Posted on 06/25/2015 11:48:05 AM PDT by C19fan
On Thursday, the Supreme Court delivered another major victory to ObamaCare, voting 6-3 in King v. Burwell to uphold the subsidies at the heart of the sweeping health care reform law. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts — appointed by George W. Bush, and once a beloved figure on the right — wrote the majority opinion, joined by the court's liberal wing and swing Justice Anthony Kennedy.
This isn't the first time Roberts has sided with the left on ObamaCare. And as a result, my fellow conservatives are comparing Roberts quite ignominiously to David Souter.
(Excerpt) Read more at theweek.com ...
While it is true that GHWBush gave us Clarence Thomas, he also gave us David Souter (at the urging of John Sununu).
They aren’t “finding the law” and presenting it to us.
They are shaping the law to suit their political agenda.
They are the members of the Uniparty and their servants.
I see it more like the first Triumvirate in Ancient Rome. Obama is Julius Caesar, Boehner is Pompey and Roberts is Crassus.
Yes. What kind of a family befriends and calls a disgraced impeached President and a known sexual predator and criminal their second son or their brother? That says everything you need to know about the Bushes.
I have the same hunch about the basement meetings we will all turn to.
These days I find myself thinking of Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 and the books and verse and prayers and history we will all be forced to hold to and carry forth.
I'm waiting to see if you cite precedent in support of the latest rulings.
No new Obama eligibility/natural born citizen threads in a month.
Whenever the courts are involved, you win some and you lose some. The legal term for precedent is “stare decisis” ( as you well know). The term is in Latin because its a legal concept that has been around for more than two thousand years.
The highest court in the land SETS precedent as often as it “stands by things already decided.”
My point is that it has divorced itself from the foundation of natural law upon which their authority is based, and so therefore their dictates no longer have any moral authority compelling us to obey them.
And we should not do so if we can defy them without excessive bad consequences.
The court has always had a mix of members who based their authority on the foundations of natural law and those that didn’t. The dynamic of the Supreme Court is which judicial philosophy is in the majority at any particular point in time.
Some Justices are divorced from having moral authority, others aren’t. The people have always had the right to engage in civil disobedience as long as they are willing to pay the potential price.
That’s where civil rights movements come from.
And that is the dividing line between legitimacy and illegitimacy. I have no moral compunction to obey anything which is not based on a natural law foundation, and indeed, a duty to resist it.
The people have always had the right to engage in civil disobedience as long as they are willing to pay the potential price.
Indeed, but I would go farther. They have a right to deliberately break any and every law in contradiction to moral absolutes, and the right to punish authorities who abused their powers. (See John Locke.)
I urge that no one do anything for which they cannot get away, but I urge them to do everything for which they can.
The law no longer has any moral compunction, and we should undermine it at every viable opportunity. If we can't turn this ship, we need to help sink it faster.
We began as a nation from “no taxation without representation!”
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.