I’ve sent the correct link in already.
Is he still being Blackmailed?
The bias in the media just drips, like this one. Completely written from the commie point of view “which judge closest to the commie position”. I really hate the Media party and their Rat lapdogs.
That’s one mother of an exception.
This article is the manner by which the media sends its message to John Roberts.
The fact they convinced/intimidated him to change his mind on Obamacare makes them think thy can lobby him in the future.
Personally I want to see Breyer or Ginsburg replaced by Trump, preferrably both, to ensure we don’t wind up with the odd 5-4 because one of the conservative judges gets a case of bleeding heart from time to time.
Honestly I’d also like to see Thomas retire before The end of Trumps second term, not because he is not a great jurist, but by the end of Trumps 2nd term he willl be 76 or 77 and odds of him living to 85 or 86 to last out a Democrat that may follow are low.
I don’t want a court where the constructionist view is only ahead by 1. Too easy for a defection like Roberts on Obamacare to happen.
I am hopeful Trump will replace both Breyer and Ginsburg and while less likely even replace sotomayor.
The radical progressive Marxists need SCOTUS to push their agenda, which would otherwise be rejected by The People and our Representatives.
Breyer, Sotomeyer, Kagen, Ginsberg, and others spit on the Constitution daily.
Meaning what? That the democrats have to blackmail him into voting with the left? They’ve done it before. No reason to think they won’t do it again.
He was blackmailed by Obama and his criminals and we paid the price
There should not be a right or left on courts. It should always be interpret the law as written not as you want it to be.
John Glover Roberts was born in Buffalo, New York,...Roberts attended Notre Dame Elementary School, a Roman Catholic grade school in Long Beach. In 1973, he graduated from La Lumiere School, a Roman Catholic boarding school in La Porte, Indiana,...He studied five years of Latin (in four years),[4] some French,...Because of his academic excellence in high school, Roberts entered Harvard with sophomore (second-year) standing.[7] One of his first papers, "Marxism and Bolshevism: Theory and Practice", won the William Scott Ferguson Prize...He graduated in 1976 with a B.A. summa cum laude, having written a senior honors thesis entitled "Old and New Liberalism: The British Liberal Party's Approach to the Social Problem, 1906–1914".[7] Roberts originally planned to pursue a Ph.D. in history and become a professor, but decided to study law instead.[4] He attended Harvard Law School, where he was a managing editor of the Harvard Law Review.
At any rate, I don't see him filling Kennedy's niche as the author and others seem to hope...
ObamaCare is an unconstitutional pile of crap, but not necessarily on the specific points of the legal challenge in that case. I said all along that the individual mandate was likely to stand up to legal scrutiny. I still say ObamaCare hasn't faced a very credible constitutional challenge that has reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
Roger Taney,of the 21st century...Justice Taney and the Dred Scott Decision......
I keep trying to tell people, that Roberts’ vote for Obamacare was a brilliant strategy to *guarantee* it would be destroyed, a “poison pill”. Here’s the logic.
Justice Kennedy would vote with conservatives only on small stuff, then vote with liberals on the big issues. He wanted to be the “swing vote” to get his name in the law books. He wanted to go out with a bang by being the deciding vote FOR Obamacare.
If Justice Roberts had voted *against* Obamacare, Kennedy would have voted for it. And we would have been stuck with it forever, in the *worst* possible form, because the decision would have been written by the liberals, who would have made it bullet proof.
HOWEVER, by voting *for* Obamacare, Roberts hit a home run.
Not only did he thwart Kennedy, who then bitterly joined the losing side to vote against Obamacare, but more importantly it allowed Roberts, as Chief Justice, to invoke one of his few unique powers as Chief Justice: if he joined with the majority, he could assign who gets to write the decision.
And he chose himself, which is where the poison pill comes in. He did this by defining the mandate as a tax.
In the US constitution, Obamacare was designed to be the kind of law that could *only* be overturned by a 2/3rds majority vote in *both* the house and the senate. Which would make it immortal. But the constitution clearly says that tax law *must* be decided by a “simple majority”, only 51%, in both houses.
So Roberts’ strategy made it so that *any* time the Republicans held the slimmest of majorities in both houses, they could KILL Obamacare.
In short, Roberts *personally* drove a stake through the heart of Obamacare.
So for all the conservatives cursing him, he is a conservative hero. It will take a while for people to learn this, but when he has a fully operational conservative court, the SCOTUS is going to shine like never before.
If President Trump nominates someone as brilliant as Justices Roberts, Thomas, or Gorsuch, we may see the systematic dismantling of more than a hundred years of failed leftism.
That’s great gonzo.
This piece of shit Roberts gave us obammy care?
Rumor has it he was blackmailed because he’d illegally adopted a couple of kids
Conservative? Maybe, but still a piece of crap.
“Moving right” in this instance means stepping away from the precipice of full blown Bolshevism.
I consider him compromised.
Waiting for the time when Justice Thomas becomes the swing vote.
Roberts stupidly will deny how he might otherwise vote as an individual judge, so he can instead bring “balance” to the court. He, selfishly for his own image of guiding the court, seeks greater “consensus”, however narrow (5-4), and less big swings one way or another (7-2). It is a self-assigned mission and it deprives the court of what might otherwise be the big internal legal battles it needs EVERY time. Roberts reacts this way particularly if he sees the issue as big & controversial.