Posted on 11/21/2012 7:28:29 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Even though Obamacare was decided months ago, pundits are still dissecting the court's actions.
CNN's top legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin and famed lawyer and author Alan Dershowitz sat down on Friday at New York's 92nd Street Y to debate why Chief Justice John Roberts used his deciding vote to pass President Barack Obama's controversial health care law.
And, according to Dershowitz, Roberts did it just so he could side with Republicans from now on without getting called out for being too conservative.
"Roberts is very political," Dershowitz said in the interview, posted by Above The Law. "And what he did by writing the decision the way he did is No. 1, he gave himself a lot of street cred or court cred which will allow him to render very conservative decisions for a long period of time without being regarded as the 5-to-4 guy who always votes Republican."
Plus, by writing the majority opinion the way he did, Roberts was able to "stick it in some ways to Obama by calling it a tax," Dershowitz said.
Watch the full interview, courtesy of ATL:
CLICK ABOVE LINK FOR THE VIDEO
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Regardless of the reasoning, Roberts murdered the Constitution when he voted against the Supreme Law of the Land on that day. My children and grandchildren will suffer because of his treason, and I will never forgive him.
I think this is hogwash.
I personally think that Roberts was threatened by someone promising to open up the adoption files and paperwork for his kids, and Roberts did not want that to happen. Based on what they all wrote, he changed his mind quite suddenly and without fully communicating that to his peers.
Well, Roberts - it’s time now then.
Deport the swine kenyan.
“And, according to Dershowitz, Roberts did it just so he could side with Republicans from now on without getting called out for being too conservative.”
So he intends to side with Republicans from now on after abandoning them in what is arguably one of the most pivotal cases in U.S. history?
We should be so lucky. Roberts was rolled by somebody or we were rolled by Roberts.
We’ll see if Dershowicz is right. Obama has only four years left. Roberts has about twenty-five.
...street creed with who?...70% want it gone, who’s he going to hang with, the crips and bloods?
That ruling was pure cowardice. The man is yellow, plain and simple.
“I personally think that Roberts was threatened by someone promising to open up the adoption files and paperwork for his kids, and Roberts did not want that to happen.”
Or blackmailed about something else in his background (i.e. the real story behind the Martha’s Vineyard photo).
I personally think Roberts was threatened, too. In fact, he was publicly threatened. The Democrats have learned how to defeat our election system, through bribes and intimidation.
What photo?............
I personally think Roberts was threatened, too. In fact, he was publicly threatened. The Democrats have learned how to defeat our election system, through bribes and intimidation.
“Street cred” takes priority over the Constitution.
The man is a disgrace.
I think this is hogwash.
“I personally think that Roberts was threatened by someone promising to open up the adoption files and paperwork for his kids, and Roberts did not want that to happen. Based on what they all wrote, he changed his mind quite suddenly and without fully communicating that to his peers.”
I agree with you completely. This is the way Obama operates.
As for the Republicans and other conservatives, the grounds on which Roberts ruled seems to paint a way forward, but it's a very tenuous one. I'm not a legal scholar, but the PPACA was upheld...I'm not sure there are "qualifiers" on the justifications for upholding a law. It's either Constitutional, or it isn't.
Roberts gave Republicans the political talking point that they could call the implementation a "tax," but the window for using that talking point has passed. The November elections came and went, and most Obama supporters didn't care that PPACA was a tax. Most supporters are thrilled, because they don't see it as skin off their backs.
The only real limitation in the ruling was the Medicare expansion within individual states. What will that limitation bring with respect to the overall implementation of the law? My understanding is that it will create a much more rocky road, which could cause a political situation with voters who think come January 1, 2014, healthcare is going to start magically appearing on every street corner. Will the media show angry throngs of people outside doctor's offices? Will we see horror stories of people dying in ERs? Will will see stories of elderly patients with tears in their eyes, as they're turned away for treatment, or placed on long waiting lists?
“Street cred” is originally a term used by criminals meaning they have powerful friends or a willingness to use violence so people won't mess with them. The term has been adopted by liberals to mean popular with leftist media, leftist elites etc.
The idea that the constitutionality of a law should be decided by “street cred” rather than an intelligent reading of the constitution is so destructive to our Republic that words can not describe it.
The important thing to understand is that Dershowitz as well as the other liberals in the media and academia are not even pretending that Roberts’ decision on Obamacare has anything to do with the facts or the law in this case.
The conclusion by everyone is that Roberts’ ignored the constitution and his oath to uphold the constitution. Dershowitz is just speculating on the reason for this decision. He is probably wrong. But the overall point is the constitution no longer matters. Whether you call it “street cred”, political expedience or out and out fear something is very wrong with the Supreme Court decision on Obamacare.
Can Supreme Court justices be impeached? If Dershowitz is right, then Roberts doesn’t belong on the court.
Impeached?
Constitutionally, yes, they can.
Practically, no. It was tried once and failed.
Sorry for the double post. Don’t know how that happened; I only said it once.
“With his position as Chief Justice, don’t you think he could stop ANY “opening” of his children’s adoption papers?”
Nope, if he used legal channels against an extralegal file search and wikileaks-type data dump, I suspect the legal channels would not work. And if he tried, it would focus the media’s magnifying glass on him in bright sunshine.
