Everand Logo

Welcome to Everand!

  • Discover millions of ebooks, audiobooks, and so much more with a free trial

    Only $11.99/month after trial. Cancel anytime.

    Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare: A Conservative Critique of The Supreme Court's Obamacare Ruling
    Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare: A Conservative Critique of The Supreme Court's Obamacare Ruling
    Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare: A Conservative Critique of The Supreme Court's Obamacare Ruling
    Ebook72 pages1 hour

    Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare: A Conservative Critique of The Supreme Court's Obamacare Ruling

    By Sen. Mike Lee

    5/5

    ()

    Read preview

    About this ebook

    An original ebook from the current US senator to Utah, explaining why Chief Justice Roberts was wrong to disregard the Constitution in making his historic and controversial healthcare decision.

    During Chief Justice Roberts’s first seven terms on the Supreme Court of the United States, he distinguished himself as a fair-minded jurist and a true constitutional scholar—a man seemingly committed to the rule of law and to core constitutional principles. That hard-earned distinction was turned on its head when, on June 28, 2012, the Chief Justice—writing for a five-to-four majority in National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebilius—essentially re-wrote key provisions of Obamacare in order to uphold the law, and allow it to be approved, in the face of a justified constitutional challenge.

    Now United States Senator Mike Lee presents a conservative critique of this controversial ruling, and explains why John Roberts in particular was wrong to vote to preserve the act. In an attempt to be perceived as fair in the mainstream media, Roberts allowed himself to be swayed by outside influences -- influences to which a Supreme Court justice is supposed to be absolutely immune. Not only that, Senator Lee explains, Roberts conceded that much of the Obamacare act was unconstitutional; yet he instructed states simply to ignore those parts, instead of recognizing that those parts made the entire act invalid.

    A smart, fair and evenhanded argument, Why John Roberts Was Wrong provides a definitive, concise argument against Obamacare.
    LanguageEnglish
    PublisherThreshold Editions
    Release dateJun 17, 2013
    ISBN9781476740546
    Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare: A Conservative Critique of The Supreme Court's Obamacare Ruling
    Author

    Sen. Mike Lee

    Senator Mike Lee is a United States Senator for Utah, serving as member of the Judiciary Committee and as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights. He graduated from Brigham Young University with a Bachelor of Science in Political Science, and graduated from BYU's Law School in 1997. He then served as law clerk to future Supreme Court Justice Judge Samuel A. Alito, Jr. on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Lee spent several years as an attorney with the law firm Sidley & Austin and then served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Salt Lake City arguing cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals. Lee and his wife live in Alpine, Utah.

    Related to Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare

    Related ebooks

    American Government For You

    View More
    View More

    Related podcast episodes

    Related articles

    • Article

      The Plutocracy That Is U.S. Democracy

      Dec 16, 2021

      The U.S. doesn’t have democracy, it has politics. Democracy is about serving the people, giving them what they want and improving their lives. China doesn’t have career politicians, it has bureaucrats. Trained and skilled administrators who are elect

      2 min read

    • Article

      Shawn Brimley's Town

      Jan 11, 2018

      Shawn Brimley's Town
      3 min read

    • Article

      Debunking the 1619 Project: Exposing the Plan to Divide America

      Sep 15, 2022

      By Mary Grabar Washington, D.C.: Regnery, 2021 Pp. 324. $29.99 hardcover. The New York Times’s 1619 Project has sparked numerous responses since its publication three years ago—including Phillip Magness’s The 1619 Project: A Critique (Great Barringto

      7 min read

    • Article

      Kanye Tweets Right

      Apr 23, 2018

      Kanye Tweets Right
      2 min read

    • Article

      Freeman Didn’t Say ‘Lock Her Up’

      Jan 11, 2018

      Q: Did actor Morgan Freeman say that Hillary Clinton should be jailed? A: No. He has donated to Democrats and endorsed Clinton for president in 2016. FULL ANSWER Morgan Freeman endorsed Hillary Clinton for president in 2016. But, in October, a websi

      2 min read

    • Article

      The House Science Committee’s Shameful Climate Sideshow

      Mar 29, 2017

      The committee held a hearing on Wednesday that presented a tired sideshow of climate deniers going through their well-rehearsed paces—the science hearing equivalent of a World Wrestling Entertainment match.

      4 min read

    • Article

      Darkness at Nunes

      Mar 2, 2018

      Darkness at Nunes
      8 min read

    • Article

      Before And After

      Oct 23, 2020

      Before And After
      2 min read

    • Article

      One Foot Off The Grid

      Nov 17, 2022

      One Foot Off The Grid
      3 min read

    • Article

      Ocasio-Cortez Gets FDR History Lesson Wrong

      Apr 2, 2019

      At a town hall meeting on the Green New Deal, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got her history wrong when she was asked what lessons she learned from President Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal. The post Ocasio-Cortez Gets FDR History Lesson Wrong appear

      2 min read

    Related categories

    Reviews for Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare

    5/5

    2 ratings0 reviews

    What did you think?

    Tap to rate

    Review must be at least 10 words

      Book preview

      Why John Roberts Was Wrong About Healthcare - Sen. Mike Lee

      CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP

      Title Image

      Contents

      Foreword: The Judgment of Solomon

      Introduction: National Federation of Independent Businesses v. Sebelius

      I. The Court’s Ruling

      II. Why the Court Was Wrong to Rewrite the Mandate as a Tax

      III. Why the Supreme Court Was Wrong to Rewrite the ACA’s Medicaid-Expansion Provisions to Save the Rest of the ACA

      IV. What Happened to Chief Justice Roberts?

      V. Where Do We Go from Here?

      Conclusion

      Foreword: The Judgment of Solomon

      My day started early on Thursday, June 28, 2012. I had scheduled a series of news-media interviews, which began at about 7:00 a.m., and would last throughout the day. By late morning, the U.S. Supreme Court would be issuing its ruling in a landmark case involving the constitutionality of President Obama’s defining legislative accomplishment, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (ACA), known to many as Obamacare.

      It was rare to see such intense media interest in a single case pending before the Supreme Court. This case was different.

      Having served as a law clerk to Justice Alito (first while he was serving on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and then again during his first full term on the Supreme Court), I knew that it is often difficult to predict how the Court might rule. But I also knew that in some instances, you can make a pretty good guess as to how each justice might vote if you know what to look for.

      I also knew that I would need to rely on a time-proven strategy I had learned from my dad decades earlier. My father, the late Rex E. Lee, served as President Reagan’s solicitor general and argued fifty-nine cases before the Supreme Court during his career. My dad used to say, When trying to predict how the Supreme Court might rule, the formula is simple, but not always easy: Count to five.

      At the conclusion of the four-day oral argument in late March 2012, I had felt quite confident that I could count to five in the Obamacare case. I predicted that Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito would likely find the ACA unconstitutional at least in part, and perhaps in its entirety.

      Arguments lead to decisions. The ruling in this case was announced on June 28, the final day of the Court’s October 2011 term. That morning, I took my seat in the courtroom. I couldn’t help but think about the countless times I had sat in the same room—not just as a law clerk and lawyer, but beginning at the age of ten, when I started attending my dad’s arguments before the Supreme Court.

      There is a carved marble frieze above the bench on the courtroom’s east wall. It has captured my attention on countless occasions. The frieze features two men seated in what appear to be thrones with a large eagle behind them, wings outstretched. The man on the left, who has a large book of law at his side, is known within the Supreme Court as the Majesty of Law. The man on the right holds a large fasces—an ancient Roman symbol of authority consisting of a tightly bound bundle of rods—and is known as the Power of Government. Both men appear unusually but equally strong, sending the message that each is capable of keeping the other in check, and that when the two are united, they constitute a formidable force.

      Corresponding friezes, one on the north wall and the other on the south, depict a long line of ancient lawgivers, including Moses, Hammurabi, Solomon, and King John. A final frieze on the west wall contains carved figures representing the conflict between good and evil: Virtue, charity, peace, harmony, and security are depicted on one side, and vice, crime, corruption, slander, deception, and despotic power on the other. The evil side conjures a feeling of chaos, while the good side creates an impression of order.

      Taken together, the friezes seem to hold the law, and with it the history of civilization, in balance.

      Much like the stone figures in the courtroom, I was surrounded by witnesses of the legal landscape, guardians of the proper role of government. Aided by my surroundings, I became keenly aware of each generation’s role in maintaining the rule of law.

      As the press gallery began to fill with the small handful of reporters fortunate enough to get a seat in the courtroom, I gave additional thought to what I might say to the army of reporters lining up outside, most of whom were equipped with cameras, microphones, and other modern equipment that would enable them to tell the entire world how the Court had ruled as soon as this hearing had concluded. Unlike

      Enjoying the preview?
      Page 1 of 1