Posted on 07/25/2014 4:05:33 AM PDT by SteveH
...
Certainly, Roberts zealously guards the court’s institutional standing against accusations of overreaching. But only to a point. The Voting Rights Act offers an example. In 2009, Roberts, as with the Affordable Care Act, demonstrated his willingness to stretch the language of the statute to save it — temporarily. Four years later, he wrote the majority ruling striking down the law’s key provision.
Importantly, Roberts’s initial restraint in that case, as in his ruling upholding the Affordable Care Act, was based on constitutional considerations: the long-standing principle that the court, if possible, should avoid overturning the work of a co-equal branch of government.
In the looming case about federal subsidies, which involves statutory interpretation (actually, whether the court should accept a federal agency’s interpretation of a statute), Roberts may be inclined to a less deferential stance.
Indeed, the two D.C. Circuit judges who invalidated the subsidies — Thomas Griffith and Raymond Randolph — cast their decision in terms of the “legislative supremacy” of Congress and the need for judges to respect statutory language, not to substitute their own surmise about what Congress intended.
...
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
It is not his job to appear impartial or to baby the Supreme Court's image and avoid an appearance of overreach or any other PR accusations. He took a solemn oath to impartially discharge his duties under the Constitution. ObamaCare is illegitimate, unconstitutional, and being implemented in violation of the law as written. Roberts and any of the other nine who have any integrity at all are morally obligated to rule in accordance with the law and with the Constitution.
...of course the other option is to actually FIX the law legislatively.
All the president and the Democrats have to do is convince Congress to pass a narrow bill to do just that.
LOL.
Thus far Roberts has failed to address the rumor that he was blackmailed by obammy to get the ruling on obammy care.
Seems his adoption of foreign kids was done illegally.
I am waiting for people to provide real proof that he is being blackmailed.
This is why I've never given Roberts a hard time about the previous Court decision. That legal challenge was brought by a number of states, and the legal arguments they brought were limited. If you remember at the time, there were a whole bunch of other potential legal challenges that were ready to be filed, but they either couldn't be filed or weren't ready for the Federal court system because ObamaCare had not been fully implemented yet (the Hobby Lobby case, for example).
I said at the time that ObamaCare would never stand up to all of these legal challenges, and that the first case that was brought was the weakest of all of them because it was based on a specific provision that no real judge would ever want to interpret when it involved interpretations of a law that was flawed in so many ways from the time it was first passed by Congress.
These other challenges are much more substantive because they relate directly to either individual freedom under the Bill of Rights, or judicial interpretations of the plain language of a statute.
Where's the evidence that you don't have a dozen dead bodies buried under your house, dude?
The issue at the time had nothing to do with the constitutionality of ObamaCare in general.
We can only hope that the four-star cluster f**k that is ObamaCare is put to rest - it’s sending doctors out of business and screwing up what was once the best health care system in the world.
Abother Obama mess.
The supremes should have shut down obamacare because it NEVER PASSED the house in its final form..........
> “Roberts and any of the other nine who have any integrity at all are morally obligated to rule in accordance with the law and with the Constitution.”
Roberts is compromised.
Some speculate the adoption of his children were at risk when he wrote his 2012 opinion. Whatever the reason, Obama has shown he is willing to cross whatever line of lawlessness is necessary to effect his ends. Roberts is no hero, and like most people will bend down to the those that hold the most power over others.
It is also informative to know that Obama’s lawyers used exactly the playbook of FDR in regards to Social Security. At first Social Security was not a tax but a voluntary old age pensioner’s contribution plan. It wasn’t until later when FDR’s New Deal programs were being shot down in court that he had his lawyers argue that Social Security was a tax and therefore authorized under the 16th Amendment.
One should also know that government run healthcare was also in the works under FDR but was ‘shelved’ until later. So it was in planning for more than 70 years.
If Roberts had written against Obamacare, he could have necessarily set off a challenge to Social Security. He may have been smart enough to write his opinion so that Social Security was not approachable for repeal but he didn’t. And many think he and his staff were smart enough and capable to write such an opinion.
Whether Roberts is still compromised is a question. I suspect Obama is so lawless now that nothing will stop him from preserving his ‘signature’ legislation. I believe even now Obama’s operatives are focused on Roberts and other SCOTUS members and staff to see where the leverage is.
Are the kids old enough now that the adoption legality doesn’t matter?
Your right, I will never forget Nancy saying we have to pass it to see what’s in it, or something close to that. In her rush to cram this down our throats in the middle of the night without 1 supporting vote from the other side, Nancy’s gang might of made a critical error that a carefully re reading could of uncovered.
I sure hope so. I really don’t care what it takes to kill this law, but if it crashed because of democrat errors in writing a sloppy bill, so much the better. I hope Nancy’s Gang gets ulcers over this.
Blackmail might not work this time since the Roberts kids are older now. They can’t really deport someone pushing 18 back to Ukraine.
WaPo working on Roberts already.
There is none! As I have said many times, SCOTUS politics is chess not checkers. Tinfoil “Roberts blackmail” hatters can’t think beyond checkers.
I have no faith whatsoever in Benedict Roberts.
I personally don’t care if Obamacare stays or goes....just don’t force me to buy it and dont tax or penalize me for it.
It should have been killed for numerous Constitutional reasons. Yet, our ‘Democratic’ judges have not adhered to our Founding document for ~100 years....Let alone Congress having the power to tax (which I concede) to ‘pay for services’ which it never has had authority (IE: ‘healthcare’)
Lawyers, judges, Congress (but, I repeat myself.....mostly) are always eagle-eye’ing step 1000, when step 1 (it is Constitutional and by what authority) was never even thought.
That’s Truly the link of this Century.
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.