Skip to comments.Chief Justice Appears To Take Shot Across Gorsuch’s Bow
Posted on 07/07/2017 7:11:06 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
In remarks given at a judicial conference in Pennsylvania this week, Roberts reiterated his long-held view that the Court should speak with one voice wherever possible that is to say, he supports a consensus-driven approach to opinion writing in which the justices strive for unanimity and avoid writing their own concurrences or dissents. In doing so, he appeared to rebuke Gorsuch, who has flashed a propensity for writing on his own in his first months as a justice.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
Obamma must still be holding something over roberts' head.
hey chief chickenshit roberts...TELL IS AGAIN HOW THE OBAMACARE PENALTY IS ACTUALLY A TAX YOU SON OF A TURNIP.
The quintessential examples being Traitor Roberts 0Don’tCare rulings.
It was better when Roberts stayed silent.
Well, I guess we knew it. Roberts is part of the consensus driven swamp dwelling crowd that supports the collective over individual rights and liberties.
Gorsuch is a justice and no one can tell him he cannot write his own opinion on any matter that comes before the court. No one. Not even our ever esteemed, beloved font of reason and wisdom - it's a tax - Roberts, may god never let him live down the indignity.
Howcum all those 5-4s, then?
Howcum all those 5-4s, then?
Wait until President Trump nominates the next 3
Roberts is compromised.
Wonder how much he got for his Obamacare decision?
Traitor Roberts needs to resign so he can spend more time with his buddies on Malta.
Hey Roberts....why did you change your opinion on Obamacare in the middle of writing to side with the left. Highly unusual behavior. Someone owns Robert’s vote on the court. That is obvious.
In other words, he is your typical smarmy Harvard graduate.
I repeat what I consider is the ONLY fidelity that the Supreme Court owes. It is not to the executive, nor the Congress, nor itself as an institution. It is only to the law as long as it does not abridge the Constitution and otherwise only to the Constitution. Preserving “precedent” and ruling unanimously is NOT a “Constitutional” imperative of the SCOTUS.
There is something very fishy about Roberts. The O-care ruling was a complete betrayal. I thought blackmail but maybe he was just a Trojan horse. Whatever it is we are stuck with him for a long time.
I was one of the first to recognize Roberts is not “courageous” like conservatives said when he was nominated. He’s a big firm elitist uber snob who never accomplished a damn thing in his life. And I’ll go out on another limb. Gorsuch is a snob too but at least a conservative one for now.
This is from the epileptic goofus who gave us Obozocare. Scalia begged him not to side with it, now he attacks the new Scalia, Gorsuch. And what about those crazy leftist wacko broads, should they also speak with one voice?
Dissents sometimes become tomorrow’s majority opinion.
Justice Harlan was the sole dissenter in Plessy v Ferguson, where the SCOTUS majority held that separate but equal should prevail.
That all changed some 50 years later when Brown v Board of education reversed the Plessy Majority.
Dissents to Roberts’ votes will surely become law someday too.
I guess that provides some insight into the decision Roberts made to turn his back on his oath of office and sacrifice his principles to side with the court’s leftists to protect Obama and Obamacare.
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.