Wingnut Knows Why Roberts Upheld ACA

In the wake of the Supreme Court upholding the key provisions of the Affordable Care Act, conservatives searched far and wide for an explanation of why Chief Justice John Roberts would vote with the liberals in the case. Bill Dunne, who says he runs an “executive-communications consultancy” in Connecticut, has finally found one: Roberts was helping the Republicans by making sure they lost the 2012 election. Wha? Yep. That’s what he says.

Imagine, though, if the chief justice had opined as everyone expected him to and joined with Scalia, Sam Alito, Clarence Thomas, and Anthony Kennedy (ironically the swing vote whom ObamaCare opponents were most worried about) to guillotine the law then and there. The reduction of Mr. Obama’s “crowning achievement” to just a gigantic waste of time when a dismal economy was begging for attention might well have cost him his re-election five months later.

Howls of outrage would have erupted from every Democrat/leftist stronghold — from the White House to Congress, from Hollywood to academia, and of course from the establishment media. The din would have been relentless. The smearing of small-government Republicans as selfish meanies would be easy as pie and more effective than ever.

Nancy Pelosi would be speaker of the House again after next November’s mid-term elections. Harry Reid would certainly remain as Senate majority leader. President Obama would be striding mightily across the national stage. His promised fundamental transformation of the United States of America would continue. Hillary Clinton would be a shoe-in for the White House in 2016. And “single-payer” — full-bore socialist medicine — would be a slam-dunk. HillaryCare redux.

Perhaps worst of all, from Roberts’s point of view, the Court’s great prestige would suffer. Left-leaning historians, which means most historians, would be lumping the Court’s killing of ObamaCare with Bush v. Gore and Citizens United to paint the Court as a right-wing political operation.

My, how different is the real reality. Democrats are looking ahead in abject terror at the November midterms. And when those results come in, when Obama’s lame-duckness grows acute, it’s possible to imagine conservatives and Republicans being ready to let the far-seeing John Roberts out of the dog house.

Two movie quotes come to mind. The first is from The Princess Bride: “Truly you have a dizzying intellect.” The second is from A Fish Called Wanda: “It’s an X K Red 27 technique.” If the ACA had been overturned, Obama would have lost reelection but apparently gained seats in the House and Senate, which almost never happens. And people would be so angry about it that they’d vote liberals into office to pass single-payer health care. Because that totally makes sense.

"There was a successful, progressive, growing city in Georgia called Albany, ruled by a multi-millionaire ..."

Black Man Says More Black People ..."
"Pretty sure that the bunkers would have room for the kids, since they would be ..."

Warning: Alex Jones is Going to ..."
"Why would beings of spirit like angels "theoretically " are, need orifices available for rape? ..."

Wiles: Gays Would Rape Angels if ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Michael Heath

    While a lot of what’s written here is self-evidently idiotic, this:

    . . . “single-payer” — full-bore socialist medicine — would be a slam-dunk. HillaryCare redux.

    has layers of ignorance and misinformation. It’s like they strive to brand themselves as uneducated morons. Which isn’t hard if one is in fact, an uneducated moron.

  • http://zenoferox.blogspot.com/ Zeno

    Hillary’s “managed competition” was not even a second-cousin once-removed to single-payer. Bill Dunne seriously needs mental health care.

  • Wylann

    This ignoramus did manage to get most of the dog whistles in there, that’s all that matters. Combined with a healthy dose of projection, this particular screed doesn’t even really stand out from the crowd of right wing know nothings looking to keep the rubes in line (and contributing $$).

  • John Pieret

    He doesn’t think much of Roberts as a judge, does he? Sure, whether you are a conservative or a moderate or a liberal (remember when we used to have liberal justices?) will effect how you decide cases but this guy thinks Roberts is acting like some hack political tactician like Karl Rove.

  • http://en.uncyclopedia.co/wiki/User:Modusoperandi Modusoperandi

    The smearing of small-government Republicans as selfish meanies would be easy as pie and more effective than ever.

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

     

    Perhaps worst of all, from Roberts’s point of view, the Court’s great prestige would suffer. Left-leaning historians, which means most historians, would be lumping the Court’s killing of ObamaCare with Bush v. Gore and Citizens United to paint the Court as a right-wing political operation.

    Again, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

  • Randomfactor

    I think the Congressional takeover would be after two years of MIttcompetence. Of course, not much would be left of the country after two years of corporate raiders with nobody to stop them.

    And here I was sure the ACA vote was because Roberts was being blackmailed over being in the closet.

  • jamessweet

    I understand why people are confused, though. The most convincing explanation I’ve heard is that Roberts was playing the long game, hoping to set some precedents that will push a conservative agenda in the future. Now, I fancy myself a pretty smart guy, and I can’t even remember the details of that explanation. It was subtle and complex, however convincing it may be.

    In the absence of a simple explanation that is easily digested by the average layperson, wild conspiracy theories will remain very attractive, no matter how nonsensical they might be if you think them through for half a second.

  • Donnie

    @4 John Pieret

    He doesn’t think much of Roberts as a judge, does he? Sure, whether you are a conservative or a moderate or a liberal (remember when we used to have liberal justices?) will effect how you decide cases but this guy thinks Roberts is acting like some hack political tactician like Karl Rove.

    Did you mean:

    ….Roberts is acting like some hack political tactician like Karl Rove Justice Scalia.

    sarcasm, or not sarcasm, you decide.

  • eric

    And “single-payer” — full-bore socialist medicine — would be a slam-dunk.

    It already is a slam dunk; most every American over 65, every American in the military or ex-military, and every American in poverty uses it. It still amazes me that the GOP vilifies the idea of extending a system they fully support for soldiers etc.

    The most convincing explanation I’ve heard is that Roberts was playing the long game, hoping to set some precedents that will push a conservative agenda in the future.

    I think he’s playing a long game, but a far more personal long game. I think he’s more concerned about his own place in history than voting party ticket. So for issues where the long-term outcome is pretty obvious, he’s going to go with the flow of history. To support that hypothesis, I’ll make a prediction: if gay marriage rights go before SCOTUS in the next few years, he’ll break from Scalia, Thomas, and Alito on that issue too. (I say “a few years” because I expect all of them except Scalia will likely flip-flop once the states have reached near-unanimuous support for it

    , and that means voting the way soc

  • John Pieret

    Donnie @ 8:

    Yeah, I thought about making a comment about Scalia who has, especially lately, been carrying the Republican party’s waterbucket. But I wouldn’t even accuse him of making rulings based on sneaky tactical grounds. In fact, Scalia’s reasons are definitely viceral, if you read some of his dissents going after his fellow justices, which used to be a no-no.

  • John Pieret

    eric @ 9:

    I’ll make a prediction: if gay marriage rights go before SCOTUS in the next few years, he’ll break from Scalia, Thomas, and Alito on that issue too.

    I recently predicted that SCOTUS could well find a constitutional right for same sex marriage by more than a 5-4 vote and it was Roberts who I was thinking of. I don’t think he ever wants his name mention in the same breath as Roger B. Taney.

  • freehand

    Left-leaning historians, which means most historians…

    Much to the dismay of Tea Party historians, economists, and scientists, reality continues to maintain a liberal bias.