Posted on 06/30/2012 7:30:52 AM PDT by dirtboy
Ping, I incorporated your comment from another thread into this vanity.
Roberts was blackmailed over the illegal adoption of his kids:
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX
NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE’S CHILDREN
**Exclusive**
The DRUDGE REPORT has uncovered a plot in the NEW YORK TIMES’ newsroom to look into the adoption of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900724/posts
I understand (but don’t agree with) Roberts’ supporters saying he wanted to keep the court from continuing to be a “political actor” and also put a fence around continued expansion of the “commerce clause.”
Why therefore, did he not simply refuse to vote. Make the vote a 4-4 tie.
“Roberts was blackmailed over the illegal adoption of his kids:”
BINGO!!!!
Needs impeachin’
If Obamacare is a tax, it only needed 50 votes in the Senate to pass. So it only needs 50 votes to get rid of the tax, correct?
Let’s be adult and face facts. If the government can force you to buy something, then this is no longer a free country. You may think this is a good thing. Just don’t deny that it is the thing. Liberalism has nothing to do with liberty. Progressive. The correct appellation is “progressive”. Progressively more government control. Progressively less freedom. As President Obama so courageously urges: Forward. To full-blown totalitarianism.
The scary thing is, I don’t think Roberts had to be blackmailed into this decision. He basically has stated his position regarding judicial restraint in the past, and his decision was in line with that view - with a dollop of transmogrification of the word ‘tax’ thrown in to make it possible.
The government can use the power to tax to do virtually anything they wanted to do under the Commerce Clause.
People are speculating about his kids, speculating that he’s gay... what does any of that matter? If he’s worried about how people are going to think of him or speak ill of him...this was certainly not the path to take. I hope he rots in the cesspool into which he has now jumped.
You’re assuming he was involved in an illegal adoption? If so it’s hardly been a secret since 2005.
Personally I think he had other reasons - but am a complete loss to understand why he didn’t just do his job - rule on whether or not this law is constitutional as written.
Last night I was reading Mark Levin who is saying that Roberts was writing for himself - and not the majority - when he said this isn’t appropriately part of the commerce clause and what this means is that the commerce clause is not restricted. So....what did we get out of this? Absolutely screwed.
Also, Roberts said he wants “his” court to be remembered for equal justice - well to me that would mean that our public “servants” (/s) would be subject to the same laws they force on us.
And Komrade Kagan doesn't????
Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Republic: An armed sheep.
You are so right - this government no longer works. The stock market went up because the uncertainty is gone- we are certainly on the path to fascism. This is devastating.
Robert is not treating his office as defender of the constitution, but that of a politician
I heard that it didn’t matter, if it was a tax or not (so Robert did us NO favors), and still only required 51 vote to get rid of it, because obamacare was passed via reconilation by the democrats
His 'logic' gets more and more bizzare the more I think about it. How many times have we seen SCOTUS toss a case because the litigants did not frame their arguments properly? Here, we have the Commerce Clause being used as the primary justification by the government. Tax powers were an afterthought. Yet Roberts changed a mandate/penalty into a tax and found it justified.
To this day, those who crafted the Obamacare monstrosity deny it is a tax. Roberts basically created his own legal argument instead of analyzing what was put before him.
We “lost it” when we elected all the idiots in Congress.
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.
This needs to become his legacy instead of his inane attempt at judicial restraint. Good post.
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.