Replies

"I, _________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

It is not his job to appear impartial or to baby the Supreme Court's image and avoid an appearance of overreach or any other PR accusations. He took a solemn oath to impartially discharge his duties under the Constitution. ObamaCare is illegitimate, unconstitutional, and being implemented in violation of the law as written. Roberts and any of the other nine who have any integrity at all are morally obligated to rule in accordance with the law and with the Constitution.

The issue at the time had nothing to do with the constitutionality of ObamaCare. The issue at the time was whether ObamaCare was constitutional on the basis of the legal challenges that were brought before it in that particular case.

This is why I've never given Roberts a hard time about the previous Court decision. That legal challenge was brought by a number of states, and the legal arguments they brought were limited. If you remember at the time, there were a whole bunch of other potential legal challenges that were ready to be filed, but they either couldn't be filed or weren't ready for the Federal court system because ObamaCare had not been fully implemented yet (the Hobby Lobby case, for example).

I said at the time that ObamaCare would never stand up to all of these legal challenges, and that the first case that was brought was the weakest of all of them because it was based on a specific provision that no real judge would ever want to interpret when it involved interpretations of a law that was flawed in so many ways from the time it was first passed by Congress.

These other challenges are much more substantive because they relate directly to either individual freedom under the Bill of Rights, or judicial interpretations of the plain language of a statute.

> “Roberts and any of the other nine who have any integrity at all are morally obligated to rule in accordance with the law and with the Constitution.”

Roberts is compromised.

Some speculate the adoption of his children were at risk when he wrote his 2012 opinion. Whatever the reason, Obama has shown he is willing to cross whatever line of lawlessness is necessary to effect his ends. Roberts is no hero, and like most people will bend down to the those that hold the most power over others.

It is also informative to know that Obama’s lawyers used exactly the playbook of FDR in regards to Social Security. At first Social Security was not a tax but a voluntary old age pensioner’s contribution plan. It wasn’t until later when FDR’s New Deal programs were being shot down in court that he had his lawyers argue that Social Security was a tax and therefore authorized under the 16th Amendment.

One should also know that government run healthcare was also in the works under FDR but was ‘shelved’ until later. So it was in planning for more than 70 years.

If Roberts had written against Obamacare, he could have necessarily set off a challenge to Social Security. He may have been smart enough to write his opinion so that Social Security was not approachable for repeal but he didn’t. And many think he and his staff were smart enough and capable to write such an opinion.

Whether Roberts is still compromised is a question. I suspect Obama is so lawless now that nothing will stop him from preserving his ‘signature’ legislation. I believe even now Obama’s operatives are focused on Roberts and other SCOTUS members and staff to see where the leverage is.