Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roberts's Rules (pretty much explains his decision...)
The Atlantic ^ | January, 2007 | JEFFREY ROSEN

Posted on 07/01/2012 4:55:52 PM PDT by nerdgirl

Some of the least successful chief justices, Roberts suggested, had faltered because they misunderstood the job, approaching it as law professors rather than as leaders of a collegial Court. Harlan Fiske Stone, a former dean of Columbia Law School, was a case in point. Stone “was a failure as chief, because of his misperception of what a chief justice is supposed to be,” Roberts said, gesturing to the justices’ private conference room through an open door of his office. “It’s his desk out there that is separate from the conference table, and he … sat at his desk, and the others were at the table, and he almost called on them and critiqued their performances. They hated that.” Roberts laughed. “As a result, he was a failure as a chief justice.”

In Roberts’s view, the most successful chief justices help their colleagues speak with one voice. Unanimous, or nearly unanimous, decisions are hard to overturn and contribute to the stability of the law and the continuity of the Court; by contrast, closely divided, 5–4 decisions make it harder for the public to respect the Court as an impartial institution that transcends partisan politics.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: duplicate; healthcare; johnroberts; obamacare; obamacaredecision; roberts; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last
For anybody still wondering "WHY DID THIS MAN DO THIS!!!" This article from 2007 gives you all of the explanation you'll ever need. Like it or not, this is who Justice Roberts is, and always was. For better and for worse...
1 posted on 07/01/2012 4:55:53 PM PDT by nerdgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

Roberts will never make a worse decision than the one we saw last week. To bankrupt this country, trample individual freedom, and expand federal government power without apparent limit with a single vote - that’s an accomplishment that will never be topped.


2 posted on 07/01/2012 5:01:17 PM PDT by Pollster1 (A boy becomes a man when a man is needed - John Steinbeck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

Sorry this got posted twice, back button problem.


3 posted on 07/01/2012 5:01:39 PM PDT by nerdgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl
"In particular, Roberts declared, he would make it his priority, as Marshall did, to discourage his colleagues from issuing separate opinions. “I think that every justice should be worried about the Court acting as a Court and functioning as a Court, and they should all be worried, when they’re writing separately, about the effect on the Court as an institution.” "

So, Roberts went off and wrote his own RobertsCareTax opinion while the two factions also wrote their own dissenting opinions?

Good job John.

4 posted on 07/01/2012 5:02:17 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pollster1

Yes I think the decision surely sucked.

But part of my quest since Thursday has been to understand the WHY of it, and even though I hate the decision, I think now I have some idea why he did it.


5 posted on 07/01/2012 5:03:31 PM PDT by nerdgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

Very good point!


6 posted on 07/01/2012 5:04:52 PM PDT by nerdgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

Ah - the old “Reaching across the aisle” in other words. How very special.


7 posted on 07/01/2012 5:07:20 PM PDT by 2 Kool 2 Be 4-Gotten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl
Yep, lots of warning signs in this article.

If that CBS News report from earlier today is accurate though, he pretty much through his much cherished collegiality with Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito out onto the rubbish heap.

8 posted on 07/01/2012 5:08:48 PM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

9 posted on 07/01/2012 5:08:48 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl
"Another reason for Rehnquist’s success as a chief justice, Roberts said, was his temperament—namely, that he knew who he was and had no inclination to change his views simply to court popularity."

Stike Two....

10 posted on 07/01/2012 5:11:10 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

Roberts did this because it is a socialist/statist/marxist. Same Reason Obama, Pelosi, Reid did it.


11 posted on 07/01/2012 5:13:08 PM PDT by rurgan (Sunset all laws at 4 years.China is destroying U.S. ability to manufacture,makes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: rurgan
"Roberts approvingly quoted the observation of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes that “Marshall’s preeminence was due to the fact that he was John Marshall.” If Roberts succeeds, his success will be due to the fact that he is John Roberts. "

Roberts is not going to become another Marshall. More likely to become another John Boner.

12 posted on 07/01/2012 5:18:43 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

Interesting article, thanx for posting.


13 posted on 07/01/2012 5:20:05 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

14 posted on 07/01/2012 5:22:12 PM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Timber Rattler

My husband doesn’t understand why I am still reading about this, much less freeping about it! Thinks I am wasting energy and spinning my wheels. But I didn’t know enough about Roberts a week ago to have seen this coming, so I was just perplexed and mad...now I’m just mad.


15 posted on 07/01/2012 5:26:20 PM PDT by nerdgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: All


Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!

Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!


16 posted on 07/01/2012 5:26:37 PM PDT by musicman (Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: rurgan

That is ridiculous and makes you look stupid for saying it.


17 posted on 07/01/2012 5:29:02 PM PDT by nerdgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl
Pure idiocy!

He is supposed to defend constitutional principles and nothing else.

18 posted on 07/01/2012 5:30:09 PM PDT by SWAMPSNIPER (The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl
misChief inJustice John Robs US.
19 posted on 07/01/2012 5:30:40 PM PDT by tflabo (Truth or tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

So if the reports are true why did he change his mind


20 posted on 07/01/2012 5:33:28 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2

You’re welcome, I think for me this ends my “need to know”, and I’ll just have to settle into my discontent and my desire to HELP CHANGE THE COURSE! In my case, that means throwing a few bucks at Romney (literally a few, lol) - and getting involved in whatever local stuff I can to help promote the defeat of Obamacare. Alaskans are pretty conservative, but we did elect that idiot Begich to the Senate...


21 posted on 07/01/2012 5:34:49 PM PDT by nerdgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

Since his appointment every opinion delivered by Roberts has been in support of the Federal Government and the granting of additional power to the feds.
He is, was and will contiue to be a government lawyer, why is everyone surprized?


22 posted on 07/01/2012 5:37:43 PM PDT by MrBambaLaMamba (This Message Contains Privileged Attorney-Client Communications)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

Maybe we would get more common sense out of the court if they had to live outside the beltway, each six months in a different state.

Wake up, guys! You’re living in Cloud Land.


23 posted on 07/01/2012 5:37:43 PM PDT by Liberty Wins (Newt --named after Isaac Newton?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

If this is true, then Roberts doesn’t understand the proper function of procedural acts relative to those of substance.

This is a moral failure as well as an intellectual one.


24 posted on 07/01/2012 5:43:26 PM PDT by reasonisfaith (Why do you seek the living among the dead? (Luke 24:5))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uncbob

Seems he came to believe that the political legitimacy of the Court was being called into question. Maybe if he had been sequestered from all news this wouldn’t have happened!

The question is, should the Supreme Court Justice really be gauging things like that, and factoring it into his decision? You can certainly argue NO, but “fair” lawyer types like my husband would argue “why not?”

And keep in mind we are both pretty much libertarians in this house, yet we don’t agree on this.


25 posted on 07/01/2012 5:43:39 PM PDT by nerdgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: reasonisfaith

As an anglo Catholic myself, I had hoped his faith would guide him more.


26 posted on 07/01/2012 5:44:57 PM PDT by nerdgirl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl
I think now I have some idea why he did it.

And that is, what?
27 posted on 07/01/2012 5:49:20 PM PDT by JSteff ((((It was ALL about SCOTUS. Most forget about that and HAVE DOOMED us for a generation or more.))))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl
by contrast, closely divided, 5–4 decisions make it harder for the public to respect the Court as an impartial institution that transcends partisan politics.
Unless they're decided in favor of the Progressives.
28 posted on 07/01/2012 5:55:35 PM PDT by Bratch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

Roberts is traitor to freedom and the constitution. Bush really F##ked up!
There is no way the government should come between me and my relationship with my Doctor.


29 posted on 07/01/2012 5:57:48 PM PDT by Kryn-Man (Self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', redneck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl
Having now studied the Roberts opinion, I will say this:

He correctly applied existing precedent where it existed. He fudged on the one issue where there was no precedent—and failed to discuss that at all, actually. On that, see below.

Existing precedent is wrong. Very wrong, in several different ways. But most fundamentally and importantly, it's wrong with respect to the original intent of the requirement that indirect taxes must be "uniform."

That requirement was originally intended to make the requirement of the principle of the rule of law that the laws must apply to everyone equally apply very explicitly to indirect taxes. And the dodge now used to get around that—writing different rules into the civil and criminal laws and non-uniform rates or duties into tax laws, so that "the same" law applies different rules to people in different situations—is invalid on its face. Doing that makes the uniformity and "apply equally to all" principles effectively powerless and meaningless.

Roberts didn't say what type of tax Congress had unintentionally passed. What he did say is that it wasn't a direct tax that had to be apportioned among the States. That only leaves two possibilities: excise tax or income tax, since the tax clearly is not an impost or duty.

So pleadings that might work would be the following:

  1. It can't Constitutionally be an excise tax, because those can only be imposed on events that occur, not on ones that don't, based on the late 18th century definition of excise. I have found no case law that contradicts that definition, and Roberts cited none.
  2. An income tax, by definition, has to be imposed on income. Not having bought something is not reasonably classifiable as income.
  3. If it's not a new income tax, but a modification to the existing one, then what combination of tax credits and deductions would produce the same tax owed in all cases? How complex do the changes to the income tax code (that produce the same tax owed in all cases) have to be before the level of ridiculousness embodied in the assumption that this is what Congress intended becomes so high that it "shocks the conscience" and so requires that the Roberts' decision must be reversed? (assuming the rules don't turn out to be simple--I haven't looked at that yet)

30 posted on 07/01/2012 6:02:59 PM PDT by sourcery (If true=false, then there would be no constraints on what is possible. Hence, the world exists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl
So Robert's mentor is Barney. Figures...


31 posted on 07/01/2012 6:03:04 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

Wow....what a great and insightful article....

Thanks for posting it....

-——Marshall’s example had taught him, Roberts said, that personal trust in the chief justice’s lack of an ideological agenda was very important, and Marshall’s ability to win this kind of trust inspired him. “If I’m sitting there telling people, ‘We should decide the case on this basis,’ and if [other justices] think, ‘That’s just Roberts trying to push some agenda again,’ they’re not likely to listen very often,” he observed. -——

At least now I understand why he threw American under the Obama bus....his personal legacy


32 posted on 07/01/2012 6:06:37 PM PDT by Popman (When you elect a clown: expect a circus...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

Being optimistic, I am beginning to think he was planting a poison pill by declaring it a tax, as many respected talking heads speculate. Brit Hume went so far as to assert he made nobamacare killable now by a simple majority under reconsiliation, which makes it damned important for us to go with Mitt and get both majorities in November.

If he changed his vote, it could have been to get the libs to give him their position on Commerce Clause (no longer could call it a mandate to buy and the unfettered ability of States to Opt Out, in trade for the poison pill word “TAX” in an election year.


33 posted on 07/01/2012 6:07:07 PM PDT by X-spurt (It is truly time for ON YOUR FEET or on your knees)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl
In Roberts’s view, the most successful chief justices help their colleagues speak with one voice.

In the patriot's view, the most successful chief justices help uphold the integrity of the United States Constitution and limit its interpretation strictly to the original intent of its Framers.

34 posted on 07/01/2012 6:07:35 PM PDT by Colonel_Flagg (Conservatism is not a matter of convenience.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

Roberts is, and always has been, too full of himself.


35 posted on 07/01/2012 6:11:23 PM PDT by citizen (It's no longer Obamacare. It's Robertscare now. He wanted it, he bought it, he owns it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paladin2
In particular, Roberts declared, he would make it his priority, as Marshall did, to discourage his colleagues from issuing separate opinions . . . .

Roberts' maintains that his chief task as chief justice is to heard the cats and then he goes and writes a separate opinion which makes the most consequential Supreme Court decision in 40 years come out 1-4-4.

