Posted on 07/01/2012 4:55:52 PM PDT by nerdgirl
Some of the least successful chief justices, Roberts suggested, had faltered because they misunderstood the job, approaching it as law professors rather than as leaders of a collegial Court. Harlan Fiske Stone, a former dean of Columbia Law School, was a case in point. Stone “was a failure as chief, because of his misperception of what a chief justice is supposed to be,” Roberts said, gesturing to the justices’ private conference room through an open door of his office. “It’s his desk out there that is separate from the conference table, and he … sat at his desk, and the others were at the table, and he almost called on them and critiqued their performances. They hated that.” Roberts laughed. “As a result, he was a failure as a chief justice.”
In Roberts’s view, the most successful chief justices help their colleagues speak with one voice. Unanimous, or nearly unanimous, decisions are hard to overturn and contribute to the stability of the law and the continuity of the Court; by contrast, closely divided, 5–4 decisions make it harder for the public to respect the Court as an impartial institution that transcends partisan politics.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Murkycowski is no prize.
It is exactly because of decisions like Heller that I desperately want to give Roberts the benefit of the doubt.
My favorite explanation is that Roberts, by forcing the ACA to fall under the definition of a tax is using legal jujitsu against it proponents.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2901527/posts
Time will tell...
No, Roberts replaced Miers, then Roberts was pulled and resubmitted in place of Alito for the Chief Justice slot.
Hate to see ya banging the wall with your nogin, but its about equal to being so pessimistic to not be able to see the opportunity our side has been given.
Would you prefer to have the dems fired up if it had come down 5/4 against nobamacare? I prefer to have the dems on the defense trying to defend a gigantic tax hike right before the election with many of their sheeple not seeing an urgent need to bother voting cause “they won” and our side fired up like 2010 with the dire need to overcome.
It is a long time yet to November and there is the full month of October for surprises. HealthCare run by the Feds is but one of many issues. Zer0 and his puppetmasters are trying out all sorts of issues to find one that will be red meat for the 0bots. US gov't HealthCare doesn't seem to poll as a/the winning issue for the 'rats.
On October 3, President Bush nominated Harriet Miers to replace O'Connor. However, Miers withdrew her acceptance of the nomination on October 27 after encountering widespread opposition."
What else could Roberts’ purpose be other than to put a greater burden on the left to have to save their socialist keystone from the dredded T-word when every dems knows that even uttering that T-word in an election year loses them much support?
As I have posted previously, this outwardly strange decision is because this is chess, not checkers.
OK. I stand corrected. I had it the other way around.
But I still say the Miers nomination looks pretty good now, in comparison.
Well, I still think our side was going to win if we won the Obamacare vote because of the economy.
As pointed out, some say it is now killable by a simple Senate majority through “Reconsiliation” if we can get both majorities, even if nobama somehow got re-elected and the House now certainly can and may in July pass a repeal symbolically to put the dems on the hotseat to vote FOR this now clearly described as a tax.
Remember how this very same subject so fired up conservatives in 2010? We are back to 2010 again and the dem’s sheeple will not be smart enough to recognize it no matter how much nobama screams about it.
A truly disgusting mug!
The cat that swallowed the goldfish. Sandusky has hope as long as this creep is on the bench.
.
There is no such thing as a simple senate majority; it takes 60 votes to limit debate, even if you have a majority.
.
And what did Roberts just do? He issued a judgement that was totally unique and unlike that of his other eight fellow Justices!
Had Roberts been an "oath keeper", he would not have dishonored that oath by knowingly swearing in an obviously ineligible impostor to the Presidency -- multiple times.
After the inauguration, I expected ZERO integrity from Roberts.
He has done nothing to change that expectation...
It is hard to believe, but apparently he does not understand that. He sees himself as playing a role: the successful Chief Justice. He has read his history, and he knows that successful Chief Justices are those who get along with the other justices. Protecting American citizens from thuggish government overreach will not enhance the court's collegiality, so it is not a priority.
Roberts is like a savant. He has a superb knowledge of complex legal issues, but he does not know why he was hired.
End justifies the means is the only rule they follow.
Now that the thread has quieted down a bit, would you mind sharing your idea as to Roberts' motive, please? Thanks!
You are on ignore.
Apparently, Scalia was severely ticked off as well.
Even if Obamacare is repealed now Roberts the Marxist has given Congress and the liberals new powers and new ways to control everything we do. Just say it is a tax and they can force us to do anything. This communist moron POS destroyed the Constitution and freedom. there is no silver lining. This POS , along with Obama needs to be impeached.
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.