Posted on 06/27/2015 12:32:50 PM PDT by Steelfish
Let’s Drop the Charade: The Supreme Court Is a Political Branch, Not a Judicial One
by ANDREW C. MCCARTHY June 27, 2015
‘But this Court is not a legislature.” Chief Justice John Roberts actually published that sentence in his same-sex marriage dissent on Friday . . . a mere 24 hours after his maestro’s performance in the Supreme Court’s legislative rewrite of the Affordable Care Act — formerly known as “Obamacare,” but now etched in memory as “SCOTUScare,” thanks to Justice Antonin Scalia’s withering dissent.
Roberts’s denial that the Court legislates is astonishing in its cynicism: In saving SCOTUScare, the chief justice not only usurped Congress’s law-writing role with gusto; he claimed the powers, first, to divine legislative purpose from its contradictory expression in legislative language, and, then, to manufacture legislative ambiguity as the pretext for twisting the language to serve the contrived purpose. It takes a Clintonian quantum of cheek to pull that off one day and, on the next, to inveigh against the very thought of it.
Already, an ocean of ink has been spilled analyzing, lauding, and bemoaning the Supreme Court’s work this week: a second life line tossed to SCOTUScare in just three years; the location of a heretofore unknown constitutional right to same-sex marriage almost a century-and-a-half after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment; and the refashioning of Congress’s Fair Housing Act to embrace legal academe’s loopy “disparate impact” theory of inducing discrimination.
Yet, for all the non-stop commentary, one detail goes nearly unmentioned — the omission that best explains this week’s Fundamental Transformation trifecta. Did you notice that there was not an iota of speculation about how the four Progressive justices would vote? There was never a shadow of a doubt.
(Excerpt) Read more at nationalreview.com ...
They have indeed acted as a Politburo here.
Should make the review of the 22nd Amendment interesting in the next year and a half.
I posted the very same idea (high court is a political body) on this very forum months ago.
And one day soon they will invalidate the 2nd Amendment.
Checks and balances: where are they?
New word:
Homogamy
No more. We have a solid Left-Wing Voting Bloc (Clinton-Obama axis) and all it takes is one traitor by the name of Kennedy appointed by Reagan to replace Judge Bork who was “borked” by the late Sen. Ted Kennedy.
I still would like to know why Ginsberg and Sotomayor did not recuse themselves in direct violation of their cannons of judicial conduct. They both officiated at queer weddings so should have not been involved in the decision. What a joke we have become.
Yep, Kennedy isn’t worthy of shining Judge Bork’s shoes.
You’ve got a good point.
For radical, activist judges the ends justify the means.
On the next Supreme Court vacancy, we’ll get Eric Holder.
Words will be said against him, the world will know what we are going to be getting, and it will make no difference in the end. Holder will sit on the Court.
And that will send the United States to hell, which is what “Fundamental Change” always meant.
Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police could break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, schoolchildren could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists could be censored at the whim of the Government, and the doors of the Federal courts would be shut on the fingers of millions of citizens for whom the judiciary is—and is often the only—protector of the individual rights that are the heart of our democracy ... President Reagan is still our president. But he should not be able to reach out from the muck of Irangate, reach into the muck of Watergate and impose his reactionary vision of the Constitution on the Supreme Court and the next generation of Americans. No justice would be better than this injustice.
Has a rather familiar ring stench to it, does it not?
National Review is the enemy right along with the rest of the liberals in this country.
wellllll, we could have prevented some of this by voting in a decent family man for a prez, but no, some had to throw temper tantrums and stomped their feet and voting bamey in again, even though we get all these excuses now why they didn’t vote, voted for an obscure third party guy, or maybe some freepers actually voted bammey, because in their opinion, the quicker we destroy this country the better....
Interpret the law per the Constitution and apply it to legislation and policy issues, leave the rest up to the states..
Instead, a monster is devouring the land and SCotUS is fueling it.
The Gay marriage decision and dissent by Judge Roberts is his way of telling the world that he was blackmailed into his SCOTUSCare decision.
There can be no other explanation.
There is no third party. The Uniparty put Romney in there to divide the moderates versus divide the conservatives. No need for the umpteenth 2012 redux, never mind that Romney would not reverse the course of the Uniparty’s liberal narrative/policies.
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.