Posted on 06/30/2012 7:30:52 AM PDT by dirtboy
In his majority decision, Chief Justice John Roberts hewed to the concept of judicial restraint, a favored approach of "progressive" pioneer Oliver Wendell Holmes. From Wiki:
Judicial restraint is a theory of judicial interpretation that encourages judges to limit the exercise of their own power. It asserts that judges should hesitate to strike down laws unless they are obviously unconstitutional,[1] though what counts as obviously unconstitutional is itself a matter of some debate.[2] Judicial restraint is sometimes regarded as the opposite of judicial activism.
In deciding questions of constitutional law, judicially-restrained jurists go to great lengths to defer to the legislature. Former Associate Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., considered to be one of the first major advocates of the philosophy, would describe the importance of judicial restraint in many of his books.[3] Former Associate Justice Felix Frankfurter, a Democrat appointed by Franklin Roosevelt, is generally seen as the "model of judicial restraint".[4]
So what does judicial restraint lead to? Basically, Congress can do just about whatever it wants. On another thread, a freeper said this about Roberts:
My daughter was in a small college seminar group with Roberts a few years ago. He said that his general philosophy is to leave decisions to the people in the decisions made by their elected representatives, since, in his opinion, it is much easier to change the Congress than it is to change the members of the Court. I guess this ruling was consistent with that.
In other words, Roberts believes SCOTUS should bow to the will of the majority that elected Congress and the President. And he will call a penalty a tax to allow them that kind of deference - even though those who passed and signed the legislation in the first place bend over backwards to avoid calling it a tax.
So in John Robert's America, democracy reigns supreme.
Upon the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention, a woman asked Benjamin Franklin what type of government the Constitution was bringing into existence. Franklin replied, A republic, if you can keep it.
John Roberts just lost it.
Nah, not logical. Roberts is going to vote in lockstep with the leftists in fear of another justice coming and doing just that? Obamacare is the lynch pin of collectivism. The worst has been voted on.
Roberts could give a rats ass about Ginsberg. It was all about the illegal adoption. Funny what happens when you go to Mexico or Bolivia or wherever the hell Roberts went to launder the adoption of his Irish-born kids.
I think that what Roberts did was bow to the power of the state, not the power of the elected officials. The people who elected these officials did not vote for them to pass the monstrous health care bill. The government was clearly over-reaching with this bill.
Roberts is a Harvard trained lawyer. That means that he most likely does not believe in God given rights of man, or inherent rights of the individual because that is not what is taught at Harvard. You cannot believe in God given rights if you don’t believe in God. So, something has to fill that void and that something is the power of the state. If Roberts does not believe in God given rights, he does not believe in the constitution, the Bill of Rights, or separation of powers.
Either Roberts does not believe in a higher power than the state or he does not have the strength of his convictions. The reasoning that you gave supports my hypothesis.
Roberts former law professor, Laurence Tribe, was not surprised by this decision - therefore he made this decision on his own.
Ann Coulter was right - this was a bad nomination for SCOTUS.
Nice idea but sure doesn’t justify screwing the Constitution with this monster health care.
BTW, I have the suspicion that Obama was born in the US but was lying about it for a long time for a couple of reasons - he thought it made him interesting and he got a lot of favorable treatment as a foreigner. So my guess is he’s a citizen who has defrauded he way through his education. We may never find out - especially if we get rid of him in November.
I'd have to disagree. Europe was up big, but because of Thursday's "European Memorandum of Understanding", not because of the SC.
US healthcare stocks were up 1.74% on the week, but oil and gas was up more at 4.99% and technology up less at 1.02%. If the SC was a non-event with respect to the corporate economy, it was a "BFD" (Biden) with respect to individual choice, freedom and the terrain going into the 2012 election. IMO, Romney seized the high ground on Thursday.
In effect, Roberts said "the voters elected the doofuses who passed this monster. Here's how they can undo this mess with 51 votes." I would have preferred that Roberts voted against Obamacare, but then we would have been left with the previous system which was bad, just not as bad as Obamacare. And little motive on the part of Congress to do anything about it.
Now, if we elect Republicans in November and put them in charge of the White House and Congress, and they still don't kill this, it's time for the torches and pitchforks.
Try again, Scalia and vast amounts of people who understand the letter and spirit of why the Constitution was established in the first place are still looking too...
If the court is not there to protect the rights of the people and the constitution’s structure of government from the rule of tyrants, then why would we have a Supreme Court or take it’s decisions as the law of the land. We should abolish it and use the courts’ money to offset the debt of our tyrants.
Come to think of it, why should not the States just abolish the authority of the Congress and Executive Branches, too since they no longer have the constitutional authority to exist. The people and the States agreed to be a Nation under the constitution and if there is no constitution, there is no more Nation.
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.