Posted on 06/28/2013 9:15:03 AM PDT by cotton1706
Viewed in isolation, the Supreme Court term that just ended had elements of modesty. The court declined to do away with affirmative action, gave Congress another shot at salvaging the Voting Rights Act and refused to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
But glancing at an end-of term snapshot can be misleading. The more meaningful way to look at the court is as a movie, one starring Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. as a canny strategist with a tough side, and his eyes on the horizon. He is just 58 and is likely to lead the court for another two decades or more.
Chief Justice Roberts has proved adept at persuading the court’s more liberal justices to join compromise opinions, allowing him to cite their concessions years later as the basis for closely divided and deeply polarizing conservative victories.
His patient and methodical approach has allowed him to establish a robustly conservative record while ranking second only to Justice Anthony Kennedy as the justice most frequently in the majority.
“This court takes the long view,” said Kannon K. Shanmugam, a lawyer with Williams & Connolly in Washington. “It proceeds in incremental steps.”
On Tuesday, when the court struck down a part of the Voting Rights Act, Chief Justice Roberts harvested seeds he had planted four years before. In his 2009 opinion, writing for eight justices, he allowed the Voting Rights Act to stand. But the price he exacted from the court’s liberal wing was language quoted in Tuesday’s decision that seems likely to ensure the demise of the law’s centerpiece, Section 5, which requires federal oversight of states with a history of discrimination.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
I don’t know what to think. I hope this article is correct.
Robert’s Obamacare vote is unforgivable and supremely influential on the economy. How can any serious reader see Roberts as “pro-business” in light of it?
Talk about “in the eye of the Be Holder”.
Liberalism is a mental disease and those showing signs of it should be in counseling with a conservative psychologist.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....yeah, right.
I didn’t see anything regarding Obamacare in this article. Are you insinuating that we’ll see a flood of lawsuits against Obamacare once it’s implemented?
Smoke and mirrors! Roberts opinion on Obama care is despotic.
But, I hold out hope that the poison pills he put into Obamacare with the Commerce Clause and the opt-out still can be extremely important.
Obamacare is coming before the court again. And if you remember, Roberts’ majority opinion clearly disallowed any use of the Commerce Clause in allowing Obamacare. He hung his hat on taxes. Now Obamacare is coming before the court on the mandates in regard to religion. If you assume, according to the article, that Roberts will be true to form, he could eliminate the mandate on first amendment grounds. And Obamacare crumbles.
It’s just a theory, but a NYT article like this will definitely put fear in the hearts and minds of liberals.
Ya gottabekiddingme.
Very, very bad joke.
I saw the Title and thought this must be coming from a liberal.
Then I saw the source, NY Times. Yep.
Obamacare is already coming before the court again, regarding the mandate and religious institutions. They could gut the mandate, and without the mandate Obamacare crumbles, even if it remains law.
So he’s second only to Kennedy in voting WITH the majority?
In what way does that distinguish him from a weather vane?
Yeah, I take anything from the NYT with a grain of salt. But keep in mind that every liberal reads the NYT. Can’t sit well with them.
Liars the times to picket and confront the Times are now !
What baffles me is the argument. 87 congress members and a president are racist because sodomizers have rights ?
The Chief Justice can set the rule of the the arguments of merit to the case before the court. It’s done every day it’s known as “the judge won’t allow”. Because the administration now favors “gay marriage” I wouldn’t expect what could be called a healthy defence from them. Sodomy wasn’t the issue . The issue was protecting the integrity and intention of a basic unit of society through a mechanisim known as marriage to encourage familys.
What else should we expect from a political party which itself has gone through a marriage with one world socialist radicals known to many as communists who can’t even use the word God. They’ve hyphenated into Demo-Coms.
Roberts is a traitor to the Constitution and the principles/people he pledged to serve.
This is from the New York times. pure BS lies
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.