On todays panel on Fox News Sunday, Charles Lane from the Washington Post, gave his two-cents on how Justice Roberts is slamming "The Great Society." (See original post HERE, posted by Religio-Political Talk) See my audio here at MRCTV: Hewitt Explains to Prager Justice Roberts [Possible] Thinking Behind Ruling
❖ Helped to increase possibility of Romney Win:
a. The Romney campaign raised 4.6 million dollars the first day;
b. Over 40,000 new donors for Mitt Romney the first day;
c. Helped to stir the base up like in 2010 when the Tea Party was energized by this very topic, Obama-Care tax, we took 700[plus] seats.
❖ What a Romney win will mean:
a. With Romney in all he has to do is give the 50-states a waiver to undermine the law;
b. With the renewed interest by the electorate to get Obama/Obama-Care out by by putting in Republican Senators and Representatives, all we need is 50[+]1 in the Senate to throw it out;
c. Roberts took the power away from the Obama campaign running against it, thus, Roberts showered up the Romney campaign.
❖ Shored up Supreme Court nominees:
a. With a good chance that two positions will open up on the Court for whomever is President next term, Roberts is thinking ahead and wants to ensure having more conservative judges on the bench;
b. Makes the Court look less partisan for years to come;
c. Roberts will not be called partisan for 30-years if he serves that long.
❖ Obama-Care will be overturned… no worries [Roberts Knows This!]:
a. The HHS mandate will be coming down the pipeline… it will be overturned on this basis (this may demand one more conservative judge);
b. The “Exchanges” between states being an impossibility both Constitutionally (the majority opinion eviscerated this concept), and Republican governors [like Jindal for instance] have said they will not implement them.
c. Since this is a direct tax, via the Court, this has another Constitutional ground to lose on or for Congress to overturn on. That is this:
- Article 1, Section 3, Paragraph 3 of the Constitution [Apportionment of Representatives; Direct Taxes]: Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several states which may be included within this union…
- Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, Paragraph 1 [Bills of Revenue Originate in House]: 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.
d. BECAUSE it is a tax, reconciliation can be used to repeal the law.
❖ Set-Up for a future ruling!
a. The ruling (with the previous one on the Endangered Species Act: National Home Builders Ass’n v. Defenders of Wildlife), undercuts the Federal Government’s power over the states considerably, Roberts and the other judges wrote of this in the majority opinion. With one more conservative judge on the panel, I think you would have one of the most offensive rulings ever (like the bad law in Dred Scott v. Sandford, Roe v Wade, and this one in the commerce clause found in Wickard v. Filburn) being possibly turned over with the next case to make it to the Court in regards to it.
This and more makes me wonder… because everyone that knows Roberts personally says he is really intelligent. And the fact that he changed his mind late in the game (switching sides) tells me that this all dawned on him and he switched sides then. So far from being an argument that Obama’s criticism of the Court changed his mind, many are saying this is a Marbury v. Madison moment.