I'm going to post two different articles on Roberts. Is he a traitor or is he a genius for the ruling on ObamaCare...?

Roberts Refuses to Grant Obamacare Emergency Stay

READ MORE....

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/06/roberts-refuses-to-grant-obamacare-emergency-stay/

The Roberts Trap Is Sprung

REA MORE....

http://www.americanthinker.com/2014/01/the_roberts_trap_is_sprung.html

I'm not sure what to make of it.

In the American Thinker article it paints a picture of a rather clever Roberts foreseeing things politically.

In the Blaze article it explains he refused to block Obamacare based on the claim the any bill involving revenue must originate in the House. Which Is correct.

So is he Rain Man?

I'm guessing Legacy, he sees the country going socialist and wanted to be relevant after death.
Ass Hole is the term I'd use.

I lean heavily toward The American Thinker's assessment.  Roberts set a trap and the zombie-Left blindly blundered into it.  -With the caveat that he doomed Hillary.

The Pyrrhic victory Democrats secured for themselves [when President Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law] may prove not to have been a victory at all but rather an ever-roiling, ongoing, and recurring act of political and ideological self-destruction.

I look at him as another stealth liberal justice. He was conservative right up until he got on the bench. I don't like him or trust him and I wish now that he had never been appointed.

Justice Roberts is primarily a judge, a social Republican second, no doubt, and an ideologue distant third.

I think he saw the legal entanglements the ACA law contained and gave a bare knuckles ruling that most critically EXPANDED STATES RIGHTS in practical terms:

From the American Thinker article, "The Court also invalidated two key provisions that were held to violate state sovereignty and the foundational concept of federalism.  Each state was thereby free, if it chose (as many have), to decline the federal invitation to expand its Medicaid program, and free to not set up a state exchange to sell ACA-compliant policies."

This not only expanded states rights to opt out of federal programs, but also was the fatal wound to the ACA.

I get the impression Roberts is a great compromiser, in the good sort of way, in that he has shown a willingness to listen to both sides and he has found mutual ground. Sotomayor's ruling against the Obama Regime may be the first signal that he is pulling some of the lefties his way purely on the basis of law, his social skills and working on the principle of letting leftwing ideologues hang themselves.

On man's great compromiser is another man's shiftless douche bag without a moral center.

He pretended to be a conservative to get the appointment. Rope a doped us and stabbed us in the back. I have only the deepest disrespect and contempt for the man. He makes the Supreme Court a smaller, less legitimate instutition for his belonging to it.

Quote from: Dan on January 07, 2014, 05:14:57 AM
On man's great compromiser is another man's shiftless douche bag without a moral center.

He pretended to be a conservative to get the appointment. Rope a doped us and stabbed us in the back. I have only the deepest disrespect and contempt for the man. He makes the Supreme Court a smaller, less legitimate instutition for his belonging to it.

Of course, you may be right, but I think it more complex than that.

Obama is a tyrant. He has given himself war-time powers in non-emergency peace time, which means he can dictate the law and he has been lately. The GOP doesn't have the back bone in its leadership to oppose Obama by using their Constitutional power to defund what programs they want to. Obama won the government shut down and stripped the GOP of that ability in effect. This is only going to get worse till the GOP finds its spine again with new leadership, like Ted Cruz or Rand Paul.

Till then, Roberts made the decision on a narrow reading of the law, from what I can tell. He got stronger states rights for Constitutionalists and a mortal wound to the Obama legacy in ripping from under it authority to compel states to tow the Obama dictates.

A ruling that the ACA was unconstitutional would require that it be labeled as not a tax, and that is not true. It is a tax and everyone knows it, despite the Obama regime lies. But Roberts had to rule on the reality, seeing it as a tax, and then he let it set itself up to fail.

Quote from: The Boo Man... on January 06, 2014, 08:03:52 PM
I'm not sure what to make of it.

In the American Thinker article it paints a picture of a rather clever Roberts foreseeing things politically.[/i]

In the Blaze article it explains he refused to block Obamacare based on the claim the any bill involving revenue must originate in the House. Which Is correct.

So is he Rain Man?

And therein lies the crux of the problem, and why time and time again, far to frequently we see the SCOTUS issuing rulings which any second grader who can read see spot run, knows violates our Constitution.

Justices are appointed for life. Anyone know why that is? Hint, it's not just so we can give some judges a lifelong paycheck.

It's so that they can be removed from political pressures, and (hopefully) make fair, and just rulings based upon nothing but the law of the land. Namely the Constitution of the United States.

So let us suppose Roberts did what he did, because he was so politically brilliant, he is still in the wrong for issuing a ruling based upon politics and not the Constitution of the United States which clearly, and concisely place, clear limitations upon the powers of the Federal Government.

Limiting it's power and scope to only those powers, expressly enumerated to it, by the Constitution of the United States.

Or in other words for the liberals, limiting the Government to doing only those things which the Constitution expressly says the Federal Government can do.

However, on the other side of the coin, if Roberts issued his ruling because of the fact that all bills of revenue must Constitutionally begin in the House, and this one began in the Senate, then he is still in the wrong for upholding a law, which clearly had extra-Constitutional beginings.

Or for the liberals, for upholding a law, which violated the Constitution's clear mandate that all bills of revenue must originate in the House of Representatives, not the Senate which is where Obammycare began.

So either way you look at it, this Justice was wrong.

Does being wrong make him a traitor, not necessarily, one can be in error and still be a patriot who loves his nation.

But by the same token, being wrong damned sure doesn't mean he's some sort of legal genius either.

Quote from: daidalos on January 07, 2014, 07:54:09 AM
And therein lies the crux of the problem, and why time and time again, far to frequently we see the SCOTUS issuing rulings which any second grader who can read see spot run, knows violates our Constitution.

Justices are appointed for life. Anyone know why that is? Hint, it's not just so we can give some judges a lifelong paycheck.

It's so that they can be removed from political pressures, and (hopefully) make fair, and just rulings based upon nothing but the law of the land. Namely the Constitution of the United States.

So let us suppose Roberts did what he did, because he was so politically brilliant, he is still in the wrong for issuing a ruling based upon politics and not the Constitution of the United States which clearly, and concisely place, clear limitations upon the powers of the Federal Government.

Limiting it's power and scope to only those powers, expressly enumerated to it, by the Constitution of the United States.

Or in other words for the liberals, limiting the Government to doing only those things which the Constitution expressly says the Federal Government can do.

However, on the other side of the coin, if Roberts issued his ruling because of the fact that all bills of revenue must Constitutionally begin in the House, and this one began in the Senate, then he is still in the wrong for upholding a law, which clearly had extra-Constitutional beginings.

Or for the liberals, for upholding a law, which violated the Constitution's clear mandate that all bills of revenue must originate in the House of Representatives, not the Senate which is where Obammycare began.

So either way you look at it, this Justice was wrong.

Does being wrong make him a traitor, not necessarily, one can be in error and still be a patriot who loves his nation.

But by the same token, being wrong damned sure doesn't mean he's some sort of legal genius either.

We can all read the Constitution fairly well, I hope, it's the retention that seems to be an issue, lol, and the matter of case law, and how much the latter can over-write the former under the guidance of liberal jurists.

Word on the street, and I think it has been mentioned here, is that Obama had something on Roberts and blackmailed him into ruling in favor of calling the penalty a tax.  Even so, it was clearly Unconstitutional for Roberts to change the import of the law into something which was not argued before him and something which was not specified in the ACA.  In fact, the ACA clearly did not categorize the penalty as a tax.  Roberts changed the law to suit whatever, if any,  pressure was put on him.  In fact, Obama was publically putting pressure on the Supremes prior to the ruling.  Was Roberts threatened?  I don't know.  But I wouldn't put it past the Muslim in Chief.

Roberts is an asswipe. As many on "our side" do, he cowered when a  spine was needed.

Actually the stealth manner by which the bill was passed, made it a revenue bill. So Roberts was right on that. However as the old saying goes: "Be careful what you wish for". I'm glad all these suits are now going to the USSC of Obama bypassing the House and changing revenue legislation, as prior decisions have shown - recess appointments - the Court isn't going for that. If the Court sends ObozoCare back to the House for changes, if they have the sense GOD gave a box of rocks, they'll refuse to go along with Obozo's changes. Let the full disaster of this bill fall on the public between now and November.

And I believe people are so mad at Robert's because they were really, really, really, looking forward to wiping that smug grin off Oblamo's, Reid's and Pelosi's faces. BUT they shouldn't allow that to turn them into their worse enemies. Getting through the Courts, what you can't get through Congress, is the Leftard way.

If he did something with a politcal view in mind rather than the Consitution he is sworn to uphold then I brand him a traitor.

Quote from: Dan on January 07, 2014, 05:14:57 AM
On man's great compromiser is another man's shiftless douche bag without a moral center.

He pretended to be a conservative to get the appointment. Rope a doped us and stabbed us in the back. I have only the deepest disrespect and contempt for the man. He makes the Supreme Court a smaller, less legitimate instutition for his belonging to it.

Whooo! That's kind of hard on him. I too was disappointed in his ruling and thought the whole thing should have been thrown out. I don't believe he had a big crystal ball that showed him all the political future but I do so without the ruling, in the matter it was handed down, The states wouldn't have been able to opt out and we wouldn't be seeing anywhere near the Obama care crap the whole world sees today.
Whether planned or not it was Roberts ruling that has set up the 2014 election cycle we are entering. If we take back the senate it will be mostly on the count of Obama's health care disaster and what ever happens this year will be carried into the 2016 election too!
One major warning, If they make this healthcare monstrosity work our party is in a lot of trouble! The shutdown put an exclamation point on the fact that this is a democrat law. If it fails it's on them, But if it becomes popular??