I'll tell ya, this case just get curiouser and curiouser.

36 posted on 07/01/2012 6:11:43 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt

God...I want to BANG my head off the wall reading this stuff. Roberts screwd us, ok, period....for all the reasons everyone has stated over & over again.


37 posted on 07/01/2012 6:12:46 PM PDT by LongWayHome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: MrBambaLaMamba
Since his appointment every opinion delivered by Roberts has been in support of the Federal Government and the granting of additional power to the feds.

How did the Citizens United and Heller decisions grant more power to the feds?

38 posted on 07/01/2012 6:17:16 PM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl
by contrast, closely divided, 5–4 decisions make it harder for the public to respect the Court as an impartial institution that transcends partisan politics.

The decision WAS 5-4. If Roberts had ruled the other way it would have still been a 5-4 decision. What are these people smoking?

39 posted on 07/01/2012 6:23:03 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: uncbob

One story I saw stated that the Obamabots got some info that indicated that Roberts cut some corners when he adopted his children from somewhere in South America. That and other threats was all it took for him to bend over and grab his ankles!


40 posted on 07/01/2012 6:23:43 PM PDT by Tucker39 ( Psa 68:19Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits; even the God of our salvation.KJV)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

He was against it, then switched. What was He offered or promised?


41 posted on 07/01/2012 6:29:52 PM PDT by reefdiver (Shoeless John Roberts, An American Tragedy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl
Seems he came to believe that the political legitimacy of the Court was being called into question.

Based on what--the court members were all legitimately appointed
42 posted on 07/01/2012 6:32:57 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: X-spurt
Being optimistic, I am beginning to think he was planting a poison pill by declaring it a tax...

Essentially, this has been my assertion since the decision was announced.

For the sake of the republic, I hope we're right...

43 posted on 07/01/2012 6:34:40 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: LongWayHome
...Roberts screwd us, ok, period...

Too early to tell IMHO.

Chin up buckaroo!

44 posted on 07/01/2012 6:37:40 PM PDT by jonno (Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Colonel_Flagg
In the patriot's view, the most successful chief justices help uphold the integrity of the United States Constitution and limit its interpretation strictly to the original intent of its Framers.

We have a Chief Justice, who cares more about building his legacy in the media, then he does through his duty.

The Chief Justice is not a man of integrity, he is not an "Oath keeper"

45 posted on 07/01/2012 6:42:42 PM PDT by Kakaze (I want The Republic back !)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: reefdiver

He woke up with horses head in his bed courtesy of Kenyan.


46 posted on 07/01/2012 6:43:14 PM PDT by Leo Carpathian (fffffFRrrreeeepppeeee-ssed!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: jonno

We can agree to disagree:) I woud like to see a constitutional admendment to reverse what Roberts did concerning taxing non-activity.


47 posted on 07/01/2012 6:43:35 PM PDT by LongWayHome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Tucker39; uncbob

>> “One story I saw stated that the Obamabots got some info that indicated that Roberts cut some corners when he adopted his children from somewhere in South America. That and other threats was all it took for him to bend over and grab his ankles!” <<

.
That’s called “Putting the country first.”

He made sure that the country got screwed before he does.


48 posted on 07/01/2012 6:48:01 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they were.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: nerdgirl

I will now cash in my defense of Harriet Miers as being not all that bad. I’ll bet she would have thrown out Obamacare.

Any conservative angry about Roberts’ decision, then, owes GW Bush an apology for all the crap he got.


49 posted on 07/01/2012 6:54:20 PM PDT by Ramius (Personally, I give us one chance in three. More tea anyone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

In Heller the opinion of the Court was delivered by Scalia.
That said, Heller upheld the 2nd Amendment over the DC ban, ergo Fed > DC = Fed won.


50 posted on 07/01/2012 6:55:40 PM PDT by MrBambaLaMamba (This Message Contains Privileged Attorney-Client Communications)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-107 next last

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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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