Skip to comments.
Roberts's Rules (pretty much explains his decision...)
The Atlantic ^
| January, 2007
| JEFFREY ROSEN
Posted on 07/01/2012 4:55:52 PM PDT by nerdgirl
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-107 next last
For anybody still wondering "WHY DID THIS MAN DO THIS!!!" This article from 2007 gives you all of the explanation you'll ever need. Like it or not, this is who Justice Roberts is, and always was. For better and for worse...
1
posted on
07/01/2012 4:55:53 PM PDT
by
nerdgirl
To: nerdgirl
Roberts will never make a worse decision than the one we saw last week. To bankrupt this country, trample individual freedom, and expand federal government power without apparent limit with a single vote - that’s an accomplishment that will never be topped.
2
posted on
07/01/2012 5:01:17 PM PDT
by
Pollster1
(A boy becomes a man when a man is needed - John Steinbeck)
To: nerdgirl
Sorry this got posted twice, back button problem.
3
posted on
07/01/2012 5:01:39 PM PDT
by
nerdgirl
To: nerdgirl
"In particular, Roberts declared, he would make it his priority, as Marshall did, to discourage his colleagues from issuing separate opinions. I think that every justice should be worried about the Court acting as a Court and functioning as a Court, and they should all be worried, when theyre writing separately, about the effect on the Court as an institution. "
So, Roberts went off and wrote his own RobertsCareTax opinion while the two factions also wrote their own dissenting opinions?
Good job John.
4
posted on
07/01/2012 5:02:17 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: Pollster1
Yes I think the decision surely sucked.
But part of my quest since Thursday has been to understand the WHY of it, and even though I hate the decision, I think now I have some idea why he did it.
5
posted on
07/01/2012 5:03:31 PM PDT
by
nerdgirl
To: Paladin2
6
posted on
07/01/2012 5:04:52 PM PDT
by
nerdgirl
To: nerdgirl
Ah - the old “Reaching across the aisle” in other words. How very special.
To: nerdgirl
Yep, lots of warning signs in this article.
If that CBS News report from earlier today is accurate though, he pretty much through his much cherished collegiality with Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito out onto the rubbish heap.
8
posted on
07/01/2012 5:08:48 PM PDT
by
Timber Rattler
(Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
To: nerdgirl
To: nerdgirl
"Another reason for Rehnquists success as a chief justice, Roberts said, was his temperamentnamely, that he knew who he was and had no inclination to change his views simply to court popularity."
Stike Two....
10
posted on
07/01/2012 5:11:10 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: nerdgirl
Roberts did this because it is a socialist/statist/marxist. Same Reason Obama, Pelosi, Reid did it.
11
posted on
07/01/2012 5:13:08 PM PDT
by
rurgan
(Sunset all laws at 4 years.China is destroying U.S. ability to manufacture,makes everything)
To: rurgan
"Roberts approvingly quoted the observation of Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes that Marshalls preeminence was due to the fact that he was John Marshall. If Roberts succeeds, his success will be due to the fact that he is John Roberts. "
Roberts is not going to become another Marshall. More likely to become another John Boner.
12
posted on
07/01/2012 5:18:43 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: nerdgirl
Interesting article, thanx for posting.
13
posted on
07/01/2012 5:20:05 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: nerdgirl
14
posted on
07/01/2012 5:22:12 PM PDT
by
Paladin2
To: Timber Rattler
My husband doesn’t understand why I am still reading about this, much less freeping about it! Thinks I am wasting energy and spinning my wheels. But I didn’t know enough about Roberts a week ago to have seen this coming, so I was just perplexed and mad...now I’m just mad.
15
posted on
07/01/2012 5:26:20 PM PDT
by
nerdgirl
To: All
16
posted on
07/01/2012 5:26:37 PM PDT
by
musicman
(Until I see the REAL Long Form Vault BC, he's just "PRES__ENT" Obama = Without "ID")
To: rurgan
That is ridiculous and makes you look stupid for saying it.
17
posted on
07/01/2012 5:29:02 PM PDT
by
nerdgirl
To: nerdgirl
Pure idiocy!
He is supposed to defend constitutional principles and nothing else.
18
posted on
07/01/2012 5:30:09 PM PDT
by
SWAMPSNIPER
(The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)
To: nerdgirl
misChief inJustice John Robs US.
19
posted on
07/01/2012 5:30:40 PM PDT
by
tflabo
(Truth or tyranny)
To: nerdgirl
So if the reports are true why did he change his mind
20
posted on
07/01/2012 5:33:28 PM PDT
by
uncbob
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 101-107 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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson