If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(National Review)   Et tu, John: "Roberts, I'm told by my sources, switched sides. There was a one-month campaign to bring Roberts back into the conservative fold, led, ironically, by Anthony Kennedy"   (nationalreview.com) divider line 129
    More: Followup, Chief Justice John Roberts, Face the Nation, Jan Crawford  
•       •       •

2685 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Jul 2012 at 2:26 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



129 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-07-01 12:27:51 PM
Funny how all the provisions of Obamacare were viewed as constitutional right up until it went to the Supremes. Then all of a sudden there's a partisan split on the court.

Must just be a weird coincidence.
 
2012-07-01 12:27:58 PM
A Mother Jones article suggests the same thing. They also say that the dissent sounds a lot like the majority opinion.
 
2012-07-01 12:35:56 PM

Bontesla: A Mother Jones article suggests the same thing. They also say that the dissent sounds a lot like the majority opinion.


Indeed. The real dissent -- and in my opinion the far better argument -- was Ginsburg's concurring opinion. She observed the troubling implication of the majority restricting the commerce clause, in what seems to portend the court going back to the early 20th century when the court actively struck down any regulatory act of congress in favor of the glorious free market principles like bootstrappy child laborers and the right of workers to lose their lives and limbs in meat packing facilities.

This should have been an easy decision. The law was clearly constitutional. That people are shocked that the court (barely) decided to not usurp the lawmaking process shows how far to the right we have drifted in our expectations.
 
2012-07-01 12:38:33 PM

Bontesla: A Mother Jones article suggests the same thing. They also say that the dissent sounds a lot like the majority opinion.


The majority opinion is actually interesting. It basically says that every single argument used by the administration was bullshiat. It also severely limits government power by taking an ax to the commerce clause. But the GOP is too retarded to actually think this through.
 
2012-07-01 12:57:32 PM

Bontesla: A Mother Jones article suggests the same thing. They also say that the dissent sounds a lot like the majority opinion.


Well, read it yourself. It does sound like a majority opinion. It's pretty funny, and a damn interesting story to think about.

gilgigamesh: Indeed. The real dissent -- and in my opinion the far better argument -- was Ginsburg's concurring opinion.


Agree as well.
 
2012-07-01 01:01:55 PM

gilgigamesh: Bontesla: A Mother Jones article suggests the same thing. They also say that the dissent sounds a lot like the majority opinion.

Indeed. The real dissent -- and in my opinion the far better argument -- was Ginsburg's concurring opinion. She observed the troubling implication of the majority restricting the commerce clause, in what seems to portend the court going back to the early 20th century when the court actively struck down any regulatory act of congress in favor of the glorious free market principles like bootstrappy child laborers and the right of workers to lose their lives and limbs in meat packing facilities.

This should have been an easy decision. The law was clearly constitutional. That people are shocked that the court (barely) decided to not usurp the lawmaking process shows how far to the right we have drifted in our expectations.


Agree entirely. Those who are hailing this as a decision that upholds freedom and liberty are foolish; this was Roberts barely squeaking by as someone who believes in at least a little bit of stare decisis.
 
2012-07-01 01:03:20 PM

Rincewind53: this was Roberts barely squeaking by as someone who believes in at least a little bit of stare decisis desperately trying to maintain the legitimacy of the court.

 
2012-07-01 01:23:05 PM
I can't remember who said it, but I think it's true. This was Roberts worried about the legacy of his court. He made the right decision, but I think there were other factors influencing it other than just whether it was constitutional or not.
 
2012-07-01 01:27:11 PM

Coco LaFemme: I can't remember who said it, but I think it's true. This was Roberts worried about the legacy of his court. He made the right decision, but I think there were other factors influencing it other than just whether it was constitutional or not.


He made a legacy all right. One, he thinks one decision means he's immune to all criticism of bias. Two, while upholding it he actually made the argument Scalia wanted. The majority opinion actually has a bigger conservative impact than the minority does. This was no middle of the ground choice.
 
2012-07-01 02:24:10 PM
Sorry, I still believe he was blackmailed for his homosexiness. Proof me wrong.
 
2012-07-01 02:30:48 PM
Roberts just wants some lib cred for when he rules on Obama vs Romney.
 
2012-07-01 02:31:23 PM
It's a shame that political parties have so thoroughly infected our "independent" judiciary. fark them all, burn it all down, and rebuild from scratch. There is nothing of value left in the current system.
 
2012-07-01 02:39:05 PM

gilgigamesh: She observed the troubling implication of the majority restricting the commerce clause,


I'll grant, I haven't read Ginsburg's opinion yet. I will say, though, that nothing in Roberts' opinion appears to require striking down major commerce clause statutes enacted since the New Deal. He reaffirmed Wickard, etc., and was very careful to distinguish his view of NFIB v. Sebelius from the body of case law prior to it. I.e., even had he commanded a majority view on the subject, his opinion would not have overturned any prior case law.

Is worth noting, though, that Roberts' approach really was "activist," but not liberally activist. It was conservatively activist. A Court showing judicial restraint would have said "We find this Constitutional as an exercise of the tax power, and therefore see no need to speak to the commerce power question," which is what I thought was going to happen. But Roberts' was committed to trying to write new Commerce Clause law, so he flapped his gums when he really didn't need to.
 
2012-07-01 02:41:10 PM

hinten: Sorry, I still believe he was blackmailed for his homosexiness. Proof me wrong.


Ok: you have no evidence to back up your statement. There did it!

You are the one who has to back up an allegation like that with evidence not that we have to prove a negative.
 
2012-07-01 02:45:32 PM

GAT_00: The majority opinion is actually interesting. It basically says that every single argument used by the administration was bullshiat. It also severely limits government power by taking an ax to the commerce clause.


You couldn't possibly be more wrong on all of this. In his non-binding dicta arguing that the individual mandate exceeded the commerce power, Roberts did his best to use a scalpel rather than an axe. He left the great body of post-New Deal case law with its broad interpretation of the commerce power in tact. And his majority opinion says that 50% of the arguments used by the administration were spot on.

This case was a body blow to conservatism. However bad you want it to be so, your dream of restoring to its Lochner-era, child labor loving glory, just doesn't have the votes on the Supreme Court.
 
2012-07-01 02:47:02 PM

Corvus: hinten: Sorry, I still believe he was blackmailed for his homosexiness. Proof me wrong.

Ok: you have no evidence to back up your statement. There did it!

You are the one who has to back up an allegation like that with evidence not that we have to prove a negative.


You don't think he might have been joking, do you?
 
2012-07-01 02:47:33 PM

hinten: Sorry, I still believe he was blackmailed for his homosexiness. Proof me wrong.


The rumor Freep was generating was that his kids were threatened. They're adopted you see, so Fartbongo was going to find the birth parents and have them demand their kids back after all these years. I don't think adoption works that way.
 
2012-07-01 02:48:37 PM

Corvus: hinten: Sorry, I still believe he was blackmailed for his homosexiness. Proof me wrong.

Ok: you have no evidence to back up your statement. There did it!

You are the one who has to back up an allegation like that with evidence not that we have to prove a negative.


Your sarcasm meter needs adjustment.
 
2012-07-01 02:49:44 PM

bartink: You don't think he might have been joking, do you?


To be fair to Corvus, there are actual people who do believe it.
 
2012-07-01 02:49:45 PM

Lost Thought 00: It's a shame that political parties have so thoroughly infected our "independent" judiciary.


It boggles my mind that a conservative president would put someone who is conservative on the Supreme Court.
It also boggles my mind that a liberal president would put someone who is liberal on the Supreme Court.
It also boggles my mind when the sun comes up every day, and water is wet.
 
2012-07-01 02:51:17 PM
Hostage trade: We'll give you back John Roberts if you give us back Dennis Miller.

....

Nevermind, fark him, we don't want him back.
 
2012-07-01 02:53:22 PM

coeyagi: Hostage trade: We'll give you back John Roberts if you give us back Dennis Miller.

....

Nevermind, fark him, we don't want him back.


Miller hasn't been funny since he came out of the closet as a Republican.
 
2012-07-01 02:54:46 PM

bugontherug: A Court showing judicial restraint would have said "We find this Constitutional as an exercise of the tax power, and therefore see no need to speak to the commerce power question," which is what I thought was going to happen. But Roberts' was committed to trying to write new Commerce Clause law, so he flapped his gums when he really didn't need to.


Yes, this was part of Ginsburgs point. There was no need to talk about the commerce clause at all since he decided it on the taxation power portion of the government's argument.

Of course he left Wickard and the other commerce clause cases intact. He had no grounds (and certainly not the votes) to overturn them. But if you read it carefully, he is itching to.
 
2012-07-01 02:54:59 PM
ACA surviving was hardly a fair trade for the abomination that was the Citizens United ruling. That one is going to go down in history as the second-worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott.
 
2012-07-01 03:08:47 PM
He accomplished one thing for certain. Everyone thinks he's an idiot.
 
2012-07-01 03:10:30 PM

Any Pie Left: ACA surviving was hardly a fair trade for the abomination that was the Citizens United ruling. That one is going to go down in history as the second-worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott.


And what was the worst ruling since Dred Scott?
 
2012-07-01 03:13:03 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Any Pie Left: ACA surviving was hardly a fair trade for the abomination that was the Citizens United ruling. That one is going to go down in history as the second-worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott.

And what was the worst ruling since Dred Scott?


I think he meant to include Dred Scott in there.
 
2012-07-01 03:13:59 PM
What I don't understand is not why Roberts defected since it an easy decision given already set precedent, but why did Kennedy go with the minority?

How can the same man rule that it is OK for the federal government to go after medical marijuana growers in states where it is legal, but somehow they don't have the power to create a fee for not buying healthcare?
 
2012-07-01 03:16:51 PM

gilgigamesh: Of course he left Wickard and the other commerce clause cases intact. He had no grounds (and certainly not the votes) to overturn them. But if you read it carefully, he is itching to.


I didn't see evidence that he's itching to overturn Wickard, etc. Can you direct me to language you feel supports this view?
 
2012-07-01 03:19:27 PM

coeyagi: Benevolent Misanthrope: Any Pie Left: ACA surviving was hardly a fair trade for the abomination that was the Citizens United ruling. That one is going to go down in history as the second-worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott.

And what was the worst ruling since Dred Scott?

I think he meant to include Dred Scott in there.


i1214.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-01 03:21:14 PM
I heard it was cause he had the epilepsies.
 
2012-07-01 03:21:38 PM

hinten: Sorry, I still believe he was blackmailed for his homosexiness. Proof Poof me wrong.


Fixed.
 
2012-07-01 03:21:49 PM

Coco LaFemme: I can't remember who said it, but I think it's true. This was Roberts worried about the legacy of his court. He made the right decision, but I think there were other factors influencing it other than just whether it was constitutional or not.


Every time a new Justice is appointed, we are treated to news articles about how they seldom keep the ideological faith of their appointers. Or maybe John Roberts just didn't want to be told what to do by the likes of limbaugh, boehner, or scalia.

But I think it's cute that his failure to uphold conservative "values" means that he's been turned somehow. Conservatives can't be wrong, and conservatism has all the answers, so it must be a failure of the individual. It couldn't possibly be their backwards ideology.
 
2012-07-01 03:24:28 PM

platedlizard: hinten: Sorry, I still believe he was blackmailed for his homosexiness. Proof me wrong.

The rumor Freep was generating was that his kids were threatened. They're adopted you see, so Fartbongo was going to find the birth parents and have them demand their kids back after all these years. I don't think adoption works that way.


Nothing works the way Freepers think it works.
 
2012-07-01 03:28:01 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Any Pie Left: ACA surviving was hardly a fair trade for the abomination that was the Citizens United ruling. That one is going to go down in history as the second-worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott.

And what was the worst ruling since Dred Scott?


How about Bush vs Gore in 2000, stopping the election recount in Florida.

Have to wonder if America wouldn't be in the shape it is today if SCOTUS had not installed Bush 2.
 
2012-07-01 03:28:03 PM
Nothing ironic here. Kennedy hasn't been a swing vote for a good three years. He's become a late life dyed in the wool right winger, probably from reading all the emails Scalia forwards to him. These days he's as reliable for a right wing bob vote as Thomas. Out of all the 5 conservatives, Roberts is the only one who still considers legal matters in addition to rank partisanship.
 
