Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Fantasy Wrestling: Barack the Fundamental Transformer v. The Dread Justice Roberts ^ | February 4, 2013 | Shawn Mitchell

Posted on 02/04/2013 5:57:24 AM PST by Kaslin

It could happen--Barack Obama and John Roberts in an epic clash. For institutional, ideological, and personal reasons, the two charismatic heavyweights may be on a collision course.

Obama is a fierce competitor who climbed the ranks from local Chicago pol to president in just 6 years. He envisions a different American society--more liberal and redistributive, with a government powerful enough to make it happen. His ambitious Second Inaugural prompted even the New York Times to fit into print “Obama offers liberal vision.”

From preserving every inch of turf held by our overdrawn entitlement society, to game-changing action on guns, global warming, gay advancement, and steeper redistribution, the Man from Hyde Park has big plans.

The obstacle the First Organizer faces is that different-minded Republicans occupy a quaint, populist outpost called “The House of Representatives.”

The big changes needed to realize Hope and Change won’t pass the House. After Harry Reid’s recent failure to fillet the filibuster, they have poor prospects in the Senate, as well. But the president declared our challenges require that we act today and he intends to.

Of course, the dusty old Constitution says Congress gets to pass the laws while the Executive bats clean up and enforces them. But Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says our Constitution isn’t a great model. It’s really old and doesn’t fully embrace human rights—at least not like the South African or Canadian constitutions or the European Declaration of Human Rights do. Obama appears to agree.

If the president posted on Facebook his relationship status with the Constitution, he’d have to choose: “It’s complicated.” The warmest thing he’s said about the Founders’ original formula is that it wisely allowed for change as Americans grew more enlightened.

He’s famously on record talking up the Warren Court as pretty moderate after all, because, for all its constitutional adventurism, it didn’t break free of the basic structure and limits on federal power the founders built into the Constitution, at least as currently interpreted.

It’s hard to miss the First Organizer’s yearning for broader interpretations. He aims to blaze a new constitutional path, with a much larger role for Washington in steering national life, and fewer constraints on the president’s hand on the wheel.

A divided, stalemated Congress won’t put up much resistance to executive expansion. A primary check will come, if at all, from the judiciary, where John Roberts presides. A Bush Appointee and veteran of the Reagan and Bush White Houses, Roberts holds more traditional views on Constitutional matters.

An anecdote reported around the time of Roberts’ confirmation hearing to the high court illustrates his orientation. As a young staffer in Reagan’s DOJ, Roberts was assigned to analyze a demand from a liberal House member who criticized the president for being “out of touch.” The Representative demanded negotiations with the administration in order to form a “power sharing” arrangement between Congress and the executive. Roberts wrote in a legal memo that it so happens the Framers had addressed that very subject. The congressperson might be interested to check out the drafters’ “committee report” found in Articles I and II of Constitution about the sharing of powers between the executive and legislative branches.

Conservatives disillusioned by Roberts’ opinion on Obamacare are braced for the worst in future showdowns. But they might have things wrong.

No one knows exactly how to read Supreme tea leaves, but one school of thought is Roberts feels the burden of preserving the court’s reputation and stature. He stared at liberalisms’ holy grail of social programs, “universal” health care, and the fiercely arrayed forces of national media--from satellite to bloggers in basements--and rather than enter into permanent Armageddon with the information army, he blinked

But finessing a specific program passed by two branches in a field already half occupied by government dollars is not the same as stepping aside for willful executive overreach. If Roberts is minding the court’s legacy, he doesn’t want to be remembered the Chief who played FDR’s Charles Evan Hughes to Barack Obama, and approved a redesign of the federal role in American life.

Obama clearly will test any restraints on his vision. His DOJ under Eric Holder is not timid about pushing aggressive cases. Already Obama has lost a unanimous First Amendment decision, where the administration tried to police a church’s decision about hiring clergy as well as another unanimous slap down of the EPA arbitrarily abusing homeowners.

Following the Gulf oil well disaster, the administration effectively defied judicial oversight of an unsupported and arbitrary ban on all drilling, returning repeatedly with slight modifications of the ban and forcing the courts to play whack-a-mole with a lawless Department of Energy.

The DC Court of Appeals recently rejected Obama’s unprecedented attempt to declare the senate in recess and force through unconfirmed appointments to the NLRB and other federal offices. That case is headed for the high court.

As the branches seemed poised for increased tension, there’s some personal history between the two men. Obama was one of the few senators to vote against Roberts.

At a State of the Union address, Obama famously derided and criticized his robed hostages for their decision in the Citizens United case. A few weeks later, Roberts said in a public speech that political attacks on the court raise the question if justices really belong at the SOTU.

Then there was healthcare, and Obama’s aggressive statements to influence the court. He won that round. Roberts found a way to see it the president’s way.

Was it judicial subordination and an omen? Or was Roberts playing a strategic game to build capital for even bigger fights.

A lot depends on the answer.

TOPICS: Business/Economy; Culture/Society; Government

1 posted on 02/04/2013 5:57:29 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

The writer fails to mention that Roberts accepted for conference a test of Obamas eligibility for the 15th of this month.Yes, I know it is going nowhere ( not four votes ) but curious.

