Skip to comments.Patton: Will John Roberts Betray Us Again?
Posted on 03/28/2013 8:24:30 AM PDT by NKP_Vet
In the tortured justification for his vote to sustain Obamacare last summer, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts pointed to Congress's authority to levy taxes an argument not even put forward by its advocates. (They, in fact, had argued that it was not a tax.) As a direct result of Roberts's folly, the stark reality of Barack Obama's "fundamental transformation of America" creeps closer each day.
(Excerpt) Read more at gopusa.com ...
Is there a mustach in Mexico? [I stole that one from Barry Weiss].
More worried about Kennedy on this one.
Somebody on the left has “the goods” on him,
and he’s not man enough to step up in front of the cameras
and tell the nation about it and refuse to resign.
I dont see it in these two cases as they are about over-turning laws. He refused to overturn O care and will refuse to overturn DOMA and the CA referendum is my guess.
Yes... he will.
Please . Pray . HARD !
Alito, Scalia and Thomas will do the right thing. Ginsburg, Kagan, Sotomayor and Breyer are guaranteed to do the opposite. It will come down to Roberts and Kennedy.
In order for saniity to prevail both must reject gay marriage. That won't happen.
the troubling part is that both all the justices and all the lawyers refered to homosexuals as a status not a behavior.
We are discussing a BEHAVIOR not a status. We outlaw all sorts of behavior. We have federal pot laws, we have (since 1913) federal immigration laws, we have sex slave laws.
The justices have bought the “gay gene” myth. Also it is apparent from roberts comment on politicians falling all over themselves to “go pro-homosexual” the justices are watching primarily msnbc and cnn and only readig the NYT.
The conservative opinion is not represented anywhere.
AND THIS IS WHY “CONSERVATISM” MUST, MUST, MUST, MUST BE MORE THAN SIMPLY ECONOMIC LIBERTARIANISM.
Why is it that only conservative justices turn liberal once they get on SCOTUS and not the otherway around?
Actually, the libertarian position...proper libertarian position....woud be to protect the rights of those who are already under the contract of marriage...and to uphold what THAT contract means.
And BTW, there is no such thing as SIMPLY ECONOMIC liberty. If you don’t own your property, you don’t own yourself. It’s called the “sanctity of life OUTSIDE the womb.”
John Roberts’ vote on Obamacare paired with Kagen’s appointment and approval to the bench has, to me, made the court meaningless.
Frankly, I don’t give a damn what they say.
Because they live and eat and play and drink cocktails and join health clubs and got to PTAs and grocery stores IN WASHINGTON where you can’t “fit in” unless you are liberal.
This will go like everything else. The on-going news will be good. “They asked great questions, gave the lawyers hell.” Then voted for it anyway.
Do Bears crap in the woods?
Cause and effect. Conservatives do not use thuggery, blackmail, mudslinging or threats to get things done.
All those are de riguer for the Left
Zero and his demons would deport Robert’s kids and let all zero’s illegal family stay?
I was just posting that idea on another thread when you pinged me so I included you.
But legally many states define it as a status as the SCOTUS is very likely to do with Kennedy,
Would a cow lick Lot's wife?
The answer to the question...
Yes, Roberts seems to be a key part in 0's Fundamental Transformation of America :(
Looks like the USSC will punt based on the standing issue and find a reason to let the 9th circus ruling stand. That gives the homos almost everything they want.
The only sure thing is it will be some tortured BS ruling like the kenyancare decision.
That’s symptomatic of the left - they punish the righteous and reward the wicked.
Yes, Justice Roberts in comprimised. In his vetting process, he claimed his children were adopted from somewhere in Latin America. In deed these two toe-heads were adopted from Ireland. It is illegal for non Irish nationals to adopt there. Sticky issue.
“Why is it that only conservative justices turn liberal once they get on SCOTUS and not the otherway around?”
Because they want to be accepted by their pals on the cocktail party circut. The pols and media elite are constantly hanging out with each other and everyone wants to fit in and keep getting the invites.
Considering his convoluted reasoning behind deciding for Obamacare, I would suspect that some very influential outside pressure was put on him.
Once a sell out ...
You're right. He should do what Petraeus did when he was blackmailed. Not resign though.
He is wholly owned by the White Hut. Ain’t blackmail a wild and crazy thang?
He has a very good reason for not resigning, and he can state that as well -
0bama will appoint an uber-leftist radical in his place.
I think the term is Souterize. Something that is chronic in the Bush family.
Does it snow in Vermont?
Can green chile stew be found in New Mexico?
I'm equally worried both of them will cave. I hope they prove me wrong.
The Ninth Circuit could rule any way it wanted but since it's purview in such matters is clipped by Congress in this example, CA's Prop 8 can survive as it was voted buy the people. Period.
