Skip to comments.Learning compromise from Chief Justice Roberts and Aung San Suu Kyi
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 ...
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."
More aca spin.
I wonder if they’ll be lauding this “great compromise” a year from now.
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
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$.
I think I’m more angry about this decision than I was about Kelo.
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,
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?
That is the lesson that Roberts needed to undestand. Never compromise principles.
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!!
Is this what you “moderates” wanted? The most extreme left wing government in US history?
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!
Well put. It is possible that Traitor John was “Compromised” but he did not compromise with anyone.
Yep! Looks like Obama HUSSEIN has the Dirt on Roberts and just yanked his chain again! Hoping I am wrong! BUT.....:-(
Below just Gaia herself, no deity sits higher in the liberal pantheon than a conservative who screws his brethren.
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.
That Post article must be some kind of silly joke....
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.
OK, its time for the lefties to compromise for the next 3 1/2 to 30 years.
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.
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!
Oh, and the ever increasing fold of docile sheeple doesn’t help either.
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.
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
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.
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?