Thoughts on the Roberts decision

James N. writes:

The core problems with the Roberts opinion are: (1) it is incoherent, and so incoherent that even those unschooled in the law and legalese can see right through it; (2) it is a transparently political decision, intended to “save the Court” by placating the forces of evil who otherwise would rail against it; and (3) 1+2 are true because Roberts fails to recognize the implacable nature of the left. There is no criticism of the fact that four justices co-signed Ginsburg’s Stalinist opinion, a completely revolutionary document which would overturn the last shred of constitutional protections we have. (Ginsburg basically says there is no Constitution, that the General Will rules. Roberts, at least, pays lip service to the notion that there are limits on the power of the state.) Roberts has given away the store to gain—nothing. The next time his carefully devised limit on the commerce and general welfare clauses comes in front of the Court, if there is a fifth Ginsburg-Sotomayor-Breyer-Kagan, it will be swept away like a Ukrainian kulak.

Once again, we see that fear of the right, fear of “Nazis” (scare quotes because there are no real Nazis), fear of arousing “reaction,” takes precedence over all. Better to destroy one seventh of the economy and consign millions to premature suffering and death than give people like Sarah Palin a victory.

Dave T. writes:

You really nailed Roberts from the beginning, I’m embarrassed to admit that I was taken in by the conservative spin in that case. I knew about some of the things about him that you highlighted on VFR back then but I didn’t want to acknowledge the proper interpretation of them.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at June 30, 2012 10:39 AM | Send