2 posted on 02/04/2013 6:03:17 AM PST by DCmarcher-976453
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

More like celebrity death match.

3 posted on 02/04/2013 6:03:52 AM PST by Perdogg (Mark Levin - It's called the Bill of Rights not Bill of Needs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I don’t have much faith in Roberts.

4 posted on 02/04/2013 6:04:00 AM PST by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Ignoring the alleged Code of "Ethics", ex parte meeting
between SCOTUS and the future executioner of America.

"The DNC knows about your children, so you will all ignore the Constitution and now bow
to me ... or else."

5 posted on 02/04/2013 6:05:21 AM PST by Diogenesis (De Oppresso Liber)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

God help us if we are putting our faith in Roberts to hold back Obama’s Socialism. Roberts blinked on the biggest challenge of our times. There is no way to explain that as anything other than putting the stamp of approval on Socialism.

6 posted on 02/04/2013 6:12:25 AM PST by Opinionated Blowhard ("When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I’ll never understand why Roberts found for Obamacare, especially since he had to use such tortured reasoning to do so. I think that by defining it as a tax (and one that would not have originated in the normal legal form), he provided a means of challenging its legality, but so far, nobody has. However, why he did so in the first place is very puzzling.

I think Obama did have him intimidated in some way, because while it is true that it was passed by the legislature, the way in which this was done was highly suspect and many of the Dems themselves did not like it. So it couldn’t have been merely that Roberts saw legislative support and “the array of media” supporting it and blinked, because it was something that clearly had as many if not more detractors than supporters, and probably a challenge would have been welcomed even by unexpected quarters.

I think Roberts was personally threatened, and I recall the suggestion of a poster here that it was because of the adoption of his children. There was nothing illegal about it at the time, but some of these Latin American countries (the children were Irish but were adopted through a Latin American agency, probably a Catholic organization) have, at the urging of the US, passed very harsh laws aimed mainly at prohibiting adoptions by North Americans.

The reason for this is, of course, the abortion lobby, which sees the possibility of adoption as something that might dissuade women from having an abortion. Hence, they have been working to have international adoptions defined as “human trafficking” and have been quite successful in prohibiting and even nearly criminalizing it in several places. The US has put a lot of pressure particularly on countries that prohibited or restricted abortion, such as Guatemala. This has practically halted international adoptions in these countries, and even undone or stalled those that were already in process when the laws were imposed. (Speaking of Guatemala, there was a very interesting article by Mary Anastasia O’Grady in today’s WSJ about this very thing.)

I don’t recall which country Roberts’ children were adopted from, but I will always think that the Obama regime, specialists in the vicious personal attack as a means of achieving their goals, let it be known that they were willing to go after Roberts on this unless his judgment was favorable to them.

7 posted on 02/04/2013 6:18:05 AM PST by livius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Diogenesis
I refuse to get on the Bash John Roberts Chief Justice of the United States band wagon, just because he agreed once with that arrogant pos occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. That doesn't mean I can't change my mind if he continues to agree with him and the rats
8 posted on 02/04/2013 6:20:31 AM PST by Kaslin (He needed the ignorant to reelect him, and he got them. Now we all have to pay the consequenses)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Venturer

There’s a good chance Robert’s is picking his fights wisely... that works for the Constitution...

9 posted on 02/04/2013 6:24:56 AM PST by GOPJ ( Revelation can be more perilous than Revolution. Vladimir Nabokov)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DCmarcher-976453

Roberts isn’t going to do jack.

10 posted on 02/04/2013 6:31:02 AM PST by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If Roberts is our hope for America we are in big trouble. He may be
trying to redeem himself with some conservatives in matters that dont count and will never amount to anything.

11 posted on 02/04/2013 6:32:57 AM PST by Ramonne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If Roberts is our hope for America we are in big trouble. He may be
trying to redeem himself with some conservatives in matters that dont count and will never amount to anything.

12 posted on 02/04/2013 6:32:57 AM PST by Ramonne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

misChief inJustice John RobsUS is a certifiable squish for King Barry. OblahMaoCare was foisted upon us by his wavering pen upon a puppet string.

13 posted on 02/04/2013 6:36:13 AM PST by tflabo (Truth or Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


I’d say that “good chance” is zero. He went out of his way, even contradicting himself in his own opinion as to whether it was a tax or not, to make Obama happy.

There’s been no bigger fight in his tenure thus far; Kelo vs. New London, another big case that should have been open-and-shut the other way, before he joined the court, isn’t even close to having the long lasting transformative effects that the Obamacare case did.

14 posted on 02/04/2013 6:50:20 AM PST by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“Once” was enough to wreck an entire industry, the Constitution (again), and the economy (again). Boy the happy-talk I heard from people who should know better — and I specifically remember Rush Limbaugh the next day — was both sickening and sad.

15 posted on 02/04/2013 6:55:35 AM PST by jiggyboy (Ten percent of poll respondents are either lying or insane)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: livius

There are varying reports about the origin of the adoptions. Most say Ireland but some say Latin America.

16 posted on 02/04/2013 7:55:50 AM PST by ladyjane (For the first time in my life I am not proud of my country.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson