Chief Justice Roberts Sends Dangerous Message: He Can Be Manipulated

CBS has confirmed what many speculated - Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote from a 5-4 majority with the conservative justices plus Kennedy to overrule Obamacare, to a 5-4 majority with the liberal justices to uphold it as a tax.

Although I knew Roberts is too much of a pragmatist, more concerned about the perception of the Court as an authority and his legacy, this section of CBS' report is still particularly disturbing (emphasis added):

Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

The courts are supposed to be independent and above politics.  The notion that the President, the head of a competing branch of government, could browbeat the court into a decision is especially galling.  Not to mention the blackmail from the mainstream media and liberal elites, threatening the legitimacy of the court based solely on the outcome of the decision.  The fact that a chief justice could be influenced by these external forces is shameful and unbecoming of the prestigious position he holds. 

I can't help but think such a chief justice is unfit for the role.  His duty is to the Constitution, not to his own legacy, not to Congress or the President, and not to the perceptions of the Supreme Court.

The perceived authority of the Supreme Court has ebbed and flowed over the last 200 plus years.  It is extremely short-sighted for Roberts to think he has to safe-guard today's perception.  The Supreme Court is much bigger than him, it is not going away, no matter how much the liberals pout and cry.  It is disgusting to think that their threats of a temper tantrum would make him change his mind.  This is similar to when liberals wanted to abolish the Electoral College after Bush v. Gore.  They ridiculously want to change the rules when they don't win the game.  But our institutions, while not perfect, were expertly designed and are meant to endure temporary partisan heartache.

Justice is supposed to be blind, but Roberts is wide-eyed to the external pressures he is supposed to ignore.  This is precisely why justices are given lifetime appointments - so that the politics of the day do not influence them.  They are to have no constituencies of their own, no fickle voters to appease, their only duty is to their oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." 

One must stand with the Constitution, not cave into the threats to destroy it.  Unfortunately, Roberts does not have that kind of courage.  Yes, Chief Justice Roberts is a wimp.  The chief justice of the Supreme Court should not be susceptible to blackmail and professional threats. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent.  How can the Constitution be upheld when the leader in charge of safe-guarding it can be manipulated?  What other outrageous laws could President Obama enact in - God forbid - a second term that Roberts will feel pressured to uphold?

Ironically, in twisting and contorting himself to supposedly protect the court's and his own legitimacy, he has further damaged the institution.   Unlike Roberts, I can see the big picture.  I know the court will endure.  The question is, will the character of our once great republic under Obamacare?

President Obama, Are You Serious? Are You Serious?!

President Obama made some unprecedented and extraordinary statements yesterday about Obamacare and its prospects at the Supreme Court, to which I had to say, Pelosi-style, "Are you serious?  Are you serious?!"  For starters, he said:

I am confident 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. ...

As many have pointed out, this is a laughably unprecedented and extraordinary definition of the words "unprecedented" and "extraordinary."  It's as if President Obama thinks the Supreme Court has never struck down a law before!  Or that Congress has never passed an unconstitutional law in its history!

After his Solicitor General got terrible reviews for his oral arguments, which some think put the case in jeopardy, Obama is trying to reframe the debate in case he loses.  If Obamacare goes down, Obama wants you to think it is because of an activist, extreme Supreme Court - not because the law itself is an unconstitutional federal intrusion into your life.

And is Obama really calling a bill that had zero Republican votes and passed 219-212 in the House a "strong" majority?  Obama did do better in the Senate, on a 60-39 party-line vote taken on Christmas Eve.  But where's that "strong majority" now?  Less than a month after the Senate vote, Scott Brown was the first Republican to be elected to the Senate from Massachusetts in decades, in part because he ran as the 41st vote to stop Obamacare.  Today, the Democrats are down to 51 Senators and the House saw a 60 person swing and a switch over to GOP control since the vote, which played a huge part in the 2010 elections.

In his weakened state, Obama is reduced to lecturing conservatives on what he thinks we say:

I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. ... 

Obama seems to think that simply striking down a law passed by Congress is what makes a ruling judicial activism - as if not acceding to whatever the legislative branch wants is judicial excess.  But it's not whether a law is upheld or struck down, it is whether the law was Constitutional and whether an originalist or strict constructionalist theory was applied that matters.

Judicial activism is about judges who disregard the Constitution and make up rights out of whole cloth.  Like "penumbras, formed by emanations" that magically find rights to abortion or separation of church and state hiding in the text of the Constitution all along.  It's about illiterate judges who uphold gun bans despite the clear wording of the 2nd Amendment.  It's about courts that think the the Founders' original intent in the 1st Amendment was to ban prayer.  Obama has no idea what judicial activism is, for him, words only mean what he wants them to mean, only at that particular point in time.

Finally, let's hear why Obama thinks Obamacare should be upheld:

I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. ...

