Days of Change

Ask John Roberts in 40 Years | June 25, 2013

John Roberts and four other SCOTUS justices radically modified the implementation of a law passed by Congress with far-reaching effects, forcing them to rewrite and pass changes before it could go into effect again. Unfortunately, it was not a decision on the “Affordable” Care Act.

Roberts’ decision essentially let Obamacare stand by making any penalties a tax, even though the arguments (mostly) argued it was a mandate. The Chief Justice believed that when Congress makes a law, it is incumbent upon the Court to accept that law, even though it was unpopular and could not be passed even six months after the original passage. In the case of the Voting Rights Act, Roberts made the opposite determination. He found that Congress overstepped its bounds on a law whose extension ion passed with 393 votes in the House and passed 98-0 in the Senate.

Why did Roberts decide this way? Apparently, he had a philosophical objection to the scope and application of the Voting Rights Act. In 2006, the Act was extended for another 25 years, keeping the same specific restrictions on six states as unable to pass voters’ rights laws. Eric Holder has Obamized the VRA to prevent southern states from passing voter ID laws because he can. Now he can’t, and those states can now require voters to prove who they are as a barrier to voter fraud.

The reasoning is strong. Legal Insurrection has a chart showing that the registration gap between Whites and Blacks has nearly disappeared in the five decades since the Act became law. In some cases, Black voters have a larger registration percentage than White voters. The court struck down the 1965 metrics that still consider certain states to be worthy of particular scrutiny even after they have fixed the problem. COngress will have to re-pass the act, using more recent demographic data to prove its case.

Sadly, Roberts will only thwart the will of Congress when they have passed old, settled law that no longer applies. Perhaps Roberts can reconsider, as his dying act, the horrors Obamacare will wreak on the country forty years from now. By that time, we will mostly be dead, and probably due to Obamacare treatments.


Posted in Uncategorized

4 Comments

  1. Ask John Roberts in 40 Years

    I have only one question for Roberts? hat were yo promised to dec de for obamacare?
    —————————————————————————-
    The wrong side won the Civil War.

    Comment by Mary — June 25, 2013 @ 9:42 pm

    • I wouldn’t go that far, but Judge Napolitano on Fox News gave an interesting perspective on the Civil War.

      He argued that if the North had let the South secede, they would have eventually became trading partners with the US. The South would eventually end slavery because machinery would take the place of slave labor, which was expensive and the two halves of the country might have rejoined on different terms.

      The Civil War was about a lot of things, but the North had a large interest in keeping the southern ports for trade routes. Had the South broken away from the United States, it would have had considerable difficulty in exporting goods.

      Comment by 1539days — June 25, 2013 @ 9:53 pm

      • In high schooI I learned: industial North vs. agrarian South. In those terms, the outcome was inevitable. I like the Judge’s insight better.

        Comment by Mary — June 26, 2013 @ 1:55 am

    • EDIT:
      I have only one question for Roberts: What were you promised to legitimate obamacare?

      The bum took a dive!

      Comment by Mary — June 25, 2013 @ 9:54 pm


    2016 Polls

    Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 16 other followers

%d bloggers like this: