Traitors by the pair
Posted on 06/29/2012 9:58:19 AM PDT by Red Badger
Chief Justice John Roberts is the most hated man in the United States of America today. He will be hated forever by strict constructionalists, but he will not be hated by conservatives reasonably versed in Supreme Court rulings, they will simply dislike him. After all, Justice Roberts is on solid Constitutional ground.
Most people have never heard of James Kent. He was a professor at Columbia University Law School after which he became chief justice of New York’s Supreme Court. Law students are introduced to him early in their schooling, then forget him as soon as possible. They shouldn’t, and it appears justice Roberts didn’t.
In his introduction to a lecture delivered in 1794, professor Kent stated, “It is regarded…as an undisputed principle in American Politics, that the different departments of Government should be kept as far as possible separate and distinct.” Which is another way of saying, in this country we have three branches of government which are supposed to keep out of each other’s fundamental business. The Legislature legislates while the Executive executes while the Judiciary adjudicates. Ever since John Marshall established the principal of judicial review in Marbury v. Madison, the system has been such that the supposedly co-equal branches were expected to respect each other’s territory only to cross boundaries when one or the other seriously stepped out of line.
As onerous and offensive as Obamacare is, neither the President nor Congress stepped out of line in their fundamental duties when structuring and implementing it. One could argue they tested the limits of their respective authorities, but they were nevertheless doing their jobs. And though Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer can all be lumped into a category of political jurists who have little respect for the Constitution, Roberts’ decision cannot be held in so little regard as theirs.
The history and tradition of our American system of government is such that the Supreme Court has, for the most part, been loath to tamper with Congress’ primary function, a purely political one. That he forced a peculiar interpretation of arguably the worst legislation in Congress’ history is totally consistent with what the Court has done throughout its history. Justice Roberts merely reminded us that Congress’ authority is paramount, political and partisan, and that we get what we elect. In point of fact, he’s right, our remedy is not in his court, but in the election process.
Justice John Bannister Gibson wrote a dissenting opinion in Eakin v. Raub, 12 Sargeant & Rawle 330 (Pa., 1825) which speaks directly to the issue, “I am of [the] opinion that it rests with the people, in whom full and absolute sovereign power resides, to correct abuses in legislation, by instructing their representatives to repeal the obnoxious act.” To which should be added, “and if their representatives don’t, then it is incumbent on the people to roust them from office and elect representatives who will.” This is our fight, not John Roberts’, and we should accept the challenge without whining over his decision.
Throughout human history in law and politics, one thing is absolutely clear, when people have had enough, they act against their government, not with it. The United States of America was designed to facilitate, if not encourage that action. The Constitution assaults any contrary notion of our right to pursue a change in the way our government operates. Roberts did nothing more than remind us to use that right. If we do not, it’s our fault, not his.
Amendments are part of the constitution, including the income tax amendment. He's got to uphold that as much as the rest of the constitution. Why not try to repeal the income tax amendment? So many are enraged by all this. Now would be a good time to try.
Ping for later: Also, I have always maintained that those in power can make the legal into illegal and the illegal into legal.
Traitors by the pair
Governmental Systems and rules and such work great...unti you plug in human beings...then everything goes to pot.
Nuts! It is a horrible ruling with NO silver-lining. Yesterday, Mark Levin eviscerated the ruling.
Roberts is a purely evil man. What he did was to vastly increase the Power of the State.
If anyone thinks there is anything good about this ruling they are delusional.
CJ Arnold simply acted as he was expected to. He did us a great favor in underlining the fact that we’re playing a rigged game that we can never, ever win.
Whether the GOP wins or we get “conservative” judges is irrelevant. The game is rigged.
The author of this piece of trash can shove it where the sun doesn’t shine. Lawyers have taken this country down the path of destruction. Please don’t use the word “Justice” when referring to the traitor John Roberts.
“Also, since the Obamacare (tax) law did not originate in the House, it is illegal.”
It would be illegal either way, since tax or no it spent money and spending bills have to originate in the house. That’s why they went through the charade of gutting an unrelated bill and “deeming” it to have passed the house.
Strange since he announced today that he felt he had to save the bill at all costs, it was the will of the people. Well he did save it in a way that defied any sue of legal logic, or common sense.
God I hate Lawyers.
Yes, indeed.
There is no short-term or long-term silver lining. Only a political necrophiliac could see something attractive in this corpse of a ruling.
There are no words in the tongue of men to describe the treachery that has taken place, nor the retribution deserving of Roberts.
I would have the SS (interesting share of an acronym these days) knocking on my door, if I said what I really thought.
I’m all in! Throw him out and another 535 if neeed be. Whatever it takes, for as long as it’s needed.
I despise him. I don’t care what kind of chess game he thinks he was playing, it was within his power to shoot down this unconstitutional pos, in fact it’s in job description. He didn’t have to find ways to “finesse” it for the sake of politics or anything else-it was his JOB to protect the Constitution and we the people from unconstitutionality, and if this doesn’t fit the bill then nothing does. He and his defenders can spin like a top, he didn’t do his job when he needed to do it like never before.
“Amendments are part of the constitution, including the income tax amendment. He’s got to uphold that as much as the rest of the constitution. Why not try to repeal the income tax amendment? So many are enraged by all this. Now would be a good time to try.”
In what way is the penalty an income tax? It doesn’t tax income, it taxes people for existing without insurance coverage. It’s a poll tax.
When even Kennedy would have dismissed this pos, then Roberts is really reaching, stretching to the breaking point, to try to defend this on any grounds. Fricken politics, I hate these people for playing games with real people’s lives and freedom. I wish they could all be dismissed at the push of a button-we could do better choosing from the phone book, as said Buckley.
“Strange since he announced today that he felt he had to save the bill at all costs, it was the will of the people.”
Who said this, Roberts?
Sorry, I missed that, can you please provide a source?
Here is your comment... I hate his guts!
LLS
So because politicians are elected by we the people, it can never happen that they’ll try to inflict unconstitutional legislation on us against our will beause after all we elected them? The what do we need him and the Supreme Court for? After all, we must have agreed beforehand to whatever any politician inflicts on us, after all we elected them. He’s a disingenuous lying pos.
Ironic that old man Bush gave us Justice Souter and GWB gave us John Roberts both notorious traitors.
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.