Supreme Court Endorses Political Corruption

 

High Court Endorses Political Corruption

By Mustang

Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts was underwhelming in his acceptance of the so-called Obama Healthcare Plan. It is a tax, he said, and the federal government is permitted under the Constitution to tax the bejesus out of the American people. Well, no conservative he, and I personally think he was stretching a bit to find that the ACA was constitutional. It was, after all, far more than a tax. I conclude that Judge Roberts, like everyone in congress who voted for it, never read the law before he made his decision. Well, what did we expect? He was a Bush appointee.

But Roberts really outdid himself in the McDonnell Decision.

One may recall that while serving as Governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell solicited a fifty-thousand-dollar loan from Jonnie R. Williams. He then texted an aide about making damn sure that Williams got the meetings he wanted with Virginia state officials. McDonnell didn’t stop there. He also accepted as a gift a Rolex watch, a $20,000 loan, and the payment for the catering bill for his daughter’s wedding. Mrs. McDonnell (Virginia’s first lady) was the individual who suggested to Williams that her husband needed a new watch —and, presumably, a Timex wouldn’t do. Well, and while she was at it,

Maureen could use a new wardrobe totaling $20,000. Considering all of Mr. Williams’ gifts, the McDonnell’s accepted $175,000.00. Most of us would conclude that there may not be a clearer case of political corruption: facilitating access to state officials in return for a very large chunk of change and a few trinkets. It sounds corrupt to me.

But this isn’t how Chief Justice Roberts viewed it.

The court ruled that the Virginia jury was wrong to think that Governor McDonnell’s actions constituted “official corruption.” The McDonnell conviction was overturned —and in the process, the Supreme Court established a new standard for determining the government corruption —a standard so narrow that it will, in the future, be difficult to convict any but the most incompetent of our politicians.

While an official act can still be illegal, the definition of that term has been excessively broad. Something as commonplace as an executive turning to an aide and telling him or her to make something happen or accepting a check and then having a quiet word with government regulators, or even a suggestion to subordinates that a door ought to be opened for an influence-buyer does not, in and of itself, represent an official act.

No, of course not.

Chief Justice Roberts opined that an official act “must involve a formal exercise of governmental power that is similar in nature to a lawsuit before a court, a determination before an agency, or a hearing before a committee.”

What?

Right —in the absence of a gavel, there is no bribery or corruption. I’ll call this the smoking gavel rule. Roberts said that bribery is “the kind of thing that can be put on an agenda, tracked for progress, and then checked off as complete.”

Well, I suppose the court is at least consistent. In the Citizens-United case, the court allowed rich people to purchase politicians. Now they are able to purchase office-holders as well. One pundit suggested that the high court was worried that if the McDonnell conviction was upheld, all of our politicians would begin to live in a state of fear (as opposed, to say, strutting around like the arrogant asses they are), sure that almost anyone could go to prison for being corrupt. God forbid that should ever happen.

Justice Roberts wrote, “Conscientious public officials arrange meetings for constituents, contact other officials on their behalf, and include them in events all the time.” If McDonnell’s conviction was upheld, it would “cast a pall of potential prosecution over these relationships.” He added, “officials might wonder whether they could respond to even the most commonplace requests for assistance, and citizens with legitimate concerns might shrink from participating in democratic discourse.”

Has America’s high court come to accept the premise that corrupt politics is simply how politics is done? It is certainly true that trading cash, favors, trips to Europe, expensive gifts and gifts of underage prostitutes is a common occurrence in our government today. Interestingly, during the court’s deliberations, it accepted a number of amicus briefs from White House lawyers who argued that the business of politics, as we know it, would be disturbed if the McDonnell decision were upheld. What White House lawyers? I don’t know their names, but it was during the Obama administration.

Bottom line: influence peddling as a form of corruption has been upheld by the highest court in the land. To everyone imagining that the Supreme Court was our last hope for a just America —think again.

Advertisements

Final nail in the Obamacare coffin coming? Supremes to hear

Talk about the ultimate feel good moment for the week? Taking down Obamacare would be a super “twofer.” Knocking Obama’s socks off on Tuesday’s election, and then taking down his “signature” achievement. I am no legal wizard but this little sentence seems to make it clear to me:

The legal dispute centers on a four-word statutory phrase. The law says people qualify for tax credits when they buy insurance on an online marketplace “established by the state.”

Now if Roberts can swallow his pride and accept what a nonsensical vote he made that gave us this monstrosity, and the NSA doesn’t have a whole lot on him, we might just do it. Decision should could out in June. Here we go:

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to consider a challenge to the subsidies that are a linchpin of President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul, accepting a case that suddenly puts the law under a new legal cloud.

Two years after upholding much of the law by a single vote, the justices today said they will hear a Republican-backed appeal targeting tax credits that have helped more than 4 million people afford insurance.

A ruling blocking those credits might unravel the law, making other provisions ineffective and potentially destabilizing insurance markets in much of the country. The high court’s decision to hear the case comes days before the start of the law’s second open-enrollment season Nov. 15. A decision will come by June.

The justices will consider an appeal filed by four Virginia residents seeking to block the subsidies in 36 states. The appeal says the Obama administration is engaging in a “gross distortion” of the law’s wording by granting billions of dollars in tax credits to people in those states.

Keep reading…

Ann Coulter saw the Supreme Roberts train wreck coming

I am too weary to attempt to opine on any “bright side” of the Supreme Court ruling. I will let that for other Conservatives who choose to remain in somewhat of a denial state as to how devastating this was. I hear somehow, just like progressives, there was some sort of higher good in the decision,  Of course, yet to be determined. Four members were prepared to send the whole law into oblivion. A dream come true. 

How is it that Ginsburg got 99 votes for approval by the Senate when up for her nomination? When she was head of the ACLU? As for the GOP, getting Borked again is the fear de jour, so we settle for the unknown.

So the Bunkervites got together last night to commiserate and drown our sorrows over the fact that what is left is that the quality and quantity of our lives will be diminished.  And we did this to ourselves by the pick of John Roberts. Comrade Matrix mentioned that Ann saw this coming. Good, I said, that will be the best I can do for a post tomorrow. So here we go. Thanks Mr. Bush.

Ann Coulter prophesied the coming split between Chief Justice Roberts and conservatives back in 2005, writing that “Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives.”

After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male.

So all we know about him for sure is that he can’t dance and he probably doesn’t know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah … We also know he’s argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt’s attorney.

But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.

Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be.

Coulter titled the post “SOUTER IN ROBERTS’ CLOTHING”  Full Story at Ann Coulter

H/T:Buzz Feed

Sad day for Conservatives as Roberts goes rogue

UPDATE: Here is a link to one of the votes for Obamacare. We will remember come November.:

https://bunkerville.wordpress.com/2010/03/22/vote-tally-for-healthcare-reform/

 
H/T: for above Washington Post (blog)

Here we go in the wayback machine. Defund the bill, GOP. End it now.

Stephanopoulos takes issue with a mandate that obligates Americans to purchase health insurance, or risk being fined as much as $900. “How is that not a tax?”

“A responsibility to get health insurance is not a tax increase,” Obama said.

Stephanopoulos then tells Obama that he looked up the definition of “tax” in Merriam Webster’s dictionary.

“The fact that you looked up… the definition of tax increase indicates that you’re stretching a little bit right now,” Obama responded. And so Obama stretches to the right,

On “This Week,” George Stephanopoulos and President Obama have a colorful discussion over Obama’s health care reform proposal.

%d bloggers like this: