Who Leaked Roberts' Vote-Flip?

Orin Kerr doesn't know, but speculates it had to be a clerk or even a conservative justice.

One problem I have with the leak: Roberts is now a Liberal Super Hero. And the conservatives don't like him, and are leaking about him.

If you think, as I do, he's a weak man and a politician first, you have to worry that he is now Owned and Operated by the liberal caucus, don't you?

He wrote an opinion to get Loved by All the Right People. Well, he has that now, and furthermore, All the Right People are the only people who love him. The wrong people don't love him any longer. So where do you imagine a weak, affirmation-seeking man would go next?

I think we just saw the birthing of a 5-4 liberal majority, something that will only be undone if a Republican president is elected, and gets to choose two (or at least one) more conservative justices.

And that's a hard thing to do. Because while Democratic presidents have a perfect track record of picking absolutely-partisan, reliably liberal votes, Republicans are only batting .500.

This, I think, is the main reason for that:

Another factor is that liberal Supreme Court nominees can tell you precisely how they stand on key issues and still get confirmed. In her 1993 confirmation hearings, Ginsburg declared the right to abortion “central to a woman’s life, to her dignity” and was confirmed 96 to 3. Breyer declared abortion a “basic right” and was confirmed 87-9. Imagine if a conservative nominee said the opposite? Their confirmation battle would be a nuclear war.

Liberal nominees can simply affirm liberal positions, while conservatives must speak cryptically in terms of their judicial philosophy. And as we saw last week, those philosophical statements do not necessarily indicate how they will vote on the bench. During his confirmation hearings, Roberts famously compared the role of a judge to that of a baseball umpire whose job “is to call balls and strikes.” This was taken as a promise that, as President Bush put it, “he’s not going to legislate from the bench.”

This suggests that Republicans can no longer confirm liberal justices, at least not until a treaty is reached on this point. We cannot confirm their guys, while our guys must, essentially, have no paper trail in their record. "No paper trail" means that liberals can't say definitively that he's one of those Crazy Right-Wingers; but "no paper trail" means that conservatives can't definitively say he's a Crazy Right-Winger, either.

I don't think liberals are going to agree to vote for conservative justices until there's an actual "crisis," and by "crisis," I mean conservatives simply refuse to confirm known liberal justices (and appellate judges, too). That will of course be a "crisis" in their eyes, and therefore the media will play up the Crisis in the Judiciary.

But that's what it will take.

And speaking of love, Howard Kurtz notes the media has a man-crush on Justice Roberts, and he actually uses those words in the headline.

The liberal lionization of John Roberts is roaring through the media.

...

One moment he is the bęte noire of the left, a right-wing legal hack who lied about being a neutral umpire, and the next he is a profile in courage, rising above petty partisanship to do the right thing.

Is this a classic case of what many on the right carp about—that conservatives are depicted as having “grown” and “evolved” only when they move to the left?

In some ways, sure. But the story is more complicated than that, turning on a justice’s nuanced view of his role and that of the high court.

And while some conservatives are angry at Roberts—a few have even called him a traitor—the right-wing media have been remarkably restrained in reporting on the chief justice’s apostasy.

But make no mistake: much of the MSM is in gushing mode.

Ah, "nuanced view." Of course he can't make the case of media bias without undermining it, claiming it's "nuanced."

No, it's not. The media was writing apocalyptic stories about the Rogue Court and the evil Justice Roberts the day before the ruling; after the ruling, he's the greatest justice since Louis Brandeis.

There's no nuance there. To the extent there's "nuance," the media should still hate him if it were not a partisan institution, because he claimed what they said was an outrage: that the Commerce Clause has limits.

But they're partisan, so the important thing to them is Obama's Big Win.

Donald Trump calls a spade a spade:

It's a disaster and obviously it would have been better if it was knocked out, but Justice Roberts wanted to be loved by the Washington establishment. And by the way, he is now loved," Donald Trump said about Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts' decision to uphold the individual mandate in President Obama's health care reform bill.

"Because the way they're talking about him, it's unbelievable. So he is a beloved man to the liberals and to the Washington establishment," Trump added.

They'll always have this advantage -- the people whose Love counts for so goddamned much -- until we take the culture back.

Thanks to @rdbrewer4.

