Skip to comments.Roberts did not change
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 ...
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).
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...
How does the equal protection issue reconcile with all the waivers and bribes in Obamacare?
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.
Nothing will deter me from believing that Kagan was the agent who delivered the intimidation.
And Leahey was the chief perpetrator.
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?
As their brains deteriorate they begin to have much less interest in sex and focus far more on the drooling techniques of others.
Bush did not look good before he was elected. If you knew his grandfather, you knew the Bush family. Granddad help fund Hitler.
The last temptation is the greatest treason,
To do the wrong thing, but for the right reason.
I agree I think he has been a reliable conservative vote. Souter never was.
yet she loves her some romney
Not really, but we’ve all been over that part before.
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.
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.
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.