Patton: Will John Roberts Betray Us Again?

http://www.gopusa.com ^ | March 28, 2013 | Doug Patton

[Salvation]

He doesn’t need to resign.

[lone star annie]

This explains how he sailed through confirmation without the RATS putting up a fight. Look how they fought Bush on Alito. Big difference.

[John Leland 1789]

"Actually, the libertarian position...proper libertarian position....woud be to protect the rights of those who are already under the contract of marriage...and to uphold what THAT contract means.

"And BTW, there is no such thing as SIMPLY ECONOMIC liberty. If you don’t own your property, you don’t own yourself. It’s called the “sanctity of life OUTSIDE the womb.”

I agree with you, but I am referring to the fact that many on FR are so focused on economics, and seem to not believe that the issues of morality in our nation have any real bearing on our survivability as a nation.

[C. Edmund Wright]

I agree with you, but I am referring to the fact that many on FR are so focused on economics, and seem to not believe that the issues of morality in our nation have any real bearing on our survivability as a nation.

In the spirit of friendly debate, allow me a slight quibble with your take. I think that there are many of us who think government's role has more to do with protecting liberty - and while morality is key for survivability, there are limits to what can be legislated by government. I also get very offended when pastors and others who are paid by tax exempt religious organizations criticize "fiscal" conservatives - which is very hypocritical of them to do. They often accuse folks like myself...who are total conservatives...of being "fiscal only" when we simly decide that liberty is the key issue.

Now I totally agree with the fiscal component of morality....but do you agree that there is a moral component to fiscal issues...ie....that property is a sacred right?

[depressed in 06]

Short answer. YES.

Based on his zerOcare decision, he should let Prop 8 stand as a decision made by the people. And, DoMA as a decision of the representatives of the people. If, only, he could find a tax in there.

[Sans-Culotte]

IMO, this is one of the biggest reasons why judges should not get a lifetime appointment to the bench. I think these guys get drunk with power and bask over the mainstream media applauding them for correcting "injustices" in America by enacting new unconstitutional "rights" out of thin air.

I think you are correct. This is the reason for Roberts' betrayal. He wants to be spoken of in reverential terms the same way libs speak of Earl Warren. I don't think anybody "has something" on him. He is captive to his own ego and vanity.

[Impy]

That cocktail party thing is a big problem. Damn peer pressure. It’s like friggin kids stuff!!

I’m not sure that was the problem with Roberts though. I think he is too clever for his own good and full of himself.

[BillyBoy]

If he's rock solid in the conservative camp on the DOMA & Prop 8 rulings, as well as all other major future decisions, then Obamacare was a aberration from his normal conservative idealogy and there might have been foul play behind-the-scenes like Roberts being coersed or whatever.

If he sells out on gay marriage and doesn't uphold DOMA and Prop. 8 (which sadly, my "gut" feeling tell me he will), then Roberts has gone squishy on us and I doubt he's being blackmailed. More likely we just ended up with another Sandra Day O'Connor (not as bad as "another Souter", but certainly terrible in the short run given that Obama is president and we only have 3 solid conservatives on SCOTUS right now to stop this stuff)

I doubt we'll ever get my dream of a fully elected SCOTUS, but I'm sure the vast majority of Americans would agree on ending lifetime appointments for SCOTUS judges and Congress should move to make such reforms in the judiciary. I don't want Clinton and Obama's appointees serving for the next several decades, either.

I also wish the judges represented geographic/population areas instead of the nation as a whole. There's a good case to be made that that was the founders intent and we've lost that since they did away with the justices "riding the circuit" in the early 1800s. Now most of the SCOTUS judges are from New York and California. We could remove three of the commie RAT judges immediately if we required them to be from different areas of the country:

[fieldmarshaldj]

To the point, if Roberts goes to the dark side on this, he will be the reincarnation of Earl Warren. The nation will not be safe from their ultraleftist mechanations.

[Political Junkie Too]

Roberts is a broken man.

-PJ

[Impy]

I don’t buy for a second that he was blackmailed behind the scenes.

Occum’s razor says he was just being a dumba$$ traitor.

[BillyBoy]

I remember back in ‘03 (damn! have I really been posting on FR over a decade?) I was warning the Arnoldbots that RINOld was from the same mold as fellow California “Republican” Earl Warren, and they laughed it off and said “Thanks, we’ll be sure not to recommend him for the Supreme Court”

[fieldmarshaldj]

Ahnold was a worse Governor than Warren (and Off-White Davis, for that matter). Warren was a moderate guy in Sacramento who didn’t go full moonbat until he landed on the court. It was Ike who made the assumption that he’d be a safe pick who’d be someone not to rock the boat. I don’t know what is worse, though... had Dewey become President, Warren would’ve probably succeeded him. What would Warren have done as President ? Would he have been more destructive in the White House than as Chief Justice ? Scary stuff to ponder.

[Graewoulf]

Obamanation Counterculture File.

[BillyBoy]

Yikes, I forgot that closet commie Warren was Dewey's running mate in '48. That had to be one of the worst veep picks in history. Nelson Rockefeller was worse, but Ford dumped him in '76 and replaced him with Dole.

[AuH2ORepublican]

If SCOTUS won’t be elected, then requiring that the judges come from each of your regions would do nothing. Obama would name an East Coast liberal as the representative of each district (with his tie to the region being a ski chalet in Vail or having been born in Houston or something).

What I’d like to see is a constitutional amendment to phase out lifetime appointments and have Justices be appointed to staggered 18-year terms. This will allow each president will get one appointment every two years and, for the most part, not more than that. Another advantage is that presidents won’t feel compelled to nominate Justices who are in their late 40s or early 50s, since the term wouldn’t last more than 18 years, thus allowing good candidates in their 60s (who are less likely to “evolve in office”) to be considered.

[John Leland 1789]

"Now I totally agree with the fiscal component of morality....but do you agree that there is a moral component to fiscal issues...ie....that property is a sacred right?"

I believe that property is a right, and one worth fighting and dying for. How you use the word "sacred," when you seem (and I could be reading you wrong)no to believe that God has anything to do with the rise, fall, success, failure, or survivability of a nation, I do not know.

You can have all conservative economics, you can get the government out of everything --- and my position is DO THAT!

And when God decides to put his thumb or heel on on a nation because of their wickedness (morally, spiritually - including when government appears to put the stamp of approval on that which is an abhorrence to Him ---, that nation will FAIL, no matter how conservative the fiscal policies are.

Concerning pastors, and salaries, and tax-exempt organizations, you would have to be more specific for me to comment on that. I don't quite know what "organizations" you are talking about.

[Impy]

Dewey/Bricker ‘44 is the ticket I wish had won.

[BillyBoy]

>> If SCOTUS won’t be elected, then requiring that the judges come from each of your regions would do nothing. <<

It wouldn't change the ideological makeup (actually, if they're still appointed, it might make it worse, since Obama would replace the GOP appointed judges who don't live in their district with new RAT judges), but either way it would drastically change the current membership of the court. Ginsburg, Roberts, Alito, and Sotomayor all live in my proposed 2nd judicial district, for example. And Breyer and Kagan are both in the 1st District. They'd either have to retire, move to another region of the country (of course I wouldn't put it past them to claim their great aunt's house in Kansas as their new "residence" so they can technically qualify), or be forced in a runoff with another incumbent justice. Per my proposal, only ONE judge for each of the nine districts.

If it went to an elected system, District 1, 2 & 7 are likely to be elect a liberal RAT judge, District 3, 4, 6, and 8 are likely to elect a conservative GOP judge, and District 5 (WI, IL, IN, MI, OH) is a swing region that either side could win.

>> Obama would name an East Coast liberal as the representative of each district (with his tie to the region being a ski chalet in Vail or having been born in Houston or something). <<

I'd make the rules similar to Senate elections, you'd have to establish residency within 30 days BEFORE the appointment/election. You'd probably still get a few Hillary Clinton and Al Franken type carpetbaggers running to "represent" California when they're from Boston, but whatever. If we went an elected system, I doubt any of the liberal judges would run in flyover country. District 4, for example, would be suicide for a liberal carpetbagger to appear on the ballot in.

>> What I’d like to see is a constitutional amendment to phase out lifetime appointments and have Justices be appointed to staggered 18-year terms. <<

18 years? Way too long. You get a Roberts type to go off the deep end 7 years into his term, and the citizens are still stuck with him to inflict damage on America for the next 11 years. In Illinois, the state supreme court justices are on 10 year terms. Still too long, IMO, but short enough where they retire rather than face voters rather again when they know they'll be bounced when they're up for retention (as the justice from southern Illinois did when he had dismal approval ratings due to being a wacky liberal activist. It then became an open seat and a conservative was elected in his place)

I'm fine with a Scalia type judge being re-elected and serving on the court a long time, but either way I'd say the maximum time on the bench should be 25-30 years OR whenever they reach their 75th birthday, whichever comes FIRST. And certainly they should be up for retention or re-election after no more than 10 years.

> >> thus allowing good candidates in their 60s (who are less likely to “evolve in office”) to be considered. <<<

Ditto with the age limit of 75. You could nominate a 65ish person to fill the seat, but that person would only serve a maximum of 10 years. It would be similar to the current system when Governor's fill vacant Senate seats with seat warmers that don't intent to run next time. Limits the chance of a younger judge "growing" in office (and in the event they do "grow" in office, voters can vote AGAINST retaining the activist judge after a few years)

[fieldmarshaldj]

Only if Gov. Bricker had ended up as President.