Premise: ObamaCare is going to destroy this country. That is a totally accurate premise. The "Affordable Care Act" is going to DESTROY this country. The sheer BURDEN of "implementing" the ridiculously complex law, and all of the TAXES in it, will alone destory our economy--not to mentin the COST. Subsidiary premise: Even if the GOP wins the next electin, the MESSY process of "repealing' ObabaCare (not to mentin "replacing it" with some GOP atrocity) is going to destroy this country (in any recognizable form, with any kiind of viable economy). Again, this is a perfectly accurate premise.
Thus, can we say that Chief Justice Roberts has DESTROYED this cuntry? This, of coure, is a trick questin. The only "god" thing abut the Supreme Court decision is that it upholds DEMOCRACY (at the cost of DESTROYNNG the Consitutin). Leftists, of curse, do NOT believe in democracy. They ony beieve in POWER. The reaction to the Arizona illegal immigratoni law again proved that, as does the whole absurd, successful lefitstt attempt to SUBVERT democracy as to abortion. They have done the same thing, of curse, with the DEATH PENALTY, but just have not yet totally succeeded. No. Leftists do not believe in democracy. However, it is true that the Obama "health care law" was the RESULT of the democratic lproces. Chief Justice Roberts did NOT "create" the law. It is really going too far to say that Chief Justice Roberts is "responsible" for ObamaCare. What Cheif Justice Roberts is "responssible" for is DESTOYING THE CONSTITUIN of this country--at lest in terms of its fundamental conccept of a LIMITED FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
Pogo: "We have met the enemy, and he is us." Yes, WE are "responsible" for ObamaCare--not Chief Justice Roberts. By "w", I mean the people of the Unnited States, and obviusly not the people who OPPOSE this diretin of the country. Now I admit that you might accuse ME of being part of the problem, since I REFUSED to vote for John McCain, and still refuse to vote for Mitt Romney (even asat least one of my brothers says this clinches it: "you MUT vote for AnYONE with a chance to beat Obama and get this repealed." Sorry, I understand the argument, but I just can't take the BETRAYAL. Yes, this action by Chief Justice Roberts is one of those BETAYALS that I just can't take anymore. But OUR PRESIDENT, and OUR REPRESENTATIVES, gave us ObamaCare. They did not just "spring up" out of some sort of fungus in Washington (appearnaces to the contgrary). We (as a public) VOTED for these peole. As Pogo said: "we have met the enemy, and he is us." Se seem to WANT to be BRiBED, and to have the government take care of us. We votge for people who either promiise us that, or ACT like that is what we want (referrnig her tro the GOP). And we KEEP electing these same peole (with rare, meaningless exceptions that do not change the overall trnd of where we are headed). I am not just talking aobut the general electins here. I am tlaking abut the whole process, incuding the NOMINATING process where ewe end up with these hopeless choices. No, Chief Justicde Roberts canot be "held resonsbile" for ObamaCare. Ultimately, WE are "responsible" for it. And WE can still FORCE it to be REPEALED (not only with our votes, but by not accepting any evasions and "compromises" to "fix" it so that it "really works"). I accuse Chief Justice Roberts of pundng the final nail into the COFFIN of the CONSTITUTION. But I absolve him of 'responsibility" for ObamaCare. That is OUR responsibility, in the end.
The other thing that Chife Justice Roberts failed to do is SAVE S from ourselves. Now that is what the Constitutin is there for, and Roberts has fianly killed off the Constitutn. Still, it was not Roberts who produced ObamaCare, or produced the President and Congress who passed it. In that area, he was only ONE of about two hundred million (and more) possible voers. The problem is, as stated in the prvius articel, that the Supreme Court was the LAST, BEST HOPE for a CLEAN END to ObamaCare. Once Chief Justice Roberts decided to abandon the Constitutino to its fate (at the hands of leftists), the "path forward" became UNCERTAN and MESSY. As stated in the previuis article, we are now in the hands of POLITICIANS. God help us all. (I know, I am an agnostic, but this situatin is almsot desperate enough for me to call on God as the only "hope" we have left--a MIRACLE now being necessary).
Is it now "too late" to "save" the country (in its present from)? I think it probably is. But I admit that I am a pessimist. The problem is that we need DRAMATIC changes--the kind Obama has been willing to make on the OPPOSITE SIDE, and which the GOP has been reluctant to push because they are COWARDS. I applaud the optimists who think they can still accomplish these kinds of dramatic changes in the face of these constanat BETRAYALS. The problem is that too many of these people, like Mitt Romney, think that we can do everything we need to do with POLITICS AS USUAL: moving continually to an ever bigger and more powerful Federal Government, but in a BETTER MANAGED pace, and with BETTER MANAGEMENT of the process. To me, this is just a SLOWER DEATH, and that is why I still cannot support Mitt Romney.
This Supreme Court ldecision will certainly "energize" conservatives, and n the right directino (CONVINCING PEOLE we are on the wrong track, and not relying on the Supreme Court to do that job for us). But will all of that "energy" be BETRAYED by GOP politicans who (unlike the rank and file) do not really BELIEVE in the PRINCIPLE of a smaller, more limited Federal Government? Good lucck. I am with you gallant fools who think it can be done. You are definitely better people than I. I jsut wish you were SMARTER than I.
P.S. No proofrading or spell checking (bad eyesight). Oh, by the way, I amy have given a slightly wrong impresson of the Supreme Court decisin in the prior article. I suggeted that the Supreme Court had held "part " of ObamaCare unconsititutional. It is true that Roobers said that ObamaCare "held a gun to the head of states", and that SHOULD have meant that the Medicaid expansion in ObamaCare would FALL. And yu can say that the Roberts opinion "held" that the MEDICAID expansin was "unconstitutional" IN THE WY IT IS WRITTEN IN OBAMACARE. However, Roberts bascially went on to REWRITE the law's Medicaid provisons so that Roberts found the Medicaid expansion to be ultimately unconstitutional. As stated in the previus article, there was no "logic" to the Roberts opinin. He basically CONDEMNED the MANDATES in ObamaCcare--both the individual mandate and the mandates to the states--and then UPHELD them (under different terminology). Do I have any 'respect" left for Robers? NO. The man has no intellectual honesty. This is my problem with electing GOP "estbalishment" people like Bush an Romney . It SHULD mean a LOT in terms of the Supreme Court. In the end, what conservatives get is these BETRAYALS: from GOP Presidents, Congress peole, AND Surprme Court justicies who supposedly agree with a "strict" interpretatin of the Constitution. Oh, where did the underlining come from? How the Hell do I know. I certainly did not mean to put it there. When I figure out how to delete it, I will.