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

Skip to comments.

Learning compromise from Chief Justice Roberts and Aung San Suu Kyi
Washington Post ^ | 7/1/12 | Fred Hiatt Editorial Page Editor

Posted on 07/02/2012 9:29:45 AM PDT by DallasBiff

Chief Justice John Roberts last week did something that, in polarized Washington, may turn out to be more important than saving Obamacare.

He showed that compromise can be consistent with principle. More than that: He showed that compromise, for someone who respects and knows how to use the democratic process, can be the best way to advance principle.

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: capitulate; gutlesschief; noprinciples; obamacare; puffpiece; puffpieces; roberts; scotus; selloutroberts; surrender
Roberts getting what he wants, love from the liberal media.
1 posted on 07/02/2012 9:29:54 AM PDT by DallasBiff
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff
Merriam-Webster defines "compromise" as "a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute."

But Roberts convinced NOT A SINGLE LIBERAL JUSTICE that the Commerce Clause limits government power.

There was no compromise from the liberals. They took the gift from Roberts regarding the bizarre "tax" opinion upholding Obamacare, laughed and went on their way.

What Roberts did is called "capitulation."

Perhaps he "capitulated" because he was "compromised."

But that would be a different meaning of "compromise."

2 posted on 07/02/2012 9:36:51 AM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff
"He showed that compromise, ...., can be the best way to advance principle."

GAG

ME

WITH

A

COKE

SPOON

3 posted on 07/02/2012 9:37:40 AM PDT by Paladin2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff

More aca spin.

I wonder if they’ll be lauding this “great compromise” a year from now.


4 posted on 07/02/2012 9:44:27 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Thank you Chief Justice Benedict Arnold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff

Compromise to the WP means going along with the LIBs. Had a Lib on the Court gone along with the Conservatives, you can bet this piece of trash article would have had a completely different tone. Hypocrite, thy name is damocrat/lib


5 posted on 07/02/2012 9:44:27 AM PDT by falcon99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff

Compromise to the left is “their way or the highway”! John Roberts has disgraced the Supreme Court by showing that his decisions are based on intimidation from poiticians and MSM. Basically he has no b@ll$.


6 posted on 07/02/2012 9:52:29 AM PDT by kenmcg (How)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff

I think I’m more angry about this decision than I was about Kelo.


7 posted on 07/02/2012 9:57:34 AM PDT by Purrcival (Herman Cain 2012 (*sigh*))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Here come the pro-Roberts puff pieces from the journalist-chattering-class
8 posted on 07/02/2012 10:06:31 AM PDT by Halfmanhalfamazing ( Media doesn't report, It advertises. So that last advertisement you just read, what was it worth?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff

Sellout Roberts was blackmailed by the Leftist media in exchange for soppy editorials such as this. Such an utter lack of principles is beneath contempt,


9 posted on 07/02/2012 10:12:17 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff
He showed that compromise can be consistent with principle.

But doesn't compromise have to be consistent with the Constitution?

What if "principle" is not consistent with the Constitution? Throw out the Constitution and keep the principle?

-PJ

10 posted on 07/02/2012 10:26:09 AM PDT by Political Junkie Too (If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff
This idiot needs to read his own article. He writes, "Aung San Suu Kyi is the daughter of ... a general who was assassinated when she was 2. ... [She} confounded soldiers by walking, alone and unarmed, directly toward their guns. ...She spent most of the next two decades locked up, separated from her two sons, and apart from her husband when he grew sick and died...Now she has been allowed to run for parliament (she won, easily) and travel abroad. At every step she has been criticized by some for sticking to principle too stubbornly ...Her supposed intransigence always has infuriated those more eager to do business with Burma than promote its democracy.

That is the lesson that Roberts needed to undestand. Never compromise principles.

11 posted on 07/02/2012 10:29:47 AM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff
roberts did three things... he lied under oath during his confirmation hearings, he legislated from the bench as a leftwing activist and violated his oath of office and in doing so he committed treason. Anything else is a bold faced lie.

LLS

12 posted on 07/02/2012 10:39:23 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

First, Obama forced Roberts to come to the White House and reswear in Obama HUSSEIN without a Christian Bible! Very Unusual to say the Least!

Now, Obama started a Smear Campaign when he knew and was told SCOTUS had Voted against His Obamacare! Obama threatened Roberts, and Roberts cowered and reversed his decision after several months on the basis of some bizarre reasoning to say the Least!

Does America now have a Chief Justice who is being Blackmailed by the President? Looks pretty Scary!!


13 posted on 07/02/2012 11:23:28 AM PDT by True Republican Patriot (May GOD SAVE OUR AMERICA from ALLAH and his Prophet, HUSSEIN OBAMA!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff

Is this what you “moderates” wanted? The most extreme left wing government in US history?


