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

Skip to comments.

The Mob Presses on John Roberts
Townhall.com ^ | July 4, 2012 | Brent Bozell

Posted on 07/04/2012 5:37:00 AM PDT by Kaslin

Is anyone surprised that the ink wasn't dry on Chief Justice John Roberts' incoherent switcheroo before team Obama was again denying Obamacare is a tax? Why did he do it?

There is no doubt that the left waged a war on the court's public image. Just as Obama lectured at the justices during his State of the Union address for the Citizens United decision, so Obama and his media minions prepared for this verdict with blatant mob pressure: Side with us or your image is ruined.

For liberal journalists, repeal of Obamacare was tantamount to a deadly third strike. Strike one was Bush versus Gore, which caused a serious liberal scream-fest that continues in some quarters to this day. Strike two was the Citizens United campaign spending case, because in the leftist worldview all major tipping points of public policy should be controlled by the state.

In the media's twisted lingo, upholding the Constitution would be "partisan." Mangling it would be "nonpartisan." This routine was sickening to watch from beginning to end, especially the way liberal journalists switched on a dime in finding that Roberts had transformed himself from rejectionist tea party villain to savior of the high court.

NBC's David Gregory earned the blue ribbon for partisan plasticity. Hours before the verdict, he drew the nightmare scenario of an overturned Obama: "What happens if it is struck down in part or in whole by a 5 to 4 decision? Would that not underscore how dysfunctional our government is, the major institutions of our government are? That is a real nightmare scenario, I think, for the political class in this country."

Got that? The media class informs the political class and the judicial class that either Obama wins or there's going to be public-relations hell to pay. Then the decision came out.

Within minutes, there was nightmare scenario Gregory, finding the same 5-4 score going in Obama's favor wasn't dysfunctional after all. It was terrific: "Chief Justice Roberts ... has spoken publicly about how on big controversial decisions, he thinks a 5-4 majority on the court over time undermines the Supreme Court, and only fuels the view that our major political institutions are too polarized. He's taken a big step here."

Hail to the chief! It's a "big step" to sign up with the socialist justices who can't find a limitation to government anywhere in the Constitution.

Then there was Chris Matthews, whose approach to Roberts went from holding a pitchfork and a torch to holding a bouquet of roses. On the night before the verdict, Matthews told his guests that a fellow Catholic said Roberts "doesn't want to be the second Roger Taney. Roger Taney, of course, was a Roman Catholic who upheld the Fugitive Slave Law back before the Civil War and was villainized throughout history because of that."

So overturning Obama is just like returning Dred Scott and all the fugitive slaves to their Southern masters. But when Roberts caved to the left, now it was a "bold, defiant, grand decision." The tingle up the leg was back.

Matthews began "Hardball" by proclaiming triumphantly "all the horrors floated up from the right-wing fever swamps are, as of today, simply the hate vapors of the perennial rejectionists to progress, the rear guard funded by the Koch brothers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Today's hero, Chief Justice John Roberts, who walked to the forefront of history and who said yes to progress and no to the role prescribed for him by the right."

This is a parody of an Aaron Sorkin speech, with every ounce of arrogance a leftist can muster. Truth, justice, progress, the sun rising in the morning? All these gifts to humanity are the daily good works of liberals.

An honorable mention for stupidity should go to CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who originally claimed the Obamacare decision could be an 8-to-1 slam dunk, which not only didn't pass an acid test, it begged for a drug test. Oral arguments cured that fever, and Toobin apologized. Then, just before the decision, Toobin correctly predicted Roberts would write the opinion, and then his prediction turned laughably wrong: "Roberts is very concerned about the public perception of the court, but not enough to vote some different way."

Someone clearly pressed Roberts to cry "uncle." He is a traitor to strict constitutionalism, whether he folded to Obama or to his image-manufacturing bullies in the media. The Constitution to him and his liberal friends is simply Play-Doh in the hands of our governing elites. It looks like when November comes, "We the People" will be the last recourse to keep the Constitution from the shredder.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Government
KEYWORDS: abortion; benedictroberts; deathpanels; obamacare; scotus; why; zerocare

1 posted on 07/04/2012 5:37:02 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

2 posted on 07/04/2012 5:38:06 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It was blackmail.

The Chicago Way.

1. Roberts’ homosexual past

2. Roberts’ illegal adoption of his children

Shame on Bush for nominating this guy.


3 posted on 07/04/2012 5:40:11 AM PDT by jimbo123
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

“You can take the gold, or you can take the lead.”


4 posted on 07/04/2012 5:42:23 AM PDT by OKSooner (Never take a "known safety risk" shooting with you even if he is an ordained minister.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“...who can’t find a limitation to government anywhere in the Constitution.”

Today, on Independence Day, we are reminded that the entire reason for the Declaration and later the Constitution, was to limit the central government’s power over the people. The Founders had had a king and didn’t want another.

Roberts should be pilloried when he comes back from hiding in Malta.


5 posted on 07/04/2012 5:44:30 AM PDT by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Oh, I almost forgot: Roberts, if you happen to be lurking here... God damn you to burning infernal stinking hell forever.


6 posted on 07/04/2012 5:44:42 AM PDT by OKSooner (Never take a "known safety risk" shooting with you even if he is an ordained minister.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Nice article. Bozell correctly writes that there is no “silver lining” and you can read between the lines and see that he’s as pissed off as the rest of us. “Traitor” is not too strong a word here.


7 posted on 07/04/2012 5:46:25 AM PDT by GOP_Party_Animal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

Had never heard those things.

Were there articles? Thanks in advance.


8 posted on 07/04/2012 5:50:39 AM PDT by F15Eagle (1 John 5:4-5, 4:15, 5:13; John 3:17-18, 6:69, 11:25, 14:6, 20:31; Rom10:8-11; 1 Tim 2:5; Titus 3:4-5)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The media is a bunch of self important - self aggrandizing tin horns. They sit on a very wobbly pedestal. All that is required, is one presidential candidate to take them on, like Reagan did, and they will be toppled.

It is distressing, that Republican politicians fail to see this.

9 posted on 07/04/2012 5:56:49 AM PDT by CharacterCounts (A vote for the lesser of two evils only insures the triumph of evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GOP_Party_Animal

I agree with there is no silver lining here. I also believe to rehash why he did it or what forces made him do it is a worthless endeavor. The fact is simple and plain, he did it, period, end of story no further appeal.

There are two things left in this charade of government. Either we replace it by the vote or with REV II. There are no alternatives. And by vote, I don’t mean electing some middle of the road squish. We either elect firm conservatives, those willing to sacrafice to bring this country back to its principles rather than posturing to receive votes and then just march in place or we go to option II. There is no middle ground now, the enemy is over the walls, the Alamo has fallen....we need a San Jacinto style win, one that just not wins the battle but takes the entire war. Lofty goals for sure but it is that or we become the equal of some piss poor despotic country.


10 posted on 07/04/2012 5:57:56 AM PDT by Mouton (Voting is an opiate of the electorate. Nothing changes no matter who wins..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: OKSooner

Or another more likely scenario: Axlerod or Emmanuel reintroduced him to an old gay lover, and asked if he’d like it to be all over the media, or kept quiet.


11 posted on 07/04/2012 5:59:50 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Mouton; Lazamataz; CodeToad
Congress can control the SCOTUS, if it has the will. The bolded part at the end is perhaps the least appreciated sentence in the entire Constitution.

U.S. Constitution, Article 3 Section 2:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

"...with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make."

Tea Party Patriots could lead a new Congress, and put the SCOTUS back into its box. The USA was never intended to become a tyranny of five judges. It's in the Constitution: The Congress is superior to the SCOTUS. There are NOT "three co-equal branches" as most believe.

