Posted on 06/26/2012 11:38:09 AM PDT by Kaslin
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: The Politico has a story today warning John Roberts: "You can be lionized and be the biggest hero in this town, or we can make your life miserable. It's up to you." Now, those are my words, but that's the point of the Politico story: You can be the biggest, most prominent, most loved and revered chief justice in the history of chief justices, or you can be dirt. It's up to you, judge. He's supposed to swing Obamacare. Exactly right. I've got that story in the stack here. I'm getting way ahead of myself here. I had this stuff all laid out.
"John Roberts's Big Moment -- Chief Justice John Roberts pledged during his Supreme Court hearings to be a mere umpire of the law. But as a legacy-defining decision nears, Roberts is emerging as the court’s most intriguing player. Justices are expected to rule Thursday -- during their final public sitting of the term -- on the fate of President Barack Obama’s signature health law. While much of the early attention focused on swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, many court watchers predict Roberts will be the architect of the ruling.
"To a great extent, the decision will shape the way history views Roberts’s stewardship of the high court. The chief justice may not hold the key vote to what the court does on the pivotal case, but he could be in a position to dictate how the court does it. 'The health care case will undoubtedly define his chief justiceship,' said Jeffrey Rosen, a law professor at George Washington University ... 'The scope of the law, the amount of people affected, the fact that it’s the centerpiece of the president’s domestic agenda, all make it as politically charged as imaginable.' ...
"Even if the 57-year-old chief justice does write the opinion, there’s considerable uncertainty about what side he would take. At stake is not only Roberts’s own legacy but also the court’s reputation as an impartial arbiter of the law." So you see, Roberts was supposed to get up and read this today. And if he votes to strip the mandate or rules the whole thing unconstitutional or whatever, he's no longer "an impartial arbiter of the law," and his legacy ... is mud. "Would he uphold the individual mandate and the law on a 6-3 vote, joining with Kennedy and the liberals for a ruling that crosses ideological and political boundaries?"
Folks, I tell you, I am so damn sick of this. You know, there hasn't been a single story -- I checked this. Not a single story, not one reference to the possibility that one of the four liberals might vote in some other way. But there are reams and reams of paper and published data about the conservative justices and which one of them will "grow" and be "mature" and do the "right" thing. And it always brings me back to this notion that we hear constantly, there must be compromise. And we must cross the aisle and work with one another.
There's not one thought even given to the fact that a liberal judge might side with America. There's not one story, not one reference, to one of the liberal judges going against his or her ideology. Now, during the oral arguments, there was some shock and dismay over some of the questions that were asked by Sotomayor, but I'm talking about stories like this. You don't see a story like this that's written for Roberts about Ginsburg or Breyer, or Kagan. You don't see any ever, any stories like this about the liberal judges. Only the so-called conservative judges.
And they're always framed in this silly notion that a judge is only decent and good and worthy of acclaim if he abandons whatever it is assumed his right-wing ideology to be. All of this is predictable. It's just the Politico, not the Washington Post Style Section but still. It's predictable. But the Politico, they're letting Roberts know: "It's up to you, pal. You want to like living in this town from Friday on, or are you going to regret the day you came out of the womb? It's up to you."
That's what they may as well be saying.
END TRANSCRIPT
The Politico is a tad late since the case has already been decided.
It just hasn’t been released to the public.
So, Politico says that Supreme Court Judges should only make popular decisions?
According to national polling for 2 years, Americans want Obamacare to go away. So that would be the popular decicion.
Silly me, I thought their job was to defend the Constitution. Here’s a case where scuttling Obamacare will be both popular and a defense of the Constitution.
WIN-WIN.
The point is moot at this stage, Politico............
This. It’s done. Over. Finished.
Politico is too late.
exactly. the legislation is not popular outside the beltway.
“So, Politico says that Supreme Court Judges should only make popular decisions?”
No. I believe that the Politico (and liberals in general) feel that the Supremem Court Judges should only make decisions that coincide with their idiology.
“The Left has been successful in intimidating Roberts to vote against most of the Arizona law, so they feel confident that they can intimidate him on the Obamacare law...”
This may be true. If so, I hope they’re unsuccessful. It’s a sad commentary on our judicial system that we’re even suggesting that they are able to be intimidated.
Dr. Robert
The Beatles - Revolver Album
Ring my friend I said you’d call Dr. Robert,
Day or night he’ll be there anytime at all Dr. Robert.
Dr. Robert, your a new and better man,
He helps you to understand,
He does everything he can, Dr. Robert.
If your down he’ll pick you up Dr. Robert,
Take a drink from his special cup Dr. Robert
Dr. Robert, he’s a man you must believe,
Helping everyone in need,
No one can succeed like Dr. Robert
Well, well, well your feeling fine,
Well, well, well, he’ll make you Dr. Robert
My friend works for the national health Dr. Robert,
Don’t take money to see yourself with Dr. Robert
Dr. Robert, your a new and better man,
He helps you to understand,
He does everything he can Dr. Robert
Well, well, well, your feeling fine,
Well, well, well, he’ll make you Dr. Robert
Ring my friend I said you’d call Dr. Robert (2x)
Dr. Robert!
“So, Politico says that Supreme Court Judges should only make popular decisions?”
No, not at all. Just decisions that further the leftist/Marxist agenda.
What a pathetic picture, the once mighty SC now a collection of political hacks and affirmative action types.
I think the illegals know what this means even if Obama has no clue.
I do not think that's what some of them did yesterday with the Illegal Alien ruling for Arizona. I just cannot make sense of how that could even happen.
Is it even legal for the local police to make arrests for possession of Cocaine now? After all, I believe that is another federal law.
Rush said yesterday he KNEW why Roberts went with the lib justices on Arizona. He said he couldn’t talk about it. So it’s gotta be related to this Politico thing. Gay rumors true??
How did they intimidate him?
Had Roberts voted against it, it would have ended 4-4, thus upholding the 9th circuits decesion. So Roberts’ vote did not matter. Why Roberts voted with the majority was to assign the Per Curiam opinion, thus shaping it, to Kennedy.
The Town that steals from the rest of America while telling us all how to live, Washington, D.C.
Roberts is a brilliant man who has accomplished very much in his life. These type of people don’t take well to threats. In fact something like this is much more likely to push him in the other direction.
thanks for explaining that. I was wondering the consequences of a tie vote.
By the way, you call yourself a Conservatarian.
But I think you are really a Conservatrarian. :)
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.