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.
He still is behind Communists Obama, Pelosi and Reid. And Kagan, Sotowhatever, Ginburg and the other liberal losers on the Supreme Court.
He is a coward that screwed America.
However, I still hate obama and Pelosi the most for pushing this deceptively and non-tranparently, lying about it, bullying over it, nominating 2 idiots to the SC, etc.
Oh, and I hate obama’s useful-idiot supporters.
I dunno. . .Given the opportunity, I’d punch him in the mouth first.
The author is retarded.
Obama’s real object was to take over the health insurance industry....just like he has taken over the school loan industry. He’s increasing the government payroll at the same time he is decreasing “investor” companies. He’s putting them totally out of business.
“Justice Roberts merely reminded us that Congress’ authority is paramount, political and partisan, and that we get what we elect.”
It’s not his job to “teach us voters a lesson.”
It’s his job to judge whether what Congress does complies with the Constitution.
He needed to stick to his day job, which he failed miserably at.
Not too far behind. Today he IS one of the other liberal losers of SCOTUS.
I hate Obama more, but Roberts is closing in.
This essay completely overlooks the concept that the Constitution is supposed to limit the power of the federal government and that SCOTUS has largely assented to usurpation over the years. This is supposed to be a republic, not a democracy, so therefore the ballot box is NOT supposed to be the only alternative to such abuses of power. SCOTUS is supposed to keep Congress and the Executive within the confines of their enumerated powers.
...if you think he’s bad, wait till you see who Odungo appoints if he wins in Nov. He will have two open slots to fill...Kennedy has hinted he’s leaving, and Ginsberg won’t be replaced until someday she don’t reply to a question and her corpse starts to stink the place up. Watch for a gay male to fill at least one spot
|
Yes. You should post your own thoughts. After all you posted it. |
What is the point of having enumerated powers of congress if everything that fall outside of that is going to be herded into the taxing power as a catch-all by treacherous cowards? If you ask me, Roberts implicitly overruled Marbury vs. Madison and there will no stopping government now short of nullification, disobedience or revolution.
"Doc, will you tell him what you told me last night, about how stupid he is?"
Well, in that case I've been believing in a fallacy my entire life, because I had no idea that Congress can do absolutely anything it wants to. Indeed, I thought that one of the primary purposes of the Supreme Court was to tell the other branches when they have gone too far.
"Checks and balances" is what I thought they called it, right? Isn't that what the lefties have been lecturing us about all our lives? If Congress can do anything it wants to, I'm not sure why we even need to have a Supreme Court at all.
Roberts broke the law. If this is a tax, the case should have come before the SCOTUS after the tax was paid. Roberts deserves impeachment for all he did to save Obamacare.
He twisted himself into a pretzel in order to make arguments that the Obama team didn’t make, to make Marxism the law of the land and shove Obamacare down our throats.
America is now significantly less free and is a socialist nation because of him.
SCREW HIM AND ANYBODY WHO TRIES TO DEFEND HIM.
Perhaps an educated, freedom-loving people could pull this off. But in 21st century America, we are seeing the results of generations of dumbing down of citizens, and a populace which by and large does not understand freedom. If it were otherwise, Obama would never ever have made it through the 2008 Democrat Convention.
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.