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

Skip to comments.

Scalia Was "Furious" At Roberts Vote On Healthcare Law, Says Toobin Book
http://thehill.com/ ^ | September 18, 2012 | Sam Baker

Posted on 09/18/2012 8:51:03 AM PDT by Biggirl

Jeffrey Toobin's latest book portrays Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as increasingly cranky and partisan — and infuriated with Chief Justice John Roberts over the court's recent decisions on healthcare and immigration.

Toobin, who writes for The New Yorker and also covers the court for CNN, credits Scalia for a sea change in how both sides of the political spectrum think about the law. But he says the justice's bombast has become off-putting to more even-tempered colleagues.

(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...


TOPICS: Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: biggovernment; jeffreytoobin; johnroberts; liberalmedia; roberts; scalia; scotus; statemedia; toobin; ussc

1 posted on 09/18/2012 8:51:08 AM PDT by Biggirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Scalia should have been chief justice and was never enamored with Roberts.


2 posted on 09/18/2012 8:54:18 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

You said it!


3 posted on 09/18/2012 8:56:56 AM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

And pray tell, aren’t the Clinton-Obama appointees partisan? When do they ever break with the administration? We are sick of only conservatives being singled out as partisan, a pejorative in today’s media parlance.


4 posted on 09/18/2012 8:57:37 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Justice Scalia should have been the CJ, he is the one justice I respect the most.


5 posted on 09/18/2012 8:58:22 AM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Rightly so. Roberts should have been bitch-slapped back to the stone age. A traitorous act in my opinion


6 posted on 09/18/2012 8:59:39 AM PDT by Gaffer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Robert’s ruling is truly one of the most idiotic of all time.


7 posted on 09/18/2012 8:59:48 AM PDT by microgood
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
Heh. This is the same Toobin that calls Obama conservative . . . Toobin is so far left, it’s a wonder he isn’t on MSDNC.
8 posted on 09/18/2012 9:00:10 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Roberts sold out the Constitution and Americans will suffer.


9 posted on 09/18/2012 9:04:36 AM PDT by Logical me
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
Hey, Jeffrey-


10 posted on 09/18/2012 9:07:35 AM PDT by mikrofon (Or as my grandpa said: "Tutaj!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Scalia and Thomas are my personal favorites.


11 posted on 09/18/2012 9:11:13 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Thomas is my favorite. I keep meaning to read his autobiography “My Grandfather’s Son”.


12 posted on 09/18/2012 9:15:20 AM PDT by allmendream (Tea Party did not send GOP to D.C. to negotiate the terms of our surrender to socialism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: allmendream

I like Thomas because he’s a listener which is exactly why the left calls him an idiot.


13 posted on 09/18/2012 9:17:56 AM PDT by cripplecreek (What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world but loses his soul?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Toobin is a thoroughly biased leftist tool. His credibility is worth the value of a fully indoctrinated leftist. So how much is that worth?

I wouldn’t trust anything that stooge writes.


14 posted on 09/18/2012 9:19:42 AM PDT by LibFreeUSA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

It is perfectly clear from the dissent that Scalia was furious at Roberts. I was too. No matter how much good (if any) Roberts does with the rest of his life, the net effect of him having lived will be to make the lives of our children and grandchildren far worse than if Roberts had never been born. I will never forgive his intentional act of treason against the Constitution of the United States of America.


15 posted on 09/18/2012 9:22:58 AM PDT by Pollster1 (Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl
I too was disappointed with Roberts decision, but I do admire his devotion to the Constitution ... in that the law was duly passed by a House, Senate and President ... that We the People voted into office.

In other words, Roberts hos put it up to We the People to cleanse the House, Senate and White House.

Like it or not, Freepers should admire the guy.

16 posted on 09/18/2012 9:38:11 AM PDT by OldNavyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Justice Thomas is my close second favorite Supreme Court Justice. I have nothing but repsect for a man who was subjected to so much abuse during his confirmation hearings.


