Posted on 03/16/2012 7:32:33 PM PDT by Mariner
From the inaugural oath do-over to an unprecedented State of the Union throwdown, relations between President Obama and the conservative members of the Supreme Court have had an unusually cantankerous feel.
If it had been up to Obama, after all, John G. Roberts Jr. would not have been holding the Bible at the president’s swearing-in, and Samuel A. Alito Jr. would still have been in his New Jersey judicial chambers rather than in the second row of the House mouthing “not true” during Obama’s 2010 address to the nation. As a senator, Obama voted against the Supreme Court confirmations of both men.
But these days, the president must hope that grudges are put aside. He will need at least one Republican-appointed justice on the increasingly conservative court to uphold the signature domestic achievement of his presidency: health-care reform. The court’s four liberals, two appointed by Obama, are forecast as reliable votes in favor. But Obama needs at least five.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
I’m in.
Is Mr. Barnes trying to read obozo's mind or is this what passes for judicial journalism? What is going on here?
So what the WaPo is saying is that politics are a more powerful deciding factor than the law. Nice!
And that is what we’ll have if this court upholds Obamacare.
Did you ever think that our liberties would be hanging by one vote in the Supreme Court?
Yes, just as soon as McCain lost in '08.
I’ll bring the rope.
To overthrown the empire and make such justice possible would require a far grander Civil War then the more expedient secession backed up with a combination of International support and a nuclear MAD deterrence against a linclintonan imperial suppression.
Sadly I think our long range hopes for a reclamation and reappointment’s of our liberty must invariably contend upon our practiced ability to put the mutually beneficial & consent of the governed part of republican Government into our Federal government.
Invariably this all comes down to practically restoring the right of revolution to reinforce that core virtue that prohibits a distant majority from tyrannizing a minority.
John Roberts, Do you know that The Obama Administration OK’d Using Aborted Babies’ Brains in Lab Tests?
http://www.lifenews.com/2012/03/16/obama-admin-oks-using-aborted-babies-brains-in-lab-tests/
Obama LOVES partial birth abortion, where a pair of scissors are plunged into a baby’s neck when the baby is halfway out of the birth canal, to sever the baby’s spinal cord...mmm, mmm, mmm.
Americans will be watching how you decide on this...more importantly, so will God.
Sorry if anyone was repulsed by this; it’s the truth, and the Supreme Court NEEDS to be repulsed by it.
I think Buckwheat and the traitorous mercenaries in the secret service out to be worrying more about the DIA than Roberts.
You have a point there.
Of course Kagan won’t recuse. This case is the reason she was put on the Court.
Never mind that she wrote the arguments they’re using to defend it.
Johnsoncare/Hillarycare/Romneycare/Obamacare/Totalitariancare.
This one may be the totalitarian shiv in the heart of “free” people. Are we witnessing triangulation by totalitarians? The powers-that-be are moving fast. SCOTUS will tell.
FUBO
I’m in.
Defense Intelligence Agency?
#&$@!*$ HOLY $%!#...I am never more than an instant away from killing half the people around me.. Should I be locked up for murder now?
“While in that case Angel Raich’s pot was for her own use, “marijuana that is grown at home and possessed for personal use is never more than an instant from the interstate market,” and thus subject to federal regulation, Scalia wrote in a concurring opinion.”
““Because of human susceptibility to disease and accident, we are all potentially never more than an instant” from requiring health care, Verrilli writes — so the government has an interest in making sure that individuals have a way to pay for it.”
Also BULL$%!# - “But [Roberts] may have provided a clue about his views on federal power in a 2010 decision in United States v. Comstock . In that case, he joined the liberal justices in ruling that sexually dangerous prisoners can be detained after their sentences end.
The decision was seen as an important endorsement of the view that Congress has the power to legislate on issues not specifically delegated to it in the Constitution.”
$%&# NO SNAKE CONGRESS $%&#ING DOESN’T!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry, but this article just rather pissed me off :/ The Commerce Clause is WAY too overused. Clarence Thomas is the only Justice I really like a lot.
Yes, just as soon as McCain lost WAS NOMINATED in '08.
Fixed it.
I would settle for an amicable parting of the ways. Let the progressive states wallow in their filth. Folks would have a limited time to move freely to a state of their choice. After that, the flyover states would have to institute strict border controls to prevent California from spreading its disease as people flee without understanding what they are fleeing.
OK. It’s kind of utopian. D.C. would never allow Texas tax revenues to escape without war. Nor would it allow the mouth of the Mississippi river to be controlled by another country without war. The later issue, along with slavery, were the two principal factors why the Civil War was fought to the bitter end. The more things change . . .
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.