14 posted on 07/02/2012 11:51:28 AM PDT by Tzimisce (THIS SUCKS)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff

Roberts really sold out to SATAN himself! Rush did a great job today tearing Robert’s ridiculous Flip Flop apart! Roberts was convinced that Obamacare was Unconstitutional,
until Mid May when Obama threatened Roberts and the Media went after him! Seems even Kennedy worked hard to make Roberts see the error of his change to no avail!! Pathetic!

Why didn’t George W. at least make a Proven Conservative the Chief Justice! Scalia shoulld have been the Chief Justice, but then George W. let Gonzales do the vetting and probably the Chief Justice Decision as well! SH*T!


15 posted on 07/02/2012 12:24:36 PM PDT by True Republican Patriot (May GOD SAVE OUR AMERICA from ALLAH and his Prophet, HUSSEIN OBAMA!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Well put.


16 posted on 07/02/2012 12:28:32 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Well put. It is possible that Traitor John was “Compromised” but he did not compromise with anyone.


17 posted on 07/02/2012 12:29:48 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Monorprise

Yep! Looks like Obama HUSSEIN has the Dirt on Roberts and just yanked his chain again! Hoping I am wrong! BUT.....:-(


18 posted on 07/02/2012 12:36:39 PM PDT by True Republican Patriot (May GOD SAVE OUR AMERICA from ALLAH and his Prophet, HUSSEIN OBAMA!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff

Below just Gaia herself, no deity sits higher in the liberal pantheon than a conservative who screws his brethren.


19 posted on 07/02/2012 12:41:24 PM PDT by dead (I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff

Roberts compromised between the Constitution and the socialist agenda. The result is permanent damage to the rule of law, and a potential for the rapid slide into socialism. With this double “win” by communist standards, it’s no wonder that the Washington Post is giddy with joy. However, I wonder whether even one decent American sees this as a positive compromise.


20 posted on 07/02/2012 12:58:08 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: DallasBiff

That Post article must be some kind of silly joke....


21 posted on 07/02/2012 1:36:10 PM PDT by The Toad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: True Republican Patriot

After this insolent I think Roberts is as good as dead to half the republican party. Whatever dirt Obama has on Roberts can’t make things worse for him.

Roberts acknowledged the bill as written was blatantly unlawful and then took it upon himself to rewrite the bill. What an absurd level of judicial activism, the very thing he was supposedly appointed to avoid. I don’t see how he can redeem himself or his “court” he needs to resign or be impeached.


22 posted on 07/02/2012 1:50:37 PM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff

OK, its time for the lefties to compromise for the next 3 1/2 to 30 years.


23 posted on 07/02/2012 2:41:58 PM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the StatistI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leep

I think that Roberts actually believes that Congress has the right to pass socialist laws and to tax the people. He believes it is constitutional for them to do that no matter how odious or what either party thinks. Congress is voted in by the citizens and as long as the laws they pass are constitutional the Supreme Court has no right to overturn them.


24 posted on 07/02/2012 4:32:16 PM PDT by Latecomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Latecomer

The USC has, through trickery and deception, become a living document. Subject to the whims of whomever is the King.
And, we the people ain’t picking who gets to be King.

We no longer have a limited government or checks and
balances much less a Republic.
We are all Rinos now! Republic in name only.
I don’t see how we get out of it..even if Obama gets the boot.

The Republicans are infiltrated by whimpy Rinos who do not want to make waves.
Let alone do what it would take to jerk us back onto the right course.
The same ones who have been inefective at stopping Obama now will probably be the ones in charge of the Romney Admin.
What we will probably get is a lot of TALK and NO ACTION!


25 posted on 07/03/2012 6:02:19 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the StatistI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Leep

Oh, and the ever increasing fold of docile sheeple doesn’t help either.


26 posted on 07/03/2012 6:06:53 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the StatistI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
"But Roberts convinced NOT A SINGLE LIBERAL JUSTICE that the Commerce Clause limits government power."

This is what I was thinking when Wallace interviewed Lew, and Lew insisted the 'majority' 'upheld' the Commerce Clause, and Wallace missed the opportunity:

There would be no way for Lew to walk that back.

Wallace could have further critized the absurdity of 1 Justice ruling over a 4-4 split (a well-defined 4-4 split that gave no cause, no rise whatsoever to the goofy outlier of Roberts creation made from whole cloth); and to compare Roberts to the detestable Warren/Burger Court era.

27 posted on 07/03/2012 7:46:44 AM PDT by StAnDeliver (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DallasBiff; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

28 posted on 07/05/2012 9:54:00 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Leep

Well, I agree, except that the Supreme Court has no right to impose its views whether it is to stop Obama or promote their own view, but only to check to see that laws are constitutional. Even if that makes conservatives mad, who presume to believe in the constitution, but sometimes I wonder? Roberts is correct, like it or not.


29 posted on 07/09/2012 6:02:22 AM PDT by Latecomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: All

Roberts changed the argument to make it “constitutional” I’m not a Constitional Scholar, like say Obama or Kagan?, but I believe that is a first?


30 posted on 07/09/2012 6:08:15 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the StatistI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | 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
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

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