The Beatification of John Roberts Continues – Here’s My Dissent

todayJuly 5, 2012 8 16

share close

I received this essay via e-mail this morning and have confirmed the author’s identity. Below is his post and further below my response/dissent.

Richard Bolen
The Bolen Law Firm
Lexington, South Carolina
02 July 2012

To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty’s hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare.

I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reason or the make-up of the sides. I have now read a large portion of the decision and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts and even Kennedy wanted and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law. I believe the conservatives on the court have run circles around the liberals and demonstrated that the libs are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. Let me explain.

First let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter or even just trying to be too nice. He is a genius along with the members of the Court in the dissent. The more of the decision I read the more remarkable it became. It is not obvious and it requires a passable understanding of Constitutional law but if it is explained anyone can see the beauty of it.

The decision was going to be a 5–4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters. If the bill was struck down completely with Roberts on the other side there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today’s decision that dynamic is reversed and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even for people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today, additionally Romney raised more than 4 million dollars today.

Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and libs would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the “necessary and proper” clause and the federal government’s role in general festering and heading the wrong way as it has since 1942. As a result of the decision the libs are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair and reasonable he is. They would never have said that without this decision even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday. In the future when Roberts rules conservatively it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Robert’s Court’s fairness. That’s why he as Chief Justice went to the other side for this decision not Scalia, Alito, Thomas or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it.

Next let’s look at the decision itself. Thankfully Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice and it is a masterpiece. (As I write this the libs don’t even know what has happened; they just think Roberts is great and that they won and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services and we are all going to live happily ever after.)

He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the “necessary and proper” clause which only applies to “enumerated powers” in the US Constitution. Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all went along with these statements. They never would have gone along with that sentiment if that was the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge because this means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce clause which was Obama’s whole defense of the bill. They also ruled 9–0 on the “necessary and proper” clause. Even better, both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision so it is gravy that we got the libs to concede this and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done.

Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the Constitutionality for the law. Virtually everyone agrees that the Federal government has the power to do this as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes. This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term “tax” and now he has to admit this law is a tax and it is on everyone, even the poor. That will hurt him hugely in the polls and will help Romney. More importantly though is the fact that this makes this a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, it can vote to repeal Obamacare in total.

Finally the Court voted 7–2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicare as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the Federal government uses to force states to do things they don’t want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional the whole bill should have been struck. If that happened none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven’t read far enough to know how he did it but I am sure it is brilliant.

So to recap the Roberts court through a brilliant tactical maneuver has: strengthened the limitations of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romney’s and Republican’s fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises all without anyone even noticing. Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just 2 weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order.

That is why I have decided this was a genius decision and that I did in fact get a great birthday present today not to mention U. S. Attorney General Eric Holder being held in contempt. What a day.

================END POST============

A friend forwarded this to me under the caption: “Amusing”, here is my response.

Amusing is a kind adjective, delusional is a better one. As Taylor foresaw the taxing power is now unlimited, unrestrained an unstoppable. Roberts’ purported stroke of brilliance relies on the assumption that Republicans will judiciously use it to strike the law and all it components when in fact they are already on board with the disastrous “pre-existing conditions” ban and federally “funded” medical research including all its attendant facilities. Republicans have been on-board with nationalizing the medical services industry since Nixon’s “masterpiece” creation of HMO’s. Gingrich famously extended an olive branch to Hillary and compelled the States to adopt what we call SCHIP today. Santorum et al participated in the creation of a drug entitlement for Seniors called Part D. Today Romney is campaigning as a defender and promoter of Medicare as if that $120 trillion unfunded liability is equivalent to refrigerator water and ice dispensers.

In sum: I ain’t buying it. Defending Roberts as a politician undermines the purpose of a judiciary whose purpose is limited to “the chains of the constitution” as Jefferson put it. 51 votes in the Senate is a sham too because the above conditions I point out will outlive the repeal.

In sum: Bad law made by bad, designing men, affirmed by egomaniacal bad jurists.Bring back King George III.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
author avatar
Host of the Mike Church Show on The Veritas Radio Network's CRUSADE Channel & Founder of the Veritas Radio Network. Formerly, of Sirius/XM's Patriot channel 125. The show began in March of 2003 exclusively on Sirius and remains "the longest running radio talk show in satellite radio history".

Written by: TheKingDude

Rate it

Similar posts


Parrott Talk-Groomers Ruined Mother’s Day

PREVIEW OF TODAY'S PARROT TALK. FOR THE FULL EPISODE SUBSCRIBE ON ITUNES.           Social media was full of men pretending to be mothers. These groomers shared pictures of their families, and created posts that celebrated their motherhood.  Mike Parrott has a few examples of how these […]

todayMay 13, 2024 8

Post comments (16)

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Wil Shrader Jr.

