Why Did John Roberts Play Brutus In The Shakespearean Tragedy Of ObamaCare?

We even had key swing vote Anthony Kennedy on our side.

We had the opinion being written by BUSH’S pick for Supreme Court Justice.  It was in the bag for conservatives.

All over America – even in the WHITE HOUSE – people were looking at the decision and initially believing it was a 5-4 ruling against ObamaCare.  People read what Roberts in his majority opinion wrote about the the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare as it pertained to the Commerce Clause:

The individual mandate, however, does not regulate existing commercial activity. It instead compels individuals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product, on the ground that their failure to do so affects interstate commerce. Construing the Commerce Clause to permit Congress to regulate individuals precisely because they are doing nothing would open a new and potentially vast domain to congressional authority.

And it seemed to everyone that the decision had been to strike ObamaCare down.  The majority opinion clearly states that ObamaCare is unconstitutional if the mandate derives from the Commerce Clause, as ObamaCare in fact did derive it’s authority.

When suddenly the worm turned.

Yes, the mandate, the very heart of ObamaCare, was ruled unconstitutional.  But John Roberts decided if he just rewrote the law to make the mandate a tax and the power deriving not from the Commerce Clause but from the power of Congress to tax, it would fix everything.

In the minority opinion that should have been a MAJORITY opinion given that all the conservative justices but that Bush-picked guy supported it along with Anthony Kennedy, the statement was:

[T]o say that the Individual Mandate merely imposes a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling.

ObamaCare was NOT a tax.  We have Democrats and Obama on the record saying that all over the place and actively arguing with anybody who said it was a tax:

STEPHANOPOULOS: I wanted to check for myself. But your critics say it is a tax increase.

OBAMA: My critics say everything is a tax increase. My critics say that I’m taking over every sector of the economy. You know that. Look, we can have a legitimate debate about whether or not we’re going to have an individual mandate or not, but…

STEPHANOPOULOS: But you reject that it’s a tax increase?

OBAMA: I absolutely reject that notion.

Here’s more of the exchange with Stephanopoulos in which we can now saw with complete factual certainty that Barack Obama lied to the American people:

STEPHANOPOULOS: “Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don’t. How is that not a tax?”

PRESIDENT OBAMA: “No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase.

But Obama lied to you. It IS a tax increase.

And none other than Bush Justice John Roberts rewrote the law to “fundamentally transform” it to turn what was in every Democrat’s words NOT a tax increase (and therefore unconstitutional according to the decision yesterday) into a tax increase (and therefore “constitutional enough” for John Roberts).

John Roberts played the role of Brutus in being that sudden, surprise stab in the back.

Why in the hell would he do this?  Why would he abandon his conservative philosophy and betray not only conservatives but America itself?

Well, in a nutshell, here’s why:

Today Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) took to the Senate floor to warn his colleagues and President Obama about public comments about the Supreme Court as it deliberates the health care case.

“Attempts to manipulate or to bully the Supreme Court, especially during deliberations in a particular proceeding, are irresponsible and they tend to threaten the very fabric of our constitutional republic, ” Lee said during a floor speech.

Lee was responding in part to a speech in May by Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.). Leahy took to the Senate floor to warn the Supreme Court, particularly Chief Justice John Roberts, not to strike down the Affordable Care Act.

Leahy said that when he attended oral arguments in March he “was struck by how little respect some of the Justices showed to Congress.” He said some of the justices seemed “dismissive” of the months of work—including dozens of hearings—on the part of both the House and the Senate to enact the law.

Leahy singled out Roberts, explaining why he had voted for him during the Chief Justice’s confirmation hearings: “I trusted he would act to fulfill his responsibilities in accordance with the testimony he gave to the United States Senate. I said then that if I thought he would easily reject precedent or use his position on the Supreme Court as a bulwark for activism, I would not have supported his confirmation.”

During a Rose Garden ceremony in April President Obama said, “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, to his great personal disgrace, put the “reputation” of the Supreme Court ahead of the law, the Constitution, and the nation.

And he did so in the face of frankly terrorist threats to delegitimize the SCOTUS that Roberts – who was appointed directly to the role of Chief Justice by George W. Bush – loves more than anything.

Call it the Stockholm Syndrome, which amounts to the desire for a captive to please the terrorists in order to stay alive.

John Roberts, we are now told, almost certainly switched his vote.

