Posted on 09/30/2012 2:51:59 AM PDT by Evil Slayer
WASHINGTON (AP) — When last we saw the chief justice of the United States on the bench, John Roberts was joining with the Supreme Court’s liberals in an unlikely lineup that upheld President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul.
(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...
Just read his darn opinion. He basically says so in it....that he did not feel it was his job to fix mistakes caused by voters being stupid.
He has been reliable on other cases. If you read the opinion, the only reason he voted to accept it was basically because he thought the court would have overreached to strike it, not that he thought it was good law.
I’m looking forward to the championship games at the end of the term.
For one thing, it's rotated 180 degrees. Notice the table is set backwards - silverware and glasses on the wrong sides.
I don't know you from Adam. Mark is indeed an expert on the Constitution. He and other experts have said this ruling has NO effect on the Commerce Clause. I will trust his word. It struck down any regulation under THAT power that tries to regulate intrastate commerce when the person/corp to be regulated is not already in the stream of commerce, reviving Hammer.
LOL. What a sentence. Spoken like a true academic legal eagle. What the heck does that have to do with any chance of rolling back Obamacare or other aspects of our Federal Imperial government. If you think some legal rulings in the future are going to roll even the tiniest aspect of government back, then I fear you will be disappointed.
Do you truly believe that some future argument based on what you stated or other such in the ruling will result in a flowering of Liberty with government bureaucracies being weakened?
Government at it's core is an instrument of force. The Federal bureaucracy over the decades has grown in power and scope that is far, far outside the bounds of the Constitution. The judiciary has become as corrupt as the other two branches.
The only thing that will realistically roll back government is a painful one -- a total financial collapse. I can't think of a government that has legislated or through court rulings every given up significant amounts of power.
Well said. Marcus Levinicus Magnus is a true Constitutional Scholar. Roberts made a purely political decision as did the other four blackrobed gods. We suffer from far too few judicial impeachments these past 225 years.
Not sure why you think he is an expert since nothing in his background would suggest such. You are very angry and small minded and clearly not equipped to engage in discussion, only able to point to Levin as your source having done no research for yourself. But thankfully I am correct and you can enjoy sitting on your little perch praying for economic collapse. Good luck with that.
"Where necessary to make a regulation of interstate commerce effective, Congress may regulate even those intrastate activities that do not themselves substantially affect interstate commerce."
--Scalia concurring in Raich.
Beginning in 1981, Levin served as advisor to several members of President Ronald Reagan's cabinet, eventually becoming Associate Director of Presidential Personnel and ultimately Chief of Staff to Attorney General Edwin Meese; Levin also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education at the U.S. Department of Education, and Deputy Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior.
He practiced law in the private sector and is president of Landmark Legal Foundation, a public interest law firm founded in 1976 and based in Leesburg, Virginia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Levin
Apparently we are talking about two different people. Mark Levin is a recognized by many to be an expert. His background has shown him to be an expert.
Most who impugn Mark's reputation are usually: leftists; arrogant, 20 something, Ivy educated elitists who think they know everything yet have accomplished very little life; and and most in the MSM.
You are very angry and small minded and clearly not equipped to engage in discussion, only able to point to Levin as your source having done no research for yourself.
Angry? LOL. I can assure you am not angry. I have a very good life and am personally very happy. Yes I worry very much about my Republic, but I don't let that concern eat at me.
But thankfully I am correct
Again, you stated some seemingly obscure point that will have NO affect on anything that will change the trajectory of the power and scope of government. Now, if you live in the world of intellectual pontification you may believe you are correct and that is fine.
and you can enjoy sitting on your little perch praying for economic collapse. Good luck with that.
Praying for economic collapse?? Wow you need to tune your comprehension skills. Just because I stated that I believe the only true way to significantly roll back government power is through a total collapse does not in any way indicate that I wish for such to occur.
I am an Engineer by training and Economics and History are my other passion. Looking into the future and using history as a guide, it seems that the scenario that presents the greatest probability of effecting the change needed to truly bring our Republic back towards Liberty is a major "reset" event.
Looking forward 10-30 years there is an increasing chance that one of the following will occur: internal revolution, civil war, or economic collapse (Federal government becoming insolvent). The first two are much less likely to happen.
Personally, I think we will continue on the road to increasing government power at all levels. The inertia of bigger and bigger government is almost unstoppable. Those who make the laws and regulations cannot stop what they do -- it is in their nature to desire more and more power over others.
Jefferson seems to be on the money when he stated, The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground.
I cannot think of a government that has legislated itself to having less and less power.
Have a good night.
Like the Arizona case, right?
He is a traitor.
Get over it.
One thought by libs is that Roberts voted lib on Obamacare because he thought an election could undo it, and now he had “cover” to go hard right on everything else. Just saying that is what they are saying.
If the US Constitution isn’t enough cover for him, he shouldn’t be on the court.
Totally agree. It IS the Court’s job to save us from ourselves if something unconstitutional comes before it.
No, he's worse than Benedict Arnold; at least Arnold was a legitimate war-hero before his betrayal. What has Roberts done?
Ouch; and yet very apt.
Though I was surprised when one of the Obama appointees [Sotomayer, IIRC] correctly dissented a 4th Amendment case for the right reasons. {The case involved police busting down the door [violating 4th Amd] due to the "exigent circumstances" of hearing the toilet flush.}
I did read the decision, or at least most of it. And no, it did not reduce the Commerce clause; completely apart from the fact that the text of the decision is non-binding and so even if he explicitly said "the commerce clause cannot be used to regulate interstate trade to any degree exceeding that applied to international commerce" there would be nothing from it.
“USA! USA! USA!”
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.