Posted on 06/26/2012 11:38:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The Politico has a story today warning John Roberts: "You can be lionized and be the biggest hero in this town, or we can make your life miserable. It's up to you." Now, those are my words, but that's the point of the Politico story: You can be the biggest, most prominent, most loved and revered chief justice in the history of chief justices, or you can be dirt. It's up to you, judge. He's supposed to swing Obamacare. Exactly right. I've got that story in the stack here. I'm getting way ahead of myself here. I had this stuff all laid out.
"John Roberts's Big Moment -- Chief Justice John Roberts pledged during his Supreme Court hearings to be a mere umpire of the law. But as a legacy-defining decision nears, Roberts is emerging as the court’s most intriguing player. Justices are expected to rule Thursday -- during their final public sitting of the term -- on the fate of President Barack Obama’s signature health law. While much of the early attention focused on swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, many court watchers predict Roberts will be the architect of the ruling.
"To a great extent, the decision will shape the way history views Roberts’s stewardship of the high court. The chief justice may not hold the key vote to what the court does on the pivotal case, but he could be in a position to dictate how the court does it. 'The health care case will undoubtedly define his chief justiceship,' said Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University ... 'The scope of the law, the amount of people affected, the fact that it’s the centerpiece of the president’s domestic agenda, all make it as politically charged as imaginable.' ...
"Even if the 57-year-old chief justice does write the opinion, there’s considerable uncertainty about what side he would take. At stake is not only Roberts’s own legacy but also the court’s reputation as an impartial arbiter of the law." So you see, Roberts was supposed to get up and read this today. And if he votes to strip the mandate or rules the whole thing unconstitutional or whatever, he's no longer "an impartial arbiter of the law," and his legacy ... is mud. "Would he uphold the individual mandate and the law on a 6-3 vote, joining with Kennedy and the liberals for a ruling that crosses ideological and political boundaries?"
Folks, I tell you, I am so damn sick of this. You know, there hasn't been a single story -- I checked this. Not a single story, not one reference to the possibility that one of the four liberals might vote in some other way. But there are reams and reams of paper and published data about the conservative justices and which one of them will "grow" and be "mature" and do the "right" thing. And it always brings me back to this notion that we hear constantly, there must be compromise. And we must cross the aisle and work with one another.
There's not one thought even given to the fact that a liberal judge might side with America. There's not one story, not one reference, to one of the liberal judges going against his or her ideology. Now, during the oral arguments, there was some shock and dismay over some of the questions that were asked by Sotomayor, but I'm talking about stories like this. You don't see a story like this that's written for Roberts about Ginsburg or Breyer, or Kagan. You don't see any ever, any stories like this about the liberal judges. Only the so-called conservative judges.
And they're always framed in this silly notion that a judge is only decent and good and worthy of acclaim if he abandons whatever it is assumed his right-wing ideology to be. All of this is predictable. It's just the Politico, not the Washington Post Style Section but still. It's predictable. But the Politico, they're letting Roberts know: "It's up to you, pal. You want to like living in this town from Friday on, or are you going to regret the day you came out of the womb? It's up to you."
That's what they may as well be saying.
END TRANSCRIPT
No, it doesn’t.
If this story is about “coalition building” than I am perplexed as to why Rush didn’t want to reveal what was going on behind the scenes. I’m perfectly willing to accept that horsetrading was the reason for his vote.
But as a matter of record, gay smears were all over the place when the guy was nominated. I know we all have short memories here but come on, guys!
Politico may not be inferring that a Chief Justice who swears in a president elect who promised to honor, preserve and protect the Constitution, but who told the world he was a naturalized citizen - “I am a native-born citizen of the US.”, is derelict in his duties. "Native-born" is the language of the 14th Amendment, the naturalization amendment based upon Article 1 Section 8, the congressional mandate "To establish and Uniform Rule of Naturalization." The 14th Amendment never mentions natural born citizenship. Its author, Congressman John Bingham, repeated the US common-law defintion, but using slightly different words, to emphasize the intent: "...of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty". Can anyone not see that Obama's British-Kenyan father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty, and that this characterizes Obama's unsuitablility, apart from our law? Roberts knows, and Obama knows, and every US Senator who signed SR 511 in April 2008 knows that a president must be a natural born citizen, and not a naturalized citizen.
Roberts, with some difficulty, administered the oath of office, depending upon the ignorance of most citizens, that a naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen. Any naturalized citizen knows better than most natural born citizens, because our State Department requires a citizenship oath in which candidates swear sole allegiance to our Constitution. Roberts is either too weak to execute his sworn duty, not just as chief justice, but the duty of any officer of the court, or he has agreed with Obama’s politburo, that the Constitution is antiquated and old Supreme Court decisions are no longer relevant.
As Baraka told us about our Constitution, “It doesn't allow me to do the things I believe our country needs.” “The Constitution is a doctrine of negative liberties.” Obama wants a new bill of rights, rather like FDR, who also tried to pack the courts. This time it appears that the court has been packed because Roberts has evaded his responsibility, not only as chief justice, knowing, as did every Senator, that Obama was not born to citizen parents, but his responsibility to report a felony - campaign finances were illicitly solicited by the candidate and/or the chairwoman of his party, Nancy Pelosi, who affirmed Obama’s eligibility with a signed affidavit.
My belief is that it was a tactical (hattip: FReeper apillar) decision by the Chief Justice. Kennedy was already voting with the liberals and thus the whole AZ law was heading to be overturned, the Chief Justice was able to persuade Kennedy to uphold the 'check your papers' immigration check part of the law during a legitimate stop by law enforcement. Roberts joined Kennedy on the ruling to achieve this.
Additionally, if the Chief Justice also similarly partners with Kennedy on the 0bamacare ruling (it is reported that they are likely co-authoring the opinion) to throw it out entirely, this concession on the AZ ruling will seem brilliant.
The white hut has already threatened Roberts...and I have wondered what they have on him ever since. I am actually worried about this one.
Quote: “Rush knows what the individual mandate decision is, and what he’s telling us here is that it’s going to be a 6-3 decision, or better, to strike down the mandate.”
There is not one liberal on that court who will vote against it. Up until yesterday, I believed that there was only one so called conservative who would vote for it. But Mr. Roberts it appears has now joined the Anthony Kennedy school of “please let me come to your DC cocktail party and hang out with the cook crowd!!!” I think that the Supreme Court has in the past, can in the present and will in the future slice the baloney however thin is necessary to justify any federal action. . .strike that, any progressive federal action.
Don’t think SB1070. Think Obamacare...
The threat is early enough. It’s just falling on deaf ears.
If this guy’s minions go anywhere near the SCOTUS, it’s game on.
Don’t think SB1070. Think Obamacare...
The threat is early enough. It’s just falling on deaf ears.
If this guy’s minions go anywhere near the SCOTUS, it’s game on.
[ since you state the decision re Obamacare is already made, you have a point ]
to prevent a 4 - 4 tie and thus upholding the 9th circus ruling
Has the SC ever NOT been a collection of political hacks and affirmative action types?
Not one Republican Senator voted for the bill on December 24, 2009 and in the House Joe Cao (R-Louisiana) was the only Republican who voted in favor of the bill on November 7, 2009 when it was shoved down our throat.
The Four Horsemen of the Constitution take supreme exception to such a foolish statement.
Roberts is the wild card. Ailto, Thomas and Scalia I am not concerned about but do I have any faith in Roberts? hell NO
Actually, the Bill that Cao voted for was not the final Bill. He voted against the Final (Senate) Bill.
Rush knows nothing on this one. There has never been a leak at SCOTUS.
I did not put it in breaking news
Goodness. Thanks for just coming out and saying it, because I had no idea what Rush and a few others were trying to imply.
I still have no idea if this is true, though. I guess it’s fun speculation.
>> There has never been a leak at SCOTUS <<
I think you’re wrong here. I seem to recall hearing or reading that in 1954, somebody on the Warren court (or its staff) leaked details about the “Brown v. Board” decision to the POTUS and to the AG.
(I believe there was also at least one other “known” leak in relatively modern times, but the details escape me.)
I think it is preposterous to claim that Chief Justice Roberts is gay especially when our side does it.
1) You got your mandate, saying that in order to not be criminalized for existing, you have to buy something. Nowhere, even in the 14th Amendment consitution of limited privileges, does it say or mean that you have to pay simply to not be a criminal. There is no possible way this fits any interpretation of the Constitution.
2) You got your severability, which was specifically ruminated over in the Senate, and then discarded. Which means there is no way to interpret the lack of severability a accidental, but rather a deliberate intention of Congress.
