Posted on 07/04/2012 5:37:00 AM PDT by Kaslin
Is anyone surprised that the ink wasn't dry on Chief Justice John Roberts' incoherent switcheroo before team Obama was again denying Obamacare is a tax? Why did he do it?
There is no doubt that the left waged a war on the court's public image. Just as Obama lectured at the justices during his State of the Union address for the Citizens United decision, so Obama and his media minions prepared for this verdict with blatant mob pressure: Side with us or your image is ruined.
For liberal journalists, repeal of Obamacare was tantamount to a deadly third strike. Strike one was Bush versus Gore, which caused a serious liberal scream-fest that continues in some quarters to this day. Strike two was the Citizens United campaign spending case, because in the leftist worldview all major tipping points of public policy should be controlled by the state.
In the media's twisted lingo, upholding the Constitution would be "partisan." Mangling it would be "nonpartisan." This routine was sickening to watch from beginning to end, especially the way liberal journalists switched on a dime in finding that Roberts had transformed himself from rejectionist tea party villain to savior of the high court.
NBC's David Gregory earned the blue ribbon for partisan plasticity. Hours before the verdict, he drew the nightmare scenario of an overturned Obama: "What happens if it is struck down in part or in whole by a 5 to 4 decision? Would that not underscore how dysfunctional our government is, the major institutions of our government are? That is a real nightmare scenario, I think, for the political class in this country."
Got that? The media class informs the political class and the judicial class that either Obama wins or there's going to be public-relations hell to pay. Then the decision came out.
Within minutes, there was nightmare scenario Gregory, finding the same 5-4 score going in Obama's favor wasn't dysfunctional after all. It was terrific: "Chief Justice Roberts ... has spoken publicly about how on big controversial decisions, he thinks a 5-4 majority on the court over time undermines the Supreme Court, and only fuels the view that our major political institutions are too polarized. He's taken a big step here."
Hail to the chief! It's a "big step" to sign up with the socialist justices who can't find a limitation to government anywhere in the Constitution.
Then there was Chris Matthews, whose approach to Roberts went from holding a pitchfork and a torch to holding a bouquet of roses. On the night before the verdict, Matthews told his guests that a fellow Catholic said Roberts "doesn't want to be the second Roger Taney. Roger Taney, of course, was a Roman Catholic who upheld the Fugitive Slave Law back before the Civil War and was villainized throughout history because of that."
So overturning Obama is just like returning Dred Scott and all the fugitive slaves to their Southern masters. But when Roberts caved to the left, now it was a "bold, defiant, grand decision." The tingle up the leg was back.
Matthews began "Hardball" by proclaiming triumphantly "all the horrors floated up from the right-wing fever swamps are, as of today, simply the hate vapors of the perennial rejectionists to progress, the rear guard funded by the Koch brothers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Today's hero, Chief Justice John Roberts, who walked to the forefront of history and who said yes to progress and no to the role prescribed for him by the right."
This is a parody of an Aaron Sorkin speech, with every ounce of arrogance a leftist can muster. Truth, justice, progress, the sun rising in the morning? All these gifts to humanity are the daily good works of liberals.
An honorable mention for stupidity should go to CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin, who originally claimed the Obamacare decision could be an 8-to-1 slam dunk, which not only didn't pass an acid test, it begged for a drug test. Oral arguments cured that fever, and Toobin apologized. Then, just before the decision, Toobin correctly predicted Roberts would write the opinion, and then his prediction turned laughably wrong: "Roberts is very concerned about the public perception of the court, but not enough to vote some different way."
Someone clearly pressed Roberts to cry "uncle." He is a traitor to strict constitutionalism, whether he folded to Obama or to his image-manufacturing bullies in the media. The Constitution to him and his liberal friends is simply Play-Doh in the hands of our governing elites. It looks like when November comes, "We the People" will be the last recourse to keep the Constitution from the shredder.
It was blackmail.
The Chicago Way.
1. Roberts’ homosexual past
2. Roberts’ illegal adoption of his children
Shame on Bush for nominating this guy.
“You can take the gold, or you can take the lead.”
“...who can’t find a limitation to government anywhere in the Constitution.”
Today, on Independence Day, we are reminded that the entire reason for the Declaration and later the Constitution, was to limit the central government’s power over the people. The Founders had had a king and didn’t want another.
Roberts should be pilloried when he comes back from hiding in Malta.
Oh, I almost forgot: Roberts, if you happen to be lurking here... God damn you to burning infernal stinking hell forever.
Nice article. Bozell correctly writes that there is no “silver lining” and you can read between the lines and see that he’s as pissed off as the rest of us. “Traitor” is not too strong a word here.
It is distressing, that Republican politicians fail to see this.
I agree with there is no silver lining here. I also believe to rehash why he did it or what forces made him do it is a worthless endeavor. The fact is simple and plain, he did it, period, end of story no further appeal.
There are two things left in this charade of government. Either we replace it by the vote or with REV II. There are no alternatives. And by vote, I don’t mean electing some middle of the road squish. We either elect firm conservatives, those willing to sacrafice to bring this country back to its principles rather than posturing to receive votes and then just march in place or we go to option II. There is no middle ground now, the enemy is over the walls, the Alamo has fallen....we need a San Jacinto style win, one that just not wins the battle but takes the entire war. Lofty goals for sure but it is that or we become the equal of some piss poor despotic country.
Or another more likely scenario: Axlerod or Emmanuel reintroduced him to an old gay lover, and asked if he’d like it to be all over the media, or kept quiet.
U.S. Constitution, Article 3 Section 2:
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State,--between Citizens of different States,--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.
Tea Party Patriots could lead a new Congress, and put the SCOTUS back into its box. The USA was never intended to become a tyranny of five judges. It's in the Constitution: The Congress is superior to the SCOTUS. There are NOT "three co-equal branches" as most believe.
This is the worst of Roberts’ actions - that the left now knows that they can mau-mau the Court whenever they want and still get their way even when the law is plainly against them. It’s like when they were successful borking Bork. It doomed us to endless acrimony with every SC appoinment by a GOP President. Roberts’ has doomed the Court to be under an electric arc of bolshevik threats and agitation whenever their marxist project is at issue. He has done exactly the opposite of what he imagines his ‘cleverness’ to have accomplished. He did not ‘save’ the Court from politicization he condemned it to political hell.
Sources?
Hmmm, has Roberts ever been seen with Devil Anse Cooper?
Regardless of the reason, Roberts has demonstrated that he’s little better than a middle-school nerd who can be intimidated by the cool kids.
He needs to go—One way or the other.
There ARE three co-equal branches since the Judiciary is not the USSC. The judiciary includes juries, We the People, in that we do NOT have to find someone guilty of a violation of law set by the Legislature and the Executive. Jury nullification is EXATLY what the founders had in mind so that no matter the laws placed upon the people, the people still had the out to say they would not enforce them.
The Congress has never placed regulations on the USSC. I am not sure any regulation wouldn’t be corrupted as much as the court is now.
I do believe both parties can ask for redetermination within 25 days. We need to do that.
Good point about the SC not being the same as “the judiciary.” And I agree 100% about jury nullification. I think we need to beat that drum loudly, since the judges normally try to brainwash juries into accepting every instruction from the bench as gospel.
Time for a little nullification, by both juries and the Congress!
I need to drink a cup of coffee; go to the bathroom to take a good Roberts, and then jump into this fray.
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.