2012-07-01 03:28:46 PM

Great_Milenko: Or maybe John Roberts just didn't want to be told what to do by the likes of limbaugh, boehner, or scalia.


I get a feeling that's what it is. His opinion starts off with a rather unneeded but very cool and well written history, he quotes John Marshall a few times. And he explicitly states it's not the job of the court to determine good or bad policy. Also really he did uphold a conservative point of view, it's just that most self-styled conservatives have no idea what that actually is.
 
2012-07-01 03:30:29 PM
Why so shocked about Kennedy? Four justices were appointed by Democrats, and five were appointed by Republicans. Guess what group Kennedy falls in?
 
2012-07-01 03:30:47 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Any Pie Left: ACA surviving was hardly a fair trade for the abomination that was the Citizens United ruling. That one is going to go down in history as the second-worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott.

And what was the worst ruling since Dred Scott?



Plessy?
 
2012-07-01 03:33:15 PM

JK47: Plessy?


Yep. What's interesting is there was one sole dissenting justice in that case and it was his grandson who was a justice on the court when they overturned a lot of what Plessy put into motion. And had he been made a justice just a bit earlier he'd have been on Brown v Board of Education.
 
2012-07-01 03:35:18 PM

Corvus: hinten: Sorry, I still believe he was blackmailed for his homosexiness. Proof me wrong.

Ok: you have no evidence to back up your statement. There did it!

You are the one who has to back up an allegation like that with evidence not that we have to prove a negative.


Sorry to see that you are not as well read as I am. If you read some of the blogs of folks that know about these things you would know better.
The proof is in the Fark, you fool:
Link
 
2012-07-01 03:36:30 PM

bugontherug: However bad you want it to be so, your dream of restoring to its Lochner-era, child labor loving glory,


LOLWAT
 
2012-07-01 03:42:55 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: Any Pie Left: ACA surviving was hardly a fair trade for the abomination that was the Citizens United ruling. That one is going to go down in history as the second-worst Supreme Court ruling since Dred Scott.

And what was the worst ruling since Dred Scott?


Santa Clara Railroad
 
2012-07-01 03:43:03 PM
So he is a gay epileptic who was blackmailed and forced by Obama to vote Nigracare constitutional.
 
2012-07-01 03:51:05 PM
I love the fact that many conservatives are amazed that this court somehow invented a new right to tax anything. As though that's new. Like we couldn't tax stuff before.
 
2012-07-01 03:51:23 PM

Gwyrddu: What I don't understand is not why Roberts defected since it an easy decision given already set precedent, but why did Kennedy go with the minority?

How can the same man rule that it is OK for the federal government to go after medical marijuana growers in states where it is legal, but somehow they don't have the power to create a fee for not buying healthcare?


This is what I've been wondering. In the hubbub over Roberts no one is really talking about Kennedy. In my own limited reading of his background, it seems like he is more of a libertarian and sometimes that works to liberals' favor and sometimes not.
 
2012-07-01 03:51:49 PM

that bosnian sniper: So he is a gay epileptic who was blackmailed and forced by Obama to vote Nigracare constitutional.


what the fark i this shiat?
 
2012-07-01 03:53:32 PM
This is the republican JUDAS!!!! moment. They're scared and curled into the fetal position wailing and waiting for a country that has since moved on and left them cold, stranded and alone.

boo hoo hoo.
 
2012-07-01 03:56:45 PM

Uchiha_Cycliste: that bosnian sniper: So he is a gay epileptic who was blackmailed and forced by Obama to vote Nigracare constitutional.

what the fark i this shiat?


This is a compression of theories that are truly active on conservative blogs this week.
 
2012-07-01 03:59:31 PM
A friend much more knowledgeable than I read the dissenting opinion. He said it is so full of twisted logic and willfully ignoring past precedent, he is shocked they were willing to make it public.

It sounds like Justice Roberts found a political way out. His decision makes sure everyone (except big pharma) loses.
 
Displayed 50 of 129 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report