Is this guy the “cannabis-smoking friend” you occasionally mention on-air? I jest as this insults those who do.


While I agree an Article V convention would be the best way to completely eradicate this law once and for all, wouldn’t nullification be the quickest route? I admit I have only a rudimentary understanding of the nullification process, but if my understanding is correct, then the states should retain the right to nullify laws they find unconstitutional, regardless of what the supreme court decrees.

Vint "from Bush"

I’ve tried to reach you a few free phone fridays driving to work but the call gets dropped while on hold(dont know if it’s my end or yours probably mine since it’s cell and i’m crossing the Causway” and then i’m at the office. My questions are if SCOTUS decision that the ACA is Constitutional because it’s a tax.
1. Is that what Congress voted on…..a tax?
2. If not should’nt Congress have to have a revote?

Anxiously awaiting your reply………Vint
P.S. See you at the next Founding Fathers meeting!

D.R. Green

Let’s see…. Chief Justice Green Mile re-wrote the law calling it a “tax”, passed said law, signed it into law, then declared it constitutional. And this crack-head thinks that’s great? I’d say this decision is grounds for immediate impeachment! This is no different than a judge saying a murderer is not guilty by reason of insanity after a jury has found him guilty and NO insanity plea was registered. And why do we still have a judge on the court that thinks “boatloads of Federal money” are growing on trees at the White House? Can we PLEASE split this country up now? Good work, Mike!

D.M. Zuniga

Americans who care about restoring the republic called ‘the United States of America’, which is defined and carefully stipulated in the U.S. Constitution — need to ENFORCE that supreme Law of the Land.

Politics will not substitute for law enforcement, ever. With all three branches in high and multi-generational violation of the Supreme Law, the VERTICAL “checks and balances” of creators (We The People) over lawless creature, is the ONLY check-and-balance left to us.

The powers granted to the creature are clearly enumerated in the law. The far more numerous powers in life are retained by us, for all of history. But we have never enforced the lawto arrest the felons. AmericaAgain! Trust intends to change that, for the rest of history.

D.M. Zuniga

In the second place, Congress has been on a lawless binge since Lincoln’s administration; a binge that went into overdrive with Tom ‘Woodrow’ Wilson, then into high gear with FDR, LBJ, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama:

That’s a HUGE number of illegal stretches of the “elastic clauses”. The Obamacare debacle started in the early 1940s; Ronald Reagan preached against it when he was governor of California…but did nothing as president.

D.M. Zuniga

There is imply no historical evidence supporting the assertion that the SCOTUS, over time, will defend the Constitution as written — even if it pulls of a coup in the short term.

As I explain in this monograph, regardless of Roberts’ motivations or intentions, this ruling can be used against the Progressives this November:

That is not to say that it will be enough; in the first place, as much damage was done with this ruling, as potential good.

Jason Brown

I agree Mr. Church, and I would have to say that if this was a political move by John Roberts then he should be impeached for bringing dishonor to the bench and violating his oath to uphold the constitution. Further, I would point, if that was his goal, it is stupid in the name of conservatism. This would be tantamount to pulling your boat as close to theirs as you can and blowing it up in order to win! Worse part is, as Chief Justice, his boat is the Constitution! In my view, he has eradicated the last vestige of protection from the tyranny of government by granting, by fiat no less, the power of Congress to tax us based on our behavior. Keep fighting sir!

Steve Rodgers

Ok, I’ve got my torch and pitch fork. Who has the tar and feathers. I’m sick and tired of well meaning, well educated IDIOTS playing games with my liberty. Let’s run em out of town.


“Defending Roberts as a politician undermines the purpose of a judiciary whose purpose is limited to “the chains of the constitution” That’s EXACTLY what I was thinking as I read the original post. I mean, I think the post is a little crazy, but even if it’s true/accurate, the glaring problem for me is that this is exactly what the Supreme Court SHOULD NOT be doing…playing a political role, acting as political components. They should be deciding on constitutionality. THAT…ITS…ALL! I don’t care if it’s a conservative or not, this is not what the judges should be doing


Politics has no place in the courtrooms.

Larry Price

Mr. Church,
I agree with you, the Supreme Court Justices should not play games and assume the Republicans will do the right thing. There job is to be undeterred, by media and political advantages, and simply rule the cases In front of them. They are to use the constitution as there foundation, not as a guide for inserting, twisting , insinuating and flat out making it say What ever he wants to say!

Kathleen Dalessio

While every Neo-con I know has been praising Roberts decision & telling me to quiet down it’s a good thing…I too have been saying that the Republicans if elected also enjoy this overstep of the Executive & Congress but only if it’s them doing the overstepping…. we are screwed no matter who is elected… just a little less quickly if it’s Romney…Thanks

Judy Fiore

Couldn’t agree with you more!

Would love your thoughts, please comment.x