All sorts of motives – mostly negative ones -- have been
attributed to Chief Justice John Roberts for ruling that the law known
popularly in America as Obamacare is constitutional. But there is one positive
motivation that no one has tried to explore as far as I can tell – the
possibility that the Chief Justice may be an American patriot doing what he can
to maintain the integrity of his country. I believe there is here a hypothesis
worth exploring.
Perhaps the most iconic piece dissecting the negative
condition of the Chief Justice is the article written by once practicing
psychiatrist Charles Krauthammer who is now a syndicated columnist and a
conservative pundit having been a liberal pundit in a previous incarnation. He
wrote: “Why Roberts Did It,” a piece that was published on June 28, 2012 in
National Review Online. The column's subtitle being: “He's the custodian of the
Court's reputation,” is meant to be a short answer to the title.
The remarkable thing about the Krauthammer discussion is
that he begins on a positive note: “It's the judiciary's Nixon-to-China,” a
reference to the fact that Republican President Richard Nixon was able to do
what no Democratic president could have done without stirring up an uproar – go
to mainland (Communist) China and start an open relationship with that country
despite America's self-imposed obligation to the (Capitalist) Island of Taiwan
claimed by China to be its breakaway province. Thus, the columnist alludes to
the analogy this way: “Chief Justice joins the liberal wing of the Supreme
Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare,” a move he sees as being
at par with Nixon's political coup.
Unfortunately, the writer does not dwell on that positive
note long enough to see a motive other than the Chief Justice acting to prevent
“the court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political
grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.” This is a negative
description of the man's motivation because it means that he was fearful of
something. In fact, the writer tells what that is: “the judiciary's arrogation
of power has eroded the esteem in which it was once held.” And also this:
“Roberts's concern was that the Court do everything it could to avoid being
seen, rightly or wrongly, as high-handedly overturning sweeping legislation
passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.”
To maintain to the end his negative description of the
motivation powering the Chief Justice, Krauthammer ends the column by saying
that Obamacare now upheld, there is only one way to overturn it -- elect a new
president and a new Congress. “That's undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your
job, not mine. I won't make it easy for you.” Not only does the author of the
article see the jurist as being fearful of something, he sees him as feeling
powerless to rectify the situation without creating as many new problems as he
might solve. Thus, he has him throw the ball into the court of the public and
washes his hands.
Thus, I ask this question: Is fear becoming America's
primary motivational force? Well, unfortunately yes, I believe that fear has
been gradually replacing the forward looking optimism which used to
characterize the American culture. If so, has John Roberts acted out of fear
and solely as a jurist concerned with the reputation of the Court or is he also
a patriot concerned with the well being of the whole nation? Here, I believe
that John Roberts has acted not only as a jurist but also a patriot who used the
tool at his disposal to try and reintegrate a nation which seems to
disintegrate before the naked eye on a daily basis.
Consequently, I think that while Krauthammer may be correct
in arguing that John Roberts is motivated by fear caused by such Supreme Court
decisions as “Roe v. Wade” and “Bush v. Gore,” I believe that the fear pales
when compared to the concern that the Chief Justice must be having as he sees a
damaging trend grow like cancer in the country. This would be the drift into a
socio-political trend that weakens the bond holding the nation together. It is
the gradual descent into a chaotic situation that compels those in authority to
remain paralyzed and to neglect the interest of the people they are supposed to
serve. In the meantime, the trend encourages those who are not meant to have
authority to grab it anywhere they see it and use it to act in their own self
interest.
But while the courts played little or no role in the chaos
on Wall Street, in the collapse of the housing market or the 2008 near meltdown
of the economy, the Supreme Court of the United States has played a major role
in feeding the dreaded socio-political trend which led to misfortunes of
another kind when it ruled that money was speech thus gave everyone the right
to raise any amount they can from any source they want to use in the
propagation of any message they have in mind and have the message stick in the
mind of the public by financial tour de force.
This, in fact, is what happened when gobs of money were
raised to finance political campaigns with the result that elections are now
bought by the highest bidder and sold to the media and to the public. The
latter part is not a figure of speech but an admission and a boast made in
writing by none other than Karl Rove, the consummate practitioner of the craft
to run political campaigns, and the foremost authority on the subject.
But how did the culture of fear invade the once optimistic
culture of America in the first place, and contaminate it so deeply? Well, fear
is the DNA signature of a culture said to be of Hebrew origin by those who
claim to be Jewish even though they bear no resemblance to the nomadic Hebrew
tribes that once roamed the Middle East, and adhered to a primitive religion
they called Jewish. Having spent several centuries wandering aimlessly in Asia,
Africa and Europe, getting slaughtered by the locals everywhere they went but
recruiting new converts along the way, these people came to America armed with
an arsenal of tricks based on the art of instilling fear in the host on which
they feed. And so they contaminated the American culture by feeding on it the
way that a mosquito infests a body with malaria while feeding on it.
To get a sense of that culture of fear and get a feel as to
how it is made to spread in real life, we can study a column written by
Clifford D. May the Jew and published on the same day as the Krauthammer column
in the same online publication. The column has the title: “Don't get LOST” and
the subtitle: “Dangers of the treaty.” Here, the author traces the history of
the Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) from its early days in 1994 when the
organization that put it together was first established, till now. He does that
because “At some point this year, President Obama is expected to ask the Senate
to ratify [it].”