We have never seen a president demonize the Supreme Court the way Barack Obama did when he started the terrorist-threat ball rolling.  George Bush was confronted with a decision that he came out and announced he disagreed with immediately before stating that he respected the Court and would follow the law.  Obama flat-out stated that if the Supreme Court overturned his ObamaCare, this “unelected body” would be exceeding its authority and would no longer be deemed legitimate.

Obama directly threatened the Supreme Court.  His terrorist bomb was the “extraordinary disruption” of Medicare that his “law” had already created and he would see turn into total chaos to punish America if ObamaCare wasn’t upheld.

There was the threat to implode the Medicare system, yes.  There was the demonization of the Supreme Court as an illegitimate body that was all over the place, yes (conservatives kept asking liberals, but what are you going to say if ObamaCare is upheld?).  That demonization was ALL over the place as every liberal crawled out to join in on the Supreme Court bashing in the days before the decision.

And John Roberts blinked.  He switched his vote to appease the demonic, rabid, frothing-at-the-mouth Democrat hate-machine that had been switched on by Barack Obama.

Everyterrorist will confidently tell you something: terrorism works.  That’s why we do it.

The narrative was as follows: John Roberts was troubled by the 2000 lawsuit in which the SCOTUS ultimately ruled that George Bush won the election and the left decried the Supreme Court as a politically biased institution.  And John Roberts listened to Barack Obama’s threat and his ugly words about the Court he loved, he listened to Democrats like Patrick Leahy and Charles Schumer, he listened to all the liberal punditry and he realized that the only way to save the reputation of the Supreme Court from charges of bias was to side with the liberals.

Now, interestingly, there was never any pressure on the four liberals to not rule in lockstep liberal fashion.  This idea of “bias” that was crafted by the left to demonize the SCOTUS doesn’t work that way; it only works against conservatives for ruling according to their conservative philosophy.  Liberals are free to be as biased and as political and as ideological and as partisan as they want.  So there was never any pressure whatsoever for the four liberal justices to ever rule in any other manner but according to their lockstep-liberalism.

Nope.  It was the five Republican-appointed Justices who had to cave.

We were told that a 5-4 decision against Obama would be dreadful.  But if there were to be a 5-4 decision FOR ObamaCare, well, “The highest Court in the land has spoken.”

So John Roberts “fixed” everything.  Just listen to the Democrats and the liberal media praising Roberts and the Court now???  And all he had to do was utterly abandon his conservative principles.  It’s that easy.  It’s just as easy for Republicans in the House and the Senate.  “Bi-partisan compromise” isn’t when 17 Democrats join Republicans in holding Obama Attorney General Holder in contempt; no.  It is when 3 Republicans join Democrats in passing the stimulus.

The Democrats demonized the Court as a political body, and that cut Roberts to the core so much that he was willing to do whatever it took to keep Democrats from politicizing the Court.  Even if it meant politicizing the Court by rewriting a law that his own decision argued was unconstitutional without rewriting the law (with said rewriting the statute being a very political thing to do).

If you want to see true politicizing of the Supreme Court – just as if you want to see ANYTHING evil in America, whether it be slavery, or the Ku Klux Klan, or re-segregation, or the resurgance of the Ku Klux Klan in the 20th Century under the banner of the Democrat Party, or racist union-imposed segregationism, or putting people in camps – you look at DEMOCRATS.  And what is so for everything else is so in the case of the politicization of the Supreme Court: FDR tried to pack the court with “yes men” judges when the Supreme Court told him much of his New Deal was unconstitutional.  And you throw in what the Democrat Party did to destroy Robert Bork and the “high-tech lynching” they demonized Clarence Thomas with, and you ought to get the picture.

Chris Matthews actually libeled John Roberts by comparing him to the judge who passed the fugitive slave act:

CHRIS MATTHEWS: You know, one other concern here, Ezra, a friend of mine, who is a fellow Roman Catholic said, he doesn’t want to be the second Roger Taney. Roger Taney, of course, was a Roman Catholic who upheld the Fugitive Slave Law back before the Civil War and was villainized throughout history because of that.

The Democrat Party overwhelmingly passed the fugitive slave act over Republican opposition.  It is frankly evil to so turn history on its head.  But since when did facts matter to liberal propagandists like Chris Matthews?

Terrorist Democrats had planted a bomb under the foundation of the Supreme Court of the United States.  Only by bowing down to the left could the SCOTUS be allowed to be viewed as “credible” or “legitimate.”  It only works one way.

I agree with the Democrats who say the Supreme Court is a purely political body.  Given that presidents pick the judges, how on earth could it be anything else?  And why should Republicans feel guilt over the fact that Republicans have held the highest elected office in the land than Democrats, such that they have an advantage in “picks”???

Why is it a travesty of justice if five Republican justices decide the law from their philosophy but it wouldn’t be a travesty of justice if five Democrat justices decided the law from their philosophy, apart from the very partisan bias that the left had been dumping on the Supreme Court in the months before Roberts caved?

Let me take this a little bit further, to the practical level: Republican presidents – including the hated George W. Bush – have appointed two of the justices who sided with liberals in monumental decisions like ObamaCare (President Ford appointed John Paul Stevens to go with John Roberts).  Oh, and perennial swing vote Anthony Kennedy was appointed by Reagan.  Consider that Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan will NEVER rule with the conservatives on a major issue.  They were in lock-fascist goose-step on ObamaCare.

If John Roberts ever wanted to be welcom at another hoity-toity Georgetown cocktail circuit soiree, well, he knew what he had to do (hint, hint: the same thing that Brutus knew he had to do to Caesar).  Because he would have been a poster boy for left wing contempt if he’d decided the way he apparently clearly had decided before caving into the intimidation of the left and changing his tune.  Now Roberts has miraculously been transformed from right-wing goon to hero (see also here for the same).

It only works one way, you see.

Like the horror of a 5-4 decision overturning ObamaCare, as NBC anchor David Gregory amply documents:

Early the 7 a.m. et hour of Today, Gregory melodramatically fretted over the possibility of ObamaCare being ruled unconstitutional: “What happens if it is struck down in part or in whole by a 5 to 4 decision? Would that not underscore how dysfunctional our government is, the major institutions of our government are? That is a real nightmare scenario, I think, for the political class in this country.”

Now a 5-4 decision is wonderful and healthy for the nation.  Now “the highest court in the land has spoken.”

What a million metric tons of manure.

Let’s just all agree with the Democrats the days before the ObamaCare decision.  The Supreme Court is nothing more than nine political hacks wearing weird black robes like evil priests of some strange god that has nothing to do with us.

The thing that most bothers me is that “justice” is very much working against conservatives.  And that is because the way the game is being played.  You’ve got the liberal “justices” who can do ANYTHING.  They can literally make up rights (such as “privacy”) to use those made up rights to then make up other rights (abortion).  And how did they justify abortion?  Did they find it in the Constitution?  Nope.  But they found – and this in their very own words – “penumbras and emanations” of abortion in there when they stared into the Constitution like a crystal ball.

What on earth do conservatives have to fight against penumbras and emanations?  We read the Constitution like it actually MEANS SOMETHING and seek the intent of the founding fathers who didn’t intend us to make up whatever we needed to make up to justify whatever the hell we want to do.

Maybe at some point we’ll have the rightwing equivalent of liberal justices who will use the ObamaCare verdict against liberals by forcing all Americans to buy Bibles or pay a “tax” and then force all Americans to go to church or pay a “tax” and then force all Americans to buy a gun or pay a “tax.”  Maybe we’ll have a rightwing president who will decide to arbitrarily abrogate the tax laws the way Obama abrogated immigration law and simply declare that he will not enforce the laws against any American who refuses to pay capital gains taxes.

The reason we’re going to ultimately lose this war for American culture is because in order to do things like this, we’d have to sacrifice our core principles.  Whereas the left have no such principles to sacrifice.

Again, principle is something that only works one way.

In the short run this could actually work out well for Republicans.  Remember, it was the rage of ObamaCare that prompted Americans to come out in droves and give the Republican Party the largest landslide win in history.  And now that issue is right back on the table.  The Supreme Court won’t save us; we must save ourselves from Obama and his tyranny in November.  And that was when ObamaCare was a mandate and not the largest tax in the history of the United States directly smacking the middle class.

The long run is another beast entirely.  America will lose in the long run.  Because too many critical things only work one way.  I’ve listed several above, but there are many other cancers, such as spending and debt.  They can only work one way – and that one way is taking us up like a rocketship until we come down in utter economic collapse.  This is because it is simply too easy for the left to demonize the right over ANY cut in spending.  If Republicans cut spending its because they’re greedy and want to protect the rich at the poor’s expense, etc. etc.  And Republicans will do the very same thing that John Roberts did and blink and then cave in the face of demonic attack.  And as a result America will never be able to cut spending enough to save itself.

The beast is coming.  The Bible tells us that this Antichrist will be a big government world leader who will literally be worshiped as he leads the world straight into hell.  Prior to these last few years, my major stumbling block in believing this was America; how could America do such a thing as worship the beast and take his mark? 

Those illusions have been utterly dispelled.  The beast will come.  When he does America will vote for him.  And then worship him.  And then take his mark.  And then burn in hell forever and ever.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

12 Responses to “Why Did John Roberts Play Brutus In The Shakespearean Tragedy Of ObamaCare?”

  1. Truth Unites... and Divides Says:

    “The beast will come. When he does America will vote for him. And then worship him. And then take his mark. And then burn in hell forever and ever.”

    Hopefully, my immediate family and I will faithfully endure through this period if we’re still alive.

    I really don’t want to see some members of my extended family worship the beast.

    And I hope that you don’t see members of your family worship the beast either, Michael.

    P.S. Good post!

  2. Steve Boehr Says:

    Worth considering is where Justice (justice?) Roberts hails from. He is a product of the world’s most famous, most revered liebral finishing school. Roberts attended Harvard University as an undergrad and as a graduate student in that vile institution’s law school. Like Obama, he was editor of the Harvard Law Review.

    And he learned his lessons well.

    I see a sort of parallelism here. The one man, born in Africa, planted in America and groomed to take this nation’s helm and systematically corrupt it. The second man, groomed in nefariousness in that most radical of liberal institutions, Harvard University, planted in the Supreme Court with the goal of systematically corrupting our nation.

    Common origins, common goals. Think about it…

  3. Free Market Capitalist Says:

    The Bible clearly states what will happen in the last days. The only debate right now is where or what stage we are in regarding the last days time line. Although the Bible is not exactly clear on the rapture, I pray and hope that it occurs prior to the seven years, as I do not want any part of it, especially considering how bad things are getting now which will be nothing compared to what it will be like then in the Tribulation. Well, according to scripture, Damascas has to be destroyed and that hasn’t happened yet. Many believe that Ezekial’s War is the prelude to the Tribulation, while others say that it is another name for Armageddon. I actually believe that it is a seperate conflict and preludes the Tribulation. Obviously, we are not in the Tribulation, but where, exactly, are we in regards to these great events? We can only speculate. But with recent events, it appears that things are picking up and you can start to actually see how the beast system can be implemented!

    I guess my ultimate point here is that the beast will come and force the population to take his mark or not be able to participate in the economy or ultimately die. There is no stopping this, as the Bible says it is going to happen. As far as trying to save our Constitution and American Conservatism, we are ultimately in a losing battle. I am not suggesting to just lay down and not fight, but just remember that when things get worse, which they will, that it ultimately is the plan of God, that he is in control, and we eventually win in the end, no matter how bad it seems in the mean time.

    Those in the media, schools and government etc. that are helping implement the beast system are unknowingly doing the work of satan. Demon spirits of various ranks, under their leader satan, are working through the deceived to bring about the beast. We are not really at war with Obama, Pelosi, Reed, Roberts or the other dim wits, but the spirits behind them.

    Ephesians 6:12

    King James Version (KJV)

    12 For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

  4. Michael Eden Says:

    Truth Unites… and Divides,

    The good news is that the Rapture of all true believers in Jesus Christ will very likely (I believe) occur before the Tribuation.

    It will be hell on earth for those people who come to believe in Christ AFTER the Rapture who are – as Tim LaHaye famously described as “left behind” – and have to endure through the time of the beast.

    There are two primary reasons for believing in a pre-Tribulation rapture: 1) God has a history of taking His people out before divine judgment (e.g. Noah and the flood, Lot and Sodom); and 2) the Church is never mentioned between Revelation ch 3 and the return of Jesus Christ in Rev 19.

    One of my reasons for getting into blogging was to do everything I could to preserve a record.

    As things have gone from bad to worse under Obama, and now as we simply hang around and wait for the whole world economic system to crash, I have tried to keep collecting the facts as they’ve developed.

    Every day when I pray, Truth Unites, I pray that Jesus Christ will return for His Church. Which is why I believe a Crown of Life awaits me as it awaits those who eagerly await Jesus.

  5. Michael Eden Says:

    Steve Boehr,

    I know what you’re talking about.

    I like to watch Megyn Kelly’s two hours of news coverage on Fox News. She does a pretty good job overall. But here’s the thing: she went to a liberal law school. When she thinks like a mom, she thinks as a conservative; when she approaches a legal issue, she cannot set aside her liberal law school and reasons a lot more like Ruth Bader Ginsburg than Antonin Scalia. She just can’t separate the indoctrination even though I think she wants to. It’s how she was trained.

    I got my Masters degrees from a good, solid conservative university. Had I gone on to a PhD, I would have had no choice but to be immersed into a very liberal program (or else move out of the area). Had I done that, I would have either had to give my faculty the liberalism that they wanted, or I would have had to suffer the consequences of my “heresy.” Ultimately I didn’t take that route.

  6. Michael Eden Says:

    Free Market Capitalist,

    In previously responding to Truth Unites, I hit on some of the things that you brought up.

    The beast IS coming. As you describe. God knew what the condition of the human race would degenerate into in the last days.

    I personally don’t believe that it “had” to happen in 2013 (or whatever date it occurs), because God warned us to give each generation a warning and an opportunity. But yes, God knew it would happen, and God knew WHEN it would happen because He knows the end from the beginning.

    When the mark of the beast is implemented as a government program, we will have reached a point – and all the pieces are already in place RIGHT NOW – that cash money will no longer exist. All money will be electronic, and the only way to access money will be to have the mark. Without the mark, no one will be able to either buy anything or sell anything. And even bartering will be virtually impossible, because if you barter for groceries with someone who has the mark, the government tracking will be notified that that person has increased his/her grocery purchases and investigate.

    There will be no way out but to hide in the depths and and scrounge out a living by trying to grow and hunt your own food. It will be a terrible time.

    And its coming. Everything is in place for it.

    All we need is a suitable disaster, a global collapse, a threat of total war, to bring the Antichrist in on his white horse to save the day. And that could literally happen any time. All the other pieces are now in place.

    Jesus said His coming would be like a thief in the night. The collapse that will herald the Antichrist will be just as sudden; one night the financial experts will tell us everything is fine; the next day the collapse will be out of control and money will be worth nothing.

  7. momswithcommonsense Says:

    I agree! If Roberts wanted to show he was “bi-partisan” he should have picked a less significant decision to do that.

  8. Michael Eden Says:

    In 2005, Ann Coulter, brilliant as always, referred to Roberts as someone who shouldn’t be trusted.

    Yesterday Roberts proved that Coulter was right.

    Sarah Palin, always an optimist, is claiming that the Supreme Court actually gave Republicans a gift.

    I don’t see it that way, even if it helps get Romney and a Repub majority elected in November.

    ObamaCare is so evil I wanted it gone.

  9. momswithcommonsense Says:

    Amen to wanting it gone. Saying it will help get Dems out of office in the fall is just grasping for a silver lining in this terrible decision. I love Ann Coulter too and she’s usually right!

  10. Michael Eden Says:


    I’d say it MIGHT be a “silver lining” catalyst that gets fence-sitters who didn’t think Romney was conservative enough or didn’t like his Mormonism (I’m actually in both camps, but I’m voting for Romney anyway) will come on board. ObamaCare is also very unpopular with independents.

    It might be that ObamaCare will seal the election AND the Congress for Republicans.

    But it also might NOT.

    My view is that ObamaCare is so BAD I didn’t want to play any stupid political football games with it. I wanted it dead, and it is still alive to threaten my parents who are both on Medicare.

    It seems that you and I are on the same page.

  11. Inbred TeaBagger Says:

    Too late assholes. You and your ignorance already worship the Beast. The Beast of greed, intolerance, and stupidity. What a pathetic group of sheeple…Oh noes! We’re all going to have health insurance! It’s the end of the f*cking world! Jeesuz keerist you have got to be the most ignorant, small-minded, little douchebags on this friggin’ planet. F*ck each and every one of you morons.

  12. Michael Eden Says:

    Inbred TeaBagger,

    I’ll allow your comment to stand – and then block you as an obviously truly vile human being from whom filfth simply oozes out of every pore.

    I’ll also submit that I wrote a piece in which I painstakingly interacted with the facts. What do you do, “Inbred” (and I have little doubt but that you were)? You come up with the usual from your ilk: a fact-free rant in which you express hate on top of hate. On your view, “small-minded” people are those who present the facts and make a argument based on the actual facts. While you “large-minded” types merely ignore them and spew hate.

    For the record, anyone who has ever once actually read the Bible will recognize that the Beast will be a big government global dictator rather than a proponent of small, limited and SOVEREIGN American government based on the writings of our Christian founding fathers. Which ideology wants more powerful and expansive government? YOU. Which ideology keeps wanting more and more “international cooperation” and more United Nation power and influence? Oh, that’s right, YOU AGAIN.

    I submit that between your ugly rant and your twisted and perverted inability to understand the words of Scripture that you move and speak when the demons inside you want you to move and speak.

    Now get lost.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: