How do Conservatives View Justice Roberts?
UponThisRock
Posts: 4,519 Member
He has now voted with the "liberal" wing of the court twice in a row on high profile cases.
Is he another seemingly conservative pick gone awry?
Is he another seemingly conservative pick gone awry?
0
Replies
-
I think he is doing it so these things pass, people hate Obama even more, and he get's voted out.0
-
I think he is doing it so these things pass, people hate Obama even more, and he get's voted out.
So you think the individual mandate getting struck down would have been a good thing for Obama politically??
Wow, that's a new one.0 -
I'm extremely disappointed and upset by his decision.
I would use the acronym RINO to describe him if I were in polite company.
I would use very different words otherwise. :explode: :mad: :grumble:0 -
Just read an article on how Roberts helped the conservatives. Basically says the way to get rid of Obamacare now is to get rid of Obama.0
-
I think that's opinion of very disappointed conservatives who are searching for a silver lining.0
-
I think it is a stretch to think Obama won't get reelected because his healthcare bill is constitutional.0
-
I hope to God that Roberts is not playing politics with his rulings. To do so would undermine the entire purpose of the SCOTUS and their lifelong appointments.0
-
Agreed.I think that's opinion of very disappointed conservatives who are searching for a silver lining.0 -
I hope to God that Roberts is not playing politics with his rulings. To do so would undermine the entire purpose of the SCOTUS and their lifelong appointments.
I think to view the court as being purely apolitical is a little naive.
I think it's somewhat less political then the other two branches of government, but that's about it.0 -
I hope to God that Roberts is not playing politics with his rulings. To do so would undermine the entire purpose of the SCOTUS and their lifelong appointments.
I think to view the court as being purely apolitical is a little naive.
I think it's somewhat less political then the other two branches of government, but that's about it.
I think each person on the SC has a strong leaning political view to the right or left but on a much smaller scale than those other branches.0 -
I hope to God that Roberts is not playing politics with his rulings. To do so would undermine the entire purpose of the SCOTUS and their lifelong appointments.
I think to view the court as being purely apolitical is a little naive.
I think it's somewhat less political then the other two branches of government, but that's about it.
They are not apolitical but I view the Court as being above the "day to day" politics of the parties. They each apply their own view of the Constitutional theory to their rulings but they should not rule along party platforms.0 -
I saw someone on Facebook declaring that this decision cinches the election for Obama. I would take the opposite view, I think it makes it that much more difficult for him.
This decision is bound to fire up the GOP base and I really don't sdee it doing the same for the Democrats.
Were it to have been struck down the motivation would have been on the other side: Obama must be re-elected if for no other reason than to "fix" the Supreme Court, we must fight even harder to preserve what few gains we have made, we can't let Obama lose like this!
In the short-term of this election cycle I see it helping the GOP more than the Democrats - not that anything short of Obama raping one of Romney's kids on national television while cackling "yeah, white kids LOVE Barry's Blacksnake!" would change the outcome of this election: Obama gets re-elected.
Over the long-term? If the country doesn't go bankrupt, this basically secures a permanent Democratic majority.0 -
You know why they wear long robes, it’s so you can’t see the strings that are wrapped around the ankles and wrists. Don’t be fooled….
:smokin:0 -
You know why they wear long robes, it’s so you can’t see the strings that are wrapped around the ankles and wrists. Don’t be fooled….
:smokin:
and, I hear they don't wear pants0 -
In the short-term of this election cycle I see it helping the GOP more than the Democrats - not that anything short of Obama raping one of Romney's kids on national television while cackling "yeah, white kids LOVE Barry's Blacksnake!" would change the outcome of this election: Obama gets re-elected.
:noway: hmmm :huh:
"edited to focus on what I was reacting to...0 -
Also, to answer the initial question, since I went right the *kitten* off the rails there: I think they see him as Chief Judas John Roberts.0
-
Has it occured to any of the so called conservatives that one of the foremost constitutional scholars who was appointed by a conservative president may actually be correct? I mean just cause you don't like it does it always make it wrong? Does education and experience ever mean anything to so called conservatives? It's almost comical to watch people who probably didn't go to Podunk Tech demonize one of their own brilliant minds, all the while nominating a presidential candidate who begate Romney care.
