Little-Acorn
Well-Known Member
In George Orwell's previously-fictional book "1984", he described a totalitarian government that got its way by oppressing, lying to, and sometimes torturing its subjects. In one example, Orwell described a government official saying to his subject something like, "That chair is white". The subject replies, "But the chair is black. Why do you say it's white?" The official says, "I don't remember that. It's black."
Orwell cites this as a perfect example of what he called "doublethink": The ability to completely reverse what you said just a moment ago, with no regret or thought of any contradiction at all.
We got another example of this "doublethink" this morning, in the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice John Souter Roberts and agreed to by the other four liberal justices.
Two of the questions they had to decide were:
1.) Can the Court make any decision at all on the Mandate, since it has not actually gone into effect yet and no one has had to pay its Penalty?
2.) Is it constitutional for the Govt to penalize people for NOT buying health insurance?
Reading through the Opinion of the Court, I found that Roberts had solved the first problem by saying that, if the required payment were a "Tax", the Court would not be able to render any judgement on it since the "Tax" had not yet been paid by anyone yet. But, Roberts said, if the payment were a "Penalty", the Court *could* render a judgement even though it had not yet been paid, due to past court cases where this was done. Therefore, Roberts would consider it a "Penalty", and the Court could now make judgements on the entire case.
Then Roberts went on to examine the second question. He stated straight out that, if the payments were a "Penalty", then there was no way they could be constitutional: Neither the Commerce Clause, the Welfare Clause, nor the Necessary and Proper Clause could be stretched to justify them. Indeed, since the payments were described in the Obamacare bill only as a "Penalty", and never a "tax", this would be the case... if it really was a "Penalty".
Roberts then announced that, since this "Penalty" (as it was described by the bill itself) had a few characteristics of a tax (collected by the IRS, as both taxes and penalties often are, and was scaled to a person's income, as both taxes and penalties often are), he would now consider it a tax. And therefore it was constitutional under Congress's power to lay and collect taxes.
And that's how the stunning conclusion came about. Never mind that he had just finished saying that the only way he could even look at the case, was if it was a Penalty.
Roberts said it was a "Penalty", only long enough to get it into the Court. At that point, Roberts then announced in effect, "I don't remember that. It's a 'Tax'." And wrote the rest of his Opinion.
And of course, the rest of the liberals on the Court happily agreed. And we wound up with a 5-4 decision upholding Obamacare.
--------------------------------
I've often seen liberal judges "legislating from the bench"... that is, writing out new laws themselves instead of judging the laws that were brought before them. Judges who do this, usually write their new "law", only one way: The way they wished it read, instead of the way the original law actually read.
This is the first time I've ever seen a judge write it both ways at the same time.
I guess you learn something new every day.
(still shaking my head in wonderment)
Orwell cites this as a perfect example of what he called "doublethink": The ability to completely reverse what you said just a moment ago, with no regret or thought of any contradiction at all.
We got another example of this "doublethink" this morning, in the Opinion of the Court written by Chief Justice John Souter Roberts and agreed to by the other four liberal justices.
Two of the questions they had to decide were:
1.) Can the Court make any decision at all on the Mandate, since it has not actually gone into effect yet and no one has had to pay its Penalty?
2.) Is it constitutional for the Govt to penalize people for NOT buying health insurance?
Reading through the Opinion of the Court, I found that Roberts had solved the first problem by saying that, if the required payment were a "Tax", the Court would not be able to render any judgement on it since the "Tax" had not yet been paid by anyone yet. But, Roberts said, if the payment were a "Penalty", the Court *could* render a judgement even though it had not yet been paid, due to past court cases where this was done. Therefore, Roberts would consider it a "Penalty", and the Court could now make judgements on the entire case.
Then Roberts went on to examine the second question. He stated straight out that, if the payments were a "Penalty", then there was no way they could be constitutional: Neither the Commerce Clause, the Welfare Clause, nor the Necessary and Proper Clause could be stretched to justify them. Indeed, since the payments were described in the Obamacare bill only as a "Penalty", and never a "tax", this would be the case... if it really was a "Penalty".
Roberts then announced that, since this "Penalty" (as it was described by the bill itself) had a few characteristics of a tax (collected by the IRS, as both taxes and penalties often are, and was scaled to a person's income, as both taxes and penalties often are), he would now consider it a tax. And therefore it was constitutional under Congress's power to lay and collect taxes.
And that's how the stunning conclusion came about. Never mind that he had just finished saying that the only way he could even look at the case, was if it was a Penalty.
Roberts said it was a "Penalty", only long enough to get it into the Court. At that point, Roberts then announced in effect, "I don't remember that. It's a 'Tax'." And wrote the rest of his Opinion.
And of course, the rest of the liberals on the Court happily agreed. And we wound up with a 5-4 decision upholding Obamacare.
--------------------------------
I've often seen liberal judges "legislating from the bench"... that is, writing out new laws themselves instead of judging the laws that were brought before them. Judges who do this, usually write their new "law", only one way: The way they wished it read, instead of the way the original law actually read.
This is the first time I've ever seen a judge write it both ways at the same time.
I guess you learn something new every day.
(still shaking my head in wonderment)
