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

Skip to comments.

John Roberts Compromise of 2012
The Washington Post ^ | June 29, 2012 | Charles Lane

Posted on 07/01/2012 4:12:25 PM PDT by centurion316

The Supreme Court’s health-care ruling is welcome because it is a compromise. The justices overcame their differences, defusing political conflict and channeling it into the election where it belongs.

But the ruling is historic because it is a Compromise — a crisis-averting pact across lines of ideology, party and region, the likes of which we have not seen since pre-Civil War days.

Four of the court’s five Republican-appointed conservatives wanted to strike down the Democratic Party’s most cherished legislative achievement since the Great Society, dealing an election-year political blow to President Obama.

Their legal arguments were hardly specious, but they were novel enough to be plausibly branded partisan and opportunistic — possibly in a dissenting opinion by four liberal Democratic appointees on the court that would have become a de facto Obama campaign manifesto.

For Chief Justice John Roberts, the temptation to join the other four GOP appointees, consequences be damned, must have been strong. Surely this lifelong conservative has little use for “Obamacare.”

Yet he is also a student of history, especially pre-Civil War America; his intellectual biography of Daniel Webster won Harvard’s undergraduate writing prize in 1976. ...

Roberts grasped two realities. First: In a great national debate, no side has a monopoly on wisdom. Second: Conservatism has no future if the country slides into division and dysfunction.

And so, instead of standing on the legal principles articulated by his conservative brethren, Roberts sacrificed some of those precepts and persuaded some court liberals to reciprocate.

This was no capitulation. Roberts dealt from strength, holding four aces named Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.

What emerged was less a legal opinion than a plan for national cohesion, on terms remarkably favorable to conservatives.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: election; obamacare; scotus
I do not agree with Justice Roberts Opinion, nor do I agree with Mr. Lane's analysis. The dissenting opinion fully explains why the ACA is fatally flawed from a Constitutional perspective. But, Mr. Lane correctly points out that this unfortunate turn of events presents a number of advantages for conservatives in the coming elections.

As Britt Hume pointed out: "The dogs don't like the dog food". We need to point this out to the American people strongly and often.

1 posted on 07/01/2012 4:12:39 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: centurion316
"In any compromise between good and evil, evil wins."

-- Ayn Rand.

2 posted on 07/01/2012 4:15:02 PM PDT by FredZarguna (When you find yourself arguing against Scalia and Thomas, you AREN'T a conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Exactly the fawning press Roberts sought with his decision to screw the country. Hope he rots in hell.


3 posted on 07/01/2012 4:17:39 PM PDT by nhwingut (Sarah Palin 12... No One Else (Maybe Tim Thomas))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FredZarguna

That’s a great quote. In a similar vein, I quote myself:

“It is not a virtue that you are able to compromise with fools.”


4 posted on 07/01/2012 4:17:48 PM PDT by Brilliant
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Someone needs to tell the WaPo that none of the “Compromises” averted a Civil War.


5 posted on 07/01/2012 4:18:00 PM PDT by henkster (Why should I care? Why should I care?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
"The Supreme Court’s health-care ruling is welcome because it is a compromise."

You don't compromise with the U.S. Constitution. Eroding the Constitution is eroding the liberty of the American people. A compromise with the socialists is always a move to the left toward socialist tyranny.

6 posted on 07/01/2012 4:18:57 PM PDT by PapaNew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
Second: Conservatism has no future if the country slides into division and dysfunction

ha ha ha projection!

7 posted on 07/01/2012 4:20:40 PM PDT by plain talk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: henkster

After the Civil War you had the “Compromise of 1877” when the Democrats allowed Rutherford B. Hayes to become President and the Republicans handed over the South to the Democratic Party. (Slightly exaggerating because much of the South was already under Democrat rule.)


8 posted on 07/01/2012 4:21:38 PM PDT by Verginius Rufus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
Roberts grasped two realities. First: In a great national debate, no side has a monopoly on wisdom. Second: Conservatism has no future if the country slides into division and dysfunction.

These are not realities; these are liberal tropes. Moreover, does not the WaPo consider that the job of the Supreme Court their ONLY job, really is to preserve and defend the Constitution? Or that in this effort, it is the Court's DUTY to divide those who love and support the Constitution from those who hate and revile it? And on the matter of dysfunction, without the Constitution as our fundamental law, the nation is ALREADY fundamentally and profoundly dysfunctional? It's also interesting that (at least in the quoted portion) the WoPo never deigns to mention the Constitution at all.

9 posted on 07/01/2012 4:23:33 PM PDT by John Valentine (Deep in the Heart of Texas)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
"But the ruling is historic because it is a Compromise — a crisis-averting pact across lines of ideology, party and region, the likes of which we have not seen since pre-Civil War days. "

So, the powers that be are betting on the fact that they have another 40 years to milk the American public...

10 posted on 07/01/2012 4:25:12 PM PDT by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
"But the ruling is historic because it is a Compromise — a crisis-averting pact across lines of ideology, party and region, the likes of which we have not seen since pre-Civil War days. "

So, the powers that be are betting on the premise that they have another 40 years to milk the American public...

11 posted on 07/01/2012 4:25:38 PM PDT by Tench_Coxe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Politician’s are supposed to compromise - not justices.


12 posted on 07/01/2012 4:26:01 PM PDT by eclecticEel (Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness: 7/4/1776 - 3/21/2010)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Imagine if a Congress and a President passed a law saying that every American must attend a Christian Church service every Sunday or pay a fine. The Supreme Court says that due to the 1st amendment, government can’t mandate anyone go to church, but they can impose a tax on those who don’t. Huh?


13 posted on 07/01/2012 4:26:46 PM PDT by running_dog_lackey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Yes, it was a compromise the likes of which has not been seen since pre-Civil War days. John Roberts can rest assured that he will take his place in legal history beside the authors of the Dred Scott decision.


14 posted on 07/01/2012 4:27:05 PM PDT by CaptainMorgantown
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: nhwingut
Exactly the fawning press Roberts sought with his decision to screw the country.

Yep. He did his duty for the ruling class, and now harvests their praise. The nation? Oh. Well. Hey, there's an election coming up, chumps, deal with it. I'm off to Malta for a well-deserved vacation.

15 posted on 07/01/2012 4:30:48 PM PDT by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe

It’s not averting a crisis, it’s gearing one up.


16 posted on 07/01/2012 4:32:07 PM PDT by mrsmel (One Who Can See)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

They did not “overcome their differences”.


17 posted on 07/01/2012 4:32:51 PM PDT by Williams (No Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

” persuaded some court liberals to reciprocate.”

Bullshit. Roberts was all by himself on the Commerce Clause, which is supposedly the gain for conservatives in the decision. The doctrinaire leftists on the Court gave not an inch on that issue and specifically dissented on the Commerce Clause ruling.

As usual, the left compromised none at all and the right signed away the house but claim they cleverly achieved some nebulous moral victory.


18 posted on 07/01/2012 4:36:45 PM PDT by ModelBreaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Vested with unlimited power as the SCOTUS Chief Justice, John Roberts managed to overreach: he passed a law the Congress had not passed. Four conservative Justices called him on it, saying in effect, “You’re on your own.” I say, “Too clever by half, and clearly unconstitutional.”


19 posted on 07/01/2012 4:43:36 PM PDT by Grampa3711 (Some people bring happiness wherever they go; others, whenever.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
"Although he upheld the health care law on another basis, Roberts sided with the court’s four conservatives in declaring that Congress may not, under the Commerce Clause, force people to engage in a market transaction.

The five-member majority view effectively rewrites existing law. It’s the first time since before the 1942 case Wickard v. Filburn, a precedent that was affirmed in the 2005 case Gonzales v. Raich, that the Supreme Court has placed a limit on Congress’s authority make national economic regulation that substantially affects interstate commerce.,

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/07/chuck-schumer-john-roberts-broke-promise-commerce-clause-health-care-wickard-filburn-gonzales-raich.php

========================

I hope we don't realize the good he has done until Nov 7th.

20 posted on 07/01/2012 4:45:30 PM PDT by NoLibZone (We must get down on our knees each day and thank God that McCain/Palin didn't win in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CaptainMorgantown
Actually, the parallels to Dred Scott are somewhat chilling in terms of the place where the country now is: This election will be decided in just eleven or twelve "border States." In all of the other States, the opposition party has no chance whatsoever. That tells you where we are inexorably headed...

An interesting aside is that Chief Justice Taney worked the politics behind the scenes very hard to line up support from the other Justices and then wrote the decision himself.

21 posted on 07/01/2012 4:49:06 PM PDT by FredZarguna (When you find yourself arguing against Scalia and Thomas, you AREN'T a conservative.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: plain talk

“Division and dysfunction” that was promoted by communist agitators.

They always figure that compromise is us giving into them. Well getting between me and my doctor is going wayy too far and it’s now literally a matter of life and death. There are a lot of ways to solve our health care issues other than seizing control of the entire system a la the UK but the communists just can’t help themselves.


22 posted on 07/01/2012 4:50:25 PM PDT by Aria ( 2008 wasn't an election - it was a coup d'etat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

23 posted on 07/01/2012 5:12:41 PM PDT by afraidfortherepublic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: afraidfortherepublic

That is friggin’ awesome!
Thanks for posting.


24 posted on 07/01/2012 5:16:34 PM PDT by nascarnation
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

So right. This country passed dysfunction junction a ways back. Its going to be a miracle if Roberts ruling doesn’t start CWII.


25 posted on 07/01/2012 6:28:01 PM PDT by Georgia Girl 2 (The only purpose of a pistol is to fight your way back to the rifle you should never have dropped.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
Maybe Benedict Roberts needs a hearing aid! CZAR B.O. and everyone in his adminstration who presented their legal arguments to the court said that the penalty was NOT a TAX. I guess Benedict didn't hear them.

So good old Benedict, afraid of what the Washington Compost and the NY Slimes would say about him, upheld the law by rewriting it. IMAGINE THAT, A CONSERVATIVE LEGISLATOR ON THE BENCH?

What happened to the limitation that a TAX cannot be appealed until it is being collected? CZAR B.O.'s TAX will be collected in 2014. NO STANDING?

Benedict's Court also did a wonderful job on the "Sovereign" State of Arizona! Although the Feds claim exclusive authority on Immigration, I wonder can a State require proof of legal presence, like the European Countries that we are so diligently trying to copy?
26 posted on 07/01/2012 7:02:34 PM PDT by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: leprechaun9

The Court has ruled that the Mandate expressed in the ACA is a tax and so as a matter of law that’s what it now is. Note that the President’s minions are supporting your argument, they are insisting that it is still a mandate.

People don’t really understand mandates, but they do understand taxes and they don’t like them very much. The Administration’s worst nightmare is that Obamacare be perceived to be the gigantic tax increase that it really is.

This issue will not be resolved in the courts, it will be resolved at the ballot box.


27 posted on 07/01/2012 7:13:41 PM PDT by centurion316
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
The justices overcame their differences

Huh? Roberts did not convince a single liberal justice that the Commerce Clause limits government power.

The liberals took his bizarre "tax" opinion upholding ObamaCare as a surprise gift, kicked him in the balls, laughed and went on their way thinking to themselves what a fool that man was.

28 posted on 07/01/2012 7:42:51 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
the five-justice vote for a restrictive reading of the Constitution’s commerce clause caps that font of federal power.

Actually it does NOT "cap that font of federal power."

Roberts screwed the pooch on this.

Had he voted WITH the 4 conservatives to strike down ObamaCare as a violation of the Commerce Clause, then this decision would be binding precedent for the holding limiting the power of government under the Commerce Clause.

But as Ginsburg points out in her dissent, by deciding to uphold ObamaCare as a valid "tax," Roberts' long discussion of the Commerce Clause is beside the point. As far as legal precedent goes, Roberts could just as well have omitted that discussion entirely.

The liberal justices can take the position that because Roberts found a ground on which the tax can stand, his discussion of other grounds that might or might not trouble him is irrelevant and just blowing wind. It is, in legal terms, dicta, and therefore not binding precedent.

So if we get a 5-4 liberal court, the court does not even have to make a naked move to overrule binding Commerce Clause precedent in order to give the government unlimited power.

The liberals will simply point out that Roberts' bloviating on the Commerce Clause in the ObamaCare decision was just dicta and is not binding precedent.

29 posted on 07/01/2012 8:05:04 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316; Noumenon
the likes of which we have not seen since pre-Civil War days.

That's what I'm afraid of.

Roger Taney was worried about the potential of war over slavery, so (he imagined) he would settle the issue once and for all, by opining that "a negro has no rights that any white man is bound to respect".

Similarly, John Roberts, fearful of conflict over our steady march to socialism, believes that he has settled the matter by opining that the written Constitution provides no protection to any man who opposes the march of progressivism, and that the plain words of a statute can and will be construed to mean something else if the plain words disadvantage progressives.

But, as was true of Dred Scott, the decision leaves the majority no way out through republican processes.

I wonder if Roberts can hear the distant thunder all the way to Malta?

30 posted on 07/01/2012 8:15:23 PM PDT by Jim Noble (Anna Wintour makes Teresa Heinz Kerry look like Dolly Parton.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Georgia Girl 2; John Valentine
So right. This country passed dysfunction junction a ways back. Its going to be a miracle if Roberts ruling doesn’t start CWII.

Indeed; I actually would not be surprised if it did though.

Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence. -- John Adams
As the above quote so deftly puts it, facts are facts. We now have the court telling us that something so factually inconsistent with the constitution is consistent that all but the most irrational of minds must see it. (The decision itself is internally inconsistent, one minute it's a tax, wait no it's a penalty.)

IOW, Chief Justice Roberts is saying: we can alter facts!

31 posted on 07/01/2012 8:17:42 PM PDT by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe
"But the ruling is historic because it is a Compromise — a crisis-averting pact across lines of ideology, party and region, the likes of which we have not seen since pre-Civil War days. "

And this is a good idea because we lost how many men in the Civil War?

32 posted on 07/01/2012 9:14:06 PM PDT by slowhandluke (It's hard to be cynical enough in this age.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: leprechaun9
CZAR B.O. and everyone in his adminstration who presented their legal arguments to the court said that the penalty was NOT a TAX.
Perhaps after you read this you might change your tune...

@ Brief for Respondents on Severability

6. THE ACT ALSO ESTABLISHES NEW TAX PENALTIES TO BE PAID BY NON-EXEMPTED INDIVIDUALS WHO DO NOT MAINTAIN A MINIMUM LEVEL OF HEALTH COVERAGE FOR THEMSELVES AND THEIR DEPENDENTS. 26 U.S.C. 5000A.

Sorry about the all caps. I used copy and paste and that's how it came up.

33 posted on 07/01/2012 10:05:13 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Sorry about not pinging you as well. See reply 33.


34 posted on 07/01/2012 10:07:13 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; NoLibZone; All

Ping to 33.


35 posted on 07/01/2012 10:10:27 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

During the primaries, Barbara Bush chastised conservatives for considering “compromise” a dirty word.

Compromising with evil only benefits evil.


36 posted on 07/01/2012 10:13:49 PM PDT by Rides_A_Red_Horse (If there is a war on women, the Kennedys are the Spec Ops troops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rides_A_Red_Horse
Here is the exact quote...@ Barbara Bush bashes 2012 presidential contest in first ladies conference at SMU“I hate that people think compromise is a dirty word. It’s not a dirty word.”
37 posted on 07/01/2012 10:24:52 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; leprechaun9
CZAR B.O. and everyone in his adminstration who presented their legal arguments to the court said that the penalty was NOT a TAX. Perhaps after you read this you might change your tune...

You don't remember at the time justices asking the attorney for the government how he was going to argue on one day that it was a tax and on another day that it was NOT a tax?

They maintained, because of the anti-injunction matter, that it was not a tax because that would have required the suit to be put off until at least 2014 when the first penalties were assessed. The only reason things proceeded as they did was because it was not considered to be a tax. So either way, they were screwed. So Roberts said, in order to avoid this problem and have his cake and eat it too, the penalty was not a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction issue, but was a tax in order to rescue the law from being unconstitutional on the interstate commerce clause.
38 posted on 07/01/2012 10:37:39 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: philman_36; leprechaun9
CZAR B.O. and everyone in his adminstration who presented their legal arguments to the court said that the penalty was NOT a TAX. Perhaps after you read this you might change your tune... THE ACT ALSO ESTABLISHES NEW TAX PENALTIES

When you fail to pay a tax to the IRS and they assess you a penalty, that penalty is not a tax.
39 posted on 07/01/2012 10:39:38 PM PDT by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; leprechaun9
leprechaun9 - CZAR B.O. and everyone in his adminstration who presented their legal arguments to the court said that the penalty was NOT a TAX.

Me - Perhaps after you read this you might change your tune... THE ACT ALSO ESTABLISHES NEW TAX PENALTIES

aruanan - When you fail to pay a tax to the IRS and they assess you a penalty, that penalty is not a tax.
I know. Now think about what you just said. The ordering of the individual mandate was, in and of itself, actually the imposition of a tax after all and it was so from the start and the government knew it while lying to everybody about it!

The penalty isn't the tax, as you note, the individual mandate itself is the actual tax the penalty was imposed upon.
Failure to comply with the tax (the individual mandate) triggers the penalty.

40 posted on 07/01/2012 10:52:14 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; leprechaun9
And once again I go to the decision...
@National Federation of Independent Business v. SebeliusThe Affordable Care Act’s requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax. Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness.

According to this decision the penalty itself is a tax as well.
Disagree all you want, it's right there in black and white.

41 posted on 07/01/2012 11:12:18 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: philman_36

Thanks you got it.

I’ll read it.


42 posted on 07/01/2012 11:15:14 PM PDT by NoLibZone (We must get down on our knees each day and thank God that McCain/Palin didn't win in '08.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: aruanan; leprechaun9
This is a real "Damned if you do and damned if you don't" moment.

It's now a "Taxed if you do and taxed if you don't" moment.

43 posted on 07/01/2012 11:17:32 PM PDT by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Tench_Coxe

“”But the ruling is historic because it is a Compromise — a crisis-averting pact across lines of ideology, party and region, the likes of which we have not seen since pre-Civil War days. “
So, the powers that be are betting on the fact that they have another 40 years to milk the American public...”

Ironically it is the same policy that ultimately lead to the first “Civil War” in the first place. Managing the divide with corrupt compromises only prolongs the hate and prevents resolution, while we get all the more pressed at one anthers throats.

Socialist demand the enslavement of men to other men where as Patriots demand their freedom. Obviously both demands are incompatible except when separated geographically and by separate governments. Under the same Government we cannot live in peace.


44 posted on 07/02/2012 12:29:09 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: John Valentine

Your quite right, Conservationism in this “federation” has no future in compromise with lawless leftist. Much-less without a Constitutional(limited) government.


45 posted on 07/02/2012 12:36:53 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Aria

It was their power grabs over the current healthcare system is the cause of the present problems. Everything from forcing hospitals to give out free care(1986 COBRA), to subsiding health-insurance(disconnecting the health consequences with health choices)


46 posted on 07/02/2012 12:43:53 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

John Roberts Betrayal of 2012


47 posted on 07/02/2012 12:58:23 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316
The bias in the Washington Compost is scathing.

Four of the court’s five Republican-appointed conservatives wanted to strike down the Democratic Party’s most cherished legislative achievement since the Great Society, dealing an election-year political blow to President Obama

Nope, you will never read in the Compost, "The courts four Democrat appointed liberals wanted to save the Democratic Party’s most cherished legislative achievement since the Great Society."

Or pointing out the partisan and opportunistic judicial activism of Ginberg and Breyer since they joined the court. But hey, Roberts got his attaboys and isn't that what this is about anyway?

The Washington Compost can suck my... thumb.

48 posted on 07/02/2012 1:08:13 AM PDT by Freedom_Is_Not_Free (REPEAL OBAMACARE. Nothing else matters.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316

Yeah, and how did those pre-Civil War compromises work out in the long run? Uh huh! Kicking the proverbial can down the road just guarantees the loss of ever more blood & treasure when the conflict actually does begin.


49 posted on 07/02/2012 7:47:04 AM PDT by Tallguy (It's all 'Fun and Games' until somebody loses an eye!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: centurion316; Lurking Libertarian; JDW11235; Clairity; TheOldLady; Spacetrucker; Art in Idaho; ...

FReepmail me to subscribe to or unsubscribe from the SCOTUS ping list.

50 posted on 07/05/2012 10:04:31 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan (Man is not free unless government is limited. ~Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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