Biden/Cuomo 20160 -
Biden/Cuomo 2016
LOL0 -
I saw someone on Facebook declaring that this decision cinches the election for Obama. I would take the opposite view, I think it makes it that much more difficult for him.
This decision is bound to fire up the GOP base and I really don't sdee it doing the same for the Democrats.
Were it to have been struck down the motivation would have been on the other side: Obama must be re-elected if for no other reason than to "fix" the Supreme Court, we must fight even harder to preserve what few gains we have made, we can't let Obama lose like this!
In the short-term of this election cycle I see it helping the GOP more than the Democrats - not that anything short of Obama raping one of Romney's kids on national television while cackling "yeah, white kids LOVE Barry's Blacksnake!" would change the outcome of this election: Obama gets re-elected.
Over the long-term? If the country doesn't go bankrupt, this basically secures a permanent Democratic majority.
Hard to energize your base around a guy that half the base knows is a fake and not a "real Christian" . If you guys would have had the stones you would have nominated Santorum and lost by 19 million instead of 9 million this fall0 -
First Justice Roberts is deemed "conservative" then "liberal". First a team leader and now a traitor?
This is what happens when ideas become entrenched by party loyalty. That stinkin' way of thinkin' means that no one is ever allowed to think for themselves because they have to fit into some framework of political partisanship. If they dare "jump ship" and do what is right for the country as a whole, they are labeled by political idealogues as traitors.
For those you who can recognize that you do this, I challenge you to step back, detach, take some time, and think critically. If you have constantly battling under the trees and not soaring above them, you'll never see the lay of the land and the whole landscape and, until you do, your opinions will only be offerings on the alter of polemics.
Second, has anyone taken the time to look at Roberts' record on federalism? If they had, they would have known that Roberts would be a professional and true to his legal convictions and not a politician (well, they had to have faith that maybe this time he would hold to his convictions). Those who bet $5 two months ago on Intrade that this is how the healthcare decision would go down and who would write the majority opinion are now $65 richer. It pays to take the time and do ones homework. ;-)
-Debra0 -
<<<<<<<
JUDAS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :devil:0 -
Hard to energize your base around a guy that half the base knows is a fake and not a "real Christian" . If you guys would have had the stones you would have nominated Santorum and lost by 19 million instead of 9 million this fall
I wanted a Santorum nomination. I prayed for it. That we didn't get one was evidence ot me of God's cruel sense of humor. That's what it wil eventually take for there to be a realistic re-appraisal within my party of our current lack of direction and dearth of ideas aside from "St. Ronnie woulda wanted it like that galdurn it!"
As it is, we get the GOP's version of Kerry without the war heroics or the gold-digging frog wife. He'll lose by enough to let Obama claim a mandate and in four years the GOP will do the same goddamn thing we did this time and end up with someone no one realy likes who has little or no chance of actually winning but who will allow the party to stumble on without confronting the fact that we are out of touch and losing members by the droves. Unless of course, the Democrats are actually dumb enough to run Biden (please God let them be!).0 -
Oh sure, use logic. Like that's fair.First Justice Roberts is deemed "conservative" then "liberal". First a team leader and now a traitor?
This is what happens when ideas become entrenched by party loyalty. That stinkin' way of thinkin' means that no one is ever allowed to think for themselves because they have to fit into some framework of political partisanship. If they dare "jump ship" and do what is right for the country as a whole, they are labeled by political idealogues as traitors.
For those you who can recognize that you do this, I challenge you to step back, detach, take some time, and think critically. If you have constantly battling under the trees and not soaring above them, you'll never see the lay of the land and the whole landscape and, until you do, your opinions will only be offerings on the alter of polemics.
Second, has anyone taken the time to look at Roberts' record on federalism? If they had, they would have known that Roberts would be a professional and true to his legal convictions and not a politician (well, they had to have faith that maybe this time he would hold to his convictions). Those who bet $5 two months ago on Intrade that this is how the healthcare decision would go down and who would write the majority opinion are now $65 richer. It pays to take the time and do ones homework. ;-)
-Debra0 -
I think he is another justice who is to young an immature and he has been fooled into thinking that the Supreme court is an equal branch and that by ruling that the Law is upheld as a tax he is writing the law from the bench.
Judges dont write law they read it. He has done a very dangerous thing. If reading was all he had done he would have voted the other way because making the law something it was written to be (a tax) after the fact does not make it a law.0 -
I think he is another justice who is to young an immature and he has been fooled into thinking that the Supreme court is an equal branch and that by ruling that the Law is upheld as a tax he is writing the law from the bench.
Judges dont write law they read it. He has done a very dangerous thing. If reading was all he had done he would have voted the other way because making the law something it was written to be (a tax) after the fact does not make it a law.
But his ruling doesn't affect or change the implementation, so how is that "making" or "writing" the law? This man who has earned his way up to the supreme court (not an easy task) is now too young and immature and was fooled becasue he didn't vote how you think he should? This man who actually sat through the hearing and I am willing to bet has a better academic and working knowledge of the constituiton than you do, since that is his job.
Just say what Romney says "It may be constitutional but that does not make it a good law". I disagree of course.0 -
I think he is another justice who is to young an immature and he has been fooled into thinking that the Supreme court is an equal branch and that by ruling that the Law is upheld as a tax he is writing the law from the bench.
Judges dont write law they read it. He has done a very dangerous thing. If reading was all he had done he would have voted the other way because making the law something it was written to be (a tax) after the fact does not make it a law.
But his ruling doesn't affect or change the implementation, so how is that "making" or "writing" the law? This man who has earned his way up to the supreme court (not an easy task) is now too young and immature and was fooled becasue he didn't vote how you think he should? This man who actually sat through the hearing and I am willing to bet has a better academic and working knowledge of the constituiton than you do, since that is his job.
Just say what Romney says "It may be constitutional but that does not make it a good law". I disagree of course.
He ruled that way because he ruled on it as legal because its a tax and congress can compel people to pay taxes on anything according to him ....Yet still today the Obama administration is flat out claiming this is not a tax. so if its not and its not written as a tax Roberts ruled wrong. Its not rocket science. He is trying to make what is illegal legal.0 -
He very specifically stated the goal of the court should not be to determine policy, and the the court should always seek to maintain a law when legal instead of destroying it. The fact that no one seemed to be justifying it under the taxation clause is irrelevant. It's acts like a tax, therefore it qualifies in his estimation. It's a tax that kicks in under certain conditions that also happens to look like a penalty. It'll affect a tiny fraction of people in this country who can afford insurance, and it's legal. It doesn't have to claim to be a tax to behave like one legally.
Is he happy with the Obama administration? No. I'm sure he's pleased as punch to call them out in the manner in which he did. I imagine he thinks it was disingenuous of the administration to claim what it did, but he's conservative so it's not a huge shock that he would think that.
I'll give him props for keeping his oath, even I think he's wrong about the commerce clause.
You don't want justices legislating from the bench? This is what it looks like. He pretty much said that Congress is going to have to fix their own mess on this one cause it's legal.0 -
Is it a tax? If it is then its legal if its not then its not constitutional.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/06/29/white-house-disagrees-supreme-court/0 -
I think he is another justice who is to young an immature and he has been fooled into thinking that the Supreme court is an equal branch and that by ruling that the Law is upheld as a tax he is writing the law from the bench.
Judges dont write law they read it. He has done a very dangerous thing. If reading was all he had done he would have voted the other way because making the law something it was written to be (a tax) after the fact does not make it a law.
But his ruling doesn't affect or change the implementation, so how is that "making" or "writing" the law? This man who has earned his way up to the supreme court (not an easy task) is now too young and immature and was fooled becasue he didn't vote how you think he should? This man who actually sat through the hearing and I am willing to bet has a better academic and working knowledge of the constituiton than you do, since that is his job.
Just say what Romney says "It may be constitutional but that does not make it a good law". I disagree of course.
Oh one more thing SCOTUS dont earn their way to that position they get appointed. Look at Kagan she has absolutely no business being a justice. Anyone can get apppointed to SCOTUS... non elected officials shoudl never be allowed to hold our future so easily in their hands Not an Equal branch0 -
Is it a tax? If it is then its legal if its not then its not constitutional.
http://www.whitehousedossier.com/2012/06/29/white-house-disagrees-supreme-court/
Did you have a point? With regard to the ruling, the court made its decision about how the law behaves. Your question is irrelevant because it's been answered by the court. Unless you have some rhetorical motive for asking it, but that would never happen I'm sure.0
This discussion has been closed.