The Mystery of John Roberts

NY Times ^ | 7-11-2012 | LINDA GREENHOUSE

[Sir Napsalot]

(nip) I doubt there was a single reason for the chief justice’s evolution (I know, conservatives hate that word in the context of Supreme Court justices’ ideological trajectories), but let me suggest one: the breathtaking radicalism of the other four conservative justices. The opinion pointedly signed individually by Justices Kennedy, Thomas, Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. would have invalidated the entire Affordable Care Act, finding no one part of it severable from the rest. This astonishing act of judicial activism has received insufficient attention, because it ultimately didn’t happen, but it surely got the chief justice’s attention as a warning that his ostensible allies were about to drive the Supreme Court over the cliff and into the abyss. (Extraneous question: Is the liberal love affair with Anthony Kennedy — which should have ended five years ago with his preposterously patronizing opinion in Gonzales v. Carhart, upholding the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 and suggesting that women are incapable of acting in their own best interests — finally over?)

Students of the court more interested in seeking to understand rather than denounce the chief justice’s performance have offered valuable insights in recent days. Steven M. Teles, a political scientist at Johns Hopkins University and author of the commendable “The Rise of the Conservative Legal Movement,” suggested in The Washington Monthly that Chief Justice Roberts was not comfortable with “sweeping uses of judicial power to limit government.” Professor Teles said that while the chief justice was “sympathetic” with his fellow conservatives, he “simply lacks the taste for the jugular that they have, either as a result of his role as chief justice or his prudential sense of how far it is reasonable for the court to go in using its power.” .....

[Sir Napsalot]

Again, if the SC is not set up by the Constitution to protect US citizens from overreaching government, what use is there?

Instead 'limiting government' is now 'radicalization of the judicial power'.

[Buckeye Battle Cry]

No mystery. Just another stealth liberal who pulled the wool over the eyes of a member of the Bush family.

[Vaquero]

I do believe that any article from the NY Slimes needs a Barf Alert...

[YoungBlackRepublican]

“Instead ‘limiting government’ is now ‘radicalization of the judicial power’.”

That’s how warped it’s gotten. A republican judge thinks it activism when he limits government.....twilight zone type of stuff.

[jurroppi1]

I need a barf bag and cleanup on aisle 5 after reading just the excerpt. Where is the hurl alert?!!!

[xsmommy]

The initial sentence of this excerpt made me utter aloud an expletive and stop reading.

[Rich21IE]

The SC was handily corrupted and intimidated into following the commie line by FDR and has been working against the interests of the populaton to the benefit of those intent on eliminating the States soveriegnty ever since. Roberts was either bought off or intimidated or both.

[JohnG45]

I doubt there was a single reason for the chief justice’s evolution ... .

The word devolution would have been a more appropriate choice.

[Perdogg]

I don't understand how any intellectually honest person could read a severability clause into a law which even liberal Tobin says did not existed. Meaning that, for clarification, that since the law did not contain one, once part of law failed a legal challenge, the rest would fall.

[liberalh8ter]

Linda Greenhouse is a moron.

[Vaquero]

here is a very appropriate Lennon-Mccartney song:

Ring my friend I said you'd call Dr. Robert(s),

Day or night he'll be there anytime at all Dr. Robert(s).

Dr. Robert(s), your a new and better man,

He helps you to understand,

He does everything he can, Dr. Robert(s).

If your down he'll pick you up Dr. Robert(s),

Take a drink from his special cup Dr. Robert(s)

Dr. Robert(s), he's a man you must believe,

Helping everyone in need,

No one can succeed like Dr. Robert(s)

Well, well, well your feeling fine,

Well, well, well, he'll make you Dr. Robert(s)

My friend works for the national health Dr. Robert(s),

Don't take money to see yourself with Dr. Robert(s)

Dr. Robert(s), your a new and better man,

He helps you to understand,

He does everything he can Dr. Robert(s)

Well, well, well, your feeling fine,

Well, well, well, he'll make you Dr. Robert(s)

Ring my friend I said you'd call Dr. Robert(s) (2x)

Dr. Robert(s)!

[Graewoulf]

BUMP!

When you post crap like this please have the common decency to include a “BARF ALERT.”

[castowell]

Linda Greenhouse - from her bio on Wikipedia:
“Greenhouse has also been criticized for her failure to maintain the appearance of objectivity.[15] Greenhouse expresses her personal views as an outspoken advocate for abortion rights and critic of conservative religious values.[15] In 1989, Greenhouse was rebuked by Times editors for participating in an abortion-rights rally in Washington.” Yep, 100% all-in for partial birth abortion!

Also this:
“She has also faced criticism for a June 2006 speech at Harvard University criticizing US policies and actions at Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, and Haditha.[15] In the speech, Greenhouse said she started crying a few years back at a Simon & Garfunkel concert because her generation hadn’t done a better job of running the country than previous generations.” Waaaa, what a putz!

Bottom line - scumbag

[YoungBlackRepublican]

“Just another stealth liberal who pulled the wool over the eyes of a member of the Bush family.”

I know right. How many is that now? I’ve lost count.
When liberals get put on the court they are liberal to the core for the entire time they are there....when republicans get put on the court they worry about how they look in the New York Post

[Sir Napsalot]

Sorry, all.

I forgot a Barf tag .... I thought it was automatic when linking to NY Times.

[maxwellsmart_agent]

There is nobody in this country that does not know that Roberts understood what should have been done. He threw that all away to insure his legacy. Well, he did, with me!

[bmwcyle]

Or the Bush family is pulling the wool over your eyes.

[Aquamarine]

James 1:8

[wayoverontheright]

...that Chief Justice Roberts was not comfortable with “sweeping uses of judicial power to limit government.”

An astounding distortion of the intent of the founders to have the Supreme Court do just that. Especially the FEDERAL government.

I have felt this to be a state's rights issue from the beginning. For the federal government to mandate the purchase of a product or service from a private entity, a product that is not currently allowed to be purchased over state lines, is a usurpation of state authority, if not sovereignty, pure and simple.

What is it about the phrase "enumerated powers" that these people do not understand?

It would not have constituted "judicial activism" to strike down the federal mandate, and the rest of the law, and thus leave the states with the obligation of caring for their citizens, even if insurance were allowed to be purchased across state lines. The invalidation of the commerce clause for this particular law makes this so.

[vortigern]

Roberts re-wrote the law for the Dems who were too arrogant to believe their law, as written, would be overturned. Roberts’ only legacy is that he overstepped the role of the Supreme Court, violated his oath of office and became a traitor.