June
28th 2012
Posted under Conservatism & Health Care
Hey mainstream conservatives and Bushbots, how’s that John Roberts appointment that y’all were so crazy about looking to you now?
If a guy has a cryptic and non-controversial record, he has a cryptic and non-controversial record for a reason. Because he’s cryptic and non-controversial.
When are you people ever gonna learn? (O’Connor, Souter, etc. etc. etc.) You should insist on a controversial track record that gives you reasonable certainty about how that judge is going to think/rule or you should withhold your support.
Augustinian on 28 Jun 2012 at 5:45 pm #
Yeah, buddy! Cheer up, things’ll be much different after November!
Uh huh …
RonL on 28 Jun 2012 at 5:57 pm #
It still looks better than the idea of Harriet Meiers.
Tom Piatak on 28 Jun 2012 at 6:02 pm #
Amen!
Kirt Higdon on 28 Jun 2012 at 6:58 pm #
More than an entire generation of experience to the contrary and some people are still insisting that you should vote Republican for their judicial appointments.
Richard Channing on 28 Jun 2012 at 7:50 pm #
Alito was the replacement for Harriet Miers.
Matt Weber on 28 Jun 2012 at 7:56 pm #
I called it, sad to say. After the immigration ruling I figured it was over for this one. Although, I figured it would be at least 6-3…Kennedy surprised me.
DanPhillips on 28 Jun 2012 at 8:17 pm #
We shouldn’t vote for any President unless he promises to appoint Tom Piatak to the Supreme Court.
C Bowen (Hawthorne) on 28 Jun 2012 at 9:04 pm #
It’s bigger then just Republicans.
The Catholic Church supported “universal healthcare” and Obamacare (with some nuance) and now complain about not getting special treatment. Roberts is Catholic.
Will Roberts be denied Communion? Is it somehow less worse to make single males pay for female contraception?
Matt Weber on 28 Jun 2012 at 9:36 pm #
In other news, Scott McConnell over at TAC seems determined to prove that Ron Unz was not actually the driving force behind that journal’s sad decline.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 28 Jun 2012 at 10:02 pm #
Problem is, a candidate’s track record, including his public statements, give no clue as to how he’ll actually perform in office.
There’s a certain atmosphere in Mordor-on-the-Potomac that is seductive and powerful. All that power and treasure does things to men’s souls.
The problem isn’t the people we send. It’s the central government that’s the problem.
Rusty on 28 Jun 2012 at 10:32 pm #
“The problem isn’t the people we send. It’s the central government that’s the problem.”
No, it’s mostly the people that are the problem. Good people could and would fix a tyrannical system, and bad people would destroy even the best system. People get the government they want and deserve, especially under a democratic system. The few of us who are serious about changing the system are the sworn enemy of the conservatives who just want to tweak the system and the liberals who want to turn it into their personal tyranny machine.
Aaron on 29 Jun 2012 at 3:52 am #
The appointment’s still looking OK to me, because I don’t know whether the majority opinion was a good one or not. I’m not smart enough or knowledgeable enough to say. As I understand it, there are two elements: (1) the uninsured “penalty” is in fact a tax, and (2) Congress has the constitutional power to impose such a tax. I assume that conservative and libertarian opposition is to (2), right? It seems to me that if this law is unconstitutional, then Medicare is unconstitutional for the exact same reason: it’s not what “the general welfare” was originally understood to mean, so it’s outside the limited powers of Congress. Therefore, it seems to me, you couldn’t strike down one and leave the other in place. But like I said, this whole question is above my pay grade.
Aaron on 29 Jun 2012 at 3:57 am #
I’ve never yet seen a serious argument against “vote Republican for the Supreme Court.” Every time a Republican-appointed justice disappoints, we see the following so-called argument: “See, I told you so.” But that’s just cherry-picking failures. We don’t hear anything when dog bites man, when Republican appointees take the more conservative side.
Republicans sometimes appoint a Souter, an O’Connor, and (now) a Roberts. They also appoint an Alito, a Thomas, and a Scalia. Democrats never appoint an Alito, a Thomas, or a Scalia. “Vote Republican for the Supreme Court” is still one of the soundest arguments for voting Republican.
Matt Weber on 29 Jun 2012 at 5:06 am #
Democrats never appoint a Roberts either…If Republican Supreme Court appointees being marginally better is one of the best reasons to vote Republican, it is surely because there aren’t many other legitimate reasons, and they are all worse.
Aaron on 29 Jun 2012 at 5:30 am #
I think that Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia are as a group much more than “marginally” better than Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsburg.
Matt Weber on 29 Jun 2012 at 6:31 am #
No, Roberts and Kennedy have proven themselves only marginally better. The other three are better, but your insinuation that there is therefore no good argument against voting Republican is silly. It’s not as though if the Republicans were to disappear, all the conservatives in America would suddenly cease to exist or stop voting. What you really have is a very good argument for never voting Democrat.
Matt Weber on 29 Jun 2012 at 6:35 am #
Also, even if it were true that voting Republican for the Supreme Court were a sensible strategy, it still wouldn’t justify the mindless cheerleading for inoffensive nominees like Roberts.
Sean Scallon on 30 Jun 2012 at 11:47 am #
To answer your question Aaron, its been Republican appointees to the court who have behind some of the most radical decisions the court has made over the past 100 years (Warren, Brennan, Blackmund, Berger) or have upheld them (Berger, Blackmund, Souter, Kennedy, O’Connor).