Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Roberts did not change
American Thinker ^ | July 1, 2012 | Michael J. Fahy

Posted on 07/01/2012 8:10:34 AM PDT by 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

(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: johnroberts; mandate; obamacare; roberts; scotus; turncoat
Some bombs planted by RINO presidents don't explode for nearly a decade.

Bush just keeps looking worse and worse.

1 posted on 07/01/2012 8:10:37 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: DManA

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.


2 posted on 07/01/2012 8:17:50 AM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
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!

3 posted on 07/01/2012 8:24:58 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Obamacare.... Bush’s fault ?

(duck)

(/s)


4 posted on 07/01/2012 8:31:02 AM PDT by jefferson31415
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
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.

5 posted on 07/01/2012 8:31:35 AM PDT by Michael.SF. (Bain Capital would not have bought into Solyndra)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender; DManA
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.

6 posted on 07/01/2012 8:31:59 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
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.
7 posted on 07/01/2012 8:38:13 AM PDT by vbmoneyspender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: 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.

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.
8 posted on 07/01/2012 8:41:07 AM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Michael.SF.
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.

9 posted on 07/01/2012 8:42:18 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

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?


10 posted on 07/01/2012 8:43:47 AM PDT by Aria ( 2008 wasn't an election - it was a coup d'etat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
Photobucket

11 posted on 07/01/2012 8:44:37 AM PDT by Dick Bachert (NOVEMBER 6th: THE END OF AN ERROR! Let us pray it's not the start of another!*)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender
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.

12 posted on 07/01/2012 8:48:38 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DManA; All

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.


13 posted on 07/01/2012 8:48:59 AM PDT by PieterCasparzen (We have to fix things ourselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter

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. “


14 posted on 07/01/2012 8:52:03 AM PDT by Henry Hnyellar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

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.


15 posted on 07/01/2012 8:53:32 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

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


16 posted on 07/01/2012 8:55:47 AM PDT by DManA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 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.

Good point

And also if Obama was using backroom intimidation I thought it would be Kennedy they would target
17 posted on 07/01/2012 8:59:30 AM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DManA

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


18 posted on 07/01/2012 9:01:26 AM PDT by old school
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: DManA
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.

19 posted on 07/01/2012 9:01:36 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Aria; onyx; DJ MacWoW; RedMDer; trisham; TheOldLady; musicman; vox_freedom; JoeProBono; ...

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.


20 posted on 07/01/2012 9:04:29 AM PDT by STARWISE (The overlords are in place .. we are a nation under siege .. pray, go Galt & hunker down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Wrong. This country would be a much better place if more judges had that attitude. And here's why: How the hell can the Attorney's General for 28 different states file legal challenges to ObamaCare when it was passed in the U.S. Senate by a 60-39 vote? Chief Justice John Roberts isn't the problem here. It's the idiots in Congress and the White House who made this all happen.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest a few things:

1. Chief Justice John Roberts knows full well that Obamacare is unconstitutional.

2. In his legal opinion based on his own well-documented legal philosophy, however, it is NOT unconstitutional on the grounds that were brought before the court in this case.

3. ObamaCare -- or at least major elements of it -- is going to be declared unconstitutional on other legal grounds that are brought before the Supreme Court in separate legal challenges that are filed as various provisions of Obamacare come on line in the future. As other Freepers with legal backgrounds have noted, some of these provisions (the HHS waiver process, for example) are "arbitrary and capricious" by definition and cannot stand up to legal scrutiny. Others have noted that anyone who buys an insurance policy under the threat of a government-imposed financial penalty is basically signing a contract under duress, which voids the contract by any legal measure. Additional challenges are already underway or will be filed in the future based on the constitutionality of ObamaCare under the First, Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.

4. One kicker for Item #3 is that ObamaCare is so badly flawed that some of these provisions may not even be implemented as originally scheduled (the individual mandate in 2014, for example).

21 posted on 07/01/2012 9:06:29 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: DManA
generally, IIRC, most conservatives were happy with Roberts....

in retrospect, he was really pretty much a nothing...no distinction...a second rate choice which is why he got thru the hearings and onto the court...the rats knew they had a man who would twist the constitution anyway required...

this is the secret about "liberalism"...it basically requires that there be no norm, no rule of law...

the TLA love this....they can argue any nonsensical opinion and find a way to make it legal/constitutional...

