Instead 'limiting government' is now 'radicalization of the judicial power'.
No mystery. Just another stealth liberal who pulled the wool over the eyes of a member of the Bush family.
I do believe that any article from the NY Slimes needs a Barf Alert...
“Instead ‘limiting government’ is now ‘radicalization of the judicial power’.”
That’s how warped it’s gotten. A republican judge thinks it activism when he limits government.....twilight zone type of stuff.
I need a barf bag and cleanup on aisle 5 after reading just the excerpt. Where is the hurl alert?!!!
The SC was handily corrupted and intimidated into following the commie line by FDR and has been working against the interests of the populaton to the benefit of those intent on eliminating the States soveriegnty ever since. Roberts was either bought off or intimidated or both.
The word devolution would have been a more appropriate choice.
Ring my friend I said you'd call Dr. Robert(s),
Day or night he'll be there anytime at all Dr. Robert(s).
Dr. Robert(s), your a new and better man,
He helps you to understand,
He does everything he can, Dr. Robert(s).
If your down he'll pick you up Dr. Robert(s),
Take a drink from his special cup Dr. Robert(s)
Dr. Robert(s), he's a man you must believe,
Helping everyone in need,
No one can succeed like Dr. Robert(s)
Well, well, well your feeling fine,
Well, well, well, he'll make you Dr. Robert(s)
My friend works for the national health Dr. Robert(s),
Don't take money to see yourself with Dr. Robert(s)
Dr. Robert(s), your a new and better man,
He helps you to understand,
He does everything he can Dr. Robert(s)
Well, well, well, your feeling fine,
Well, well, well, he'll make you Dr. Robert(s)
Ring my friend I said you'd call Dr. Robert(s) (2x)
Dr. Robert(s)!
Linda Greenhouse - from her bio on Wikipedia:
“Greenhouse has also been criticized for her failure to maintain the appearance of objectivity.[15] Greenhouse expresses her personal views as an outspoken advocate for abortion rights and critic of conservative religious values.[15] In 1989, Greenhouse was rebuked by Times editors for participating in an abortion-rights rally in Washington.” Yep, 100% all-in for partial birth abortion!
Also this:
“She has also faced criticism for a June 2006 speech at Harvard University criticizing US policies and actions at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and Haditha.[15] In the speech, Greenhouse said she started crying a few years back at a Simon & Garfunkel concert because her generation hadn’t done a better job of running the country than previous generations.” Waaaa, what a putz!
Bottom line - scumbag
Sorry, all.
I forgot a Barf tag .... I thought it was automatic when linking to NY Times.
There is nobody in this country that does not know that Roberts understood what should have been done. He threw that all away to insure his legacy. Well, he did, with me!
James 1:8
An astounding distortion of the intent of the founders to have the Supreme Court do just that. Especially the FEDERAL government.
I have felt this to be a state's rights issue from the beginning. For the federal government to mandate the purchase of a product or service from a private entity, a product that is not currently allowed to be purchased over state lines, is a usurpation of state authority, if not sovereignty, pure and simple.
What is it about the phrase "enumerated powers" that these people do not understand?
It would not have constituted "judicial activism" to strike down the federal mandate, and the rest of the law, and thus leave the states with the obligation of caring for their citizens, even if insurance were allowed to be purchased across state lines. The invalidation of the commerce clause for this particular law makes this so.
Roberts re-wrote the law for the Dems who were too arrogant to believe their law, as written, would be overturned. Roberts’ only legacy is that he overstepped the role of the Supreme Court, violated his oath of office and became a traitor.
I think the SC needs a mandated one-week sabattical where they do nothing but read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the contemporary writings of the Framers. They were quite clear on their reasoning, intentions, and choices.
IMHO, the SC get caught up in 200+ years of legal poppycock and have forgotten the whole point of this experiment.
>>> A Harvard law student, Joel Alicea, in a smart post on the conservative Web site The Public Discourse, wrote that the health care decision revealed “a clash between two visions of judicial restraint and two eras of the conservative legal movement.” If Chief Justice Roberts, nearly a generation younger than Justices Scalia and Kennedy, in fact represents the old form of legal conservatism, in which the judicial role is to salvage statutes if possible rather than eviscerate them in the service of a bigger agenda, that’s a fascinating and highly consequential development. <<<
>>> So the real question is what the word “conservative” means in 2012 and the decades ahead. <<<
IOW, CJ Roberts represents today's conservative justices. Kennedy, Scalia, et al. belong to the quaint ‘Older Generation’. Justice Alito aside, if this is the trend, we may soon lose the true Republic's form.
“The Mystery of John Roberts”
I don’t believe there was much “mystery” behind what happened.
Roberts originally sided with the conservatives. He may even have written a good portion of [what later became] the minority opinion - and this is why the minority opinion was left “unsigned”.
Then the attacks from the administration and the left began — attacks on the Court in general (this was obvious), and perhaps on Roberts personally (this would have happened covertly).
Roberts didn’t have the backbone to withstand them. Ostensibly, he was reported to be concerned “about the Court’s reputation” (if he voted to toss out ObamaCare), but I sense he was far more concerned, and intimidated, by something in his personal life that he believed would be best kept under wraps.
And so, he reversed himself, offering as the reason legalese in an effort to justify personal actions.
But by doing so, he has demonstrated to the left (and the Chicago-style mob) that he can be “rolled”. If he changed his vote to cover up something this time, he leaves himself ripe for intimidation in future decisions.
My opinion only. I’m probably completely wrong about this.
But that’s how I see it....