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
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-107 next last
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.)
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
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...)
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...)
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 !)
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!)
To: jonno
We can agree to disagree:) I woud like to see a constitutional admendment to reverse what Roberts did concerning taxing non-activity.
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.)
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?)
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)
To: Timber Rattler
One of the correspondents, who covers the Supreme Court, said that she had never seen Kennedy as angry as he was this past Thursday morning.
Ever.
51
posted on
07/01/2012 7:01:07 PM PDT
by
Cyropaedia
("Virtue cannot separate itself from reality without becoming a principal of evil...".)
To: MrBambaLaMamba
Roberts voted in favor of Heller and Heller held that gun bans in areas controlled by the feds are unconstitutional. Heller further held that individuals have a 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. How on God’s green earth do those rulings expand the power of the federal gov’t?
To: LongWayHome
53
posted on
07/01/2012 7:37:25 PM PDT
by
jonno
(Having an opinion is not the same as having the answer...)
To: editor-surveyor
Yes, I was thinking when I hit POST, when HE bent over, WE are the ones who got screwed! Did you notice, every photo they show of him has that same smirk on his face?!
54
posted on
07/01/2012 7:37:36 PM PDT
by
Tucker39
( Psa 68:19Blessed be the Lord, who daily loadeth us with benefits; even the God of our salvation.KJV)
To: Pollster1
55
posted on
07/01/2012 7:42:35 PM PDT
by
353FMG
To: Ramius
I will now cash in my defense of Harriet Miers as being not all that bad. Ill bet she would have thrown out Obamacare.
Alito replaced Miers not Roberts
56
posted on
07/01/2012 7:55:28 PM PDT
by
uncbob
To: Paladin2
57
posted on
07/01/2012 8:00:17 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: nerdgirl
Roberts is a Statist in favor of at least maintaining Federal Power over the States and the peasants.
58
posted on
07/01/2012 8:04:18 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: nerdgirl
I think now I have some idea why he did it.
I’m sticking with the stupid or evil explaination. The dereliction of duty for philosophical reasons excuse is just another version of the stupid explaination.
59
posted on
07/01/2012 8:04:29 PM PDT
by
freedomfiter2
(Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
To: Popman
Roberts said, that personal trust in the chief justices lack of an ideological agenda was very important,
The concept that the plain reading of the US Constittion is the law of the land isn’t an ideological agenda.
60
posted on
07/01/2012 8:09:00 PM PDT
by
freedomfiter2
(Brutal acts of commission and yawning acts of omission both strengthen the hand of the devil.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-107 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson