Tuesday, July 03, 2012

Roberts' Rule: Disorder. Why?


Roberts was against it before he was for it.

So tell me again, you sanctimonious snots, how 'this really comports with taxing power,' and 'there's precedent,' and all that other la-dee-da BS.

The article doesn't say it, of course--but I smell blackmail.


Adrienne said...

You win first prize for being the first person who suspects something a bit nefarious going on.

I did a post suggesting that perhaps, just maybe, could be - that Roberts was threatened.

Jim said...

You guys have an address I can mail some rolls of tin foil to?

Anonymous said...

I highly doubt Roberts was swayed by “threats” by liberals. Besides, of all people Dad29, you should appreciate the “buy more ammo” mantra IF those statements made by politicians and the media were “extremely hostile” and led Roberts to have a change of heart because he was “intimidated”. Right in your wheelhouse.

Regardless, Roberts has every right to take a different course of action. Recall that during oral arguments he specifically asked questions whether the mandate could be upheld under Congress’ taking authority. It is just as likely that Roberts voted on the matter based on his initial thoughts, clarified his position because he had doubts on the issue at a later time, and then proceeded to write the majority decision.

Roberts is not the first justice, nor will he the last one, in which an opinion writer starts out in one direction and ends up in another. In Lee v. Weisman, Justice Anthony Kennedy actually voted to allow prayer at public school graduations, only to reverse course and declare the practice unconstitutional.

Not surprising, when a group does not get their way, they unleash the attack dogs. What better way to undermine the credibility of Roberts, who ultimately stood to his judicial restraint approach much to the chagrin of those conservatives lashing out at him.

The claim touted by a number of conservatives as switching his vote midway through deliberations, based on a CBS report, is notable because of apparent leaks (!) to the author, Jan Crawford, a known conservative sympathesizer.

The Supreme Court, however, has a proud history of being tight-lipped.


Crawford stated they she had two sources "with specific knowledge of the deliberations." That could be a law clerk or a justice's spouse, or even a justice. Or maybe someone else at the Supreme Court.

Distinct possibilities of an axe to grind at SCOTUS over his “betrayal”.

Regarding whether the penalty is a tax, conservatives may be right. But they also may be wrong. So it is up to the legislative branch to do something about it.

"...you sanctimonious snots". That will definitely be 10 Hail Marys on Sunday.

Dad29 said...

The dissent was clear and convincing.

It is NOT a tax. It is an un-constitutional stretch of the Commerce Clause.

Anonymous said...

Today I was listening to this talking about how all phone conversations in the USA could be recorded.
Every single one.


I I thought about your blackmail comment with Supreme Court Justice Roberts.........