More Right Wing Reaction to HCR Ruling

More Right Wing Reaction to HCR Ruling July 3, 2012

I’m not a big fan of the health care reform bill, which was largely a big payoff to the insurance companies. I’m not a big fan of the SCOTUS ruling either, because it really is convoluted in many ways. But it’s really kind of fun watching the explosion of rage from the right wing, which was sure it was going to win the case. Here’s a roundup of some of the statements. From Ben Shapiro:

This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.

Yeah, there’s no exaggeration there at all. From Ari Fleischer:

I miss Justice Harriet Miers.

Okay, that’s a pretty good line. From Ann Coulter:

John Roberts, Chickensh*t. Did Obama’s Court bashing flip Roberts? Evidence suggests a late Roberts switch.

This meme that Obama somehow intimidated the court with criticism is monumentally idiotic. FFS, the right has been blasting the Supreme Court for 80 years now.

Limbaugh the Greater (Rush) called John Roberts an “activist judge,” while Limbaugh the Lesser (David) declared Roberts to be a “Manchurian candidate.” Others have literally called Roberts a traitor and are demanding his impeachment. I should have stocked up on popcorn for this.


Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Ed, YOU would have been a better judge than Harriet Miers.

  • raym

    I’m not sure you could find a large enough supply of popcorn.

  • Pah! This is America®! We have the Freedom(*1) and Liberty(*2) in the Greatest Nation on Earth™ with the Best Healthcare!(*3)

    *1. Freedom: doing nothing for a neighbor in need.

    *2. Liberty: the right to not have insurance, use the ER when you fall ill, and pass that cost onto everybody else.

    *3. Unless you’re broke. Or lose your job (and with it, your insurance). Or if you have insurance, but they drop you when you try to use it. Then screw you. For Freedom!

  • Artor

    It would be AWESOME if the Teabaggers could impeach Roberts. Then Obama could select the next Chief Justice. I hope they go for it.

  • dukeyork

    Hell yes, Roberts should be impeached! How can we get the American Family Association to do it?

  • Ben P

    Ed, YOU would have been a better judge than Harriet Miers.

    I think Harriet Miers gets bit of a bad rap, but we’ll never know. As a lawyer, but not one of any real distinction, thinking about the nomination of Harriet Miers is illuminating.

    In my community of attorneys, (which is Arkansas, not texas) someone with credentials like Miers would be a highly respected member of the community.

    She had a bachelors from SMU in Math and got her JD from SMU. She clerked for a federal district court judge and then worked for one of the largest law firms in Texas (now known as Locke Lord) becoming its first female partner and later its first female managing partner (over a firm with 400+ lawyers). She was the first female president of the Dallas bar association and the first female head of the Texas State bar association. She was a member of the Dallas City Council and she was on the board of SMU.

    In the 90’s she left the firm to work as General Counsel for Bush’s transition team. After Bush was governor, she chaired the texas lottery commission and was credited with doing good work to reform the Texas lottery. She continued working for Bush in a series of jobs after that up to White House Counsel.

    In almost any area in the country, and regardless of your personal politics, that would be considered a pretty stellar legal career. I could only hope to have a career that accomplished.

    Yet when she was nominated to the supreme court she was almost uniformly attacked as being unqualified. to be fair, some of it may be true, many of the attacks from conservatives came after private prep meetings where conservative senators and legal figures said she was ill prepared and could not explain her positions or articulate judicial concepts.

    There’s a strong argument that the SUpreme Court should have only the best and the brightest, and I agree. On the other hand, something like 75-80% of all lawyers spent all or the substantial majority of their careers in private practice, finding people who will pay them to do legal work, and virtually all lawyers who regularly go to court see trial courts with only a handful of appeals in their career.

    That experience is almost nonexistent on the supreme court. Breyer, Thomas, Alito, Ginsburg and Kagan have never engaged in private practice. They’ve done some combination of public interest work, law professorships, and various government positions.

    Scalia worked as a private lawyer for the first 6 years of his career before leaving to be a law professor. Kennedy briefly worked at his Father’s law practice before becoming a professor. Roberts started in government work and then worked in DC as a high level appellate lawyer for 10 years. Of the current justices only Sotomayor has extensive experience working “in the trenches” as a lawyer and working in trial courts.

  • I’m not a big fan of the health care reform bill, which was largely a big payoff to the insurance companies.

    Which is how health care reform was actually passed. There’s plenty to criticize about Obama; but this was a genuinely impressive achievement, for which he, Nancy Pelosi, and some others deserve all the praise they’ve gotten.

  • TGAP Dad

    I remember John Boehner saying his party wouldn’t “spike the football” over the ruling – back when no one thought the mandate would stand. No one ever promised there would be no freak out in the event of Armageddon. Ed’s right – we just can’t pop enough popcorn to last us for this entertainment.

  • baal

    Ed would be a better justice than at the very least, Scalia, Thomas, and Scalito (which I think is Italian for little Scalia).

  • Randomfactor

    This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott.

    Roberts and Scalia would have concurred in Dred Scott that the Congress had no authority to regulate slavery as it did in the territories. They’d also have LOVED denying standing to Scott.

  • John Hinkle

    Is that tool Ben Shapiro still around? I always thought he was a couple of donuts short of a dozen.

  • Michael Heath

    Ben P writes:

    In almost any area in the country, and regardless of your personal politics, that would be considered a pretty stellar legal career.

    Ms. Meiers has demonstrated executive administrative skills, which has almost zero relevance to what Supreme Court justices do. And while she clerked and also coordinated Bush’s judicial nominations, she never actually practiced or even wrote much at all about constitutional matters.

    Besides not having a resume which relates to what appellate judges do, her rhetoric when working for President Bush validated she was almost wholly ignorant of the best arguments constitutional scholars and our top judges engage in.

    I think there’s a place on the Supreme Court for a handful of justices who haven’t risen through the federal court or even state court system. But they should at least prove they’re ardent students of the Constitution where Ms. Meiers instead demonstrated only that she had the talking points down pat.

  • slc1

    Re Michal Heath @ #12

    She might have been better then Samuel Alito, a first class asshole scumbag.

  • naturalcynic

    Randomfactor:

    Roberts and Scalia would have concurred in Dred Scott that the Congress had no authority to regulate slavery as it did in the territories. They’d also have LOVED denying standing to Scott.

    Add Clarence for supreme irony.