How CJ Roberts Volleyed President Obama to Score Points Against Senator Obama

This was the news today.  (Oh boy!)

[Here is the Supreme Court's Full Decision]

But anyone understanding Politics (and policy), know that Karma was in play.  If this was a victory for President Obama, they need more victories like this.  A pyrrhic victory.

Battle of Asculum (279 BC)

Let's wind the clocks back to when President Obama was Senator Obama and Chief Justice Roberts was Judge Roberts:

The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts' nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court's historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.

Let me conclude with just one more comment about this confirmation process. I was deeply disturbed by some statements that were made by largely Democratic advocacy groups when ranking member Senator Leahy announced that he would support Judge Roberts. Although the scales have tipped in a different direction for me, I am deeply admiring of the work and the thought that Senator Leahy has put into making his decision. The knee-jerk unbending and what I consider to be unfair attacks on Senator Leahy's motives were unjustified. Unfortunately, both parties have fallen victim to this kind of pressure.

I believe every Senator on the other side of the aisle, if they were honest, would acknowledge that the same unyielding, unbending, dogmatic approach to judicial confirmation has in large part been responsible for the kind of poisonous atmosphere that exists in this Chamber regarding judicial nominations. It is tempting, then, for us on this side of the aisle to go tit for tat. 

And when it came down to the vote, here is how it occurred:

         78 yeas, 22 Nays --  Obama (D-IL), Nay

Seven years later, Chief Justice Roberts held the deciding vote on President Obama's chief piece of Legislation: Obamacare. 

How did it work out?  

(h/t Althouse and SCOTUS Blog for the next bits) 

Although the Chief Justice rejected the government’s Commerce Clause argument, he agreed with one of the government’s alternative arguments:  the mandate imposes a tax on people who do not buy health insurance, and that tax is something that Congress can impose using its constitutional taxing power.  He acknowledged that the mandate (and its accompanying penalty) is primarily intended to get people to buy insurance, rather than to raise money, but it is, he explained, still a tax.  If someone who does not want to buy health insurance is willing to pay the tax, that’s the end of the matter; the government cannot do anything else.

Justice Ginsburg (joined by Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan) agreed with the Chief Justice’s bottom line – that the mandate is constitutional under Congress’s ability to tax – even while disagreeing with his Commerce Clause conclusion; those four Justices would have held that Congress could use its power to regulate commerce to pass the mandate.  With five votes to uphold the mandate, it will survive, and the Court did not need to consider the “severability” issue — that is, what other parts of the law would have to go if the mandate were unconstitutional. 

(SCOTUS Blog)

So, Congress was raising revenue, but they really didn't want to talk about that at the time, and that's enough for the taxing power. Too bad if the people didn't notice. Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito — says it matters that Congress called this a "penalty" — expressing that to fail to buy insurance is wrongdoing that is being punished. And here's where Scalia-Kennedy-Thomas-Alito talk about democratic theory and accountability:

Taxes have never been popular, see, e.g., Stamp Act of 1765, and in part for that reason, the Constitution requires tax increases to originate in the House of Representatives. See Art. I, §7, cl. 1. That is to say, they must originate in the legislative body most accountable to the people, where legislators must weigh the need for the tax against the terrible price they might pay at their next election, which is never more than two years off. The Federalist No. 58 “defend[ed] the decision to give the origination power to the House on the ground that the Chamber that is more accountable to the people should have the primary role in raising revenue.” United States v. Munoz-Flores, 495 U. S. 385, 395 (1990) . We have no doubt that Congress knew precisely what it was doing when it rejected an earlier version of this legislation that imposed a tax instead of a requirement-with-penalty. See Affordable Health Care for America Act, H. R. 3962, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §501 (2009); America’s Healthy Future Act of 2009, S. 1796, 111th Cong., 1st Sess., §1301. Imposing a tax through judicial legislation inverts the constitutional scheme, and places the power to tax in the branch of government least accountable to the citizenry.

 (Althouse with Court's dissent)

How does Karma fit in? How was this a Pyrrhic victory?

CJ Roberts sided with the Liberal judges on this vote, but by doing so threw it back to Congress, spacifically the House of Representatives, actually the House Ways and means Committee.  

No matter how the POTUS campaign goes, the House is not flipping.  Thus, the wasted victory.  if the Senate flips too, there goes the Tax and Obamacare.  

If President Obama loses to Governor Romney, the tax and Obamacare loses in the next cycle.  

Maybe Senator Obama should have voted for Justice Roberts for the Supreme Court. President Obama would not have trouble for his re-election.  Karma comes when you least expect it. 

My question: Who won and why?

Winning in Los Angeles (FInal Election 2010 Edition)

We are coming into the final two weeks in the campaign; As the rain falls on the freeways, the media is focused on other states and cities. 

As everyone in Los Angeles knows, every promise made by one person and their staff at the top of the ticket have not come to pass -- not keeping promises (when circumstances DO allow) is one of the biggest loser of activist votes the anything else.   And that has hurt us all in Los Angeles.

I will discuss more about the above paragraph after the Election.  Now let's get psyched!

After election night, I hope to play the sequel to this tune. 


Here are some more ways to win:


1)  Think like an Artist:  The game might be politics, but we are in one of the creative Capitols of the Nation.  There are actors, directors, fashionistas, fanboys, musicians and Goths here.  Most of the  voters within Los Angeles County are tied some way into the Industry (Movie, TV or music or all three); Appeal to there artistic ideals and that is one more vote (or group of votes).  And our County and State party should be venturing into SAG, DGA, etc. to make friends and contacts.  Why?  They are our voters. 


2)  Find and focus on your local issues: Whether you campaign in North Hollywood, Northridge, Watts, West Adams, San Pedro or East Hollywood, local issues rule.  Find out when the future constituents in your district last saw their Congressman.  In the 30th CD, no one has ever seen Henry Waxman walk down Wilshire or eat in the Farmer's market in the last five years.  More stories like this are around LA. Also, what is the issue that motivates your voters? Water issues?  High crime rates?  Lack of Business?  Ask (as I'm sure you all are doing) and when you are in office, make two promises (that you keep):


A) Constituent Service that is available to ALL in the Congressional District.  The House budgets for offices in the District, use it. 


B)  Walk around the District when you are home -- see and be seen; And always have a good word for your Constituents on or off the Hill. 


3)   Always Cross-promote! (with a smile) I know two of the best candidates in the region: Mattie Fein and Merlin Froyd (Donate to both of them) .  Merlin is always campaigning and he always has a smile.  Mattie Fein is fighting hard in a difficult district, and again, she wins over her future constituents with a smile too. If you are able to talk to groups with people from many districts, always say a good word about other candidates this cycle.  Karma pays off well in the game of Politics.  Don't believe me? Ask Grey Davis about Karma in politics. 

4) Watch out for Zombie voting:  The Democrats run Los Angeles from top to bottom.  Be sure to have your partisans as Pollwatchers in throughout your Congressional district.  LA knows what Chicago does, be careful.  The only way to stop a Zombie Voter is to confirm they are alive and living at a current address.  Have your pollwatchers know your district! 



Finally, I will Blog Election Night at a party, please have Wi-fi available. 


After the election, I will write some more California Encyclicals; The Why's and How's of LA Election Night, Heroes and villains within LA and CA GOP circles, and how to prep for Election 2012. 


Also, I am putting together a book on Winning in Los Angeles and why the rest of the country should follow OUR lead. (with help from Robert Stacy McCain)   I will give many props to my friends. 

My question: What numbers do you see for Election Night in LA?   Who wins? Who loses?