Obama’s people opened sealed legal files twice to zot opponents, and Allread opened some of Romney’s files. They have a history of doing this.
RE: Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision will eventually lead to single payer (gubmint) healthcare and the total loss of freedom. But who’s really to blame? Lee Harvey Oswald.
________________________
John Roberts said that his decision should not be taken as a message that the Affordable Care Act is Good or Bad Law. THAT IS UP FOR THE VOTERS TO DECIDE.
And guess what? The American Voters had the chance to do it on November 2012. They decided to keep it.
That’s the answer to your question.
I personally think Roberts was threatened, too. In fact, he was publicly threatened. The Democrats have learned how to defeat our election system, through bribes and intimidation.
Saw him in Port Clyde, Maine this summer. He was dressed in very pretty white duds with a tiny little white hat on his head. He had a VERY big bodyguard with him.
Constitutionally, [Supreme Court Justices can be impeached]. Practically, no. It was tried once and failed.I thought that might be the answer. It should be difficult to impeach a SCOTUS judge (otherwise it would be really political), and I suspect that Roberts is clever enough to walk the line and keep it hard to impeach him.
OK then if it was A TAX then why wansn;t it shot down doe having originated in the Senate (all tax bills must come from the house)
You haven't seen that photo? Saw it on a thread last week. Robert's looks like a gay caballero on vacation with some guy friends....
Whatever his motivation, he solidified his legacy as just another second rate justice who crapped on the constitution.
RE: OK then if it was A TAX then why wansn;t it shot down doe having originated in the Senate (all tax bills must come from the house)
__________________________
That’s the problem with Justice Robert’s decision.
If as he says, the law AS WRITTEN is unconstitutional because you cannot penalize someone for not purchasing a product he does not want, then, he should have thrown the bill back to Congress to be RE-WRITTEN so that it WILL BE WRITTEN AS A TAX AND NOT AS A PENALTY.
But he didn’t do that. What he and the 4 others did was RE-IMAGINE the Penalty to be a Tax, clearly over-riding the intent of the law and in effect, LEGISLATING from the bench.
This is a very dangerous and bad precedent.
His street cred is only going to matter so long as Kennedy, Scalia, Alito and Thomas stay on the Court. Any of those (good possibility of the first two) leave before there’s another GOP President and he’s going to find himself on the “4” side of a lot of 5-4 decisions.
Apparently this is the photo in question.
http://libertysflame.com/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=31033
One Swallow does not a Summer make.
To reiterate:
"One Swallow does not a Summer make."
What do you mean? An African or European swallow?
Both reasons are ridiculous. First, he could vote conservatively on every decision and it wouldn’t matter what anyone thought about it, since he has a lifetime appointment. Second, he could have written the majority decision and “stuck it to Obama” even if he had voted against Obamacare, since his was the deciding vote, and he is the Chief Justice, so that is his prerogative.
He’s a treasonous man. He murdered American freedom for some thug commie appeasment, aka “street cred”.
I find comfort in the fact that communists murder their useful idiots when they get total power. Maybe we will live see the fate of Robert’s street cred. At least those who are not murdered by Robert’s death care will get to see what the commies do with white male Catholic useful idiots. He’ll probably renounce his faith to please his masters.
What concerns me most is that without a truly conservative USSC majority to hold him back, Obamacare, the system we have rejected for 3/4 century, will reach it's carefully pre-planned full bloom over the next 4 years. And even worse, Obamacare is just the tip of the Marxist iceberg that the good ship America is sailing straight into with Obama at the helm. With only wishy-washy go-along-to -get-along Republicrats such as Bohner (sp?) as a restraint on his Marxist agenda the US will be in the same sinking boat as socialist Europe by the time he's through. All I can say now is pray for America. If we as a people would return to faith in and respect for the Christian God of our forefathers in our way of life and our principles of justice and liberty I believe He will turn this nation around and back toward it's founder's ideals. But sad to say I don't see that happening, in fact I see the younger generation(s) heading in exactly the opposite direction full speed ahead.
If this were truly Roberts’ reasoning, he’d have picked some chicken-shit case to flip on — not something as huge as Obamacare. Roberts was so blackmailed. It’s how the Chicago Machine operates. All of their successes are the result of thuggery.
Pyrrhic victory. Roberts destroyed the nation when he upheld Obamacare. Wrong decision to gain your “street cred”. This is like an FBI deep cover agent killing his own wife and children to show he his “gang loyalty” so he can bust a big drug dealer. Sure, you get the big bust, but what life do you have to go back to when you are done.
Insanity. Roberts destroyed the nation. Nothing matters after that. Who gives a hoot in hell if he makes a parade of conseravative decisions but our economy is ruined and our freedom is already gone.
Roberts’s vote on SCOTUS won’t matter after Obama appoints 2 more young communist jurists. There will be 6 liberals on the bench so it really won’t matter a whit what the other 3 people think or do.
Yah - and Gallup has Mitt up by 6.
I just LOVE how prognosticators are able to read minds.
Judge John G. Roberts Jr., the Supreme Court nominee, gave advice to advocates for gay rights a decade ago, helping them win a landmark 1996 ruling
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/05/politics/politicsspecial1/05roberts.html?_r=0
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.