Skip to comments.Will Roberts Get Rolled on Census Case?
Posted on 06/17/2019 8:43:44 AM PDT by bitt
click here to read article
Agree with you. Very good posting, tom h.
Good posting, RitaOK.
The age of an account has nothing to do with anything, so snicker away.
If its credentials, I’ll put mine up against those of tom h. I can guarantee you I know more constitutional law than he does. He’s an engineer and possesses the typical arrogance of one.
Your sole contribution to illuminating the subject was "What condescending nonsense".
I'll go with the guy that had actual reasons, instead of your half-pinion.
Engineer? That is so 1990s. Senior tech exec since 99, corp exec since 2003, CEO since 2008. Began teaching at universities at night at age 25.
Lay out your own credentials, bonehead.
I bet the closest you get to anything significant is your name, when in the local pub, you tell the drunken truck drivers and Harley riders that you’re related to the famous violinist.
Sorry to put you through this, but these clowns don’t know when to give up! I haven’t done this much sparring ever, especially given the disparity in intelligence, knowledge, and experience. Oh well, there’s always a first time.
If obamacare was so good, lets bring it back then. What was all the bitching about repealing it?
I caused the fight, and it’s gone on for 88 comments. It wasn’t about Obamacare good or bad, it was about the merits of SC Justice Roberts’ decision to join with the lefties in his opinion to uphold it.
Read my first long post, #12. I wasn’t actually trying to endorse Roberts’ opinion, I was just trying to defend his honor a bit. A lot of shallow Freepers think he is a tool of the left, or a toady, or had been bribed, because of that decision. None of the above, in fact. He made a nuanced and, to him, principled decision.
But I had no idea that some freepers still had emotional wounds, 7 years later, about that opinion. They kind of remind me of the baseball fans in Brooklyn, in 1978, who were still angry that Walter O’Malley had moved the Dodgers 20 years earlier.
These n00b guys don't hold a candle to Eschoir or some of the early trolls.
I've always kind of filed Roberts as a question mark under "not enough information".
Now that’s an interesting way to put it, and I agree.
I think Roberts’ philosophy on judicial restraint is coming out more. And he follows this philosophy even when it conflicts with his underlying conservativism. This is maddening and will continue to drive we conservatisms crazy. But I can only guess is that he is trying to set an example for other jurists, to not vote their politics but to merely intepret the law, and follow the constitution strictly.
I think this is a failing effort with the current four liberal justices. That’s what makes this even more perplexing.
There is another thing about Roberts. He believes that the court should not write new law, OK. He will never be in the majority of a future conservative Roe v Wade. But he also believes in incrementalism, that the court should not be issuing decisions that cause earthquakes. That’s why the court is avoiding broad decisions on matters like religious liberty, e.g., forcing Christian bakers to bake gay wedding cakes. He seems to not want to issue the big decision the first time the matter comes before the SCOTUS. For some reason, he wants the issue to bubble up a few times before the big decision.
Look, Obamacare was a monstrosity. I hated it, you hated it, we all hated it. But in its bulky, repulsive 2,000 pages only the mandate and the Medicare penalties were unconstitutional. Some of you are still so angry you are blinded to this fact. But I won’t waste any more electrons trying to get you to see beyond your rage.
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.