Christian: Will Liberty Suffer under 'Roberts Court'?

Yes, if the Roberts court "refuses to protect people from the excesses of presidents and members of Congress," writes Ernest Christian, who takes apart Roberts's 'tax' rationale.

The question is why did Roberts climb so far out on such a shaky limb. The opinion he wrote on the status of ObamaCare under the Commerce Clause is profound and sure-footed. In contrast, his opinion on the tax issues seems to have been written by a different person who is far from a master of the subject, and himself not fully convinced, but feels compelled to uphold ObamaCare.

The ObamaCare saga may signal a new kind of "activist" judicial philosophy that, given Roberts' young age and the advanced years of many of the other justices, may in time develop into the "Roberts Court." The chief justice says it is the duty of the court to uphold what Congress and the president do if it possibly can, and, in this case, he actively sought to do so, going well beyond what the dissenting justices and many others seem to think is reasonable.

In the future, instead of the court going to great lengths to protect individuals from government, as many liberals and conservatives have done in the past, and instead of trying to preserve the rightful role of the states in a federal system, as many conservatives have so often tried to do, the court under Roberts' leadership may primarily seek to protect the growing power of the federal government from court challenges by those who disagree with its decisions.

If that is the course taken by the Roberts court, and if it refuses to protect people from the excesses of presidents and members of Congress who by hook or crook have managed to get themselves elected, liberty will suffer.

Lied To, Scorned and Betrayed!

That's how a majority of the American people have been treated by the majority in its government and its court. In a 2009 interview, President Obama said "you can't just make up the language and decide that that's called a tax increase." (Video here.) Yet that is exactly what the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court today just did.

National Review called the majority's ruling "Chief Justice Roberts's Folly:"

The dissent acknowledges that if an ambiguous law can be read in a way that renders it constitutional, it should be. It distinguishes, though, between construing a law charitably and rewriting it. The latter is what Chief Justice John Roberts has done. If Roberts believes that this tactic avoids damage to the Constitution because it does not stretch the Commerce Clause to justify a mandate, he is mistaken. The Constitution does not give the Court the power to rewrite statutes, and Roberts and his colleagues have therefore done violence to it. If the law has been rendered less constitutionally obnoxious, the Court has rendered itself more so. Chief Justice Roberts cannot justly take pride in this legacy... [emphasis added]

Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli called the decision "a dark day for American Liberty," and 
Rush Limbaugh said it was "the largest tax increase in the history of the world."

The text of the Court's individual mandate opinion is here.