Friday, June 29, 2012

Going back after the fact and presuming to reason for another branch of government

Andrew McCarthy at PJ Media has a most incisive piece on the tortured reasoning of Chief Justice John Roberts in yesterday's ruling.  His analogy is easy to grasp:

Let’s say that, back when I was a prosecutor, I tried and convicted a man on a charge of conspiring to sell narcotics. I can prove he was conspiring, but it was really to sell stolen property. I convict him but, on appeal, the court holds, “The prosecutor’s evidence that it was drugs the defendant conspired to sell is wholly lacking.” At that point, the conviction has to be dismissed, and if I want to try him a second time, this time for conspiring to sell stolen property, I’ve got to indict him and start the whole process over again.
Let’s suppose, however, that the appeals court instead said, “Eh, drugs, stolen property, what’s the big whup? You just wrote the wrong commodity into the indictment. So let’s not bother with a whole new trial at which you’d have to prove the correct charge to a jury. Let’s just rewrite the indictment and pretend that it says ‘stolen property’ instead of ‘narcotics.’ Then we can uphold the conviction and call it a day.”
That would never be permitted to happen — not even to a crook of whose guilt we were certain. It would be an outrageous violation of due process, a conviction obtained by false pretenses, that would not be allowed to stand.
Yet this is essentially what Chief Justice Roberts & Co. did. They said the American people are not entitled to an honest legislative process, one in which they can safely assume that when Congress intentionally uses words that have very different meanings and consequences — like tax and penalty — and when Congress adamantly insists that the foundation of legislation is one and not the other, the Court will honor, rather than rewrite, the legislative process. Meaning: if Congress was wrong, the resulting law will be struck down, and Congress will be told that, if it wants to pass the law, it has to do it honestly.

And it's important to remember that earlier versions of the bill did not make it through the FHer-controlled House precisely because the mandate was being sold at that point as a tax.

3 comments:

  1. Dontcha know it's supernatural, dude, can't explain it any other way, here ain't no commonsensical explanation, could it be, could it be, Teddies from Heaven?

    now Sen. Ted Kennedy can “rest in peace.”

    “I knew that when he left us he would go to heaven and help pass the bill,” Pelosi said of the late Massachusetts Democratic senator.

    “Now I know he was busily at work until this decision came down, inspiring one way or another. And now he can rest in peace.”

    ReplyDelete
  2. Last Saturday afternoon, in Washington , DC , an aide to Nancy Pelosi visited the Bishop of the Catholic cathedral in DC. He told the Cardinal that Nancy Pelosi would be attending the next day's Mass, and he asked if the Cardinal would kindly point out Pelosi to the congregation and say a few words that would include calling Pelosi a saint.

    The Cardinal replied, "No. I don't really like the woman, and there are issues of conflict with the Catholic Church over certain of Pelosi's views."

    Pelosi's aide then said, "Look, I'll write a check here and now for a donation of $100,000 to your church if you'll just tell the congregation you see Pelosi as a saint."

    The Cardinal thought about it and said, "Well, the church can use the money, so I'll work your request into tomorrow's sermon."

    As Pelosi's aide promised, Nancy Pelosi appeared for the Sunday worship and seated herself prominently at the forward left side of the center aisle.

    As promised, at the start of his sermon, the Cardinal pointed out that Ms. Pelosi was present.

    The Cardinal went on to explain to the congregation, "While Ms. Pelosi's presence is probably an honor to some, the woman is not numbered among my personal favorite personages. Some of her most egregious views are contrary to tenets of the Church, and she tends to flip- flop on many other issues. Nancy Pelosi is a petty, self-absorbed hypocrite, a thumb sucker, and a nit-wit. Nancy Pelosi is also a serial liar, a cheat, and a thief. I must say, Nancy Pelosi is the worst example of a Catholic I have ever personally witnessed. She married for money and is using her wealth to lie to the American people. She also has a reputation for shirking her Representative obligations both in Washington and in California . The woman is simply not to be trusted."

    The Cardinal concluded, "But, when compared with President Obama, Ms. Pelosi is a saint."

    ReplyDelete