Ok, nevermind, I take it all back - Obama's astounding powers of persuasion and impeccable reasoning skills have convinced me of the error of my ways!  He wins!
.
UPDATE: Looks like the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is taking Obama's words seriously:

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
...
In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president's comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws "have troubled a number of people" and that the suggestion "is not a small matter."
The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss "judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation."
"I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday -- that's about 48 hours from now -- a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president," Smith said. "What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?"

I'm glad there are consequences for Obama's irresponsible words.  This is part of why the Founders' system of checks and balances is so brilliant.  Instead of each branch colluding with each other, they are pitted in competition with each other, with each not wanting the others to overstep their bounds and encroach into their territory.  Here the judiciary branch is pushing back against an executive assault on its Constitutional powers.  This system is meant to break allegiances across the branches on partisan lines, but alas that has been happening far too often these days.
.

Church, State and the First Amendment: What Coons needs to know

I read this article by Ken Paulson, the President of the First Amendment Center and had to respond to almost everything he wrote.

Church, State and the First Amendment: What O’Donnell needs to know

Sometimes political debates generate light as well as heat.

Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell's question "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" in an exchange Oct. 19 over teaching creationism in public schools tells us something about her but also reminds us of how often America's bedrock principles on government and religion are misunderstood.

Democratic candidate Chris Coons was quick to tell O'Donnell that religion and government are kept separate by the First Amendment.

"You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?" she responded.

Indeed it is.

Indeed it is NOT!  O'Donnell explicitly asks where in the Constitution the words "separation of church and state" appear and when Coons wrongly asserts it is in the First Amendment she seeks to clarify that he is indeed making the false statement that it is in the First Amendment.

Here's a quick take on what the First Amendment says -- and doesn't say:

Keeping government out of religion and religion out of government is a core principle of the First Amendment. The first 16 words say, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Keeping government out of religion is spelled out in the first 16 words, but what in those words keeps religion out of government and where are the words "separation of church and state" that Coons says can be found there?  

That means government can't limit our personal faith or favor one religion over others. [Yes].  It also means that creationism cannot be taught in America's public schools.   

Um, whaaaaaaat???  That is quite a leap!  Maybe that part can be found in the mythical version of the Constitution where the words "separation of church and state" appear...

The separation of church and state has been a cornerstone of American ideals for centuries. As early as 1640, Rhode Island founder and theologian Roger Williams cited the need for "a hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world."

Perhaps a better indication of the cornerstone of American ideals comes from the Declaration of Independence.  This non-secular document signed by the Continental Congress acknowledges that our rights are given from God.  It also references "Nature's God," "a firm Reliance on the Protection of divine Providence," and "appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World."  Does this sound like the beginnings of a nation that would want to keep church and state separate?

James Madison, the author of the Bill of Rights, would later explain the need for this separation, saying, "religion and Govt. will both exist in greater purity,  the less they are mixed together."

Madison says church and state are respectively best when their joining is kept to a minimum.  That is not the same as saying that there must be a separation of church and state, nor is it saying that that is what was intended in the First Amendment. 

Fortunately, there are Congressional transcripts that can tell us what was discussed DURING the drafting of the Bill of Rights:

"Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen.  He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.  He thought if the word national was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent..."

Clearly Madison's concern was the establishment of a national religion on the whole country - kind of like how there's a Church of England - and NOT with abolishing religion from government altogether.

The words "separation of church and state" appear nowhere in the Constitution. That's true, [Thank you!] and O'Donnell's camp now says that's what she really meant.["NOW" says?  It was clear from the beginning that was what she meant!] The phrase stemmed from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. He cited the language of the First Amendment and said that it built "a wall of separation between Church and State." This was not just some poetic flourish. This was one of the nation's founders and author of the Declaration of Independence explaining exactly what the First Amendment means.

At least Paulson is careful here in saying that Jefferson was a founder and author of the Declaration - he was NOT an author of the Constitution.  In fact, he was in Europe while it was being drafted and his letter was written 10 years after the First Amendment was ratified.  While Jefferson is certainly an important forefather whose opinions are key to our understanding of the founding of our nation, he was not present and did not participate in the debates on the Bill of Rights and thus could not "explain[] exactly what the First Amendment means."

...
Later in the debate, O'Donnell challenged Coons to name the five freedoms of the First Amendment. He came up four freedoms short.

Welcome to the club. First Amendment Center surveys show that most Americans can name just one freedom in the First Amendment and only one in 25 can name all five — freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and the rights of petition and assembly.

"Welcome to the club"??!!  That's all he gets for not knowing a basic tenet of the Constitution?!  While O'Donnell gets a long lecture despite her being correct that "separation of church and state" is nowhere written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights?!

Obviously this article was not written to inform or correct the record on the First Amendment, but to provide political cover for Coons' errors and continue the incorrect narrative that O'Donnell didn't know her Constitution.  

.