12 posted on 07/04/2012 6:14:09 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This is the worst of Roberts’ actions - that the left now knows that they can mau-mau the Court whenever they want and still get their way even when the law is plainly against them. It’s like when they were successful borking Bork. It doomed us to endless acrimony with every SC appoinment by a GOP President. Roberts’ has doomed the Court to be under an electric arc of bolshevik threats and agitation whenever their marxist project is at issue. He has done exactly the opposite of what he imagines his ‘cleverness’ to have accomplished. He did not ‘save’ the Court from politicization he condemned it to political hell.


13 posted on 07/04/2012 6:23:11 AM PDT by Paine in the Neck (Socialism consumes everything)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

Sources?


14 posted on 07/04/2012 6:24:34 AM PDT by GVnana
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Hmmm, has Roberts ever been seen with Devil Anse Cooper?


15 posted on 07/04/2012 6:34:16 AM PDT by RipSawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Regardless of the reason, Roberts has demonstrated that he’s little better than a middle-school nerd who can be intimidated by the cool kids.

He needs to go—One way or the other.


16 posted on 07/04/2012 7:07:19 AM PDT by Arm_Bears (Journalists first; then lawyers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

There ARE three co-equal branches since the Judiciary is not the USSC. The judiciary includes juries, We the People, in that we do NOT have to find someone guilty of a violation of law set by the Legislature and the Executive. Jury nullification is EXATLY what the founders had in mind so that no matter the laws placed upon the people, the people still had the out to say they would not enforce them.

The Congress has never placed regulations on the USSC. I am not sure any regulation wouldn’t be corrupted as much as the court is now.


17 posted on 07/04/2012 7:19:05 AM PDT by CodeToad (Homosexuals are homophobes. They insist on being called 'gay' instead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

I do believe both parties can ask for redetermination within 25 days. We need to do that.


18 posted on 07/04/2012 7:21:39 AM PDT by CodeToad (Homosexuals are homophobes. They insist on being called 'gay' instead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Good point about the SC not being the same as “the judiciary.” And I agree 100% about jury nullification. I think we need to beat that drum loudly, since the judges normally try to brainwash juries into accepting every instruction from the bench as gospel.

Time for a little nullification, by both juries and the Congress!


19 posted on 07/04/2012 7:25:30 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I need to drink a cup of coffee; go to the bathroom to take a good Roberts, and then jump into this fray.


20 posted on 07/04/2012 7:31:46 AM PDT by pallis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

“. Robert Yates argued: “The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void.”[”

They knew it then.


21 posted on 07/04/2012 7:41:27 AM PDT by CodeToad (Homosexuals are homophobes. They insist on being called 'gay' instead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

You are onto something here, though. The Congess created the power of the courts and the office of the AG, they can take it away.


22 posted on 07/04/2012 7:44:32 AM PDT by CodeToad (Homosexuals are homophobes. They insist on being called 'gay' instead.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: F15Eagle

It is all conjucture but there is a lot of smoke:

1)Did probono work for important gay case. Did not self report this during confirmation. NY Times broke the story.
2)Very eligible bachelor yet didn’t get married until he was 41 and looking for a federal appointment.
3)Convoluted adoption of children
4)Three amigo photo

Did I leave anything out?


23 posted on 07/04/2012 8:34:21 AM PDT by lodi90
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad

Judicial review in the United States
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Judicial review in the United States refers to the power of a court to review the constitutionality of a statute or treaty, or to review an administrative regulation for consistency with either a statute, a treaty, or the Constitution itself.

The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.[1]

The Supreme Court’s landmark decision on the issue of judicial review was Marbury v. Madison (1803),[2] in which the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts have the duty to review the constitutionality of acts of Congress and to declare them void when they are contrary to the Constitution. Marbury, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, was the first Supreme Court case to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional. Since that time, the federal courts have exercised the power of judicial review. Judicial review is now a well settled doctrine. As of 2010[update], the United States Supreme Court had held unconstitutional some 163 Acts of the U.S. Congress.[3]

—snip—

The provisions of the ConstitutionThe Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI.[9]

The provisions relating to the federal judicial power in Article III state:

“ The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . . . In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

“ The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. . . . The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority. . . . In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make. ”

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI states:

“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. ”

The power of judicial review has been implied from these provisions based on the following reasoning. It is the inherent duty of the courts to determine the applicable law in any given case. The Supremacy Clause says “[t]his Constitution” is the “supreme law of the land.” The Constitution therefore is the fundamental law of the United States. Federal statutes are the law of the land only when they are “made in pursuance” of the Constitution. State constitutions and statutes are valid only if they are consistent with the Constitution. Any law contrary to the Constitution is void. The federal judicial power extends to all cases “arising under this Constitution.” As part of their inherent duty to determine the law, the federal courts have the duty to interpret and apply the Constitution and to decide whether a federal or state statute conflicts with the Constitution. All judges are bound to follow the Constitution. If there is a conflict, the federal courts have a duty to follow the Constitution and to treat the conflicting statute as unenforceable. The Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution, so the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide whether statutes are consistent with the Constitution.[10]

—snip—

Since the adoption of the Constitution, some have argued that the power of judicial review gives the courts the ability to impose their own views of the law, without an adequate check from any other branch of government. Robert Yates, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention from New York, argued during the ratification process in the Anti-Federalist Papers that the courts would use the power of judicial review loosely to impose their views about the “spirit” of the Constitution:

“ [I]n their decisions they will not confine themselves to any fixed or established rules, but will determine, according to what appears to them, the reason and spirit of the constitution. The opinions of the supreme court, whatever they may be, will have the force of law; because there is no power provided in the constitution, that can correct their errors, or controul their adjudications. From this court there is no appeal.[52] ”

In 1820, Thomas Jefferson expressed his deep reservations about the doctrine of judicial review:

“ You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.[53] ”

In 1861, Abraham Lincoln touched upon the same subject, during his first inaugural address:

“ [T]he candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.[54]

—snip

Laws limiting judicial review

Although the Supreme Court continues to review the constitutionality of statutes, Congress and the states retain some power to influence what cases come before the Court. For example, the Constitution at Article III, Section 2, gives Congress power to make exceptions to the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has historically acknowledged that its appellate jurisdiction is defined by Congress, and thus Congress may have power to make some legislative or executive actions unreviewable. This is known as jurisdiction stripping.

Another way for Congress to limit judicial review was tried in January 1868, when a bill was proposed requiring a two-thirds majority of the Court in order to deem any Act of Congress unconstitutional.[60] The bill was approved by the House, 116 to 39.[61] That measure died in the Senate, partly because the bill was unclear about how the bill’s own constitutionality would be decided.[62]


24 posted on 07/04/2012 9:08:29 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: CodeToad; Jeff Head; Joe Brower
Cliff's Notes Version of the above Wikipedia information on judicial review. My comments in italics. The rest is taken from Wikipedia, beginning below.

The United States Constitution does not explicitly establish the power of judicial review. Rather, the power of judicial review has been inferred from the structure, provisions, and history of the Constitution.[1]

Marbury, written by Chief Justice John Marshall, was the first Supreme Court case to strike down an act of Congress as unconstitutional. Since that time, the federal courts have exercised the power of judicial review. Judicial review is now a well settled doctrine.

The Constitution does not expressly provide that the federal judiciary has the power of judicial review. Rather, the power to declare laws unconstitutional has been deemed an implied power, derived from Article III and Article VI.

"In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

So how do we come to ignore this plain English, wherin Congress can limit the scope of the SC? Here is what Wiki says:

The Supremacy Clause of Article VI states:

“ This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding. . . . [A]ll executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution. ”

The power of judicial review has been implied from these provisions based on the following reasoning. It is the inherent duty of the courts to determine the applicable law in any given case. The Supremacy Clause says “[t]his Constitution” is the “supreme law of the land.” The Constitution therefore is the fundamental law of the United States. Federal statutes are the law of the land only when they are “made in pursuance” of the Constitution. State constitutions and statutes are valid only if they are consistent with the Constitution. Any law contrary to the Constitution is void. The federal judicial power extends to all cases “arising under this Constitution.” As part of their inherent duty to determine the law, the federal courts have the duty to interpret and apply the Constitution and to decide whether a federal or state statute conflicts with the Constitution. All judges are bound to follow the Constitution. If there is a conflict, the federal courts have a duty to follow the Constitution and to treat the conflicting statute as unenforceable. The Supreme Court has final appellate jurisdiction in all cases arising under the Constitution, so the Supreme Court has the ultimate authority to decide whether statutes are consistent with the Constitution.[10]

Look at how contorted and murky this "implied" reasoning is, compared to the clear and unambiguous language capping off Article 2 Section 3:

"In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make."

In 1820, Thomas Jefferson expressed his deep reservations about the doctrine of judicial review:

“ You seem ... to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves.[53] ”

25 posted on 07/04/2012 9:26:48 AM PDT by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: lodi90
YOu left out that he unethically allowed everyone to believe he was a member of The Federalist Society, when he never was. As a public figure he was obliged to correct the record when he saw it being used to mislead the people.
26 posted on 07/04/2012 1:55:11 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: lodi90
Did I leave anything out?

The picture of the Martha's Vineyard appeared here at the NYT in 2005

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/21/politics/politicsspecial1/21harvard.html?pagewanted=all

From NYT article

Mr. Lazarus, who roomed with Mr. Roberts in Washington for three years after graduation, said: "John was politically conservative. He was comfortable with it, but it didn't define his friendships. He was very thoughtful, very open talking about ideas. For some people, it's really a defining characteristic of how they define their lives. That just wasn't the case back then."

Lazarus roomed with Roberts at Harvard as well as in Wash DC for three years and another three years after graduation in Washington DC. Proximate to the time of the photo.

Aside from also being in Malta is presenting his own lectures there. Tuition $4k plus, travel, room and board, expenses not included.

What Richard Lazarus does today


27 posted on 07/04/2012 2:24:03 PM PDT by Covenantor ("Men are ruled...by liars who refuse them news, and by fools who cannot govern." Chesterton)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

Past only or present, too?


28 posted on 07/04/2012 9:51:43 PM PDT by little jeremiah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Roberts is an attention whore. “Look at me, everybody, look at me! I really shocked people, didn’t I, huh, didn’t I ?!?” The little weasel shoots America in the head and then runs away like a coward to vacation in Malta. What a sick piece of sh**. Roberts is dead to me.


29 posted on 07/04/2012 10:00:14 PM PDT by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

>> He is a traitor to strict constitutionalism, whether he folded to Obama or to his image-manufacturing bullies in the media.

He is certainly an jackass, and it will take a miracle to prove otherwise.


30 posted on 07/04/2012 10:03:16 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gene Eric

Changed an a-word to “jackass” without modifying the article...

“a jackass”


31 posted on 07/04/2012 10:05:52 PM PDT by Gene Eric (Demoralization is a weapon of the enemy. Don't get it, don't spread it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Roberts is out of the country, and so is Ken Melson.

Ken is staying out of the country. Obama will not let him come back.


32 posted on 07/04/2012 10:08:29 PM PDT by UCANSEE2 (Lame and ill-informed post)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

This is the worst July 4th I’ve ever spent. This ruling by Roberts & those 4 hacks on the court have enraged me. I was thinking of my late old man this evening who spent 4 years in Europe fighting the Nazis. He was shot & spent months & months in the field fighting for his life for what.....so his son & grandchildern could be enslaved by the federal government ? As a poster mentioned: we are now finding out that Roberts was NEVER a member of the Federalist Society. It’s a fiction he let stand. Brave guy....this Roberts.


33 posted on 07/04/2012 10:23:33 PM PDT by LongWayHome
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jimbo123

34 posted on 07/04/2012 10:53:26 PM PDT by cynwoody
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

It seems to me that Congress passed the healthcare act. The supreme court failed to overturn Congress.


35 posted on 07/05/2012 3:25:08 AM PDT by staytrue
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | 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