Would render the Court's opinion effectively moot and inoperative.
Now, the Executive could always choose not to enforce the law and the Congress could always then choose to impeach Holder and add that to his contempt of Congress charge from F&F -- as well as his boss Obama.
The Court doesn't have to be the last word on anything if we don't let it.
This is what CAN be done, not necessarily a prediction of what WILL be done.
Because they were never conservative to begin with. They only played a conservative on TV during their appointment publicity blitz.
That's one of the biggest problems with the federal courts, IMO. Some conservatives claims that Dem presidents NEVER "accidentally" appoint a conservative judge. That's not true. It hasn't happened much in recent years, but occasionally they do end up with a stealth conservative (in fact, I think most of the most outspoken anti-New Deal SCOTUS judges was a Woodrow Wilson appointee)
However, I have seen ZERO examples of a federal judge that "started off" reliably liberal and slowly drifted right over the years. It's happened to a handful of elected politicians (mostly in the south, I'm pretty sure I know the reasons why they moved rightward) but not for federal judges. Unfortunately there are MANY examples of judges who "started off" pretty conservative and became insane Marxists by the end of their tenure.
IMO, this is one of the biggest reasons why judges should not get a lifetime appointment to the bench. I think these guys get drunk with power and bask over the mainstream media applauding them for correcting "injustices" in America by enacting new unconstitutional "rights" out of thin air. At the very least, the judges should get terms like anyone else and their tenure would have be renewed every 10 years (even if we didn't go the elected route, it would at least require the Senate to reappoint them and judges that went rogue like Earl Warren would be subjected to scrutiny.)
He is wholly owned by the White Hut. Aint blackmail a wild and crazy thang?
If Roberts’ “handlers” get word that Kennedy is going to provide the progressives with their needed 5th vote (and thus Roberts’ vote is not needed), then they give Roberts a little slack and let him vote in a manner that will help him maintain a conservative facade (or vote his true beliefs if he actually is, in his heart, a constitutionalist/originalist).
In any case, this whole thing is incredibly disgusting.
He doesn’t need to resign.
This explains how he sailed through confirmation without the RATS putting up a fight. Look how they fought Bush on Alito. Big difference.
"And BTW, there is no such thing as SIMPLY ECONOMIC liberty. If you dont own your property, you dont own yourself. Its called the sanctity of life OUTSIDE the womb.
I agree with you, but I am referring to the fact that many on FR are so focused on economics, and seem to not believe that the issues of morality in our nation have any real bearing on our survivability as a nation.
In the spirit of friendly debate, allow me a slight quibble with your take. I think that there are many of us who think government's role has more to do with protecting liberty - and while morality is key for survivability, there are limits to what can be legislated by government. I also get very offended when pastors and others who are paid by tax exempt religious organizations criticize "fiscal" conservatives - which is very hypocritical of them to do. They often accuse folks like myself...who are total conservatives...of being "fiscal only" when we simly decide that liberty is the key issue.
Now I totally agree with the fiscal component of morality....but do you agree that there is a moral component to fiscal issues...ie....that property is a sacred right?
Based on his zerOcare decision, he should let Prop 8 stand as a decision made by the people. And, DoMA as a decision of the representatives of the people. If, only, he could find a tax in there.
I think you are correct. This is the reason for Roberts' betrayal. He wants to be spoken of in reverential terms the same way libs speak of Earl Warren. I don't think anybody "has something" on him. He is captive to his own ego and vanity.
That cocktail party thing is a big problem. Damn peer pressure. It’s like friggin kids stuff!!
I’m not sure that was the problem with Roberts though. I think he is too clever for his own good and full of himself.
If he sells out on gay marriage and doesn't uphold DOMA and Prop. 8 (which sadly, my "gut" feeling tell me he will), then Roberts has gone squishy on us and I doubt he's being blackmailed. More likely we just ended up with another Sandra Day O'Connor (not as bad as "another Souter", but certainly terrible in the short run given that Obama is president and we only have 3 solid conservatives on SCOTUS right now to stop this stuff)
I doubt we'll ever get my dream of a fully elected SCOTUS, but I'm sure the vast majority of Americans would agree on ending lifetime appointments for SCOTUS judges and Congress should move to make such reforms in the judiciary. I don't want Clinton and Obama's appointees serving for the next several decades, either.
I also wish the judges represented geographic/population areas instead of the nation as a whole. There's a good case to be made that that was the founders intent and we've lost that since they did away with the justices "riding the circuit" in the early 1800s. Now most of the SCOTUS judges are from New York and California. We could remove three of the commie RAT judges immediately if we required them to be from different areas of the country:
To the point, if Roberts goes to the dark side on this, he will be the reincarnation of Earl Warren. The nation will not be safe from their ultraleftist mechanations.