Posted on 06/27/2015 12:32:50 PM PDT by Steelfish
Let’s Drop the Charade: The Supreme Court Is a Political Branch, Not a Judicial One
by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY June 27, 2015
‘But this Court is not a legislature.” Chief Justice John Roberts actually published that sentence in his same-sex marriage dissent on Friday . . . a mere 24 hours after his maestro’s performance in the Supreme Court’s legislative rewrite of the Affordable Care Act — formerly known as “Obamacare,” but now etched in memory as “SCOTUScare,” thanks to Justice Antonin Scalia’s withering dissent.
Roberts’s denial that the Court legislates is astonishing in its cynicism: In saving SCOTUScare, the chief justice not only usurped Congress’s law-writing role with gusto; he claimed the powers, first, to divine legislative purpose from its contradictory expression in legislative language, and, then, to manufacture legislative ambiguity as the pretext for twisting the language to serve the contrived purpose. It takes a Clintonian quantum of cheek to pull that off one day and, on the next, to inveigh against the very thought of it.
Already, an ocean of ink has been spilled analyzing, lauding, and bemoaning the Supreme Court’s work this week: a second life line tossed to SCOTUScare in just three years; the location of a heretofore unknown constitutional right to same-sex marriage almost a century-and-a-half after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment; and the refashioning of Congress’s Fair Housing Act to embrace legal academe’s loopy “disparate impact” theory of inducing discrimination.
Yet, for all the non-stop commentary, one detail goes nearly unmentioned — the omission that best explains this week’s Fundamental Transformation trifecta. Did you notice that there was not an iota of speculation about how the four Progressive justices would vote? There was never a shadow of a doubt.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
Well, if they did that they would not have the “political” votes for this decision.
No word from Graham and McCain who voted to confirm these nominees.
How?
I don’t know but my guess is the adopted children. There was a reason that the Times sat on the adoption story for years. I can think of only two other reasons, taking a bribe early in his career or a compromising sexual association.
What about a simple case of Washingtonitis, which affects about 98% of the powerful people in that town.
Washingtonitis does not make you proclaim two 180 degree opposite positions on the exact same issue on paper and two days apart. People talk like the two decisions were separate but a reading of the constitutionally correct dissents show that they are in fact identical issues.
Roberts was in no way obligated to write the dissent on Obergfell v Hodges but he obviously fought for and won that right....to do what, make himself look like a fool? He could have simply voted against and let Scalia or Thomas carry the heavy water and disappeared into the background thankful for the second decision laying down a smokescreen for his retreat from the national eye. Now he has the Herculean and schizophrenic task of defending these two inconsistent decisions
It is what it is. What it is is determined by the Constitution and those justices who Presidents appoint. Presidents are elected by We The People.
So, if this is some kind of charade what part of the government or constitution do you want to change, and how do you propose to do that?
Looking at two of the blackrobes, one is a dyke and the other an avowed racist. The old hag, Ginsburg wants to lower age of consent to 12, she of course voted for queers to marry.
Of course there is another explanation, he gave it himself in his own words.
I am sick of this blackmail bullsh#t. PROVE IT or shut up about it.
This was the critical reason to stop Obama. Sure McCain and Romney were RINO’s. So many abstained or voted for someone else, and helped Obama get elected, who then nominated Kagan & Sotomayor.
In 2016, if another RINO is the nominee, same result will be repeated, and Hillary will get to appoint replacements for Ginsburg, and several other justices pushing 80 years age. Then we are screwed for 30 to 40 more years, perhaps for ever.
But you are right, he had no duty to compose a dissent; and the one he did compose exposes him as duplicitous.
Dissolve the Soopremes.
Satan is preparing a special place in Hell for those responsible for killing almost 60,000,000 American babies, the greatest genocide in history. That total fabrication of a “right” not found in the Constitution by the SCOTUS set the table for the destruction of God’s plan for the human family that we saw this week. We owe no loyalty to this ungodly government.
We have 3 legislative bodies two active and one inactive. The Executive, the Courts and Congress. Congress, the inactive one, is the one the GOP made useless and redundant. We might as well dump them whats left of representative government.
Therein lies the problem. Maybe the anti-federalists were right.
Robert Bork died in 2012. If he had been confirmed, some of the later Supreme Court decisions might have turned out better, but then Obama would have been able to pick his replacement.
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor.
**********************
Taken as a whole they are the USSC’s “East German Judge”.
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.