Therefore, My Fellow Americans, and In Conclusion, you can't give a pass to the mandate, and once that's gone, you have to throw out the entire bill along with it.
That's the law.
Anything other than that, is politics - and not nice politics, either.
Rush knows nothing on this one. There has never been a leak at SCOTUS.
/
/
/
I agree, he’s just pontificating. None of these theories were around until people saw Roberts vote on Arizona. As I recall a few FReepers were concerned over Roberts questions during oral arguments when the Arizona law challenge was before the court because he didn’t sound supportive.
I don’t think this is a big conspiracy or anything.
I have, from the beginning when Politico came first on the scene always said that anything from that rag has to be taken with a grain of salt. I dismiss anything that comes from them as nothing but trash. Look what they did to Herman Cain.
IMHO, if the HC decision comes down on June 28th and goes against the Constitution, it will have been done by the jihadis.
1389 – Battle of Kosovo takes place between Serbian and Ottoman army.
1519 – Charles V is elected Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_28
1914 - Archduke Francis Ferdinand and the Mrs. Archduke were assassinated by Serb nationalist in (what is now known as) Sarajevo, Bosnia. WW I begins.
1919 - The Treaty of Versailles was signed ending World War I exactly five years after it began. The treaty also established the League of Nations.
1942 - German troops launched an offensive to seize Soviet oil fields in the Caucasus and the city of Stalingrad.
1949 - The last U.S. combat troops were called home from Korea, leaving only 500 advisers.
1950 - North Korean forces captured Seoul, South Korea.
1954 - French troops began to pull out of Vietnam’s Tonkin Province.
1960 - In Cuba, Fidel Castro confiscated American-owned oil refineries without compensation.
1964 - Malcolm X founded the Organization for Afro American Unity to seek independence for blacks in the Western Hemisphere.
http://www.on-this-day.com/onthisday/thedays/alldays/jun28.htm
The Night of the Long Knives started on June 29th...as in the day following.
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/night_of_the_long
>> I did not put it in breaking news <<
I wouldn’t have thought so, given your excellent history of thoughtful and very helpful posting. So my apology for what probably looked like personal criticism. None intended.
In any event, given the potentially misleading headline from Rush’s website, perhaps one of the mods thought it was a “hard news” item as opposed to an opinion piece.
With Kagan and the Wide Latino on the Court? I'm quite sure one (or both) of these two 'leaked' bad news to 0bama in April.
Which prompted this completely inappropriate and disrespectful intrusion on the separation of powers between the Executive and Judicial Branches of our Government ....
Obama Warns ‘Unelected’ Supremes: Overturning My Law Would be ‘Judicial Activism’
From the article .....
The Drudge Report has openly speculated that President Obama knows something about the eventual outcome of the case, possibly through a leak from the high court itself.
Got it! Thanks for your response. Hope it all works out like you say.
Me too. Thursday can't come soon enough. I am very optimistic though. Summoning my inner Gene Kranz ...
With all due respect sir, I believe this is going to be our finest hour.
He was obviously send packing in 2010 because of it.
The Senate passed the bill on December 2424 2009 Source
Those Bush boys can sure pick them. /sarcasm
I truly appreciate your positive attitude! I will try to emulate it.
I would have maybe put it in front page had it entered my mind. I did not take it as personal criticism, so no apology is necessary.
Surely, he shrugs this crap off.
Not like this obvious unimpressive bunch
This sounds like obstruction of justice and can be acted on.
Court decisions are made by interpreting the Constitution, not by pleasing people.
“Does everything have to be a homosexual conspiracy here?”
It’s the same on the lefty web sites. They all love everything gay until someone on the site disagrees with them on some issue. Next thing you know they accuse you of being gay. Go figure.
Hey, you leave Ruth Buzzi (the real one) alone.
I have always felt that the redo of the oath between Roberts and Obama was done on purpose. I do think Obama has something on Roberts...I have never understood why the redo wasn’t done in public..felt like it was fishy from the get go...Just like with Hillary being Sec of State..a gruelling job...I think she was forced to take it in lieu of Obama paying off her campaign debt....
I guess Roberts adopted two children from Ireland via Guatemala....so he is sensitive to the “immigration” issue.
Right I remember that. However, The FINAL BILL that came from the SENATE, he voted AGAINST it.
NO GOPers voted for the FINAL BILL.
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.