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
What’s that thing sitting in the front row on the far right?
These people have no soul they will go after his wife and children if they please. Look at how they are attacking Ann Romney. Look at the way they treat Sarah Palin.
Too right. It was said and done weeks if not months ago. All that’s happening now is putting the final touches on the opinions.
- - - - - - - -
I think I know what Rush was referring to as well. It has nothing to do with blackmail, and everything to do with Court politics and coalition building.
Arizona was a sacrifice to give political cover for sinking ObamaCare.
That is what Rush implied elsewhere.
Exactly right. Roberts needs Kennedy with him to overturn O’care; so he gave Kennedy support on Arizona (something he otherwise would not have done).
Golum.
There are suddenly not going to be very many democrats in Washington next January. It’s going to be very quiet after the roman circus of the last four years.
Oh, dry up, junkey. When he was nominated, the gay press and their cohorts were all over the place claiming he was gay. It has nothing to do with my opinion or lack of respect.
Does everything have to be a homosexual conspiracy here?
We’re on the same page. And since the AZ case would have been decided the same way with or without Roberts’s vote (4-4 would have resulted in the 9th Circuit opinion being upheld with respect to the three clauses that SCOTUS struck down; the 9th Circuit still would have een overruled 8-0 on section 2(b)), it wasn’t that big of a sacrifice for Roberts.
No, it doesn’t.
If this story is about “coalition building” than I am perplexed as to why Rush didn’t want to reveal what was going on behind the scenes. I’m perfectly willing to accept that horsetrading was the reason for his vote.
But as a matter of record, gay smears were all over the place when the guy was nominated. I know we all have short memories here but come on, guys!
Politico may not be inferring that a Chief Justice who swears in a president elect who promised to honor, preserve and protect the Constitution, but who told the world he was a naturalized citizen - “I am a native-born citizen of the US.”, is derelict in his duties. "Native-born" is the language of the 14th Amendment, the naturalization amendment based upon Article 1 Section 8, the congressional mandate "To establish and Uniform Rule of Naturalization." The 14th Amendment never mentions natural born citizenship. Its author, Congressman John Bingham, repeated the US common-law defintion, but using slightly different words, to emphasize the intent: "...of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty". Can anyone not see that Obama's British-Kenyan father owed allegiance to a foreign sovereignty, and that this characterizes Obama's unsuitablility, apart from our law? Roberts knows, and Obama knows, and every US Senator who signed SR 511 in April 2008 knows that a president must be a natural born citizen, and not a naturalized citizen.
Roberts, with some difficulty, administered the oath of office, depending upon the ignorance of most citizens, that a naturalized citizen is not a natural born citizen. Any naturalized citizen knows better than most natural born citizens, because our State Department requires a citizenship oath in which candidates swear sole allegiance to our Constitution. Roberts is either too weak to execute his sworn duty, not just as chief justice, but the duty of any officer of the court, or he has agreed with Obama’s politburo, that the Constitution is antiquated and old Supreme Court decisions are no longer relevant.
As Baraka told us about our Constitution, “It doesn't allow me to do the things I believe our country needs.” “The Constitution is a doctrine of negative liberties.” Obama wants a new bill of rights, rather like FDR, who also tried to pack the courts. This time it appears that the court has been packed because Roberts has evaded his responsibility, not only as chief justice, knowing, as did every Senator, that Obama was not born to citizen parents, but his responsibility to report a felony - campaign finances were illicitly solicited by the candidate and/or the chairwoman of his party, Nancy Pelosi, who affirmed Obama’s eligibility with a signed affidavit.
My belief is that it was a tactical (hattip: FReeper apillar) decision by the Chief Justice. Kennedy was already voting with the liberals and thus the whole AZ law was heading to be overturned, the Chief Justice was able to persuade Kennedy to uphold the 'check your papers' immigration check part of the law during a legitimate stop by law enforcement. Roberts joined Kennedy on the ruling to achieve this.
Additionally, if the Chief Justice also similarly partners with Kennedy on the 0bamacare ruling (it is reported that they are likely co-authoring the opinion) to throw it out entirely, this concession on the AZ ruling will seem brilliant.
The white hut has already threatened Roberts...and I have wondered what they have on him ever since. I am actually worried about this one.
Quote: “Rush knows what the individual mandate decision is, and what he’s telling us here is that it’s going to be a 6-3 decision, or better, to strike down the mandate.”
There is not one liberal on that court who will vote against it. Up until yesterday, I believed that there was only one so called conservative who would vote for it. But Mr. Roberts it appears has now joined the Anthony Kennedy school of “please let me come to your DC cocktail party and hang out with the cook crowd!!!” I think that the Supreme Court has in the past, can in the present and will in the future slice the baloney however thin is necessary to justify any federal action. . .strike that, any progressive federal action.
Don’t think SB1070. Think Obamacare...
The threat is early enough. It’s just falling on deaf ears.
If this guy’s minions go anywhere near the SCOTUS, it’s game on.
Don’t think SB1070. Think Obamacare...
The threat is early enough. It’s just falling on deaf ears.
If this guy’s minions go anywhere near the SCOTUS, it’s game on.
[ since you state the decision re Obamacare is already made, you have a point ]
to prevent a 4 - 4 tie and thus upholding the 9th circus ruling
Has the SC ever NOT been a collection of political hacks and affirmative action types?
Not one Republican Senator voted for the bill on December 24, 2009 and in the House Joe Cao (R-Louisiana) was the only Republican who voted in favor of the bill on November 7, 2009 when it was shoved down our throat.
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.