The Wrath Of cons........ (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Owner59 -> The Wrath Of cons........ (6/29/2012 5:30:07 PM)

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wrath-cons-chief-justice-john-roberts-bashed-traitor-casting-key-vote-uphold-health-care-law-article-1.1104064


"Wrath of Cons: Chief Justice John Roberts bashed as ‘traitor’ after casting key vote to uphold health care law

Said Republican Congressman Jack Kingston of Georgia, 'With #Obamacare ruling, I feel like I just lost two great friends: America and Justice Roberts.

Is Chief Justice John Roberts the new David Souter?

That’s what some were claiming after the surprise news that Roberts had provided the key fifth vote to uphold President Barack Obama’s health care law.

Souter was appointed to the Supreme Court in 1990 by former President George H.W. Bush, but became persona non grata within the Republican Party for often voting with the court’s liberal wing.

Roberts, on the other hand, has been a reliably conservative vote since he was appointed as chief justice by former President George W. Bush in 2005. He was derided by Democrats for his role in the controversial Citizens United decision, which allowed super PACs to flood the political landscape with massive amounts of money."


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There`s another quirky con-bunch who think Roberts is some sort of an evil genius, who did this so cons will win in Nov.......

Bit of a stretch, but cons are highly imaginative.


Who would have predicted cons would be calling Justice Roberts a traitor?


That....is pretty sad.




YSG -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/29/2012 5:35:28 PM)

Khaaan!!! Khaaan!!!

Sorry, couldent resist [;)]




kalikshama -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/29/2012 5:38:46 PM)

See also http://www.collarchat.com/m_4155798/mpage_1/tm.htm




Owner59 -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/29/2012 6:08:32 PM)

Well.....aside of what Michael Whinersavage says.....


The different schools are dividing into....


Roberts was intimidated into "changing" his vote.....by the liberals.......(Is there evidence that he was going to vote against the law?Or is that more con-gibberish?)


Another school...say Roberts doesn`t want to be known as conservative...that he`s doing this for political reasons and to for self-image,self-interest......for show,to be popular.....


Not surprised cons would come up with such petty explanations......









farglebargle -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 2:09:21 AM)

Well, there HAS TO be a libural conspiracy! There's NO WAY this could be legit.

Just like there's NO WAY Obama can legitimately be President.

If something is outside the Conservative Cognitive Framework, it just gets compartmentalized into their crackpot conspiracies.





joether -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 2:19:49 AM)

It certainly is an unexpected surprise that at least one conservative on the bench can both think and decide things for himself. Yes, I guess most conservatives would be engraged that a fellow conservative did as he wished rather than be 'just another drone of the GOP'. Justice Roberts seems to be an old school fiscal conservative, but a social liberal. If he had voted with the other conservatives did (cus it was a no brainer they would vote that way before the trial started), the US Supreme Court would have lost a considerable chunk of its credibility. Given the 'Citizens United' case did some significant damage to the court's perception as 'In the best interests of America', the ACA was a means to shore up the damage. Plus, Justice Roberts, will be remembered for the significant events of the day. Would he like to be remembered as someone that decided things as an independent thinker, or a 'yes-man' of the GOP?




Musicmystery -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 10:49:52 AM)

Thing is, I don't think this added to his credibility, just his unpredictability.

Instead of towing the GOP line, he's managing the political standing of the court--still politicized, just differently. He's looking at his own reputation and the reputation of the Roberts Court, truly making it HIS court.




defiantbadgirl -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 11:01:33 AM)

My father thinks Roberts did it because he doesn't want to be remembered in history books years from now as the killer of health care reform. It makes sense to me too.




DaNewAgeViking -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 11:08:51 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
...the US Supreme Court would have lost a considerable chunk of its credibility.

What? They have credibility after Citizens United?
[sm=eeew.gif]




erieangel -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 12:00:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DaNewAgeViking


quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
...the US Supreme Court would have lost a considerable chunk of its credibility.

What? They have credibility after Citizens United?
[sm=eeew.gif]



You gotta admit, Roberts renewed some of that lost credibility with his ACA vote. Maybe that's what it was all about?

Only time, and his future votes will tell.





subrob1967 -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 12:19:16 PM)

This guy get's it... It's too bad you don't.

quote:


(1) I am absolutely overjoyed that the Court has upheld the Affordable Care Act, and that the vision of universal coverage is closer today than it was yesterday.

(2) As a long term legal matter, Chief Justice Roberts: (a) now has himself a previously non-existent limit on Congress’s Commerce Clause power, and (b) a previously unrecognized limit on Congress’s Spending Clause power. He will have these limits at his disposal over his next 20+ years as leader of the Roberts Court.

(3) As political matter, his maneuvering was absolutely genius. He has (a) protected the institution of the Court; (b) forced Obama and the Democrats in Congress to acknowledge that the mandate is a tax and, thus, they have raised taxes on earners under $250,000; and (c) ensured that, as a tax, the mandate can be repealed by reconciliation — i.e., a bare majority of both Houses and the signature of a Republican President.

Roberts got his limitation on federal power and got to ingeniously play the political game without receiving any fault for doing so.

And, most importantly, the uninsured will now get insurance.






kalikshama -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 2:13:19 PM)

Then why all the wailing and gnashing of teeth?




DomKen -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 3:03:08 PM)

Actually Roberts does not have a limit on either power. There was no majority on his interpretation of either. The Scalia dissent, The Thomas dissent and Roberts majority opinion, which the 4 liberal justices objected to and did not join the commerce clause and taxing stuff, all disagree on the extent of the Commerce Clause, Thomas's dissent is specifically on that subject alone.

So why did Roberts act as he did? I don't think anyone believes he did it out of a belief in the constitutionality of the law, the law is clearly constitutional under existing Commerce Clause precedent including Raich. I think he did it to protect his power and 'place in history.' He knows the people have lost a lot of respect for the Court over the last 12 years, Bush v Gore and CU as well as Scalia's and Thomas's ethical lapses and the conservative blocs entanglement in conservative politics. Another ruling deemed political by the people and it would be trivial for Obama and a Democratic Congress to expand the court to 11 and render Roberts utterly irrelevant. Roberts is hanging his hat on the Court's conservative bloc keeping a low profile till 2017 and that Scalia and Kennedy will last till then. I'd guess we'll see a return to Roberts previous modus operandi of providing minor RW victories in minor cases that get little news coverage and either not taking high profile cases or being the one to break ranks with the other cons when Kennedy won't.




PeonForHer -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 3:21:27 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: YSG

Khaaan!!! Khaaan!!!

Sorry, couldent resist [;)]



*Chortle*. I'll never forget Ricardo Montalban in that epic fake chest he wore throughout.




dcnovice -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 5:17:20 PM)

quote:

Is Chief Justice John Roberts the new David Souter?

My guess: probably not.

The Atlantic offered an interesting take on the CJ:

In Health Care Ruling, Roberts Steals a Move From John Marshall's Playbook




subrob1967 -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 8:20:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

Is Chief Justice John Roberts the new David Souter?

My guess: probably not.

The Atlantic offered an interesting take on the CJ:

In Health Care Ruling, Roberts Steals a Move From John Marshall's Playbook


I tired to explain that, but everyone thinks I'm nuts.




Musicmystery -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 8:25:19 PM)

You really didn't. Read the article.




subrob1967 -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 10:27:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

You really didn't. Read the article.


Yeah, I did. And I did.

Roberts not only limited the Dems use of the commerce clause, he forced Obama to have to explain how a tax really isn't a tax, when the only way his policy is constitutionally legal, is as a tax.




hlen5 -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 10:46:02 PM)

I have a question. How is it that Roberts is the 5th vote? How do they number them so that his was number 5? Couldn't any of the other of the majority votes be considered number 5?

So should it really matter who casts the deciding vote?




Musicmystery -> RE: The Wrath Of cons........ (6/30/2012 10:55:50 PM)

IN a Court that typically votes on partisan lines...whoever "decides" the case (not Kennedy this time) gets to be the critical 5th vote.




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.03125