Posted on 07/04/2012 6:54:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
This is getting ridiculous. John Roberts appears to be a one man constitutional wrecking crew.
According to Salon:
"This weekend CBS News' Jan Crawford reported that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote in regard to upholding the bulk of the Affordable Care Act. Crawford reports that Roberts voted with the rest of the court's conservatives to strike down the individual mandate, but in the course of drafting his opinion changed his mind, and ended up siding with the court's four liberals to uphold almost all of the law.
In response, according to Crawford's story, the four conservatives then independently crafted a highly unusual joint dissent. If so, this would represent a powerful symbolic gesture: Joint Supreme Court opinions are rare. Normally a justice authors an individual opinion, which other justices may choose to join. Jointly authored opinions are reserved for momentous statements of principle, such as in Cooper v. Aaron, when all nine justices jointly authored an opinion declaring that the court's anti-segregation decisions were binding on state governments that disagreed with the court's constitutional interpretations.
It's notable that Crawford's sources insist on the claim that the joint dissent was authored specifically in response to Roberts' majority opinion, without any participation from him at any point in the drafting process that created it. It would, after all, be fairly preposterous for the four dissenters to jointly "author" an opinion that was in large part written originally by the author of the majority opinion to which the joint dissenters were now so flamboyantly objecting.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Read the rest of the Salon article here:
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/03/roberts_wrote_both_obamacare_opinions/
It makes perfect sense - or, at least it explains what many legal experts were commenting on at the time. The dissent didn’t mention Roberts’ decision for the first three quarters of the ruling - an unprecedented occurrence.
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.
Enough 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.
Congress could tell the SC: "tax policy is not under your purview. Have a nice day. Next case!"
Just because a tactic has not been attempted before, doesn't mean it can't be done. Mark Levin has talked about this before, and he's hinting at it now, post Roberts.
There is no doubt at all that Scalia and Kenned wrote major sections of their dissent and did a significant portion of the work after Roberts betrayed America. Roberts may have helped with the initial reasoning when he was on the side of the Constitution, but it’s very obviously Scalia who gave certain sections their sharp edge and Kennedy who polished others. Anyone who can read “a few respectful responses to JUSTICE GINSBURG’s dissent . . . saying that there is really no difference between action and inaction . . . a proposition that has never commended itself to the law nor to common sense” and not (1) laugh, and (2) recognize Scalia, has never read Scalia before.
Roberts` betrayal of the Constitution .. a sellout for 30 pieces of silver represented as media praise... will stand as one of the greatest acts of self-serving treachery ever perpetrated against this nation.
Clarence Thomas refuses to read media reports on cases in the runup to USSC rulings because he doesn`t want public opinion to taint his Constitutional interpretation. Roberts should`ve shown that same level of wisdom.
I can`t blame Bush for this one.. at the time of his nomination, Roberts had nearly firewall credentials as a conservative jurist. He couldn`t have picked a worse time to morph into a David Souter clone.
Now,where’s that gay beach?
RE: Now,where’s that gay beach?
I’ve been reading about this allegations in other threads (including the possibility of blackmail) . But where’s the reliable source for this?
Would not be at all surprising. HIs globalist masters would pay promptly for his treachery, to assure he continues as an eager servant.
He wanted to make sure the payoff was sufficient before coming down on obama’s side
I saw the photos and his background when he was younger on
FR.
Is there a website for that?
There are none. Pure conjecture trying to make sense of the decision.
That is a great poster!
There are a lot of people not paying any attention at all to politics.
There are a lot of people who care, but only get the make believe media’s version of “every thing is just fine”.
That poster might be a great wake up call to a lot of people, if was just plastered all over the neighborhood, with a big handwritten question over the top “Are we being sold out?”
It seems like that would be such a visceral, self-preservation question that it would wake up some of the people who know that something in our world just isn’t right, but can’t quite put their finger on it.
If we could wake a few more people up before the election, and tell them to take their friends and families to the polls to ‘vote the bastards’ out, we might be able to keep the country from going over the cliff.
This whole galling mess MUST be rectified in every possible manner.
I don't know how it can be accomplished but not only must this law be repealed and killed in it's entirety but we MUST also drive a stake through the heart of Roberts' ruling so that it never rears it's freakish, tyrannical head EVER.
Type in John Roberts in the FR search box and the photo is in the comments on The Where is John Roberts posted article.
Even better question to ask the masses:
Are we being sold out, and is the media covering it up?”
He was for it before he was against it and he was against it before he was for it and he was undecided before he was undecided.
I think he forgot his schizophrenia medication.
Has this ever happened before? A Justice writing both sides?
The fact that this ruling...probably the most significant in a few generations...was such a bumblef___. Roberts destroyed his legacy with his disaster.
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.