The Right Opinion
The Worst Ruling Since Dred Scott
Last week Chief Justice John Roberts blatantly ignored the Constitution and the law and purposefully rewrote Obamacare in order to rule it legal. He called Obamacare a "tax" instead of an individual mandate; he then proceeded to blithely expand the government's power to tax to encompass a tax on breathing, which is what Obamacare is.
Now I had warned conservatives years ago that Roberts was a rotten pick for the Supreme Court. "Roberts is not an originalist," I wrote in 2005. "There is nothing in his very short jurisprudential record to indicate that his judicial philosophy involves strict fidelity to the original meaning of the Constitution."
Nonetheless, Roberts' decision was stunning.
It was stunning because the Obamacare decision represented the greatest single judicial limitation on American liberty since Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857), in which the Supreme Court ruled that under the Constitution, blacks were not human beings. Dred Scott is the judicial benchmark for evil decisions, and far surpasses the Obamacare decision in its legal flaws and moral emptiness. And there are many other evil and disgusting Supreme Court decisions that threatened American liberty: Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), allowing states to segregate by race; Buck v. Bell (1927), allowing states to forcibly sterilize the mentally retarded; Korematsu v. United States (1944), allowing the federal government to order Japanese Americans into internment camps based on the need to prevent espionage.
All of these decisions were wrong, both legally and morally. But Obamacare surpasses all but Dred Scott in its violation of profound foundational American principles.
Essentially, the Obamacare decision said that the federal government can force you to do anything. They don't have to tax behavior. They can tax nonbehavior. They can tell you to do virtually anything they want; they can tax you unless you buy the right foods, listen to the right music and/or engage in the right type of work. If you refuse to pay the tax, they can jail you. The Obamacare decision destroys the basic concept of American liberty: freedom to live as you choose without interference by the federal government, so long as you don't affect the lives of others. Now the government can penalize you in the privacy of your own home for failing to do as they say.
Like other nasty Supreme Court decisions of the past, this one was made based not on the Constitution, but on the political predilections of the judges. Most obviously, in Dred Scott, Chief Justice Roger Taney thought that by ruling that slavery could not be prohibited in federal territories, he would be preventing Civil War; instead, he precipitated it.
Taney's machinations -- his political considerations in his decision making -- were clearly above and beyond the duties of the court. But he undertook them anyway. The result was the greatest moral blot on the history of the Supreme Court.
There is no doubt that the same sort of logic went into Chief Justice Roberts' thinking. He apparently switched his vote on Obamacare after feeling pressure from the Obama administration and the media; he decided that he'd simply toss the issue to voters rather than doing his constitutional job. His goal was the preservation of the Supreme Court's "legitimacy" -- a goal undermined by his own illegitimate decision making. Politics mattered more to Roberts than duty.
And so, Americans pay with their rights.
In the end, all of the mistakes of the Supreme Court were overturned -- after far too long -- by the will of the American people. Dred Scott was overturned by the Civil War; Plessy was overturned not truly by Brown v. Board, but by the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The people themselves will overturn Obamacare. But the damage done to the Supreme Court cannot be undone.
COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM

9 Comments
Normal Guy, Suprise, AZ in Surprise, AZ
Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 2:45 AM
Ben, The best analysis I have read to date. You honestly give me hope for our, (not Obama's) country. Keep up the good work.
wjm in Colorado
Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 9:01 AM
Anyone that votes for a Democrat is a traitor to the Republic. They no doubt either don't know what a Republic is, or are actively trying to Transform it.
Tad Petrie in Westerville, OH
Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 10:47 AM
I do agree that the SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare will be included with Dred Scott vs. Sandford, Plessy vs. Ferguson, Buck vs. Bell, and Korematsu vs. United States as some of the worst in history. I believe that CJ Roberts was wrong and he should have voted with Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alito, but he didn't and the ruling cannot be changed. This ruling is one of the built in risks with our system of government, I'm sure that when President Bush nominated Roberts in 2005, he never imagined a ruling like this could happen. When President Obama was campaigning and promising "Hope and Change" and "Yes We Can!", I'm sure that the people who voted for him never even dreamed that they were electing the most brazen LIAR to ever occupy the White House! Our system of government may not be perfect, but is a damn sight better than anything else I've seen, we do the best we can with what we have. The ONLY thing that can be done now is to REPEAL Obamacare, THAT has to be the focus now. By the way, Dred Scott, even though morally wrong, was strictly speaking legal, from a private property point of view.
JMA in FL
Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 6:23 PM
You forgot Kelo vs New London CT - eminent domain for increased tax revenue
Tex Horn in Texas
Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 11:51 AM
A tax on breathing. Wow. The government can now tell you to do whatever they want, and thanks to a man who resides on the nation's highest court. We now live in a dictatorship. We don't? Then please explain why. Our government can tell us what to do, how to live, what to buy, that our belief in God is wrong minded, and can imprison us if we don't comply.
For those looking to find a positive outcome to this, I'm afraid you are settling for second best, or at least are dreaming. This had all the effect that Ben describes. So, welcome to America, land of socialism. And to think, we're celebrating our "freedoms" today.
Jim in Alabama
Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 3:43 PM
How on earth did Roberts get there from here. There is no imaginable life circumstance that leads to it. No normal person can grasp it nor would any have seen this coming. Such gibberish, laced with illogic, from such a seemingly fine mind! Maybe he bet every nickel he had with In-Trade and then opined with the thousand to one pick. What a strange world! What drunken perversity seeps into the minds of men who have chased power. That people would smile and smile, do murder, wash their hands, and smile all the more.
Richard Ryan in Lamar,Missouri
Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 4:11 PM
I have lost what small speck of respect I had left for the supreme court. Instead of protecting we the people, and defending the sanctity of the constitution, they continually stab both us and the constitution in the back. Liberty eventually surrenders to tyranny, and the supreme leader of that process is our own supreme court, and the Kenyan-born, communist thug in the white house. Traitors, all.
steve in ohio
Wednesday, July 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM
In order to argue that the ACA penalty is a tax on non-behavior, you have to first argue that federal income tax is owed regardless of whether you're working and earning money or not. That is the behavior that triggers the potential penalty, not "breathing". It is a technical distinction, but one that matters.
This also isn't all that different from "penalizing" everyone who neglects to have children (people who do are relieved of a substantial amount of tax burden through credits). It's merely a difference of applying the penalty universally and then refunding it to reward behavior.
Both cases involve a penalty based on choosing to do something or not do something, and in both cases your tax burden is higher for refusing. No one is arguing that you be forced to have children, and no one is arguing that you be forced to buy insurance, and at no point has any court (including the Roberts court) seriously considered allowing it, even in this case.
To that point, I also take serious issue with this claim:
"If you refuse to pay the tax, they can jail you."
Your credibility dropped to zero here, the text of the ACA specifically precludes jail time for non-compliance, and the supreme court explicitly noted this fact in the decision, if this were a possibility Roberts would have been all but guaranteed to strike it down regardless of the tax argument, and now there is precedent going forward that specifically precludes your argument from ever happening.
mike in mukalau, hawaii
Saturday, July 7, 2012 at 12:27 AM
"Essentially, the Obamacare decision said that the federal government can force you to do anything. They don't have to tax behavior. They can tax nonbehavior." This perfectly summarizes why so many Americans are so upset about this ruling. Great article.