Patton: Will John Roberts Betray Us Again?

http://www.gopusa.com ^ | March 28, 2013 | Doug Patton

[NKP_Vet]

In the tortured justification for his vote to sustain Obamacare last summer, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts pointed to Congress's authority to levy taxes — an argument not even put forward by its advocates. (They, in fact, had argued that it was not a tax.) As a direct result of Roberts's folly, the stark reality of Barack Obama's "fundamental transformation of America" creeps closer each day.

[txhurl]

Zero and his demons would deport Robert’s kids and let all zero’s illegal family stay?

[sickoflibs]

I was just posting that idea on another thread when you pinged me so I included you.

But legally many states define it as a status as the SCOTUS is very likely to do with Kennedy,

[N. Theknow]

Will Roberts betray us again?

Would a cow lick Lot's wife?

[Jane Long]

Darn, I thought this would be a GENERAL Geo. Patton parody, ala the Hitler parodies, of Patton dressing down Roberts.

The answer to the question...

Yes, Roberts seems to be a key part in 0's Fundamental Transformation™ of America :(

[lodi90]

Looks like the USSC will punt based on the standing issue and find a reason to let the 9th circus ruling stand. That gives the homos almost everything they want.

The only sure thing is it will be some tortured BS ruling like the kenyancare decision.

[MrB]

Yes, obviously.

That’s symptomatic of the left - they punish the righteous and reward the wicked.

[Tugo]

Yes, Justice Roberts in comprimised. In his vetting process, he claimed his children were adopted from somewhere in Latin America. In deed these two toe-heads were adopted from Ireland. It is illegal for non Irish nationals to adopt there. Sticky issue.

[CSM]

“Why is it that only conservative justices turn liberal once they get on SCOTUS and not the otherway around?”

Because they want to be accepted by their pals on the cocktail party circut. The pols and media elite are constantly hanging out with each other and everyone wants to fit in and keep getting the invites.

[TomGuy]

Considering his convoluted reasoning behind deciding for Obamacare, I would suspect that some very influential outside pressure was put on him.

Once a sell out ...

==

[ladyjane]

Somebody on the left has “the goods” on him

You're right. He should do what Petraeus did when he was blackmailed. Not resign though.

[Wordkraft]

He is wholly owned by the White Hut. Ain’t blackmail a wild and crazy thang?

[MrB]

He has a very good reason for not resigning, and he can state that as well -

0bama will appoint an uber-leftist radical in his place.

[GeorgeTex]

I think the term is Souterize. Something that is chronic in the Bush family.

[Fiji Hill]

Will John Roberts Betray Us Again?

Does it snow in Vermont?
Can green chile stew be found in New Mexico?

[BillyBoy]

>> More worried about Kennedy on this one. <<

I'm equally worried both of them will cave. I hope they prove me wrong.

[Agamemnon]

Congress could always re-assert its authority to pass laws such as DOMA with as broad a support as it achieved and pass a law that restricts the court's right to rule on matters pertaining to marriage.

The Ninth Circuit could rule any way it wanted but since it's purview in such matters is clipped by Congress in this example, CA's Prop 8 can survive as it was voted buy the people. Period.

Would render the Court's opinion effectively moot and inoperative.

Now, the Executive could always choose not to enforce the law and the Congress could always then choose to impeach Holder and add that to his contempt of Congress charge from F&F -- as well as his boss Obama.

The Court doesn't have to be the last word on anything if we don't let it.

This is what CAN be done, not necessarily a prediction of what WILL be done.

FReegards!

[Count of Monte Fisto]

Why is it that only conservative justices turn liberal once they get on SCOTUS and not the otherway around?

Because they were never conservative to begin with. They only played a conservative on TV during their appointment publicity blitz.

[BillyBoy]

>> “Why is it that only conservative justices turn liberal once they get on SCOTUS and not the otherway around?” Because they want to be accepted by their pals on the cocktail party circut. The pols and media elite are constantly hanging out with each other and everyone wants to fit in and keep getting the invites. <<

That's one of the biggest problems with the federal courts, IMO. Some conservatives claims that Dem presidents NEVER "accidentally" appoint a conservative judge. That's not true. It hasn't happened much in recent years, but occasionally they do end up with a stealth conservative (in fact, I think most of the most outspoken anti-New Deal SCOTUS judges was a Woodrow Wilson appointee)

However, I have seen ZERO examples of a federal judge that "started off" reliably liberal and slowly drifted right over the years. It's happened to a handful of elected politicians (mostly in the south, I'm pretty sure I know the reasons why they moved rightward) but not for federal judges. Unfortunately there are MANY examples of judges who "started off" pretty conservative and became insane Marxists by the end of their tenure.

IMO, this is one of the biggest reasons why judges should not get a lifetime appointment to the bench. I think these guys get drunk with power and bask over the mainstream media applauding them for correcting "injustices" in America by enacting new unconstitutional "rights" out of thin air. At the very least, the judges should get terms like anyone else and their tenure would have be renewed every 10 years (even if we didn't go the elected route, it would at least require the Senate to reappoint them and judges that went rogue like Earl Warren would be subjected to scrutiny.)

[House Atreides]

He is wholly owned by the White Hut. Ain’t blackmail a wild and crazy thang?
**************************************************************
If Roberts’ “handlers” get word that Kennedy is going to provide the progressives with their needed 5th vote (and thus Roberts’ vote is not needed), then they give Roberts a little slack and let him vote in a manner that will help him maintain a conservative facade (or vote his true beliefs if he actually is, in his heart, a constitutionalist/originalist).

In any case, this whole thing is incredibly disgusting.

[Salvation]

The Supreme Court - About to Play God Again?