Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Liberals fear the John Roberts rebound
Politico ^ | 7-3-2012 | Josh Gerstein

Posted on 07/03/2012 10:49:40 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot

(snip) Some liberals contend that Roberts’s surprise crossover on the health care law has given him a free hand to craft and sign onto a slew of conservative opinions next year without suffering much of a public drubbing from Democrats and the press. With one major case, Roberts may have inoculated himself and the court against charges of partisanship.

The chief will have plenty of chances to make his mark in the next term. Already, the justices are planning to delve into the politically charged issue of affirmative action. They may well add hot-button disputes over same-sex marriage rights and voter ID laws. And the court could even take up the constitutionality of the landmark law Congress passed nearly half a century ago to guarantee African-Americans equal access to the polls: the Voting Rights Act.

(snip) George Washington University law professor Jeffrey Rosen was even more blunt about Roberts’s new leeway.

“He has now increased his political capital that will allow him to continue to move the Court in a conservative direction in cases involving affirmative action and the Voting Rights Act, both of which he may well strike down next year by 5-4 votes,” Rosen wrote in The New Republic.

(Excerpt) Read more at dyn.politico.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics
KEYWORDS: trustissue
Liberals pre-emptive strike for the court before the next term even begins. Why does a SC justice even need political capital ????? After the Obamacare decision, what political capital he earned can sway other justices in an open debate?

Roberts stands alone. As of now. After his written gibberish, who is going to work WITH him? Not liberals justices, not conservative justices, imo.

1 posted on 07/03/2012 10:49:45 AM PDT by Sir Napsalot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Did you know that Alito votes with Roberts 90% of the time? I like Alito and he did dissent with Roberts in the last three cases.


2 posted on 07/03/2012 10:53:00 AM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Anyone who believes this bs from the liars @ Politico, suffers from a severe mental problem.


3 posted on 07/03/2012 10:53:38 AM PDT by Grampa Dave (ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION IS DESTROYING AMERICA-LOOK AT WHAT IT DID TO THE WHITE HOUSE!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

It’s insane to think Roberts will snap back to conservative stances as a result of the Obamacare ruling. Roberts is all about getting praise from the media, and he got it... so that constitutes his 30 pieces of silver. Why would he care whether he stands alone? He’s in the job for life.. he’s set with a fine, elite medical package we unwashed masses can only dream of.


4 posted on 07/03/2012 10:54:15 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... yet voting doesn't???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

As always Politico is full of BS, they are trying to dampen conservative anger. This ruling has driven many conservative to vote for the Mitten despite his obvious failings as a candidate. Yea so now we have to worry about Roberts and Kennedy on every one of those issues. SCOTUS is a SCROTUM and is a worthless as Congress and the WH. These justices are political hacks and are as inside the beltway as McCain and Obama. They sold out at least 270 million Americans and there children’s, children.


5 posted on 07/03/2012 10:55:42 AM PDT by OldGoatCPO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

This is enough to make me want to vomit.

The man is a lifetime appointment separate branch of government. Why the Hell should he have to worry about “insulating” himself from attacks by democrats or the press?

How are you “nonpartisan” when you sign on with the liberals?

Why the Hell would you need to sign onto a liberal opinion in order to be able to sign onto conservative opinions???


6 posted on 07/03/2012 10:56:39 AM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Some liberals contend that Roberts’s surprise crossover on the health care law has given him a free hand to craft and sign onto a slew of conservative opinions next year without suffering much of a public drubbing from Democrats and the press.

Which would make him a politician, not a justice. This is all such a tragedy.
7 posted on 07/03/2012 10:58:29 AM PDT by mmichaels1970
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

I think Roberts forgot the most basic fact about our Constitution; that it’s written as negative law. Negative rights permit or oblige inaction. He apparently doesn’t even understand the form of law he’s interpreting.


8 posted on 07/03/2012 10:58:46 AM PDT by Crucial (Tolerance at the expense of equal treatment is the path to tyranny.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

So long as liberals fret, worry and wring their hands, I sleep better.


9 posted on 07/03/2012 10:58:57 AM PDT by Pharmboy (Democrats lie because they must.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Liberals pre-emptive strike for the court before the next term even begins

That is exactlty what this

Warning Roberts to stay in the left's camp
10 posted on 07/03/2012 10:58:57 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Roberts and the court are a complete joke. It's an insignificant court that should stick to insignificant cases. Make the court a department of the executive since only King Obama’s decrees really matter.
11 posted on 07/03/2012 11:00:37 AM PDT by throwback (The object of opening the mind, is as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Funny, we were told that a 5-4 decision striking down Obamacare would be political. But now that it is 5-4 upholding Obamacare, the decision was not political and should be applauded.

Roberts has destroyed any pretense that the courts are free from political pressure. Roberts changed his mind due to that pressure, which we still don't know if it was personal or directed against the court as a whole.

No doubt the WH was tipped off about the decision almost immediately, hence Obama's blatant warning to the court in April and the use of the word "ultimately" when he said that the law would be upheld. Roberts could have been blackmailed for personal reasons as Obama and his Chicago thugs could have something on him.

