Posted on 05/02/2015 8:02:26 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
This has been a week of surprises from Chief Justice John Roberts. Wednesday he joined the Court’s more liberal members in a 5-4 decision in a significant First Amendment case. Tuesday at the argument in Obergefell v. Hodges, the marriage equality cases, he suggested that a ban on same-sex marriage might present a “straightforward question of sexual discrimination.” These superficially surprising moves support Roberts’s oft-repeated claim that he believes the Justices should decide cases based on the law, not politics.
But as Roberts’s tenth term as Chief Justice comes to a close, the biggest tests of that claim are still to come in the Court’s decisions in Obergefell and in King, the latest challenge to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While no one can know for sure what Roberts will do in those cases, there’s a good chance that he’ll remain unpredictable into June.
In Wednesday’s decision in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar, Roberts surprised Court watchers when he joined the Court’s more liberal members to hold that the First Amendment permits Florida to ban judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign funds.
Roberts wrote for the Court that “[a] State may assure its people that judges will apply the law without fear or favor—and without having personally asked anyone for money.” This was a big deal, and a relative bombshell by the Chief Justice. In the first decade of the Roberts Court, almost every term has had a significant decision sharply limiting campaign finance legislation, and Roberts has been in the majority in all of them. Last year, in McCutcheon v. FEC, he wrote the opinion striking down federal limits on aggregate campaign contributions, stating that the $123,000 limit per two-year election cycle “seriously restrict[s] participation in the democratic process”
(Excerpt) Read more at newrepublic.com ...
It is “single-payer’ heath care and “public” schooling but both are merely station stops. The final destination? Answer: Communism, Gulags, Death Camps, firing squads, mass burials, concentration camps, ovens, and killing fields.
I have only seen one where he is with a gay looking waiter and some other guy. Might have been completely innocent such as at some lawyers convention. Can you post or link to the other homo photos? I don't mean this in a nasty way. Its just that I have only seen one. PM me if you want to.
The “mother” looks a little butchy, I wonder if she is gay, too. A weird, odd couple they.
No, he’s being blackmailed by the thread to take his adopted kids away.
oh boy...
robert is not turning left is not stupid he knows right from wrong hes simply being blackmailed by the administration for smuggling his kids in from ireland illegally nothing new here
“Roberts’s oft-repeated claim that he believes the Justices should decide cases based on the law, not politics.”
Roberts then is either a lyer or hes delusional if setting his own arbitrary numbers and standards is not the subject of politics.
If law were the standard which limit’s a Judges actions then Law alone would decide how much is too much, and what is lawful vs unlawful discrimination. Law alone would also define the standard of equality in its application.
But in all theses Matters The chief Injustice John Roberts not only dictated his own standards in doing so he usepred the power of the elected leglsator to make law as the people saw fit.
Indeed it is most ironic that he claims his supreme power to rewrite existing law made by the legislator from the Constitution which anyone having taken the time to read the 11 page document nether mentions that power nor any of the specific terms of the edicts he issued.
John Roberts like many of his hand picked Conspirators on the Federal bench do not practice law written by legislator or ratified by our States they write new law not written or for that matter practiced anywhere before them. This is the power of a dictator not that of a judge of innocence or guilt in a case under law.
“Why is it always the republican appointees who seem to change allegiances after they are appointed?
I don’t recall liberal democrat appointees making such swift and dramatic philosophical flip-flops to the conservative side.
Maybe there really is something to the suspicion that the republican/conservative appointees are being blackmailed into traitorous behavior.”
This is most likely due to a cultural influence thing, just like most of our congressmen and legislators. Liberals tend to congregate in capital cities so that they may become friends of friends and influence the social circle and thus values & views of those in power.
Who your friends are likely defines who you become, this is even more true of politicians than it is of regular men but it is true of most all men including ‘judges’. So when John moved to Washington and became an important judge one of the first things leftist will do is try to infiltrate his circles of friends. To make them all thing more like them and thus john himself.
Only a minority of men are generally unaffected by this, and almost no man can claim to be immune to this kind of influence. Liberals are particularly adept at this kind of influence which is why they tend to congregate into cities, and go into carriers where they might have the best chance to influence the most people. (Media, schools, ect...)
for a simpel reason, like Moth’s they are drawn to a flame
In those days, the Democratic Party was moving left and many Democrats were left behind. More recently, the Republicans shifted to the right and some of the Eisenhower, Nixon, and Ford appointees didn't keep up. They were essentially part of the Establishment, the legal elite, and two decades down the road they were closer to the Clinton-era Democratic Party than to the post-Reagan GOP.
In those days, too, Supreme Court appointments weren't as carefully vetted and scrutinized. Eisenhower picked William Brennan because he thought appointing an Irish Catholic Democrat would help him win reelection. Ike's people were impressed by a speech Brennan gave, but Brennan was reading a speech written for his state's Chief Justice, who couldn't give it himself (that's the story, anyway, though it may not be true).
Even more recently, Bush I went with the unknown David Souter because Reagan had such a hard time in Congress with appointees like Robert Bork. Bush may just have wanted to get the position filled quickly and without trouble. That was just about the only positive thing to be said for Souter.
The goal is the abolition of marriage:
Government schools are serving three meals a day. Even in the “nicest” school districts, “home” is just a dormitory for the government school.
it’s a great story about how Robert smuggled his kids in the US if you do your homework his wife insisted on a blonde haired boy and a blonde hair girl from Cork County IReland her mother’s County they took the original birth parents they took the kids to Central America he smuggled them in from there he got caught that’s the story
exactly the New York Times did a bio on him years ago and when they discover the truth today stop writing about the story and blamed blamed it on not wanting to violate the kids civil rights they know the truth.
John Roberts follows the money rather than the law. Thanks, W.
If there was anything illegal in the adoption, the New York Times would probably go ahead and pursue him. I still think this is being used as a cover for the real story. He may have skated the law by adopting them through Central America, but it was evidently legal, albeit shady.
He originally was on the same side as Scalia and the conservatives and authored the original majority decision, which evolved into the dissent. Something changed that May or June that altered him completely as a Justice.
I have posted this before--I will say it again.
Everyone on Free Republican should write their Member of Congress and a Member who is also a member of House Judiciary. A really simple fix for this problem.
General discussion of Justice Roberts is widespread. The line of this topic is that the two children he and his wife adopted could not be adopted under applicable law--so the children were obtained and the adoption was accomplished illegally through a third country.
The Administration has generally threatened Roberts with some form of disclosure which also threatens the adoption proceeding in order to leverage his vote on pending Supreme Court cases.
We do not know if any of these rumors have any merit or not however Congress should immediately investigate to determine what the merits are.
He was blackmailed and then bought.
.
Back to the thread.
Check out David's comment # 76.
Thanks, David.
BTTT
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.
![”Image](http://i44.tinypic.com/9ulyxd.jpg";)