Roberts did not change

American Thinker ^ | July 1, 2012 | Michael J. Fahy

[DManA]

If you wish to understand Thursday's incoherent opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts, you must first know Republican history from the Summer of 2005.

Contrary to most that has been written since Thursday's enactment of RobertsCare, Chief Justice John Roberts did not change. He has always been that way. Eight years ago, when John Roberts was nominated, we were warned that he was a liberal jurist appointed by a RINO president, just as liberal David Souter was appointed by the previous RINO president. Two articles in July 2005 by Ben Shapiro and Ann Coulter foretold the Souter-like liberal jurisprudence of Justice Roberts. We now know that Shapiro and Coulter were 100% correct.

President Bush's Roberts Pick Disappoints was written by Ben Shapiro on 7/20/5. Pull quote: "Roberts is not an originalist. There is nothing in his very short jurisprudential record to indicate that his judicial philosophy involves strict fidelity to the original meaning of the Constitution."

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/07/roberts_did_not_change.html##ixzz1zNqrpjrj

[DManA]

Some bombs planted by RINO presidents don't explode for nearly a decade.

Bush just keeps looking worse and worse.

[vbmoneyspender]

Roberts has been a consistent conservative vote until now. He has not been like Souter. Something other than Roberts being a stealth liberal is going on.

[muawiyah]

Look, if Coulter said it she ought to know about faux Conservatives eh!

But what's going on with Roberts is his fissures have expanded in size ~ when the condition can no longer be controlled by even overdoses of depakote they'll have go go in there and dig out the tumor.

It's coming!

[jefferson31415]

Obamacare.... Bush’s fault ?

(duck)

(/s)

[Michael.SF.]

Something other than Roberts being a stealth liberal is going on.

BINGO

A reading of Ginsberg's hate filled concurrence, (directed at Robert's) confirms that assessment.

[Alberta's Child]

There's nothing sinister going on here at all. As another Freeper astutely noted a couple of days ago, Roberts almost perfectly mirrors the political philosophy of the president who appointed him (George W. Bush): conservative on many issues but a supporter of illegal immigration and big-government health care.

It's so obvious, in retrospect, that I can't believe we've all overlooked it.

[vbmoneyspender]

If he was a supporter of Big Gov't healthcare, he wouldn't have twisted himself into a knot over the issue. He would have come right out and said that Obamacare was authorized pursuant to the Commerce Clause. That would have been a much firmer nail to hang his hat on. Instead, he based his decision on a legal theory that didn't even come out of left field. Rather, it was dropped into the ballpark by some UFO that was flying by.

[tanknetter]

Roberts has been a consistent conservative vote until now. He has not been like Souter. Something other than Roberts being a stealth liberal is going on.

That's what I keep coming back to as well. The expectation was that it would be Kennedy flipping over to vote with the Libs. That it was Roberts came as a real shock ... and I think all of the various analyses (which are all over the place) being put forward are evidence of that. If it were Kennedy, we'd ALL be ticked off and ranting ... not trying to figure out if there was an ulterior motive. Hell, after the Arizona ruling there was a lot of speculation that it was a quid-pro-quo to entice Kennedy to vote with the Conservatives on ObamaCare.

From my perspective, given Roberts' voting pattern on the Court to-date, there are a few possible options.

1.) He truly believes that the Individual Mandate IS a tax, covered under the Constitution's taxation authority, and is just cutting through all the Democr*p spin on "penalties" to call it out for exactly what it is ... then leave it up to The People to "fix" the problem. The fact that Obama's own Solicitor General identified it as a tax provides his rationale for doing so. There's that one paragraph in his Opinion where he pretty much throws out a caveat emptor argument saying that the American Public got snookered ...

2.) He, as Chief Justice, WAS intimidated by all the nonsense about the Court's integrity being compromised if the "signature" legislation of the President's first (and, God and the American Voter willing, only) term were struck down on what was perceived to be a "party line" vote.

For me, this is a two-fold clarion call. First, to elect a Republican President and House/Senate majorities that will overturn ObamaCare in early 2013 (I'd note that now that it's formally defined as a "tax" it can be done with a simple majority in a GOP-controlled Senate under Reconciliation). Second, to push through some mechanism that forces Congress to spell out in legislation explicitly and specifically what Constitutional authority they are invoking, and limits SCOTUS to review of it on that basis alone. The fact is that this WOULD have gone down as unconstitutional had SCOTUS been limited to reviewing it exclusively under the Commerce Clause, and/or Obama's Solicitor General not put forth the argument that it was indeed a tax.

[Alberta's Child]

I think Ginsberg knows full well that the Court's decision in this case -- particularly Roberts' majority opinion -- is so filled with time bombs that it will eventually lead to the overturn of Obamacare on legal grounds other than those that were before the court in this particular case.

This one particular quote from her separate opinion caught my eye:

"Health care is not like a vegetable or other items one is at liberty to buy or not to buy."

Really? How can a U.S. Supreme Court justice make a statement like this on one hand, while at the same time using some kind of unstated "right to privacy" under the Fourteenth Amendment as the basis for every decision the court has made related to abortion laws since Roe v. Wade?

Ruth Ginsberg knows damn well that the game is over, and she's sitting there on the Supreme Court as a semi-coherent old fool to watch it all unfold.

These justices have already written the majority opinions for every case that is brought against different elements of ObamaCare in the future as more and more of its provisions are implemented. How can a government compel someone to "buy health care" when Roe v. Wade is the law of the land? LOL.

[Aria]

Remember that Lawrence Tribe, his former law professor, was not surprised by Roberts’ vote. So at least to someone who would know this wasn’t out of character for Roberts.

But with the appearance that he changed his mind one has to wonder what caused this.

No matter what - he should have done his job - throw out the unconstitutional power grabbing monster.

Is there a way to get rid of a Chief Justice?

[Dick Bachert]

[Alberta's Child]

He's a supporter of big-government health care on political grounds, not as a specific power of the Federal government on legal terms. His opinion indicates exactly that. The money quote:

"It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices."

As I've said before, he took this heap of sh!t known as Obamacare that had been dropped on his desk and threw it right back where it belonged: into the homes and businesses of every American who voted for the bastards who passed it and signed it into law.

[PieterCasparzen]

The SCOTUS can’t be relied on to strike down every idiotic law your idiotic Congressman votes aye on.

Today, EVERY law passed is an idiotic law.

Historically, SCOTUS has ruled exactly opposite of prior rulings within a few decades.

Slavery was upheld until shortly before the Civil War.

The SCOTUS Justices are only people and people are subject to politics.

The lifetime appointment is the only thing the framers could do to mitigate the political tendency as much as possible - which is not too much.

The liberal Justices find a legal rationalization for their political views. They never give in to a conservative view in their opinions.

The conservative Justices give in to the liberal view once in a while in their opinions.

So, over time, populism tends to gain ground.

Populism is the biggest problem in a representative government, since by definition it is designed to do the will of the people it governs, but since politicians must compete for elective office they tend to overdo it to gain votes. This means government over time starts to become corrupt in terms of spending taxpayer money, tends to ask less and less of large voting blocks whilst giving them more and more.

Good people need to run for Congress, real people. That is, non-political people who just want to do their duty for a few years and then get out.

Things won’t dramatically change until “real people” in Congress are the majority.

All the raiding of the Treasury for votes needs to stop, the Congressional support of immorality needs to stop, government borrowing needs to stop.

All one can do with the current Congress is call one’s Congressman and nicely complain. Over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over. Send emails to their staff. Be nice. Use polite language. Say nothing mean or bad in any way. But kindly and politely express your thoughts. If you’re outraged, let them know.

IMHO.

[Henry Hnyellar]

It’s good to dream.

“For me, this is a two-fold clarion call. First, to elect a Republican President and House/Senate majorities that will overturn ObamaCare in early 2013 (I’d note that now that it’s formally defined as a “tax” it can be done with a simple majority in a GOP-controlled Senate under Reconciliation). Second, to push through some mechanism that forces Congress to spell out in legislation explicitly and specifically what Constitutional authority they are invoking, and limits SCOTUS to review of it on that basis alone. The fact is that this WOULD have gone down as unconstitutional had SCOTUS been limited to reviewing it exclusively under the Commerce Clause, and/or Obama’s Solicitor General not put forth the argument that it was indeed a tax. “

[DManA]

This is the M.O. of stealth liberals. You hang out looking conservative on non-crucial issues but you are there for the Cause when the Big One comes along to do what you were put there for.

[DManA]

If that is his attitude he doesn’t belong on the Court.

[uncbob]

If he was a supporter of Big Gov't healthcare, he wouldn't have twisted himself into a knot over the issue. He would have come right out and said that Obamacare was authorized pursuant to the Commerce Clause.

Good point

And also if Obama was using backroom intimidation I thought it would be Kennedy they would target

[old school]

The problem with lawyers is they think that their contorted, freakin’ word-smithery absolves them of bad freakin’ lawyerin’!

[Will88]

You hang out looking conservative on non-crucial issues but you are there for the Cause when the Big One comes along...

And if you have a Kennedy to be the swing man who takes the conservative heat on most issues, you can vote with the conservatives until the really big one comes along.

[STARWISE]

No matter what - he should have done his job - throw out the unconstitutional power grabbing monster.

~~~~~~~~

DITTO!

As i wrote to a friend:

It’s my belief that Roberts had to severely contort and/or abort logical jurisprudence to arrive at this judgment, and it’s evidenced by the fact that he did in fact re-write the actual law as it was written

It’s not the court’s job to clean up Congress’s screwups and make a mess created by them palatable and conform when it did not

~ ~ ~ ~

John Roberts = judicial gymnast supreme

Lord, have mercy.