Posted on 07/10/2012 5:58:55 AM PDT by Paladins Prayer
It's now well-established that Chief Justice John Roberts had ulterior motives for upholding ObamaCare. The usual theories involve his being concerned about the Court's, or maybe even his own, losing respect by seeming to operate in a partisan manner. But, to ask what may appear a rhetorical question, why such concern about respect? Is it just vanity, the desire to be viewed as a font of temperance and intellectualism? Perhaps. But there actually could be a more tangible area of self-interest.
Before delving into that, however, I'll address something related that also may help clarify Roberts's personal self-interest motives. One factor perhaps underemphasized is the chief justice's concern with his legacy. That is, our civilization has long been drifting left, and if you're even mildly astute politically (this includes Roberts), you'll perceive this and may consider that the future -- and future history writers -- will be defined by leftism. (If you're unusually astute [this does not include Roberts], you understand that civilizations move through phases, and our current leftist one won't last forever.) Now, under this view, it's a given that we would eventually have nationalized health care, just as Europe does; if not today, then in five, ten, or fifteen years. And, if this is your perspective and you're concerned about your place in the history books, do you want to be known as the chief justice who struck down landmark legislation decades in coming? Do you want to be seen by tomorrow's socialist utopian majority as a Justice Brown (of "separate but equal" infamy) standing against the "wave of the future"?
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Sorry, Selwyn Duke, this pig don’t fly.
I am not justifying what Roberts did; however, Obama has already committed several unlawful acts & disregarded/trampled the Constitution. I have no doubt that if the SCOTUS decision had gone against him, he would have thumbed his nose and said 'we're going ahead & implementing Obamacare anyway'.
If you don't believe he would do this, look what he did with his immigration ruling .... previously acknowledged it was something he couldn't do under our system of government, then when he thought he needed hispanic votes for re-election, he went ahead and did it anyway. The guy will stop at NOTHING - his 'end' justifies whatever means he needs to employ to get there.
If you compromise values for the sake of respect, you lose both the values and the respect.
Robert will find out that neither side likes or respects
a traitor!
The author goes on to harshly condemn this way of thinking. It helps to actually read the article.
This is complete bullcr@p. Roberts personally killed Article III, because of ‘self-interest’.
One SINGLE vote by Roberts, and he expanded SC power to ‘rewrite’ a passed law. He interpreted the intent by playing with wordsmith. How is this not similar to guessing the hanging chads?
June 28th, 2012 will live in infamy because of him.
There are only two things we know about the Roberts decision.
1. Roberts originally said the law was unconstitutional and changed his position very late in the process.
2. Roberts' decision had nothing to do with the constitutionality of the law or the silly “it is a tax, no not a tax” sophistry.
Roberts clearly had an ulterior motive. Some speculate that this ulterior motive was an altruistic concern for the reputation of the court and the ability of the court to retain its position of respect in the future. Others speculate it was Robert's concern for his own legacy.
I think it was pure unadulterated fear. It might have been for his personal safety. It might have been for his family. It might be that Roberts has things he does not want made public and is subject to blackmail.
The Obama Administration are Chicago thugs. They will do anything to get their way. They threatened Roberts and the court after the Citizens United ruling. They most certainly made threats prior to this ruling.
I am wondering how Kagan was allowed to vote on healthcare since she was clearly involved the making and passing of it.
My theory:
He got a threat that he couldn’t protect himself from,
perhaps to a family member, etc.
LLS
I did read the whole thing before I posted my caustic remark. The pig (argument) still doesn’t fly (excuse Benedict Arnold Roberts). Roberts proved one thing: he’s no Solomon, and his reputation is in tatters.
No more SCOTUS nominees from the D.C. Circuit or D.C. Appeals Bench. State court judges only!
good question and the conservative judges should have asked her that
What Duke contributes to the debate is the fact that "Judicial Review" is not a Constitutional principle, but the result of a Supreme Court decision (Marbury v. Madison) that stands as precedent only because it has never been challenged. Let that sink in for a moment - this presumed authority that the Supreme Court claimed for itself has never been tested in a showdown between cloth robes and real power. Not yet. FDR almost did it in the 1930s, and Selwyn Duke asserts that Obama has considered it this year. What about the next president, or the next?
Obamacare is a hugely important issue. But the looming possibility of a showdown over Judicial Review is much, much bigger.
John Roberts can go to hell.
I think it was pure unadulterated fear. It might have been for his personal safety. It might have been for his family. It might be that Roberts has things he does not want made public and is subject to blackmail.
The Obama Administration are Chicago thugs. They will do anything to get their way. They threatened Roberts and the court after the Citizens United ruling. They most certainly made threats prior to this ruling.
This is the only explanation that makes any sense.
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.