Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Why Roberts Did It
National Review Online ^ | 28 June 2012 | Charles Krauthammer

Posted on 06/28/2012 1:47:53 PM PDT by Meet the New Boss

It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China: Chief Justice John Roberts joins the liberal wing of the Supreme Court and upholds the constitutionality of Obamacare. How? By pulling off one of the great constitutional finesses of all time. He managed to uphold the central conservative argument against Obamacare, while at the same time finding a narrow definitional dodge to uphold the law — and thus prevented the Court from being seen as having overturned, presumably on political grounds, the signature legislation of this administration.

snip

Whatever one thinks of the substance of Bush v. Gore, it did affect the reputation of the Court. Roberts seems determined that there be no recurrence with Obamacare. Hence his straining in his Obamacare ruling to avoid a similar result — a 5–4 decision split along ideological lines that might be perceived as partisan and political.

(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...


TOPICS: Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: johnroberts; krauthammer; obamacare; obamacaretax; scotus
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last
To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears

Re: So Roberts made Marxism the law of the land, because he wanted to seem “fair.

So long Constitutional Republic, hello marxcist dictatorship


61 posted on 06/28/2012 2:38:45 PM PDT by jesseam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
I always feel good when me and Krauthammer agree.
Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There's only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed -- elect a new president and a new Congress. That's undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine
I've been saying that all afternoon.
62 posted on 06/28/2012 2:39:04 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Sopater

What do you mean you can’t undertand how the other Constitutionalist judges voted differently than Roberts? There were four conservative judges who wanted to completely repeal the law: Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Kennedy.
Where Kennedy was the one we were worried about bailing..it was actually the Chief justice himself who failed us and joined the lib judges to make it a five four decision.

The others, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagen and Breyer are card carrying Libs and voted for for all things anti American/anti Constitution as they always do.


63 posted on 06/28/2012 2:40:21 PM PDT by Mountain Mary (Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Tzar
He could have voted down the mandate AND Obamacare as tax, right?

I don't think so - I think that in order to have standing before the Court on the tax issue a plaintiff needs to have actually been taxed. That hasn't happened ... yet.
64 posted on 06/28/2012 2:41:03 PM PDT by tanknetter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides
Sorry folks—I’m beginning to think, more and more, that SOMEONE HAS SOMETHING on Roberts

Someone said that Roberts has Sandusky eyes, I dunno.

I would like to meet him on the range.

65 posted on 06/28/2012 2:45:16 PM PDT by USS Alaska (Nuke the terrorist savages, start today.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: kearnyirish2

From Rush today: “You could say that a tax on having more than one child would now be constitutional.”


66 posted on 06/28/2012 2:48:16 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Ecc12:13-14

Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this [is] the whole [duty] of man.

For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether [it be] good, or whether [it be] evil.

Since when did 2 evils make a good? Twins in thinking, signing legislation, etc. Trading one d socialist for an r socialist does not compute.

When bad seed is sowed on bad soil it produces a bad crop. For all those who complain of Snowe, Graham, Collins and the former Specter this is what you will get if you go ahead and drink the GOP koolaide in Nov.

67 posted on 06/28/2012 2:49:25 PM PDT by GailA (IF U don't/won't keep your promises to the Military, U won't keep them to the public)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Mountain Mary

Roberts to Kennedy: “Okay, I’ll vote for it so you can vote against it.”


68 posted on 06/28/2012 2:49:56 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: House Atreides

If there was a covert reason for Roberts’ vote, I would think it might be a salve to the left for them voting to wreck the Arizona immigration bill.


69 posted on 06/28/2012 2:54:07 PM PDT by varina davis (A real American patriot -- Gov. Rick Perry)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: ari-freedom

Actually Roberts just proved the Supreme Court for all intents and purposes is useless or at least he is. The supreme court makes the wrong decisions when it counts. They side with murderous abortionists and now demand the tax payers finance those killing fields making us all complicit in evil.


70 posted on 06/28/2012 2:54:12 PM PDT by formosa (Formosa)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
It’s the judiciary’s Nixon-to-China:

And that was a disaster also
71 posted on 06/28/2012 2:59:11 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Then people like Roberts are frozen immobile in fear of what the media will say. That’s bondage!


72 posted on 06/28/2012 2:59:40 PM PDT by RoadTest (There is one god, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tanknetter
I think that in order to have standing before the Court on the tax issue a plaintiff needs to have actually been taxed

Good point.

73 posted on 06/28/2012 3:00:07 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

Does this all really matter

The country is broke

Ain’t gonna be any $$$ for Obamacare

We will be lucky if we are eating 2 years from now


74 posted on 06/28/2012 3:09:34 PM PDT by uncbob
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Terry Mross
From Rush today: “You could say that a tax on having more than one child would now be constitutional.”

Yes...but now it would have to pass Congress and no longer can be found under "penumbras".

Liberals will no linger have the courts skirt to hide behind to make, instead of legislate, laws.

Do you not think that you can convince your fellow countrymen that laying a tax for having more than one child is a bad thing?

75 posted on 06/28/2012 3:10:24 PM PDT by eddie willers
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: eddie willers

I know lots of conservatives who wouldn’t mind seeing some people limited in how many children they have. Not me.


76 posted on 06/28/2012 3:21:53 PM PDT by Terry Mross ( To all my kin: Do not attempt to contact me as long as you love obama.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss
it it is now declared a TAX... it can be repealed, right???
77 posted on 06/28/2012 3:27:20 PM PDT by Chode (American Hedonist - *DTOM* -ww- NO Pity for the LAZY)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

No. His job is to find it constitutional or unconstitutional. It was clearly unconstitutional. He went out of his way to do what he did.


78 posted on 06/28/2012 3:31:19 PM PDT by FrdmLvr (culture, language, borders)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Do Not Make Fun Of His Ears
To quote a zebra stripped SF Sergent from the late 1960’s

“Sir, don't you go worrying about your creditability. By the time you get around to worrying about it you ain't got none!

You start each day with a little piece of creditability, a little smaller than those bars you wear. You add or subtract from that by every act you do during the day - large or small.

And if you are lucky the creditability you start tomorrow with will be a little bit larger than that you started today with.”

I mean no dishonor to the man by not remembering his name for he taught me that afternoon the greatest leadership lesson I have ever learned.

To be a good leader you have to the right thing every time, every day. Don't worry about tomorrow for it will be here soon enough with its own challenges. If you start worrying what others will think of you you had better leave - you'll be killing your men needlessly shortly after that thought becomes part of you.

If Roberts was worried about how “his” court will be remembered he can forget about it. It will be forever defined by today's ruling; and, it ain't good.

79 posted on 06/28/2012 3:33:36 PM PDT by Nip (TANSTAAFL and BOHICA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Meet the New Boss

There is no why. There is no spin. There is no wiggling out of it. He did it. He aided and abetted the destruction of America.


80 posted on 06/28/2012 3:38:50 PM PDT by bgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-105 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson