Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

JUSTICE ROBERTS, THE MOST HATED MAN IN AMERICA
PJFUSCO.com ^ | June 29, 2012 | By Peter J. Fusco

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government
KEYWORDS: johnroberts; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-93 last
To: Lauren BaRecall

Of Roberts, we can now ask: “What did GWB know about him and when did he known it?”


51 posted on 06/29/2012 10:41:47 AM PDT by Theodore R. (Past is prologue: The American people again let us down in this election cycle.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Rearden

It is now incumbent on us, the voters to throw Commander A$$wipe out of the white house!


52 posted on 06/29/2012 10:42:39 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
In the long-run, it will be a good thing.
How so? Got a couple or three examples?
53 posted on 06/29/2012 10:43:51 AM PDT by oh8eleven (RVN '67-'68)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Roberts sold us out.


54 posted on 06/29/2012 10:46:27 AM PDT by Venturer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Comments?..........

(in)justice roberts has heaped dishonor upon his head with both hands.

He is an unscrupulous scoundrel and worthy of undying contempt.
55 posted on 06/29/2012 10:49:34 AM PDT by Dr.Zoidberg (With (R)epublicans like these, who needs (D)emocrats?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: hinckley buzzard
So judicial review is now a thing of the past. Goodbye Marbury v Madison. This means we only need the SCOTUS a few weeks a year for obscure interstate squabbles. Fine with me. I am tired of this ineffectual blackrobed oligarchy form of gubbermint.

I have often railed against the fact that the nine in black are our real rulers, with lifetime terms and no way to blunt them short of a constitutional amendment which is the same as to say no way to blunt them at all.

It appears that based on this ruling and the Arizona one that Roberts has decided his court is going to be a do-nothing court, deferring to the people's elected representatives in congress. In many ways, this is good and long overdue. However, if when presented with unconstitutional legislative overreaches Roberts is so determined to uphold them that he unilaterally grants congress new powers then he is a dangerous character indeed, and has set himself as the real king of America.

Alas, America, you had a good run.

56 posted on 06/29/2012 10:50:12 AM PDT by pepsi_junkie (Who is John Galt?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
Thanks George Bush!...You picked a real winner! Republicans are their own worst enemy...
57 posted on 06/29/2012 10:53:13 AM PDT by AngelesCrestHighway
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

John Roberts: the Bill Buckner of the judicial branch.


58 posted on 06/29/2012 10:54:04 AM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Verginius Rufus
John Roberts: the Bill Buckner of the judicial branch.

Buckner didn't intend to make that error, Roberts MEANT to do what he did.

59 posted on 06/29/2012 10:54:55 AM PDT by dfwgator (FUJR (not you, Jim))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

“Justice Roberts merely reminded us that Congress’ authority is paramount, political and partisan, and that we get what we elect.”

Utter BS! We are not a democracy. We do not let pass whatever the mob on capitol hill declares. I’ve long thought conservatives were wrong to fetishize judicial restraint. For judicial review is among the fundamental and necessary tasks of the court. What’s improper is when they act like Congress and unilaterally rewrite laws (as with busing) or invent rights that don’t exist (as with abortion). Striking down laws that violate the Constitution is not such an overreach, nor is asserting the existence of rights that do exist.

This tradition that’s grown up of deferring to the wisdom of Congress and not even looking into whether laws are constitutional or not unless they prima facie threaten the parts of the Constitution SCOTUS has arbitrarily decided it likes to defend (strict scrutiny, rational basis, and all that nonsense) is just plain wrong. It’s wrong, wrong, wrong. There’s no reason in law or morality, in heaven or on earth, to defer to Congress. There’s no reason to give the constitutionality of laws the benefit of the doubt.
There’s no reason whatsoever for Roberts to rewrite the law (it may be a penalty, but *if* it were a tax, then it’d be okay) in order to rule in favor of it. There’s no reason to pretend that the taxing power is unlimited.

There’s just plain no reason to this decision.


60 posted on 06/29/2012 10:58:40 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kazan
A Republican-appointed judge betrays the Constitution,

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.

61 posted on 06/29/2012 10:58:47 AM PDT by conservative sympathizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Ping for later: Also, I have always maintained that those in power can make the legal into illegal and the illegal into legal.


62 posted on 06/29/2012 11:00:12 AM PDT by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: garjog

Traitors by the pair

63 posted on 06/29/2012 11:03:04 AM PDT by itsahoot (That Coup d'├ętat we had in 08, It is now complete, with unlimited power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Parmy

Governmental Systems and rules and such work great...unti you plug in human beings...then everything goes to pot.


64 posted on 06/29/2012 11:03:55 AM PDT by DJlaysitup
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
In the long-run, it will be a good thing.

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.

65 posted on 06/29/2012 11:05:51 AM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

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.


66 posted on 06/29/2012 11:07:34 AM PDT by RKBA Democrat (Thank you Chief Justice Arnold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

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.


67 posted on 06/29/2012 11:07:49 AM PDT by vortigern
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: The Toad

“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.


68 posted on 06/29/2012 11:09:02 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas
you get what he was trying to do here in the bigger picture

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.

69 posted on 06/29/2012 11:10:48 AM PDT by itsahoot (That Coup d'├ętat we had in 08, It is now complete, with unlimited power.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: DJlaysitup

Yes, indeed.


70 posted on 06/29/2012 11:12:15 AM PDT by Parmy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

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.


71 posted on 06/29/2012 11:16:44 AM PDT by Kaosinla (The More the Plans Fail. The More the Planners Plan.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AngelesCrestHighway

I’m all in! Throw him out and another 535 if neeed be. Whatever it takes, for as long as it’s needed.


72 posted on 06/29/2012 11:17:58 AM PDT by Rearden (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

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.


73 posted on 06/29/2012 11:18:20 AM PDT by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservative sympathizer

“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.


74 posted on 06/29/2012 11:19:21 AM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

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.


75 posted on 06/29/2012 11:21:47 AM PDT by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
It’s his job to judge whether what Congress does complies with the Constitution.

Exactly, he and his defenders can just stop it with trying to pretend he was on some higher moral plane by tossing back to Congress and we the people have to vote for different reps. If it never happened that we would need protection from power-hungry politcians no matter who elected them, he wouldn't have a job.
76 posted on 06/29/2012 11:25:41 AM PDT by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

“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?


77 posted on 06/29/2012 11:25:44 AM PDT by treetopsandroofs (Had FDR been GOP, there would have been no World Wars, just "The Great War" and "Roosevelt's Wars".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Here is your comment... I hate his guts!

LLS


78 posted on 06/29/2012 11:28:42 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

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.


79 posted on 06/29/2012 11:29:07 AM PDT by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Ironic that old man Bush gave us Justice Souter and GWB gave us John Roberts both notorious traitors.


80 posted on 06/29/2012 11:34:12 AM PDT by kenmcg (How)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

Add me to the hate list.


81 posted on 06/29/2012 11:38:22 AM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
I perhaps could've understood Roberts taking the position that Obamacare should be upheld by SCOTUS and any objections should be dealt with via the election/legislative process - as he touched on in his decision.

I obviously would've understood had he sided instead with the 4 justices that dissented by stating that it is unconstitutional as written and should go back to Congress.

I find it unconscionable that he then 're-wrote' the key part by inserting the "tax" concept in order to find constitutionality where none existed prior.

82 posted on 06/29/2012 11:50:57 AM PDT by mellow velo (Oxymorons: jumbo shrimp, rap music, liberal think-tank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

Won’t answer your stupid question, but if you look online, you will see many on the left realize the danger in the ruling for them.

Not saying I support the law.


83 posted on 06/29/2012 11:58:38 AM PDT by rwfromkansas ("Carve your name on hearts, not marble." - C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Tublecane
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.

The mechanism of extracting the penalty is to draw money away from one's income. It's a tax, a burden, ON income. No taxable income means no payment.

84 posted on 06/29/2012 11:59:54 AM PDT by conservative sympathizer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: itsahoot

Is there an article on that? Can’t find it.

If so, I will completely retract this. I am just basing it upon numerous other articles pointing out that this could (not definitely) but could have at least some good for us despite the horrible reality of the law staying.


85 posted on 06/29/2012 12:03:35 PM PDT by rwfromkansas ("Carve your name on hearts, not marble." - C.H. Spurgeon)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: conservative sympathizer; Tublecane
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.

The mechanism of extracting the penalty is to draw money away from one's income. It's a tax, a burden, ON income. No taxable income means no payment.

Yeah, now you're talking like Roberts. People can have taxes levied on them without having any income at all. If someone is jobless and without any revenue stream and doesn't have health insurance then he faces the penalty of Obamacare. If it's a "tax," then it's a tax regardless of his state of income; therefore, it's not an income tax. It's a "tax" based on whether or not he did something else, that is, purchase an insurance plan. If you buy one, you don't pay the "tax." If you don't, you pay the "tax." You could call it a non-sales tax.
86 posted on 06/29/2012 12:05:57 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: conservative sympathizer

The penalty will be the greater of a flat dollar amount per person, OR a percentage of your taxable income.

Flat dollar amount for individuals: $95 in 2014; $325 in 2015; and $695 in 2016; increases indexed to inflation after that, subject to a cap.


87 posted on 06/29/2012 12:07:21 PM PDT by ironman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: conservative sympathizer

“The mechanism of extracting the penalty is to draw money away from one’s income. It’s a tax, a burden, ON income. No taxable income means no payment.”

Youn can’t actually believe that, can you? This is a wild shot in the dark to avoid thinking about the issue, isn’t it?


88 posted on 06/29/2012 12:14:22 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 84 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
This is our fight, not John Roberts’, and we should accept the challenge without whining over his decision.

Yet another of the many dumb-ass remarks regarding Roberts's ploy. Roberts basically said that if he were to decide things based on how Congress and the President described them (It's not a tax; it's a penalty), Obamacare would have to be considered unconstitutional. Then he decided that he didn't want it to be unconstitutional so he interpreted it to mean exactly what they were all claiming it did NOT mean in order to give to them what they were wanting all along. This is not being a good judge. This is sophomoric word games designed to arrive at a predetermined end no matter what. He pulled a bigger wad of dreck out of his butt on this one than Blackmun did in Roe v Wade.
89 posted on 06/29/2012 12:16:08 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kenmcg
If G.H.W. Bush had picked a real conservative instead of Souter, that person might still be on the court--instead of Sotomayor.

Republicans have a bad track record in recent decades: Eisenhower picked Earl Warren, Nixon picked Blackmun and Powell, Ford picked Stevens, Bush-41 picked Souter, and now Bush-43's brilliant pick has betrayed us.

90 posted on 06/29/2012 12:16:46 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

“You could call it a non-sales tax.”

Call it a poll tax, because that’s what it is. It is a head tax directly laid on individuals without regard to their income. Poll taxes are illegal. Therefore, so is Obamacare. (It’s illegal for other reasons, too; this is just one.)


91 posted on 06/29/2012 12:17:32 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: aruanan

“He pulled a bigger wad of dreck out of his butt on this one than Blackmun did in Roe v Wade.”

Yes, because at least according to the 9th amendment there are such things as unspecified reserved rights. So the Roe argument is over whether abortion is or is not a right, not whether or not it’s in the Constitution. Obamacare, whether the penalty is a tax or not, goes against explicit portions of the Constitution, as well as its overall logic. Rewriting the law to make it constitutional goes against the most basic priciples of what it means to be a judge, as everyone understands it.


92 posted on 06/29/2012 12:21:02 PM PDT by Tublecane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: rwfromkansas

You won’t answer me, because you can’t.


93 posted on 06/29/2012 1:46:29 PM PDT by FredZarguna (Roberts opinion for the majority: nicht einmal falsch.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-93 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson