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


1 posted on 07/10/2012 5:19:32 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: BuckeyeTexan; Impy; AuH2ORepublican; MplsSteve; randita; justiceseeker93

This is one of the five most important issues at stake in this year’s election. Whoever wins the Presidency in 2012 will appoint at least two Supreme Court justices.


2 posted on 07/10/2012 5:21:27 PM PDT by Clintonfatigued (Obama and Company lied, the American economy died)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Clintonfatigued

I wonder what will happen when those who use the Supreme Court as the stick to force compliance actually see Romney’s record in selecting judges. I hope that I am wrong, but I suspect a Roberts is the best we can do under Romney.


3 posted on 07/10/2012 5:23:58 PM PDT by Ingtar ("As the light begins to fade in the city on the hill")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Clintonfatigued

Anyone hoping that Romney would appoint constitutionalists is probably expecting too much. While his picks would probably be more along the lines of Souter instead of Kagan or Sotomayor, they will inevitably vote with the left.

I would love to be wrong. I would love for him to win and get a Black, young, female equivalent of Thomas on the court and another Alito.


6 posted on 07/10/2012 5:55:36 PM PDT by CriticalJ (Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress.. But then I repeat myself. MT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Clintonfatigued

What a pantload! Here comes the WSJ to prop up their favorite RINO. Be sure to vote for Willard beccause only HE will preserve the conservative balance of the scotus!

Just like Sandra Oconnor under Reagan.
Just like David Souter under Geo. Bush I
Just like John Roberts under Geo. Bush II

This is a suckers game any way you cut it. And ask yourself: why should we always be sitting on the edges of our seats waiting for the latest words of wisdom from 9 unelected politicians?


8 posted on 07/10/2012 6:22:09 PM PDT by RKBA Democrat ( We're all Texians now.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Clintonfatigued
Inactivity, the court held, is not commerce.

no, No, NO, N.O. The Court held no such thing.

The author does not understand the difference between a) "Chief Justice John Roberts concluded" and b) "Chief Justice John Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court." A & B are two totally different things.

'A' means Chief Justice Roberts opined (suggested, mused, theorized)

'B' means that the Court held (ruled, judged, decided)

With respect to the constitutionality of the individual mandate under the Commerce clause and the Necessary and Proper clause, Chief Justice Roberts suggested that because inactivity is not commerce, the individual mandate is unconstitutional. None (zero, zip, zilch, nada) of the other justices agreed with him. Therefore, Roberts did not deliver the opinion of the Court.

With respect to the constitutionality of the individual mandate under Congress' taxing powers, a majority of the justices (Roberts, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, & Kagan) agreed that the individual mandate's penalty is a tax and is constitutional. Therefore, Roberts delivered the opinion of the Court.

13 posted on 07/10/2012 9:25:44 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

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