While some conservatives ( Krauthammer/Will)may think Justice Roberts was following in Justice Marshall's giant footsteps, the more apt comparison is to the Republican Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes.
Hughes and Justice Owen J. Roberts began to switch their positions. They would vote to uphold the National Labor Relations Act, minimum-wage and maximum-hour laws, and the rest of the New Deal.
But Hughes sacrificed fidelity to the Constitution's original meaning in order to repel an attack on the court. Like Justice Roberts, Hughes blessed the modern welfare state's expansive powers and unaccountable bureaucracies—the very foundations for ObamaCare.
Hughes's great constitutional mistake was made for nothing.
Justice Roberts too may have sacrificed the Constitution's last remaining limits on federal power for very little—a little peace and quiet from attacks during a presidential election year.
Given the advancing age of several of the justices, an Obama second term may see the appointment of up to three new Supreme Court members. A new, solidified liberal majority will easily discard Sebelius's limits on the Commerce Clause and expand the taxing power even further. After the Hughes court switch, FDR replaced retiring Justices with a pro-New Deal majority, and the court upheld any and all expansions of federal power over the economy and society. The court did not overturn a piece of legislation under the Commerce Clause for 60 years.
(excerpt)
In layman's terms,
The USA is F***ed !
Roberts was blackmailed over the illegal adoption of his kids:
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX
NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE’S CHILDREN
**Exclusive**
The DRUDGE REPORT has uncovered a plot in the NEW YORK TIMES’ newsroom to look into the adoption of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2900724/posts
JF’nRoberts.
According to Roberts, if the Federal Government passes a law mandating participation in interstate commerce with no enforcement mechanism whatsoever, that violates the Commerce clause and is unconstitutional, but if the government adds a tax or penalty to force compliance with the directive now it becomes constitutional.
The fact that even the left isn’t laughing at Roberts proves that no one even expects the court to make sense. It is simply a policy making body with the last say on what government policy will be.
bfl
$303 million is earmarked in this health care law to hire more gestapo to harass people it believes are not in compliance with the incomprehensible IRS laws. About 4,000 will be hired.
Remember, these gestapo pigs live in your neighborhoods.
john roberts could have been a great American, now he is a great commie.
You’d better be very, very careful who you vote for in EVERY election from now on.
Those people can MAKE you do anything. As long as they call it a “tax”.
Thing is, we don’t need luminaries to tell us Roberts’ ruling (yes, I call it RULing over us) was a slippery road, and sets precedence for the future forever.
We don’t need Roberts’ nuance and others to tell us there is some ‘good’ in this looming disaster.
I just don’t get it, IF I know ObamaCare was a monstrous bill against the consent of US, the people, why would some ones way smarter than me not understand there is nothing CONSTITUTIONal at all about it?
The apologists have to minimize the damage this man wrecked because he was appointed by a republican, and Bush in particular. Here is another in a long line of republican appointees who join the enemy.
Elections have consequences? Pfffttttt. Not when it comes to Supreme Court appointments.
If Roberts sees his job as one that needs to find a way possible to make laws Constitutional, then why didn’t he try to find a way to make Arizona’s Immigration law Constitutional?
Which simply means that 'We the People' must be diligent (and on the whole we have not been) to ensure that our representation reflects pro-freedom tax policies.
Sure - congress has the power to tax. But they also have the power to UN-tax.
It is up to us - we cannot coast. It is going to be a life-long struggle. Get used to it and stop whining...
bookmark
What an inappropriate joke. Americans aren't laughing.
There’s a couple podcasts dealing with the Obamacare decision by John Yoo & libertarian legal superstar Richard Epstein that my fellow Freepers might be interested in. The first was done just hours after the Obamacare decision came down on 6/28; the second was done yesterday, 6/29, as part of a regular series that the two have done for Ricochet.com for some time:
1)(About the first half is with Epstein & Yoo on the decision; then other people join in.)
http://podcast.ricochet.com/ricochet-podcast-episode-125.mp3
2:
http://podcast.ricochet.com/law-talk-episode-27-kuhefaK4.mp3
And while I’m at it here’s the podcast done hours after the decision by David B. Rivkin, Jr. for the Federalist Society. He was one of the main lawyers involved in this case.
http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/health-care-decision-nfib-v-sebelius-podcast
Epstein, Yoo & Rivkin are pretty unhappy. If you are too and you want to climb out of your deep despair, read this article by Randy Barnett, who is described by many as the intellectual architect of the case against Obamacare:
Randy Barnett says Roberts’ tax power argument is “lame” but “easily fixed”
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2901281/posts
Barnett thinks that the wins on the Commerce Clause, Necessary & Proper Clause, and Spending Clause have greater staying power than does Roberts’ “lame” expansion of Congress’ taxing power.