The Washington Compost has begun working on Roberts. This article implores him to continue his inward-focused evaluation of his “legacy”, and ignore the letter of the law.
Chief Justice Roberts aka CJ Sell out~
We should have known he was a slime ball when he was confirmed too easy and too fast to have been Bush appointee.
<>“It is,” he wrote, “not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”<>
IOW, it isn’t Scotus’ duty to enforce the 9th and 10th Amendments. He is right.
Can you imagine the Supreme Court after 8 years of President Walker and 8 Years of President Cruz?
Isn’t it great that Roberts puts comity on the court ahead of a proper interpretation of the people’s Constitution?
I’d rather have a bunch of regular people on the court, as opposed to most of the black-robed tyrants and lawyers on this court.
Spot Welding? More like creating Frankenstein.
If Roberts dreamed that the court would be non partisan, he is an idiot. supreme. I think they have been very partisan since at least the 1930s.
Roberts is already pegged as a Traitor. No way to go back now.
I get the feeling that Judge Roberts wishes he could leave this hot seat of duty. After Obola is gone, to be soon followed by Judge Wine-Cooler-Ginsberg, it would not surprise me to have Roberts leave for ‘medical reasons’ read: Increased Petit Mal seizures due to bouts of Clinical Depression.
He is depressed in this largely thankless job, where someone is always angry at what you do. A Dentist knows a great deal about this syndrome.
He always looks deeply unhappy,but this may just be his Game Face, to show Gravitas and stuff.
““It is,” he wrote, “not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.””
How can a justice let alone the chief justice make such a moronic statement is beyond unbelievable.
If there is any role at all for the supreme court it is exactly to protect what’s in the constitution from mere majority vote or “political choices”. That’s why the founder set up a CONSTITUTIONAL Republic as opposed to a democracy. They wisely understood that there were certain human behaviors (”rights”) that a simple majority should not be allowed to forcefully restrict - among them beliefs, speech, protecting yourself and others as enumerated in the constitution.
By his logic, if congress were to pass a law restricting free speech or the second amendment, he would not find that unconstitutional since it’s a “political choice”?
I have lost all respect for Justice Roberts. He was the one that started this mess. He could have declared OBAMA CARE unconstitutional the first time. But for some reason or another, whether he was being “BLACK MAILED” by this administration or ROBERTS was and is, a “5th” columnist, really working for this administration, only Chief Roberts knows.
I do find it both interesting and illustrative that pundits & media-types have no difficulty seeing the 4 Justices of Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotamayor and Kagan being lockstep liberal on any issue involving political interests. Then, of course, the same decry the fact that Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito do the exact same on the other side. Until Chief Justice Roberts went over to the ‘Dark Side’, it was always watching which way Kennedy swayed to see how the SC would decide.
I do so reverently hope that, this spring the SC will rule the usual 5 to 4 that laws are not for ad hoc interpretation by regulatory agencies to suit the current political masters of Washington. However, I will not be holding my breath either!
After the contortions Roberts went through to rewrite it and find it Constitutional he is not going to undo it at this point.
He is already compromised.
The author of the refenced article is evidently clueless about the federal government’s constitutionally limited powers, and therefore conseqently oblivious to a major constitutional scandal, imo, by activist justices including Roberts, in giving the green light to Obamacare.
More specifically, not only have the states never delegated to the corrupt feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate, tax and spend for intrastate healthcare purposes, but the Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified, evidenced by the excerpts from case opinions below, that the feds have no constitutional authority to stick their big noses into intrastate healthcare issues.
Regarding the Obamacare insurance mandate for example, note the fourth entry in the list from Paul v. Virginia. That entry indicates that the Court essentially clarified that the feds have no constitutional authority to regulate insurance policies, regardless if such policies are negotiated across state borders.
”State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. [emphases added]” —Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” —Justice John Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.
“Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description [emphasis added], as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” —Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln., 1837.
”4. The issuing of a policy of insurance is not a transaction of commerce [emphasis added] within the meaning of the latter of the two clauses, even though the parties be domiciled in different States, but is a simple contract of indemnity against loss.” — Paul v. Virginia, 1869. (The corrupt feds have no Commerce Clause (1.8.3) power to regulate insurance.)
“Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously [emphases added] beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.
Also, regardless that federal Democrats and RINOs will argue that if the Constitution doesn’t say that they can’t do something then they can do it, the Supreme Court has addressed that foolish idea too. Politically correct interpretations of the Constitution's Supremacy Clause aside, the Court has clarified in broad terms that powers not delegated to the feds, expressly via the Constitution, the specific power to regulate intrastate healthcare in this case, are prohibited to the feds.
”From the accepted doctrine that the United States is a government of delegated powers, it follows that those not expressly granted, or reasonably to be implied from such as are conferred, are reserved to the states, or to the people. To forestall any suggestion to the contrary, the Tenth Amendment was adopted. The same proposition, otherwise stated, is that powers not granted are prohibited [emphasis added].” —United States v. Butler, 1936.
It also proved that even an abject moron can have impressive credentials (something that honest, intelligent people have known all along).
Propaganda from the Washington Post to influence Roberts.
“Obamacare threatens to end John Roberts’s dream of a nonpartisan Supreme Court”
Obamacare is selling U.S. body mortgages globally.
Human trafficking.