22 posted on 07/01/2012 9:12:09 AM PDT by cherry (Catholics for Romney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

How does the equal protection issue reconcile with all the waivers and bribes in Obamacare?


23 posted on 07/01/2012 9:15:37 AM PDT by Aria ( 2008 wasn't an election - it was a coup d'etat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Aria

That’s exactly the point. Someone else who has the legal standing to challenge ObamaCare on those items (a business that did NOT get a waiver, for example) can get on line with all of the others who will be filing legal challenges in the future.


24 posted on 07/01/2012 9:21:03 AM PDT by Alberta's Child ("If you touch my junk, I'm gonna have you arrested.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: DManA
Nothing will convince me that Roberts wasn't intimidated, blackmailed and coerced.

Nothing will deter me from believing that Kagan was the agent who delivered the intimidation.

And Leahey was the chief perpetrator.

25 posted on 07/01/2012 9:23:10 AM PDT by eCSMaster ('Nancy Pelosi is a DINGBAT.' - Gov. Sarah Palin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cherry
generally, IIRC, most conservatives were happy with Roberts....

I think the more correct statement is: generally, most conservatives trusted George W. Bush to appoint a conservative to SCOTUS with his very first appointment.

Few people knew much about Roberts because he'd only been on a Court of Appeals for two years when nominated to SCOTUS. The Bushes knew him well because he'd been a Deputy Solicitor under Bush 41, and 41 appointed him to a C of A in 1992, but the nomination died when 41's term ended.

The Bushes had been trying to put him on the federal court since 1992, and W nominated him in 2001 at his first opportunity, and then put him on the SC at first opportunity in 2005, as CJ after Rehnquist died.

The Bushes wanted Roberts in the federal court system, for whatever reason. And do we need to discuss the peculiar nomination of Harriet Miers, which was eventually withdrawn and Alito nominated in her place?

26 posted on 07/01/2012 9:24:02 AM PDT by Will88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: PieterCasparzen

As their brains deteriorate they begin to have much less interest in sex and focus far more on the drooling techniques of others.


27 posted on 07/01/2012 9:27:05 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
Roberts deftly shifted 1/4 trillion dollars in costs from the states to the federal government which simply doesn't have that kind of money!

DOA!

28 posted on 07/01/2012 9:29:05 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Bush did not look good before he was elected. If you knew his grandfather, you knew the Bush family. Granddad help fund Hitler.


29 posted on 07/01/2012 9:32:33 AM PDT by bmwcyle (Corollary - Electing the same person over and over and expecting a different outcome is insanity)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: STARWISE
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 ...
To paraphrase a line from T. S. Eliot;

The last temptation is the greatest treason,
To do the wrong thing, but for the right reason.

30 posted on 07/01/2012 9:58:54 AM PDT by Old North State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

I agree I think he has been a reliable conservative vote. Souter never was.


31 posted on 07/01/2012 10:10:05 AM PDT by wild74
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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

yet she loves her some romney

32 posted on 07/01/2012 11:02:33 AM PDT by 09Patriot (your freedom to be you, includes my freedom to be from you.--Wilkow)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: bmwcyle

Not really, but we’ve all been over that part before.


33 posted on 07/01/2012 11:56:46 AM PDT by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: DManA

Roberts has turned out to be a dud. He deserves no respect for that ruling as far as I am concerned - literally rewriting legislation to try to make it constitutional.

However...regardless of that - the fact still remains that law should never have been passed to begin with for it to come to before Roberts to rule on...and the Democrats must be held accountable for this in the fall - at all levels.


34 posted on 07/01/2012 12:03:06 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: vbmoneyspender

Does it matter?

This was the biggest and most important ruling in a generation and Roberts blew it.

He could issue 1000 great rulings going forward and none of it will matter one bit for his treason this week.


35 posted on 07/01/2012 12:05:27 PM PDT by GlockThe Vote (The Obama Adminstration: 2nd wave of attacks on America after 9/11)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson