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.
-- Ayn Rand.
Exactly the fawning press Roberts sought with his decision to screw the country. Hope he rots in hell.
Someone needs to tell the WaPo that none of the “Compromises” averted a Civil War.
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.
ha ha ha projection!
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.
So, the powers that be are betting on the fact that they have another 40 years to milk the American public...
So, the powers that be are betting on the premise that they have another 40 years to milk the American public...
Politician’s are supposed to compromise - not justices.
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?
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.
They did not “overcome their differences”.
” 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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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?