Left Targets Chief Justice Roberts To Save ObamaCare

IBD Editorials ^ | May 23, 2012 | Editor

[Kaslin]

The Judiciary: Controlling the politically insulated federal courts, especially the Supreme Court, has long been atop the left's to-do list. Since it doesn't own Chief Justice John Roberts, now the game is to shame him.

The battle over retaining the liberal politicization of the courts, symbolized by Chief Justice Earl Warren's tenure, goes back at least as far as President Nixon's failed nominations of Clement Haynsworth and Harrold Carswell in 1969-70; extended to the "borking" of President Reagan's nomination of Judge Robert Bork in 1987; and ultimately sank to the bottom of the gutter in the character assassination of President George H.W. Bush's appointee, Justice Clarence Thomas, in 1991.

President Obama took political meddling with the Supreme Court a step further when he stood before some of the justices assembled within the Capitol for his first State of the Union address. From that platform, he referred to the court's McCain-Feingold ruling, charging that "the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that, I believe, will open the floodgates for special interests."

Last month, the president contended that if the high court ruled ObamaCare unconstitutional, it would mean "an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law" — which is the Supreme Court's duty of judicial review that it has "somehow" carried out since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, and which the Warren Court did in landmark liberal cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Griswold v. Connecticut.

Legal icon of the left Laurence Tribe soon appeared to explain that his former Harvard Law student didn't really mean it. But despite the dubious alibis, Obama is obviously once again miming the president to whom he most wishes to be compared.

[SCalGal]

Roberts is too liberal.

I always thought so too. But, being attacked over and over again by the left may be a good recovery plan for that. We may (I hope!) start to see a more conservative Roberts.

[Twinkie]

With every month that passes, I hope against hope that we’re gonna get a CHANGE. That’s my HOPE & CHANGE.

On the first of June, I’ll basically count that month off and say “Just a little over four more months of this crapola!” Of course, the lame duck BS will strut their stuff and do as they please as far as they can.

[clearcarbon]

"Why did Chief Justice John Roberts have swear Obama in twice , once with Bible and once with Koran ?"

No amount of swearing would have made a bit of difference in the outcome.

[ballplayer]

This is the Test to see If Roberts has the Confidence to eat the Sugar Coated Jelly Donut just Before the Interview

[PapaBear3625]

This may backfire if it causes Justice Kennedy to close ranks with the conservative justices in order to preserve the independence of the Court.

[Optimus Maximus]

Unfortunately, the sad fact is that we no longer have a republic, but are funcitoning under a judicial oligarchy.

We will continue to do so until we elect enough conservatives, or one conservative with great leadership skills, to force the Supreme Court and Federal Judiciary to comply with the originalist intent of the Constitution.

That’s the reason the appointments to the SCOTUS positions are fought over so radically by the lib/progressives.

Why the conservatives do not fight just as hard, is proof that the conservatives do not get it, or simply are not as effective in defending our liberties as the libs/progressives are effective in usurping those liberties through judiciary rulings.

The respect given to past judiciary rulings that become etched in stone through “stare decisis”, regardless of the originalist intent of the constitution, is apalling to all thinking conservatives.

This needs to be another plank in the campaign themes of our conservative candidates, and a talking point of all conservative politicians.