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.
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.
Democracy: Two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
Republic: An armed sheep.
Robert is not treating his office as defender of the constitution, but that of a politician
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.
If I may make a humble observation, I don't think Roberts lost it. I think he took it from the rest of us.
Roberts should have known that.
-PJ
That's the problem, right there. It should be the Constitution which reigns supreme!
It's pretty obvious Roberts was deliberately ignoring and twisting it - just like the other 4 Liberal termites on the Court.
Power you refuse to exercise eventually becomes no power at all.
Biden asked Roberts during confirmation hearings about hispotential course of action when presented with a decision on abortion and healthcare, IIRC. Roberts separated his supposed Catholocism from legal judgment.
Then there’s that pic of Reid, Pelosi, 0bama and Biden in Roberts’ chambers, with that knowing laugh and look on 0bama’s face, just before the photographer was told to leave. 2008? 2009? It was on the same day a challenge to 0bama’s eligibiiity was filed in SCOTUS.
We have a sleeper.
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.
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.