Learning compromise from Chief Justice Roberts and Aung San Suu Kyi

Washington Post ^ | 7/1/12 | Fred Hiatt Editorial Page Editor

[DallasBiff]

Chief Justice John Roberts last week did something that, in polarized Washington, may turn out to be more important than saving Obamacare.

He showed that compromise can be consistent with principle. More than that: He showed that compromise, for someone who respects and knows how to use the democratic process, can be the best way to advance principle.

[The Toad]

That Post article must be some kind of silly joke....

[Monorprise]

After this insolent I think Roberts is as good as dead to half the republican party. Whatever dirt Obama has on Roberts can’t make things worse for him.

Roberts acknowledged the bill as written was blatantly unlawful and then took it upon himself to rewrite the bill. What an absurd level of judicial activism, the very thing he was supposedly appointed to avoid. I don’t see how he can redeem himself or his “court” he needs to resign or be impeached.

[Leep]

OK, its time for the lefties to compromise for the next 3 1/2 to 30 years.

[Latecomer]

I think that Roberts actually believes that Congress has the right to pass socialist laws and to tax the people. He believes it is constitutional for them to do that no matter how odious or what either party thinks. Congress is voted in by the citizens and as long as the laws they pass are constitutional the Supreme Court has no right to overturn them.

[Leep]

The USC has, through trickery and deception, become a living document. Subject to the whims of whomever is the King.
And, we the people ain’t picking who gets to be King.

We no longer have a limited government or checks and
balances much less a Republic.
We are all Rinos now! Republic in name only.
I don’t see how we get out of it..even if Obama gets the boot.

The Republicans are infiltrated by whimpy Rinos who do not want to make waves.
Let alone do what it would take to jerk us back onto the right course.
The same ones who have been inefective at stopping Obama now will probably be the ones in charge of the Romney Admin.
What we will probably get is a lot of TALK and NO ACTION!

[Leep]

Oh, and the ever increasing fold of docile sheeple doesn’t help either.

[StAnDeliver]

"But Roberts convinced NOT A SINGLE LIBERAL JUSTICE that the Commerce Clause limits government power."

This is what I was thinking when Wallace interviewed Lew, and Lew insisted the 'majority' 'upheld' the Commerce Clause, and Wallace missed the opportunity:

• to point out that Lew was lamely referring to the 4 non-controlling majority opinion
• and then use that to stuff Lew by pointing out that Lew would be sitting there boohooing about Obamacare's rejection IF Roberts had not specifically written the controlling opinion which flatly states Bobocare is a TAX

There would be no way for Lew to walk that back.

Wallace could have further critized the absurdity of 1 Justice ruling over a 4-4 split (a well-defined 4-4 split that gave no cause, no rise whatsoever to the goofy outlier of Roberts creation made from whole cloth); and to compare Roberts to the detestable Warren/Burger Court era.

[BuckeyeTexan]

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

[Latecomer]

Well, I agree, except that the Supreme Court has no right to impose its views whether it is to stop Obama or promote their own view, but only to check to see that laws are constitutional. Even if that makes conservatives mad, who presume to believe in the constitution, but sometimes I wonder? Roberts is correct, like it or not.

[Leep]

Roberts changed the argument to make it “constitutional” I’m not a Constitional Scholar, like say Obama or Kagan?, but I believe that is a first?