May admits that except for Ronald Reagan who expressed
reservation about the redistribution of wealth on a global scale, and for
Donald Rumsfeld who expressed reservation about the renunciation of American
sovereignty that would result from the implementation of the Treaty, everyone
else from the Nixon, Ford and Carter administrations to the current one have
favored it. To make his point, the author of the column quotes from the
writings and discourses of Reagan's ambassador to the UN and from those of Rumsfeld. He then adds his own view
which is this: “this welfare would go not directly to the poor but to
international bureaucrats who have the power to pass it on to dictators,
despots, and even state sponsors of terrorism.”
And this is where you get a powerful sense as to how these
people latch on to a small concern and turn it into a fear they keep
strengthening with time, and keep spreading throughout the American body
politic as well as the culture of the media and ultimately among the public at
large. Look how May plays his part in this game: “Once the billions begin to
flow, opportunities for corruption will be plentiful. Have those supporting
ratification forgotten the U.N. 'oil-for-food' scandal? Are they under the
impression that the U.N. has reformed since then?” This is a reference to the
program for exchanging Iraqi oil for food at a time when that nation was
embargoed by the world, and the humanitarian situation in the country was
becoming dire.
It happened that a small amount of corruption occurred and
was left to run for a short period of time before it was detected and stopped
in its tracks. But the impact has been no greater than that of a cup of water
when you compare it to the river of corruption that was and still is inherent
to another humanitarian project. This is the story of the Holocaust survivors
in Israel who live in abject poverty because the compensation payments which
are sent to them from abroad are pocketed by the politicians. This is a scandal
that has run for decades yet no one seems able or willing to stop it in its
tracks. So I ask: Where is Clifford May's outrage in a case that has been going
on for this long with no end in sight? Nowhere will you see that outrage, my
friend, because Clifford May and those like him do not express outrage because
they really are outraged; they express outrage to install a fire in your belly
with the aim of turning you into a foot soldier so as to get you to do the
dirty work for them. This is how these people replenish the army of suckers
they put in the service of their demonic causes.
And where they don't have enough evidence to instill fear in
you, they imagine not how a scenario might unfold but how it will unfold with
certainty. Look how our author plays this trick: “Lawsuit could be launched
against American businesses nowhere near an ocean … if the Authority thinks an
electric-power facility in West Virginia is causing climate change, a lawsuit
can be launched to shut it down … Such cases would be heard not by American
courts but by international tribunals.” But guess what, my friend -- America
has entered into many such agreements, especially in the field of international
trade like, for example, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with
Canada and Mexico. And guess what, the world did not come to an end for America
because the tribunals are not presided over by aliens from outer space; they
are presided over by human beings, among them judges from America and other
“liberal democracies.”
The point is that every nation which enters into an
agreement with other nations on a bilateral basis or a multilateral one gives
up some of its sovereignty in return for the benefits that accrue from the
relationship. Throughout history, the nations that entered into such agreements
have advanced while those that hid behind a wall remained behind. This is how
Japan began to make progress in the Nineteenth Century, and how China stayed
behind till it opened to the world. And yet, you now see the Jewish American
leaders call on America to turn itself into a hermit nation in the style of a
North Korea that could not exist without China, or the style of an Israel that
could not exist without America.
In fact, those Jewish leaders have been playing that game
for such a long time without someone pushing back against their arguments (a
reality that came about because they blacklisted and shut out all those who
would opposed them), they don't bother to explain why they say what they say
anymore. Look how May pulls a feat of this nature: “Henry Kissinger, George
Shultz, James Baker, Colin Powell, and Condoleezza Rice argue that by joining
the club we would gain a seat at the table, and … influence deliberations and
negotiations … Really?” That's all it took -- just one word “really?” to make
his point. Why say more when you don't expect someone to say, yes really; then
challenge you to take the argument put forward by those prominent people and
refute it point by point. This is how serious people participate in a debate,
not by throwing smart aleck remarks expecting that no one will push back or
challenge you.
Doing what he did the way he did it, the columnist now tells
the Congress not to ratify the treaty. And he ends his presentation like this:
“To now grant them power … would be madness. But is anyone confident that
madness is not the destination toward which the West is now heading?”
Thus, if you ever wondered how it is that these people were
able to control the media and control the Congress; how they were able to
suspend the quorum rule and manipulate other parliamentary rules to pass
resolutions in the middle of the night that favor Israel and soil America's
reputation; how they were able to call on Netanyahu of Israel to come urinate
on the White House rug and be rewarded by the Congress with 29 standing
ovations, you know now how they did it.
And so did Chief Justice John Roberts who apparently must
have seen the same thing. He must have come to the conclusion that America was
coming unglued and was descending into a chaotic situation because too much
power was grabbed by the likes of Clifford May, and by the think tanks not
worth a septic tank, yet have managed by their tricks to control the media (the
forth branch of government though unofficial) as well as control the Congress
and the Administration. This leaves the Judiciary, the third official branch of
government, to save the nation from an increasing polarization that is marching
toward a Balkan-like dissolution. He heard his calling and he responded in the
affirmative.
He must have thought it would be madness to leave it to the
likes of Clifford May to define madness, and allow them to attribute it to the
sane people who are trying to free the asylum from the grip of the inmates.