that is, exactly. No one, I repeat, no one has come close to my opinion...and what if my opinion is the correct one, hmm? Looking more closely at the debate...the Court could have, a) struck down the law, or b) upheld the law. There are four liberal justices on the Supreme Court: (Stephen) Breyer, (Ruth) Bader Ginsburg, (Elena) Kagan, and (Sonia) Sotomayor. The four liberal justices were rock solid votes for upholding the law. Conversely, there are four solid conservative votes on the Court: (Samuel) Alito, (John) Roberts, (Antonin) Scalia, and (Clarence) Thomas...and then, there's (Anthony) Kennedy, the one lone moderate.
Many pundits immediately assumed that "Chief Justice Roberts must have discovered that Kennedy was sticking with the conservatives," and he "simply changed his vote to preserve the integrity of the Court." Close...but eh-h-h-h-h-h-h-h...no cigar...and yes, the pundits were also in the ball park when they opined, "the Chief Justice knew that by 'siding with' the liberal justices, he would in fact be the justice who would write the majority opinion on this groundbreaking legislation." Again, oooooh, so close...
There was even one political talking head who came so curmudgeonly close as to earn a spot in the MediaCopp Hall of Fame. Yes, this politico even mentioned Gore v. Bush in 2000 and how "Roberts obviously sought to sidestep another partisan boondoggle" by taking the issue right out of the jaws of extremists on both sides of this issue. Did the Chief Justice of the United States of America change his opinion on such an important case, just to avoid a little bad press? Oh, all right, Armageddon- like bad press, I'll give you that.
Why not? I might not go as far as some pundits who said it (Roberts' change) was "obviously the result of President Obama's previous statements likening the Court's potential failure to uphold the law as unprecedented and (even) politically motivated," or because of "the tongue lashing delivered (toward the Court) by Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) on the floor of the US Senate." No, I don't think those two factored into his decision in the slightest.
Still with me? Here we go...I have always said, it is far, FAR easier to sabotage something (someone) than to support and/or facilitate. I think Chief Justice Roberts looked down the road, at least ahead of most others, and saw what was in store for the country should there be another (as I predicted) 5-4 party line decision. Yes, MediaCopp predicted a 5-4 decision, followed by the national media immediately proclaiming the decision illegitimate...and the President and his followers then tweaking the law, of course to the detriment of all. "What?!? What the hell are you talking about? Sabotage? Illegitimate? Followers?
Yes, Buck, I too tend to look beyond tomorrow...or even the day after tomorrow. No, I'm not in the same league as a Supreme Court Justice, but don't you think I could be? On the 4th of July, all is possible...at least for now...
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