17 posted on 09/18/2012 9:43:29 AM PDT by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
Go back through the memory file.

Obamacare was written by God only knows. There were no hearings. “Deemed as Passed.” Not a single Senator or Congressman or their staffs even read, let alone understood the bill.

The rats purposely avoided the word “tax.” Roberts added it. He rewrote the law. An illegal act.

Piss on Roberts. History will not treat him well. He deserves every admonition history can dump on him.

18 posted on 09/18/2012 9:56:22 AM PDT by Jacquerie (Exterminate rats.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: txrefugee
When do they ever break with the administration?

There was actually a surprising case where Sotomyar (?!) correctly made a dissent against a 4th Amendment [IIRC] case that would have further erroded that amendment. I don't have the reference but I remember being surprised that I agreed with her.

19 posted on 09/18/2012 10:39:23 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Heh. This is the same Toobin that calls Obama conservative . . . Toobin is so far left, it’s a wonder he isn’t on MSDNC.

Given the dictionary definition of keeping things in the same state, Obama has been remarkably conservative on some issues... unfortunately those are things like statist policies and outright corruption.

20 posted on 09/18/2012 10:41:12 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Those are “conservative” in what country?


21 posted on 09/18/2012 10:48:23 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet
I too was disappointed with Roberts decision, but I do admire his devotion to the Constitution ... in that the law was duly passed by a House, Senate and President ... that We the People voted into office.
In other words, Roberts hos put it up to We the People to cleanse the House, Senate and White House.

Between these alternatives [ordinary legislation altering the Constitution or not] there is no middle ground. The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it.

If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if the latter part be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power in its own nature illimitable.

[...]

Those then who controvert the principle that the constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see only the law.

This doctrine would subvert the very foundation of all written constitutions. It would declare that an act, which, according to the principles and theory of our government, is entirely void, is yet, in practice, completely obligatory. It would declare, that if the legislature shall do what is expressly forbidden, such act, notwithstanding the express prohibition, is in reality effectual. It would be giving to the legislature a practical and real omnipotence with the same breath which professes to restrict their powers within narrow limits. It is prescribing limits, and declaring that those limits may be passed at pleasure.

That it thus reduces to nothing what we have deemed the greatest improvement on political institutions-a written constitution, would of itself be sufficient, in America where written constitutions have been viewed with so much reverence, for rejecting the construction. But the peculiar expressions of the constitution of the United States furnish additional arguments in favour of its rejection.
Maybury v. Madison
22 posted on 09/18/2012 10:51:13 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Those are “conservative” in what country?

In any country wherein they exist; that's why I said "given the dictionary-definition".

23 posted on 09/18/2012 10:53:32 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

The Founding Fathers would take issue with that point of view.

And what dictionary?


24 posted on 09/18/2012 10:54:24 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
The Founding Fathers would take issue with that point of view.

Actually, they wouldn't. They did their best to limit government because they knew that power tends to corrupt; therefore by limiting the power of the state they limit the damage that corruption could wreak.

And what dictionary?

Dictionary.com.
con·serv·a·tive
adjective

  1. disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
  2. cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
  3. traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.
  4. (often initial capital letter) of or pertaining to the Conservative party.
  5. (initial capital letter) of, pertaining to, or characteristic of Conservative Jews or Conservative Judaism.

Though you'll see similar from merriam-webster, Webster's 1828, and Cambridge.

25 posted on 09/18/2012 11:12:53 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

And how does their POV translate to non-conservative?


26 posted on 09/18/2012 11:19:00 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
And how does their POV translate to non-conservative?

Tell me? Is it 'conservative' to support the War on Drugs, or not? Consider that the War on Drugs is directly responsible for things like the militarization of the police, asset seizure prior to conviction, and warrant-less searches.

27 posted on 09/18/2012 11:32:54 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

You keep changing the subject, so I must conclude that you are a liberal, especially after citing statism and corruption as particularly “conservative” when they are not.

