Oh, Sorry: It’s Right After the “Stare Decisis Trumps All” Clause

Hit & Run – Reason.com

n an unsigned editorial published today, the editors of The Wall Street Journal give a Bronx cheer to “the media acclaim cascading over Chief Justice John Roberts” for his decision upholding the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare. As the Journal notes, Roberts is currently basking in the praise of both Esquire magazine, which named the chief one of its “Americans of the Year,” and The Atlantic, which hailed him as one of the “Brave Thinkers” of 2012, “by which they mean thinkers who agree with the Atlantic’s liberal editors.”

I’m surprised the liberal love affair with Roberts has lasted this long, but then again the Supreme Court hasn’t yet issued any major decisions since handing down its Obamacare ruling in back in June.

Before the inevitable heartbreak strikes, I’d encourage the fawning editors at Esquire and The Atlantic to reread Roberts’ Obamacare ruling. “It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices,” he wrote.

Actually, it is, if what the people choose is blatantly unconstitutional.

Or perhaps Justice Roberts can point to the “majoritarian exception” which allows the tyranny of the mob to overrule the liberties guaranteed by the constitution?

About Bill Quick

I am a small-l libertarian. My primary concern is to increase individual liberty as much as possible in the face of statist efforts to restrict it from both the right and the left. If I had to sum up my beliefs as concisely as possible, I would say, "Stay out of my wallet and my bedroom," "your liberty stops at my nose," and "don't tread on me." I will believe that things are taking a turn for the better in America when married gays are able to, and do, maintain large arsenals of automatic weapons, and tax collectors are, and do, not.


Oh, Sorry: It’s Right After the “Stare Decisis Trumps All” Clause — 4 Comments

  1. You’re behind the times, Steve_in_CA. Take a look at how male “significant others” are treated when it comes to “dependent” women and children. The man doesn’t even need to be the father of the children and he can be enslaved to support them. The key goal of the State is to minimize how much the State needs to pay to support the poor, helpless women and children; all other considerations, including legal process, can be discarded in pursuit of this goal.

  2. The simplest explanation for an event is often the right one, and the simplest explanation for Roberts’ decision is that he’s not a top-echelon jurist, he’s a coward who didn’t want to put out a controversial decision just before the election, and called forcing people to buy insurance a “tax” in the hope that opponents would find another angle and the act could be struck down later. Just add the appointment of Roberts as Chief Justice to the list of Dubya’s bonehead moves that we will be paying for long after his term ended.

  3. No. Buying the insurance is not the tax. Paying the penalty for NOT buying the insurance is the tax.

    And, it is exactly equivalent to paying the tax for not buying an electric vehicle or for not buying energy-efficient windows or any of another dozen tax credits that exist.

Leave a Reply