Pelosi repeatedly said that Obamacare would be upheld 6-3. I am sure she knew about the Roberts switch and figured that Roberts would convince Kennedy to go along with him. The fix was in almost from the very beginning. We are now a banana republic.

12 posted on 07/03/2012 11:04:14 AM PDT by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Did you know that Alito votes with Roberts 90% of the time?

Up until last week, Roberts voted generally along conservative, constitutional lines (Citizens United; Heller), but someone got to him on this one. This is far too weird.

13 posted on 07/03/2012 11:08:55 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... yet voting doesn't???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

They're just making sure he continues to obey THEM.

If he doesn't agree with race baiting, election fraud, and fetish marriage, ObomaTax was just an evil plan to distract from his "right wing racism and bigotry."

"Got that Roberts? You better obey us, because we'll still come after you if you don't!"

Roberts doesn't get it. When you dance with the devil - you get burnt no matter how much you cater to him.

14 posted on 07/03/2012 11:17:11 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

“Why does a SC justice even need political capital”

“Political capital” as it is used today is an Orwellian phrase that simply means on good terms with the Washington elite and the MSM. It has nothing to do with politics or capital. It just means that the disinformation agents in the media have been told to write approvingly.


15 posted on 07/03/2012 11:17:34 AM PDT by detective
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Liberals pre-emptive strike for the court before the next term even begins.

Yep. Unlike the other conservative justices, Roberts reads what the MSM prints. He's afraid of them more than he is the American people.

If he's going to put the opinion of the media ahead of the law, he should become a journalist and allow a honest judge to take his position.

16 posted on 07/03/2012 11:22:54 AM PDT by concerned about politics ("Get thee behind me, Liberal")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
Roberts has one, and only one, opportunity to redeem himself.

He has ruled that the mandate is a tax. Despite what Obama and Democrats claim, it is now a tax.

However, I do not believe he addressed the constitutionality of the tax. Perhaps this is because the Court lacks the authority to address the tax issue until after its been imposed.

This means that once imposed, another appeal can be taken before the Court on the constitutionality of the tax.

There can be a second chance for Roberts. He can rule the tax unconstitutional at that time and essentially kill Obamacare at that time.

17 posted on 07/03/2012 11:23:46 AM PDT by CharacterCounts (A vote for the lesser of two evils only insures the triumph of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Baloney!!! Kagan and Sotomayer will stab Roberts in the back over and over. Roberts is a sucker and should have stuck to the Constitution — which is his frikin’ job — instead of playing politics. Now we have a federal government that can tax inactivity. Just brilliant Chief Justice Roberts! Moron!


18 posted on 07/03/2012 11:23:52 AM PDT by avacado
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

Horse manure. What decision could be more important than this one? Or more destructive? Or more unlawful?

Roberts could vote conservative the rest of his life and it wouldn’t undo the damage.

But he won’t. It’s now entirely clear that, for whatever reason, he has betrayed his oath, his office, and his country, and that’s not about to change.


19 posted on 07/03/2012 11:27:06 AM PDT by Cicero (Marcus Tullius)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Roberts and Politico deserve a big helping of..........


20 posted on 07/03/2012 11:36:32 AM PDT by ChildOfThe60s (If you can remember the 60s....you weren't really there)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CharacterCounts

OK... I like that thought.


21 posted on 07/03/2012 11:56:35 AM PDT by Ernest_at_the_Beach (The Global Warming Hoax was a Criminal Act....where is Al Gore?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg

He is still a spineless obama kissing weasel..


22 posted on 07/03/2012 12:04:09 PM PDT by st.eqed
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: ScottinVA

I am still in shock over it. Especially since we now know that he wrote the majority of the dissent.


23 posted on 07/03/2012 12:16:44 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot
Baloney!!

This is like saying Roberts gave us Cancer the better to trim hangnails at a later date.

24 posted on 07/03/2012 12:38:35 PM PDT by Anti-Bubba182
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

John Roberts shoots America in the head and now he will “rebound”?? Screw that traitor to the US Constitution. I hope that scumbag Roberts uses his vacation to have his epilepsy meds recalibrated and his brain damage assessed.


25 posted on 07/03/2012 12:42:14 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Perdogg
What do you make of this article?

Via Real Clear Politics, Michael Gerson, WaPo John Roberts' Arrogance

Gerson said - "Roberts ..., concerned primarily about the place of the Supreme Court in American political life."

Rather than "focused on the rigorous application of the words of the founding document. In this view, the meaning of the text is primary, whatever the political consequences of applying it." as preferred by the dissenting justices.

26 posted on 07/03/2012 12:57:05 PM PDT by Sir Napsalot (Pravda + Useful Idiots = CCCP; JournOList + Useful Idiots = DopeyChangey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Sir Napsalot

I am rather shocked.


27 posted on 07/03/2012 1:01:40 PM PDT by Perdogg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Cicero

In all your smaller transactions with others, keep your dealings both honest and transparent. They will never suspect the roundhouse fetch of a club upside the head when it comes.

Thanks, John Roberts, for that most sobering episode.


28 posted on 07/04/2012 11:30:23 AM PDT by alloysteel (Fear and intimidation work. At least on the short term.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson