IOW, an invitation to tyranny. 
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Posted on 06/27/2012 8:28:06 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
Via the Examiner, I've been looking for tea leaves for you all day but this, unfortunately, is the best I can do. I don't even regard it as tea leaves: I think Tribe is just pre-spinning the outcome so that, if the mandate is struck down, he can call Roberts a disappointment who betrayed his education in a fit of ideological pique, etc etc etc. But we're starving for insight and this is, in its own lame way, an insight into Roberts' thinking. As is this:
Eastman, a critic of the health care law, said he wouldn’t be surprised to see Roberts side with the Obama administration and uphold the law. “He’s a creature of the Washington administrative state. That’s his background,” the professor said, noting that Roberts has spent almost his entire professional life in Washington.
Scalia’s background is Beltway-heavy too yet his vote against ObamaCare seems a fait accompli.
More unconvincing tea leaves? Okay, how about the idea that Roberts' vote in the Arizona case with Kennedy and the liberals presages a similar outcome on ObamaCare?
What the Arizona compromise will augur for the most closely watched case of the term is anyone's guess. Yet the justices' evident search for common ground in the immigration ruling and a few other cases this term could portend a healthcare decision that does not predictably cleave along political lines…
Overall, the judgment was modest, the tone cautious. It underscored the federal role in regulating immigration and largely rejected the effort by Arizona – and, by extension, several other states – to institute sweeping measures to stop people from illegally crossing the border.
The justices’ regard for national authority on dilemmas that cut across state boundaries could end up echoing in the healthcare ruling.
“Both problems transcend states’ borders and are too big for the states to solve on their own,” Duke University law professor Neil Siegel said, stressing that he did not want to predict how the court would rule on Thursday.
Jeffrey Rosen is pushing this line too over at TNR but you could just as easily argue that Roberts and Kennedy threw the left a bone in the Arizona ruling because they’re ready to tear their hearts out with O-Care. A party-line conservative majority on immigration on top of a party-line conservative majority on ObamaCare would have handed liberals a double-barreled weapon in arguing that the Roberts Court is hopelessly politicized. They’ll still argue that if they lose on O-Care, of course, but their point will be weakened because of the Arizona case.
Exit tea leaf: Even at this late date, Obama's still warning his fundraising audiences about ObamaCare being struck down. How come?
Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy
I hate to say this..... but I have a sinking feeling that Tribe is right. I predict it will be a 6-3 decision (maybe even 7-2), in favor of 0dumb0 care. I don't see John Roberts with enough guts, balls or courage to go contrary to 0dumb0's signature piece of commie legislation in his first term of destroying Amerika. I think that Roberts is scared to death of the racist kenyan negro, which is why he would never rule against 0dumb0's eligibility. And Anthony Kennedy just loves being the middle flip-flop guy. The pro-0dumb0 juggernut may even pull in one of the 3 remaining justices, just so they can keep there status in the DC social structure & power elitists.
I hope I'm wrong!
isn’t Tribe a longtime SCOTUS wannabe??? a lib who has all the answers yet whose opinion doesn’t matter when push comes to shove???
this is nothing more than Tribe making comments in a lame attempt to remain relevant and keep his name out there....
Read them, amplify upon their principles and ideas by accessing the Founders' writings and speeches and sharing them with all you know--especially the young, for whom the decisions being made today are of such critical importance.
For a quick review of those principles and the nation's first 50 years under its Constitution, consult John Quincy Adams' "Jubilee" Address here, or a recent reprint of a 1987 Bicentennial collection of the Founders' principles, here.
James Madison stated: "Although all men are born free, slavery has been the general lot of the human race. Ignorant—they have been cheated; asleep—they have been surprised; divided—the yoke has been forced upon them. But what is the lesson? ... the people ought to be enlightened, to be awakened, to be united, that after establishing a government, they should watch over it ... It is universally admitted that a well-instructed people alone can be permanently free."
The question is, Do We Have A Living Constitution?--in the sense that many, such as Tribe, believe. Or, must changes to that Constitution's limits on government power be made in the manner prescribed within the Constitution itself, by the Amendment process involving "the People"?
"Until the people have, by some solemn and authoritative act, annulled or changed the established form, it is binding upon them collectively, as well as individually; and no presumption or even knowledge of their sentiments, can warrant their representatives [the executive, judiciary, or legislature]; in a departure from it prior to such an act." - Alexander Hamilton
In the first of the eighty-five "Federalist Papers," Alexander Hamilton emphasized that:
"... it seems to have been reserved to the people of this country, by their conduct and example, to decide the important question, whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection or choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force."
I hope I won’t be eating crow tomorrow, but my gut tells me we’re going to be by and large happy with how the SCOTUS comes down on the ACS - And I’m generally prone to pessimism when it comes to things like this.
i did not hear him yesterday but Limbaugh definitely seems to be changing his tune today compared to your take on his comments...literally minutes ago he said the word/belief is obama has already been told he lost on the individual mandate and his lemmings in the criminal liberal media are already trying to spin this pending loss as a victory for mullah obama, in the sense a loss on obozocare in the SC is going to fire up the rat base...
we will see but i don’t believe the Arizona case decision has bearing on obozocare..
This has already been answered in the affirmative; see the USSC case Raich.
**********************************************************
This is the point I was attempting to make. I also find it nuts to imagine the SC would make an attempt to "balance" it's decisions so as to appear non partisan. Since when is the truth partisan? If they come down 15 times in a row against a law written and passed by a Rep Congress and explain why, then I would accept that decision even if I hated it personally.
All the court has is it's credibility and to keep it they must make decisions 100% in concert with the intent of the Constitution. If that is lost then they may as well disband the courts, all of them.
IOW, an invitation to tyranny.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Limbaugh is worried about something.
FYI:
Tea Leaf? Obama Seems To Signal That He’ll Run Against The Court In His Reelection Campaign
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/330479.php
Why on earth would a president “run against” another entire branch of our government, particularly the one whose individual members are appointed for life, who are difficult if not impossible to remove? Desperation, anyone?
If Roberts votes to uphold ObamaCare - GWB’s legacy will sink even further.
Not without cause; consider Wickard, Raich, Kelo, Roe, and the recent AZ rulings.
I hope I won’t be eating crow tomorrow, but my gut tells me we’re going to be by and large happy with how the SCOTUS comes down on the ACS.
Sadly I don't share that opinion, precisely because of the progressions and 'reasoning' of those above-cited cases.
Someone was on Fox TV a little while ago and thinks it’s going to be 6-3 in favor with Roberts writing the majority opinion.
I think you’re wrong about Roberts being afraid of Obama. I think he couldn’t care less about Obama and that he thinks the mandate is constitutional.
If this comes to past, it’s really going to open up a can of worms for this country. I don’t know of any doctors who are in favor of this including my own, many saying they will just leave the profession.
Hope Sheriff Arpaio has some new and interesting information in the next couple of weeks.
I do indeed get the same sense about John Roberts that he is as the man said: “a creature of the Washington administrative state.”
Wether he decide to vote to let Washington invade every aspect of our domestic lives on this or not, I can’t say I think John Roberts is one of us. He has too much love for D.C. and too little affection or loyalty to either the Federal Constitution or the rights & liberties of his so called “countrymen”.
At least he is not as bad as some of the other Federal employees so called “Conservatives” picked to stand in judgement of their office(themselves).
Pray for a just outcome.
I agree.
It is a tax and the issue of semantics is weak. The court is not going to rule on “should” just “can”.
I hope I am wrong. I do not want this ticket to slavery. Servitude to the company store.
W is not responsible for Roberts apparently being caught up in the G & T crowd.
Tribe is so prescient. What a gutsy call. What possessed Tribe to go out on a limb with that prediction that it would be Roberts who would be the turncoat. Tribe must be just super, super smart ... or something.
And I was wrong. Tragically wrong. :(
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.