Posted on 06/29/2012 4:01:22 PM PDT by rpage3
First, an apology for the millionth vanity here...
It has become clear to me that what Justice Roberts has done is so shameful and such an outright trampling on our constitution and theft of our liberty that he should be impeached and be removed from office. In an otherwise sane world where this document still meant something, he would be impeached and if the Republicans have any spine they'd do it. This, "cut off your nose to spite your face" wizardy (that is, trample the constitution in order to save the reputation of the court) is the last straw in what has been an enduring attack on our freedom. Enough; draw the damn line here and now.
If the opinions of Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and even Kennedy could not sway Justice Roberts in a case which has such tremendous implications for our country; then, there is clearly no hope for the man; he cannot be reformed and he must go.
“The person to be romoved is Chicago-style threatener Obama.”
But a nice buck-and-a-wing and allamand right to strawman Obama.
Amen and so should the other four of the majority in the Obamacare case!
There is no grant of authority to be found in the constitution which would allow them do what the did (re-write the law under review) in the Obamacare case. In fact there is no authority for ANY court to re-write anything other than their own opinions!
Then Roberts was too clever by half. This was no time to try to be a “thinking man’s” chief justice. Indeed this was a time for him to do his job and he failed miserably.
There is no doubt(in my mind at least) the lib criticisms of his potential ACA reversal and President Obama’s tirade at him during the SOU after the Citizens United decision must have had a lot of effect on Roberts. This indictments to me and many others he is a coward. The fact that Kennedy wanted to get rid of the ACA altogether only only reinforces this view.
Sorry, I meant “indicates”.
“In an otherwise sane world...”
Unfortunately, you’ve touched the nub of the issue right there. Clearly, it’s NOT a sane world.
Is there any basis for regarding any part of a court decision as being "binding" on anyone but the actual parties to the case before it? To be sure, if the Supreme Court implies that it will overturn at first opportunity any future lower-court decisions which violate certain principles, then it's in most cases reasonable for lower-court judges to avoid issuing such decisions; the Court thus has some implicit authority to instruct lower courts what rules to follow, but only to the extent they are willing to follow it.
Your post is worth reading and I hope it all comes to pass.
No, for altering legislation. That is considering "penalties" which are not-a-tax to be, indeed, a tax.
As a member of the judiciary it is not his place to alter law, that is a function of the legislature.
I think the question to ask every Republican Congressional or Senate candidate is: “Will you vote for Robert’s impeachment?”
Some would say he handed the Republicans control of the House, the Senate, and the Presidency for a generation.
Very possibly. I don’t know. I would think that polling (I know, I know) numbers would reflect a tidal shift to the GOP that the Dhimmi pollsters would be unable to cover for.
So all we got was expanded taxing power. And precedent.
Just a few things off the top of my head that I see Roberts the marxist did to America:
1. Destroyed our individual liberty , destroyed freedom in America.
2. Turned over a huge part of the economy ( the only one growing) over to the government.
3. Gave the liberals a way to control everything we do. Now they know if they just tax behavior then they can make us do anything and control everything we do.
4. He rewrote the bill. He can't do that as it is unconstitutional . It wasn't written as a tax.
5. kennedy said the whole thing was unconstitutional. Any one who can't see this 3000 page monstrosity is not wholly unconstitutional is a marxist activist as this POS Roberts is.
6. We are slaves of the federal government now and of the democrats/marxists. I would rather die fighting the democrats than be their slave.
Just a few things off the top of my head that I see Roberts the marxist did to America:
1. Destroyed our individual liberty , destroyed freedom in America.
2. Turned over a huge part of the economy ( the only one growing) over to the government. the U.S. is now mostly a socialist country. They will be able to control us just with this law.
3. Gave the liberals a way to control everything we do. Now they know if they just tax behavior then they can make us do anything and control everything we do.
4. He rewrote the bill. He can't do that as it is unconstitutional . It wasn't written as a tax.
5. kennedy said the whole thing was unconstitutional. Any one who can't see this 3000 page monstrosity is not wholly unconstitutional is a marxist activist as this POS Roberts is.
6. We are slaves of the federal government now and of the democrats/marxists. I would rather die fighting the democrats than be their slave.
newbie ? probably a democrat.
I agree. It was the second time in a week he sided with the leftists. He appears to be compromised.
newbie ? that’s probably a democrat.
John Roberts is right.
It is we the people who must correct this insult to our traditions, liberty, hard work, and our pocketbooks.
Obamacare is the straw that broke the camel’s back.
Time to repeal it, get rid of millions of unelected bureaucrats (and toss their regulations out the window), prune departmental purview, etc. in ALL parts of federal, state & local government.
Time for audits and prosecutions for cronyism all over the place.
/rant
It certainly is, but nothing in the Supremacy Clause nor anywhere else in the Constitution gives the Supreme Court any authority over anyone other than the actual parties to the cases before it. I will readily grant that Supreme Court rulings are often treated as though they significant authority over other cases, but there's no real legitimate basis for that. If the Supreme Court issues a ruling which agrees with the Constitution and laws, citing such ruling may be a good way to avoid having to re-make the arguments cited therein. On the other hand, if the Court issues a ruling based upon arguments which cannot be reasonably applied to some other case at hand (perhaps because the facts of the extant case don't fit those in the case decided by the SCOTUS, though possibly because the argument was faulty), it would be entirely proper for someone arguing a different case to argue that the Supreme Court precedent does not apply; anyone wishing to claim the precedent as authority should then have to explain why the arguments made thereby are legitimate, and would legitimately apply to the case at hand.
While citing precedent may provide a convenient shorthand for making arguments that were previously made, there should be no "need" to cite precedent except in cases where either the outcome would be genuinely ambiguous without it (meaning either of two contradictory outcomes would both be fully justifiable under the law), or where the effects of an earlier decision may be relevant to a case.
For example, if the court issues a ruling forbidding the enforcement of a particular statute, and someone who is aware of the ruling performs an action which that ruling would seem to declare "legal", the person could legitimately cite the Supreme Court ruling in his defense, without having to defend the legitimacy thereof. Even if the prosecutor could demonstrate that the Court's logic was either faulty or inapplicable to the case at hand, that wouldn't matter if the defendant could show that his conduct was in line with what the Court had said was permissible. I suppose in the latter types of situations, there might be some distinctions between 'enforceable' and 'unenforceable' parts of a ruling, but I would suggest that the main question would be one of what the defendant reasonably believed the Court had said and meant.
I am in total agreement. I’m tired of these nail-biting decisions that should be grand-slam victories for the Constitution.
Still SCOTUS cases are treated as settled law, even when they are mis-cited (as US v Miller often has been). The few SCOTUS cases that have been over turned have taken years to do so.
This ruling leaves plenty of room for mischief.
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.