I’m Not Down on John Roberts

Redstate ^ | June 28, 2012 | Erick Erickson

[Jedidah]

. . . I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. . . .

Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. . . Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach.

[uncbob]

The Administration argued before the Court that it was a tax, thus the ruling was based on the the president’s argument. They rewrote nothing - obama told the court it was a tax - Roberts made up nothing. The ruling clearly declares the President and Dems in Congress to be liars.

Problem is the average voter won't get that especially from the MSM

GOP need a myriad of ads to show it

[Sola Veritas]

“Calling it a tax does not make it one.”

Indeed, it was an incredibly specious piece of logic on Robert’s part. He states using the “commerce cause” would be unconstitutional, but then - lets that pass and calls it a “tax” instead. What kind of convoluted thinking goes that way?

I think he has stopped being Chief Justice of the SCOTUS and instead is acting as the Solicitor General for the Obama Administration.

However, I won’t vote for Romney because he is as bad as Obama, and would appoint justices worse than Roberts.

[Sola Veritas]

“The next election will indeed be about judges, as 3 of the current judges are nearing retirement.”

We already know that Obama picks bad judges. The best one can expect from Romney is more judges like Roberts.

I cannot support Romney anymore than I would Obama.

[Fledermaus]

A voice of stupidity. I guess Roberts hasn’t read Levin’s “Men In Black”. If he had he would know the SC is NOT some heavenly body of geniuses.

[Fledermaus]

It was unconstitutional PERIOD! That’s the only job of the SC.

Roberts is a liberal activist. Originalism is DEAD!

I threw my copy of the Constitution into the trash today. It’s useless paper now.

[Nifster]

I already knew that O and the dims were liars. I didn;t need this travesty of a decision to poi nt it out. ASome things are indeed self-evident

[rmlew]

Wrong. Even by Roberts non-reasoning the law is unconstitutional. All revenue bills must begin in the House. The bill began in the Senate. QED unConstituional.
As to the larger point, of course this is political. Roberts has givien Congress power to do what it wants under the rubric of taxes, which is just as wrong as the anti-Constituional reading of the Commerce Clause. He hasn't fixed anything, only torn a new whiole in the Constitution.
What power do the people have when a lawless court ignores the Constitution? Can we vote the ersatz Krytocrats out? Or is force our only option, now that the Constituion is meaningless?

[metalurgist]

I know what will stop this BS. Congress should immediatly pass a law that every law abiding citizen in the country age 18 and above must buy a handgun, caliber .38 minimum and a centerfire rifle caliber.223 or larger along with 100 rounds of amunition for each.

They can call it Militia Care.

How long do you think it will tale the supremes to do an about face?

[Finny]

Amen, Windflier. Right on the money as usual. Thanks for making a GREAT point and helping me to see things more clearly.

[The_Reader_David]

It is a head tax, which is waived on those who have health insurance.

[dangus]

A voice of reason, my ass.

Congress can’t use the Commerce clause to compel action? Yay!

They can just use the taxation clause to bankrupt you if you don’t do what they tell you!

That’s so much better!!!

How?

You’re a schizophrenic, deranged lunatic who’s always posting your sacreligious false prophesies on Free Republic. I shouldn’t be surprised you have the reasoning skills of decapitated dung beetle.

[Pollster1]

I emphatically disagree with the writer. It is not Roberts’ job to get along or deal with perceptions of the Court and the partisan fray. It is his job to interpret the Constitution of the United States and determine whether legislation is compatible with that document. ObamaCare is not compatible, and Roberts neglected his duty to the Constitution and to America.

[Windflier]

Thanks for making a GREAT point and helping me to see things more clearly.

I appreciate the acknowledgment, Finny. Real credit is due to hinckley buzzard who spelled it all out in post 17. A most brilliant observation that is gathering momentum among the people by the hour.

[Ronin]

I was wondering about that myself. Obamacare cards are going to become de-facto identification cards. Everyone is going to have to have one. But gee, people are silly. They might lose them.

Maybe it’s better to just insert a microchip, say in their foreheads or in their hands, so they can be scanned whenever necessary.

[dangus]

An apology to Jedidah

I called you a schizophrenic, deranged lunatic who’s always posting your sacreligious false prophesies on Free Republic. Although I am absolutely dumb-founded by the lameness of this defense of John Roberts, I believe this must be a case of mistaken identity on my part. There was someone with a very similar name who used to continuously post these bizarre, un-grammatical, rhyming prophecies claiming to be directly from God.

[SE Mom]

You are precisely correct! Very nice summation.

I don’t know- and almost don’t WANT to know...WTH Roberts was really trying to accomplish here but the implications are truly awful to ponder.

[Jedidah]

Dangus!! I just sent you a FReepmail pointing out the mistake.

No, I’m not the nutcase. Most days.

The screennames are similar and it’s happened before. I actually kinda enjoyed your tirade. I think we all need to blow off a little steam right now.

I’ll chew you out next time I need a punching bag, OK?

[SuziQ]

Well, not really. The idea of “on to Congressional repeal!” would be fine, except that we now live in the era of everything-must-pass-the-Senate-with-60-votes.

From the article: " because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.".

The Democrats may be hoist on their own petard if it only requires 51 votes in the Senate to pass a repeal.

[RJL]

. . . I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. . . .

Well Roberts surely failed, his stupidity of judicially rewriting legislation turning the printed words "penalty" into "taxes" will live as long as the Roe v Wade decision creating a right to kill babies that "emanates from the penumbra of the Constitution".

[dangus]

I’m glad you have your sense of humor in place on this very dark day.