For the record, the “war on drugs” started in earnest with Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s Uniform State Narcotic Drug Act of 1934.


28 posted on 09/18/2012 11:39:13 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

you are confusing bad laws with conservative principles.

asset seizures have been successfully challenged.


29 posted on 09/18/2012 11:43:47 AM PDT by longtermmemmory (VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

What are you talking about? The subject was the word ‘conservative’, wasn’t it?


30 posted on 09/18/2012 11:46:26 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

You’ve changed the subject you were presumably broaching about three times in a row. How are statism and corruption “conservative”? I say they are liberal.


31 posted on 09/18/2012 11:48:07 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: longtermmemmory
you are confusing bad laws with conservative principles.

I'm trying to illustrate that "conservative principals" in practice means the exact opposite of the word 'conservative'.

asset seizures have been successfully challenged.

And some not.

32 posted on 09/18/2012 11:48:07 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OldNavyVet

It’s still his job to interpret the laws by the measure of the Constitution.


33 posted on 09/18/2012 11:49:34 AM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
How are statism and corruption “conservative”? I say they are liberal.

And I've answered: preserving the status quo, that is the dictionary definition of 'conservative'.

That you are using a different definition is irrelevant; the application of "conservative principals" necessitates a shocking change, and therefore is not, strictly speaking, conservative.

34 posted on 09/18/2012 11:51:53 AM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Me too. Still am.


35 posted on 09/18/2012 11:59:16 AM PDT by Vision ("Did I not say to you that if you would believe, you would see the glory of God?" John 11:40)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
“Preserving the status quo” is not a definition of “conservative”. It does not even appear in the Dictionary.com definition; read it again.

Other definitions of “conservative” (i.e. other dictionaries) do not define it as “preserving the status quo” either, because to do so makes communism “conservative” after a fashion. Since that cannot be, then neither statism nor corruption are conservative, since neither can ever be moderate (a core definition of “conservative”).
36 posted on 09/18/2012 3:51:00 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
“Preserving the status quo” is not a definition of “conservative”. It does not even appear in the Dictionary.com definition; read it again.

Other definitions of “conservative” (i.e. other dictionaries) do not define it as “preserving the status quo” either, because to do so makes communism “conservative” after a fashion. Since that cannot be, then neither statism nor corruption are conservative, since neither can ever be moderate (a core definition of “conservative”).

What about the word 'preservative' do you not understand? And just because I say "preserving the status quo" doesn't mean that's contrary to "disposed to preserve existing conditions." Or, since you are the one making the claim that these are actually different, please give an example.

37 posted on 09/18/2012 4:02:34 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark

Your errors of omission certainly make your attempts at redefinition fail. I must conclude that you are not only calling statism and corruption by themselves “conservative” but also communism/socialism since it has been the status quo in China since 1947.


38 posted on 09/18/2012 4:08:10 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Your errors of omission certainly make your attempts at redefinition fail.

There is no attempt at redefinition on my part. "Disposed to preserve existing conditions" and "preservative" are both of the same idea as "preserving the status quo," to say otherwise is absurd.

I must conclude that you are not only calling statism and corruption by themselves “conservative” but also communism/socialism since it has been the status quo in China since 1947.

You have it exactly backwards; I'm saying that our government is corrupt and [disposed to] statism... and it is therefore that Obama's actions [and Bush's] have actually been rather conservative. {Where conservative means "to preserve existing conditions"/"preservative".}

That those aren't the ideals espoused by the founding fathers is, quite frankly, irrelevant; those ideals have been seriously erroded to continually give the state more power since long before I was even born. Wickard v. Filburn (1942) said that the government can control anything that impacts commerce; Gonzales v. Raich (2005) further elaborated this saying that even if there is no legitimate market for a substance, that the reasoning in Wicard still applies because otherwise would restrict federal powers; Kelo v. City of New London (2005) likewise put the final nail in the 5th Amendment's restrictions on Eminent Domain by holding that imaginary numbers [projections] for tax revenue increase justified the "public use" clause in the 5th Amendment for giving the land to a private developer [Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff (1984) and Berman v. Parker (1954) are cited by Kelo]; and indeed the fourth amendment means virtually nothing given: drunk-driving checkpoints, the TSA, no-knock warrants, SWAT raids; the 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments are regularly ignored in courthouses across the land with their prohibitions on firearms [jurors must appear, under penalty of law, and they are disarmed despite not even being accused of a crime].

While these certainly aren't in the spirit of the founding fathers they nonetheless are far more the norm in my lifetime than the stories of freedom I hear from my grandparents and their peers. Did you know that they used to take guns to school? Never have I heard of that being allowed by schools in my lifetime; but hey, that's ok, because the authorities say it's bad, and if the authorities say it then it must be right! [Heavy sarcasm there, FYI.]

What about murdering the unborn? The Democrats are quite for it; but hey, so are the Republicans, given the complete and utter inaction toward repeal/overturn of Roe v Wade (which occurred before I was born). I mean come on, the Republican party had the Legislative and the Executive for most of Bush's term and can't be bothered to even put out a token effort?

Let's get back to guns; when was the last time you heard of a popular Republican say that we should repeal the GCA, or the NFA? Or, hey, did you know that the ATF has lost a case for exercising their regulatory power over new full-auto weapons because they don't allow them to be taxed? So, why aren't people using this ruling as precedent for new manufacture of full-auto weapons? Oh, that's right, it only counts if it's increasing the government's powers.

So, tell me, why should I be for preserv[ing] existing conditions, institutions, etc? Why should I want to conserve these injustices? Why should I consider these to be sufferable evils?

A limited government, an accountable government, a responsible government, a just government: all of these are vastly different than what we have. And, indeed, I doubt that the government has had aught but shadows of reputation for all of those for all of my life.

39 posted on 09/18/2012 4:48:05 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: OneWingedShark
When I say errors of omission, I mean exactly that.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
I do not know when you were born, but it sounds like it must have been long after the 1970s. Over a half-century of rapid change is certainly not the definition of preservation of conditions.
40 posted on 09/18/2012 4:55:38 PM PDT by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
I do not know when you were born, but it sounds like it must have been long after the 1970s.

80s. Over a half-century of rapid change is certainly not the definition of preservation of conditions.

And I'll disagree with you here. Many of those cited decisions have roots in things long before I was born: prohibition* and Wicard for instance justify the War on Drugs. (* I'd bet real money that current cases have precedent in cases that were decided in prohibition and of all right ought to be rendered invalid because of the 21st Amd.)

I don't know how long it's been going on; but ask yourself: when did 'obey the authorities' enter societal thought? What happened to moral thought? Well, kicking God out of schools didn't help; nor did adopting the mindlessly stupid idea that the Supreme Court determines Constitutionality of laws (i.e. functionally that the USSC is above the Constitution), which was fully realized in Roe v. Wade where that court *spit* rendered out of whole cloth not that abortion laws were constitutional, but that anti-abortion laws were unconstitutional, imposing mandatory violations of the 14th Amendment upon the states all while violating the 9th and 10th Amendments.

You may argue it's been a half century of rapid change; but 30 years of that hasn't been all that dynamic, merely the revealing of things as they are. Hell, the government used something nearly as despicably underhanded as Fast & Furious to motivate involvement in WWI.

So, I'll disagree with you that this is "new things" we're dealing with.

41 posted on 09/18/2012 5:17:59 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: Biggirl

Consider the source. Tobin is just one more member of the Obama lickspittle slobberfest. I don’t read the guy. No doubt he’s impressed with how much Roberts has “grown.” And did he mention that both Obama and Biden voted against Roberts?


42 posted on 09/18/2012 5:21:17 PM PDT by donaldo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | 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