Roberts wasn’t ‘clever’ at all - he quite apparently is a fool.
I recalled Roberts’ confirmation hearing and made this same observation yesterday. During his hearing many marveled at how he talked and on and said little, and always seemed so slick and clever. It seems he is too slick and too clever by half, and those characteristics seem to be too much a part of him.
Some just enjoy being clever, and that’s not necessary a healthy thing, especially not for a judge of any sort.
Obama threatened and Roberts folded.
"Smart by half" is a cool statement for today, but the job of interpreting the Constitution remains, as it was intended to mean in 1787, a certain fidelity to that Constitution's intended substance as an enduring protection for Creator-endowed unalienable rights.
In "When Jefferson Dined Alone," Professor Jonathon Gross of DePaul University (Steerforth Press, May 2006) wrote:
"At a gathering of 49 Nobel Prize recipients at the White House on April 29, 1962, John F. Kennedy noted that never before had such talent been assembled in one room, except, perhaps, when Thomas Jefferson dined alone." - See.
Now, as to the intellect and wisdom of Jefferson, perhaps the Court, as well as all the rest of us, might be advised to consider Jefferson's ideas on interpreting and applying the Constitution.
"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
Which is to be the more desired aim - "Cool by half," or to be recognized for great intellect and fidelity to the Framers' strict bounds and limitations on coercive power over the rights of conscience, property, and individual rights to liberty?
Fantastic article. We can no longer rely on the political process and our elected representatives to protect our freedom, that’s a joke. They manage to exempt themselves from the consequences they inflict on us, and extend their own power and enrich themselves with their wheeling and dealing. What’s not to love for a 21st century corruptocrat? They are not men of their word, that’s just something they have to pay lip service to in front of the peons to get elected-I can believe that they would be surprised that anyone would actually expect them to have integrity.
This, combined with an increasing electorate composed of people happy to vote themselves largesse at the expense of the shrinking productive class, is a recipe for the expansion of government and encroachment of freedom, which is exactly what we’re getting.
When the battle came, the brilliant brain in Roberts’ head proved as useful as a gun in a French soldier’s hand.
If you're going to be so petulant to the point of pulling bunnies out of your @ss...go deeper, and look at Franken's legitimacy.
“I would argue that it is, in fact, the Court’s job to protect us from time to time”
We need to be protected from Roberts.
“The problem is that between voter ignorance and apathy, and the bias of much of the media, sustainable better election outcomes is a thin reed on which to hang our nation’s liberty.”
Few truths are greater, injustice Roberts just condemned us to the despotism of democracy. That is what the death of the constitution means.
“unless Congress finds a way to impose that overreach as a tax, which today’s ruling will of course make Democrats (and their occasional Republican allies in regulation) attempt to do. The good news is that imposing new taxes is near the top of the list of politically perilous pursuits.”
Won’t be difficult anymore, the democrats will simply call it a legal technicality if that. The DNC is no more incline to accept Roberts insane dictates than we are, and even less inclined to care.