Free Republic

Viewed in isolation, the Supreme Court term that just ended had elements of modesty. The court declined to do away with affirmative action, gave Congress another shot at salvaging the Voting Rights Act and refused to find a constitutional right to same-sex marriage. But glancing at an end-of term snapshot can be misleading. The more meaningful way to look at the court is as a movie, one starring Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. as a canny strategist with a tough side, and his eyes on the horizon. He is just 58 and is likely to lead the court for...

These decisions, handed down by the Court today, affect to be limited in their reach, but they are even worse than they appear, and they cannot be cabined. They lay down the predicates for litigation that will clearly unfold now, and with short steps sure to come, virtually all of the barriers to same-sex marriage in this country can be swept away. Even constitutional amendments, passed by so many of the states, can be overridden now. The engine put in place to power this drive is supplied by Justice Kennedy’s “hate speech,” offering itself as the opinion of the Court...

Just Kidding. But it could happen... wait for it...

Here’s the GLENN BECK scandal that he will reveal within 24 hours… It will be announced that hacked emails were used to blackmail and extort Chief Justice Roberts. Very embarrassing emails were obtained, and he was told to vote to declare Obamacare constitutional, or his family life would be destroyed.

During their discussion, Mr. Beck raised an intriguing possibility: Was Chief Justice John Roberts blackmailed by the Obama regime into changing his ruling on Obamacare at the last minute? Given what he knows about the NSA, Mr. Binney couldn't rule such a thing out.

It is that time of year where the SCOTUS makes its decisions for the term. Who knows what decisions will be handed down this week. I do not expect any gay marriage decisions until the final days of the term.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT RUSH: I'm just waiting for the printer to spit something out here. It's about the chief justice. Here's the headline: "Chief Justice John Roberts Compares Gay Marriage To Forcing A Child To Call Someone 'A Friend.'" They have released the audio of the oral arguments now, and this is the story from Mediaite. "The optimism that Jean Podrasky, cousin of Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, displayed when she told The Los Angeles Times that she 'trust(s) he will go in a good direction' in deciding whether same-sex couples have the right to marry may have been misplaced....

Many of us have questioned what caused Roberts to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as reported by CBS, and doing so, so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent. These facts may answer that question. In 2000 Justice Roberts and his wife Jane adopted two children. Initially it was apparent that the adoptions were "from a Latin American country", but over time it has become apparent that the adopted children were not Latin American, but were Irish. Why this matters will become evident. In 2005 the NY...

Many of us have questioned what causedRoberts to switch his vote on ObamaCare at the last minute, as repo..., and doing so, so late that the Conservative Justices were forced to rewrite their majority opinion to be minority dissent. These facts may answer that question.

This begs the question of what Obama knew about Petraeus and his "lifestyle" when he appointed him. The Soviet style of this regime makes me wonder about John Roberts. This is just pure speculation about a public figure, not an accusation. But my first reaction to the inexplicable Roberts decision is "what the hell does Obama have over this guy?". Obama didn't appoint Roberts of course but I'd bet he, Axelrod and the Chicago gang know everything there is to know about his personal life and are adroit when in comes to influencing behavior.

Jeffrey Toobin's latest book portrays Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as increasingly cranky and partisan — and infuriated with Chief Justice John Roberts over the court's recent decisions on healthcare and immigration. Toobin, who writes for The New Yorker and also covers the court for CNN, credits Scalia for a sea change in how both sides of the political spectrum think about the law. But he says the justice's bombast has become off-putting to more even-tempered colleagues.

Jeffrey Toobin's latest book portrays Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia as increasingly cranky and partisan — and infuriated with Chief Justice John Roberts over the court's recent decisions on healthcare and immigration. Toobin, who writes for The New Yorker and also covers the court for CNN, credits Scalia for a sea change in how both sides of the political spectrum think about the law. But he says the justice's bombast has become off-putting to more even-tempered colleagues. Toobin's latest book, "The Oath," chronicling the Roberts court and the Obama presidency, is being released today. Here are 5 key takeaways: Scalia...

