Roberts getting what he wants, love from the liberal media.
To: DallasBiff
Merriam-Webster defines "compromise" as "a way of reaching agreement in which each person or group gives up something that was wanted in order to end an argument or dispute."
But Roberts convinced NOT A SINGLE LIBERAL JUSTICE that the Commerce Clause limits government power.
There was no compromise from the liberals. They took the gift from Roberts regarding the bizarre "tax" opinion upholding Obamacare, laughed and went on their way.
What Roberts did is called "capitulation."
Perhaps he "capitulated" because he was "compromised."
But that would be a different meaning of "compromise."
To: DallasBiff
"He showed that compromise, ...., can be the best way to advance principle."
GAG
ME
WITH
A
COKE
SPOON
3 posted on
07/02/2012 9:37:40 AM PDT by
Paladin2
To: DallasBiff
More aca spin.
I wonder if they’ll be lauding this “great compromise” a year from now.
4 posted on
07/02/2012 9:44:27 AM PDT by
RKBA Democrat
(Thank you Chief Justice Benedict Arnold!)
To: DallasBiff
Compromise to the WP means going along with the LIBs. Had a Lib on the Court gone along with the Conservatives, you can bet this piece of trash article would have had a completely different tone. Hypocrite, thy name is damocrat/lib
5 posted on
07/02/2012 9:44:27 AM PDT by
falcon99
To: DallasBiff
Compromise to the left is “their way or the highway”! John Roberts has disgraced the Supreme Court by showing that his decisions are based on intimidation from poiticians and MSM. Basically he has no b@ll$.
6 posted on
07/02/2012 9:52:29 AM PDT by
kenmcg
(How)
To: DallasBiff
I think I’m more angry about this decision than I was about Kelo.
7 posted on
07/02/2012 9:57:34 AM PDT by
Purrcival
(Herman Cain 2012 (*sigh*))
8 posted on
07/02/2012 10:06:31 AM PDT by
Halfmanhalfamazing
( Media doesn't report, It advertises. So that last advertisement you just read, what was it worth?)
To: DallasBiff
Sellout Roberts was blackmailed by the Leftist media in exchange for soppy editorials such as this. Such an utter lack of principles is beneath contempt,
9 posted on
07/02/2012 10:12:17 AM PDT by
txrefugee
To: DallasBiff
He showed that compromise can be consistent with principle. But doesn't compromise have to be consistent with the Constitution?
What if "principle" is not consistent with the Constitution? Throw out the Constitution and keep the principle?
-PJ
10 posted on
07/02/2012 10:26:09 AM PDT by
Political Junkie Too
(If you can vote for President, then your children can run for President.)
To: DallasBiff
This idiot needs to read his own article. He writes, "Aung San Suu Kyi is the daughter of ... a general who was assassinated when she was 2. ... [She} confounded soldiers by walking, alone and unarmed, directly toward their guns. ...She spent most of the next two decades locked up, separated from her two sons, and apart from her husband when he grew sick and died...Now she has been allowed to run for parliament (she won, easily) and travel abroad. At every step she has been criticized by some for sticking to principle too stubbornly ...Her supposed intransigence always has infuriated those more eager to do business with Burma than promote its democracy.
That is the lesson that Roberts needed to undestand. Never compromise principles.
To: DallasBiff
roberts did three things... he lied under oath during his confirmation hearings, he legislated from the bench as a leftwing activist and violated his oath of office and in doing so he committed treason. Anything else is a bold faced lie.
LLS
12 posted on
07/02/2012 10:39:23 AM PDT by
LibLieSlayer
(Don't Tread On Me)
To: DallasBiff
Is this what you “moderates” wanted? The most extreme left wing government in US history?
14 posted on
07/02/2012 11:51:28 AM PDT by
Tzimisce
(THIS SUCKS)
To: DallasBiff
Roberts really sold out to SATAN himself! Rush did a great job today tearing Robert’s ridiculous Flip Flop apart! Roberts was convinced that Obamacare was Unconstitutional,
until Mid May when Obama threatened Roberts and the Media went after him! Seems even Kennedy worked hard to make Roberts see the error of his change to no avail!! Pathetic!
Why didn’t George W. at least make a Proven Conservative the Chief Justice! Scalia shoulld have been the Chief Justice, but then George W. let Gonzales do the vetting and probably the Chief Justice Decision as well! SH*T!
15 posted on
07/02/2012 12:24:36 PM PDT by
True Republican Patriot
(May GOD SAVE OUR AMERICA from ALLAH and his Prophet, HUSSEIN OBAMA!!)
To: DallasBiff
Below just Gaia herself, no deity sits higher in the liberal pantheon than a conservative who screws his brethren.
19 posted on
07/02/2012 12:41:24 PM PDT by
dead
(I've got my eye out for Mullah Omar.)
To: DallasBiff
Roberts compromised between the Constitution and the socialist agenda. The result is permanent damage to the rule of law, and a potential for the rapid slide into socialism. With this double “win” by communist standards, it’s no wonder that the Washington Post is giddy with joy. However, I wonder whether even one decent American sees this as a positive compromise.
20 posted on
07/02/2012 12:58:08 PM PDT by
Pollster1
(A boy becomes a man when a man is needed - John Steinbeck)
To: DallasBiff
That Post article must be some kind of silly joke....
21 posted on
07/02/2012 1:36:10 PM PDT by
The Toad
To: DallasBiff
OK, its time for the lefties to compromise for the next 3 1/2 to 30 years.
23 posted on
07/02/2012 2:41:58 PM PDT by
Leep
(Enemy of the StatistI)
To: DallasBiff; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...
FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.
28 posted on
07/05/2012 9:54:00 PM PDT by
BuckeyeTexan
(Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson