Skip to comments.Matthews Slimes: John Roberts Doesn't Want to be Like Slave Judge Behind Dred Scott
Posted on 06/27/2012 6:07:03 PM PDT by chessplayer
click here to read article
I agree, I think the left will con you with this do things our way and you’ll be a hero, don’t do things our way and you’ll be Roger Taney, etc. Roberts and Kennedy can be bought off in my opinion.
Thursday will end up being as big a Historical event as the German attack on Pearl Harbor.
John Belushi will be spinning in his grave.
The delays on these cases have me concerned as well, this ruling was supposed to come out last week and it’s been put on hold till tommorrow. Something fishy is going on like someone like Axelrod saying we have some damaging info on your Justice Roberts or Justice Kennedy, vote our way and it won’t come out. Arizona decision concerns me as well.
The delays on these cases have me concerned as well, this ruling was supposed to come out last week and it’s been put on hold till tommorrow. Something fishy is going on like someone like Axelrod saying we have some damaging info on you Justice Roberts or Justice Kennedy, vote our way and it won’t come out. Arizona decision concerns me as well.
Pardon me - but surely it isn’t so much a matter of saving the best medical system in the world, but of saving yourselves from slavery?
You will become distinctly less free if Obamacare is upheld.
The problem for us it that Rs have also supported unconstitutional, big-government legislation for decades.
The GOP has always been the big government, no original intent party. It wasn’t until Reagan pulled some conservative little government types into the party that the GOP became conservative to any measurable degree.
“Chris Mathews is a millionaire
Think about that while you’re job hunting. :)”
Just further evidence that the MERITOCRACY is dead and IDIOCRACY is a documentary on the era.
Obamacare is an unjust law, and as such is not really a valid law. More on that below.
My take on the SCOTUS vote that will probably be announced today (deciding on two issues - the Obamacare mandate and Obamacare itself):
4 in favor: the four Socialist amigos will have decided as a block (kind of like a SCOTUS stronghold).
3 against: Scalia, Thomas, and Alito (our freedom-loving, Constitution-loving Justices).
Unfortunately, that means only one of the remaining two is needed to decide in favor of Obamacare.
2 uncertain: Kennedy (as usual) and Roberts (suprisingly).
The Kennedy vote depends which side of the bed he rose up the day of the decision. If for some reason Kennedy has voted against both issues, then we still may have a Roberts problem, because he is apparently loathe to overturn the legislature.
However, if SCOTUS blows it, the game isnt over. The states can and must do as Idaho did: nullify Obamacare and exempt its citizens from its mandates.
Back to what we call "law." The highest Law of the Land of course is the U.S. Constitution which trumps any other law that violates it. I'm sure you know this, but it's probably worth saying that in this sense, this "solid four" (or "socialist four") is for overturning the Law of the Land in favor of said "laws" like Obamacare that helps create a Socialist state. Because Obamacare is illegal (outside U.S. Constitutional bounds) and unjust (wrongly interfering with individual liberty) it is, therefore, as Augustine and Blackstone say below, NO LAW.
More on this below if interested from the Philosophy of Law:
[T]he Overlap Thesis underlies the classical naturalism of Aquinas and Blackstone. As Blackstone describes the thesis, "This law of nature, being co-eval with mankind and dictated by God himself, is of course superior in obligation to any other. It is binding over all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force, and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original" (1979, p. 41). In this passage, Blackstone articulates the two claims that constitute the theoretical core of classical naturalism: 1) there can be no legally valid standards that conflict with the natural law; and 2) all valid laws derive what force and authority they have from the natural law. On this view, to paraphrase Augustine, an unjust law is no law at all. http://www.threes.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1409:philosophy-of-law&catid=75:philosophy&Itemid=60
The decision is made. Bobocare is going down.
Forcing me to purchase government products sounds like plantation living to me.
Roger Taney was a Democrat!
Voting with the majority allowed him to assign the case to Kennedy and together they saved Section 2B "show me your papers", while they lost the other three parts of SB1070, which was basic enforcement of the federal laws -- thusly Scalia's awesome wig-out in dissent.
How can a state opt out of federal law? Seems like we fought a war about that..
Actually we fought a couple of wars about this. The Civil War dealt with the injustice of slavery and the federal government forced the result. But before that we had the Revolutionary War and created a Constitution limiting government. Nullification would be more like the Revolutionary War, justified by things like natural law, the individual’s unalienable rights, and the Constitution confirmed by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Maybe because Taney knew the Fugitive Slave Act had already been upheld as Constitutional by an Appeals Court for the US Supreme Court in 1835.
In my fantasies, Prissy Crissy's 'living Constitution' actually comes to life and strangles his stupid ass.
Looks like our intuition was correct.