Any year now, Democrats may start to ask themselves if it might have been better had John Roberts not changed his mind. If they would be better off with Obamacare out of its and our misery, a bone of contention now safely buried, and not as a bone in their throats. For one thing, they still have the issue upon them -- the historic triumph they don't dare mention but which Republicans happily do. Second, were Obamacare no longer the law, we might be seeing an uptick in hiring right now. Instead, that will be deferred until after November (and...

You don’t need to love classical music to be amazed that Beethoven wrote his Ninth Symphony while deaf or be a fan of the New York Giants to marvel at Willie Mays’ catch of the 1954 World Series.For legal buffs, the virtuoso performance of Chief Justice Roberts in deciding the biggest case of his career was just that sort of jaw dropper, no matter how they might feel about Obamacare. Not since King Solomon offered to split the baby has a judge engineered a slicker solution to a bitterly divisive dispute .

Supporters of the Obama health law are incorrectly reading the Supreme Court’s ruling as a victory. First, the ruling severely limited the Obama health law’s Medicaid expansion, effectively giving states the green light to refuse to expand their Medicaid programs. Coupled with the fact that the statute already enables states to block the other half-trillion dollars of new entitlement spending, the law is in a very precarious position. Second, the Court ruled 5-4 that the individual mandate is not a legitimate use of the Commerce Power. That too is a defeat for the government, even if it is of no...

he recent Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act), which upheld the individual mandate as constitutional, portends grave danger for those religious organizations now suing the federal government for infringing on their religious liberty. These groups rightly contend that the government has no right to decide who is religious enough to be exempt from government mandates. The department of Health and Human Services (HHS) requirement to provide free contraception and insurance coverage would force church-related organizations to violate church doctrine. Although the recent Supreme Court decision National Federation of Independent Business et al. v. Sebelius Secretary...

"Justice" John Roberts has secured his place in American infamy – on par with General Benedict Arnold. Some do not understand the degree of historical significance his betrayal of our constitution represents because they still resist embracing the broader context in which it occured. This is one integral piece of a large puzzle. The piece has a visible picture of its own but it also brings into clarity the larger overall picture. In order to understand the significance of John Roberts, one must be willing to admit what is CLEARLY the intent of Barack Obama – forcing secession upon the...

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Nev.) said Monday he “still has a very high opinion of Chief Justice John Roberts," despite Roberts opinion upholding the individual mandate in Obamacare as constitutional. Hatch, the ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee and a senior member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, had been one of the earliest and most forceful voices in the Senate speaking out against the constitutionality of the individual mandate when it was first proposed in 2009. On Monday, however, Hatch told CNSNews.com that Roberts “certainly had the right” to rule that the mandate is constitutional as a tax. “Naturally, I...

Many conservatives are angry with Chief Justice John Roberts, whose decisive vote in late June not only sustained a disastrous health-care law. It also interpreted the Constitution to permit Congress to penalize behavior through its taxing power that it cannot control through its power to regulate commerce. Magnifying the harm is a CBS News report—and informed suspicions from a number of sources—that Chief Justice Roberts initially voted to strike down the law but switched in the face of veiled threats from President Barack Obama and concerns about the court's reputation and his own. Some conservatives were also disappointed that Chief...

It's now well-established that Chief Justice John Roberts had ulterior motives for upholding ObamaCare. The usual theories involve his being concerned about the Court's, or maybe even his own, losing respect by seeming to operate in a partisan manner. But, to ask what may appear a rhetorical question, why such concern about respect? Is it just vanity, the desire to be viewed as a font of temperance and intellectualism? Perhaps. But there actually could be a more tangible area of self-interest. Before delving into that, however, I'll address something related that also may help clarify Roberts's personal self-interest motives. One...