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

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: 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: 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: 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

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: 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: 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 ]

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