Posted by: Ace at 03:57 PM



Comments

1 Primero !

Posted by: grease monkey at July 02, 2012 03:59 PM (VSWPU)

2 The real problem? "Liberalism is a mental disorder". The older these justices get the more susceptible they are to mental illnesses, like liberalism.

Posted by: Lone Marauder, pre-denounced for your convenience at July 02, 2012 04:00 PM (/bVuS)

3 The vote switch is getting confirmed -

but it's CBS...

Since it's Meme Monday--


Fake But Accurate

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:00 PM (r2PLg)

4 I say this asa Catholic: may God damn John Roberts.

Posted by: Big Fat Meanie at July 02, 2012 04:00 PM (Ec6wH)

5

Ahh....I can feel the love all the way here to Veletta, Malta.
It's lovely here.

Posted by: The Dread Justice Roberts at July 02, 2012 04:00 PM (MbB0O)

6 This thread is depressing. I'm going back to the other thread where we have chocolate covered sea cucumbers.

Oh and my guess for the leak is Kennedy. Apparently, he's furious.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 02, 2012 04:00 PM (VtjlW)

7 Oh, do I remember how the Norwegians loved me.

Posted by: Vidkun Quisling at July 02, 2012 04:01 PM (QKKT0)

8 This is where I join the eyeores. How do we get the culture back when we value hard work and they value path-of-least-resistance?

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at July 02, 2012 04:01 PM (YmPwQ)

9
Donald Trump calls a spade a spade:


Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaacissssssssssssst.

There, now that's out of the way: Roberts can go fuck himself. He's helped cement the death of our republic. Way to go, Johnny!

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 02, 2012 04:01 PM (4df7R)

10 Who leaked?

Who has the most to gain?

Liberals.

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:01 PM (r2PLg)

11 John Roberts deserves to be a very lonely man. Conservatives are stung and outraged by his tortured decision making and will not forget his betrayal.
The Left, conversely, will see him as nothing more than a tool – doing their bidding like a dog, eager to please its master. And of course, they will have nothing but contempt for him since the only faith they know is bad faith.
For once in my life I’ve found common ground with the Left. I share their contempt.

Posted by: LGoPs at July 02, 2012 04:01 PM (+Uv5V)

12 Oh and my guess for the leak is Kennedy. Apparently, he's furious.
Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 02, 2012 04:00 PM (VtjlW)

**********

I'm thinking one of the law clerks for the Dems.

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:02 PM (r2PLg)

13 I'm doubtful of a 5-4 lib court. Roberts isn't turning into a Breyer. Rather he has simply had a Justice Kennedy moment.

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at July 02, 2012 04:02 PM (WItBr)

14 When questioned as to the POTUS' reaction when first hearing that it had been overturned, Ed Henry reported that the POTUS appeared "puzzled". I tweeted Henry to remark that "puzzled" was an interesting choice of words.

If he originally thought it had been over-turned, and had been building a case with his donors based upon that fact, then why would he appear "puzzled" rather than enraged or resigned or disappointed?

Posted by: Niedermeyer's Dead Horse at July 02, 2012 04:03 PM (piMMO)

15 Its my opinion Roberts was on the wrong side of the Arizona and Stolen Valor decisions also. He scored a hat trick against America and we lost.

Posted by: polynikes at July 02, 2012 04:03 PM (hdGdp)

16 Lots of folks have been blaming Bush, but if there is blame to be placed (aside from on Roberts directly, of course) it should be on the Senate.

Posted by: Y-not at July 02, 2012 04:03 PM (5H6zj)

17 Now this is the thread the morons demanded, the AoQ Official "Bash Roberts Thread."


100% moron approved.

Ace is a man of the people...

Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 02, 2012 04:03 PM (UZQM8)

18 John Roberts comes out, Anderson Cooper comes out; who's next? Allahpundit is Magic Mike?

Posted by: Fritz at July 02, 2012 04:04 PM (/ZZCn)

19 Imagine if a conservative nominee said the opposite? Their confirmation battle would be a nuclear war.


ALL Republican President nominees are a nuclear war, regardless of what they say. And scrunts like Ginsberg and Breyer get a 97-3 vote because Republicans are balless enuchs.

Posted by: Vic at July 02, 2012 04:04 PM (YdQQY)

20
Well... in keeping the the glass half full tradition..... perhaps....Kennedy will be so incensed by the shenanigans that he will now be a stalwart conservative vote.






OK..... we're screwed.

Posted by: fixerupper at July 02, 2012 04:05 PM (C8hzL)

21 And I don't think Roberts flipped.

Posted by: Vic at July 02, 2012 04:05 PM (YdQQY)

22 Anderson Cooper is gushing over Roberts, too.

Posted by: Cricket at July 02, 2012 04:05 PM (DrC22)

23 The liberal lionization of John Roberts is roaring through the media.
...

One moment he is the bęte noire of the left, a right-wing legal hack who lied about being a neutral umpire, and the next he is a profile in courage, rising above petty partisanship to do the right thing.

Is this a classic case of what many on the right carp about—that conservatives are depicted as having “grown” and “evolved” only when they move to the left?


*******

One example of this--there was a title--

The Roberts Era Begins


He's been there for seven years...

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:05 PM (r2PLg)

24
John Roberts mccained us.


Posted by: soothsayer at July 02, 2012 04:05 PM (9Q7Nu)

25 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable tyrant.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 02, 2012 04:05 PM (8y9MW)

26 NYT editorial- The Radical Supreme Court (6/30)

"...while they upheld the law’s mandate for individuals to buy insurance under Congress’s taxing power, the chief justice joined the four other conservatives to reject that provision under the Constitution’s commerce clause. That rejection underscores the aggressiveness of the majority’s conservatism and marks a stunning departure from the long-established legal consensus that Congress has broad power to regulate the economy."

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 02, 2012 04:06 PM (d6QMz)

27 @22
EWWWWWW!

Posted by: Y-not at July 02, 2012 04:06 PM (5H6zj)

28 Lots of folks have been blaming Bush, but if there is blame to be placed (aside from on Roberts directly, of course) it should be on the Senate.

Hell, amateurs blame Bush. I blame Washington. He founded this f**king country.///

Posted by: LGoPs at July 02, 2012 04:06 PM (+Uv5V)

29 Allahpundit is Magic Mike?
Posted by: Fritz at July 02, 2012 04:04 PM (/ZZCn)


Things that make you go... uuggghhhhhh...

Posted by: cajun carrot, down for some SMOD at July 02, 2012 04:06 PM (UZQM8)

30

They said that Barky had three speeches ready....one for each scenario, after the ruling came down.

I wish someone would leak the one he would've given if the ruling had shot down ZeroCare.
I'm guessing it would have vilified the court.

Posted by: wheatie at July 02, 2012 04:06 PM (MbB0O)

31 I'm thinking one of the law clerks for the Dems.Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:02 PM (r2PLg)

Kennedy as the leaker makes more sense to me. But then again...I'm a Moron.a

Posted by: Sean Bannion at July 02, 2012 04:07 PM (sbV1u)

32 Good points. I've been saying it for a while, president romney needs to reward originalist, conservative jurists with jobs in the fed government, from judges to DOJ positions.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at July 02, 2012 04:07 PM (QxSug)

33 But I just aw the USA today poll that says 56% of the "people" want the law left alone. Of course this is in complete disagreement with the Rasmussen poll today. Who to believe? Who to believe?

Posted by: the pink cracker formerly known as the hobbit Donna at July 02, 2012 04:07 PM (ZHge+)

34 until we take the culture back.


Fuck this culture. I don't want our culture to be infested with grabasstic layabouts always hungry for the next gimme from Uncle Fed. I want them in the minority.

Posted by: EC at July 02, 2012 04:08 PM (GQ8sn)

35 Roberts vote was 78–22

vs Ginsberg 97-3

Posted by: Vic at July 02, 2012 04:08 PM (YdQQY)

36
"Anderson Cooper is gushing over Roberts, too."

...In Barry's dreams

Posted by: Take a shower John at July 02, 2012 04:08 PM (gppu7)

37 I mean, how many lefty knee jerk liberals with Che tatooed to their dick judges can we conservatives just let get put through congress while we play the one sided game that W played by letting his judges get fake-filibustered.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at July 02, 2012 04:08 PM (QxSug)

38 Honestly, the conservative stonewalling should have started with Kagan and the "Wise Latina." That Kagan was even considered, let alone confirmed, is testament to how broken our judicial approval process is.

And if you'll allow me a minute to get my vulgar freak on, fuck that bitch for not recusing herself from the obamaTax case. Fuck her straight to Hell on Satan's barbed cock.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 02, 2012 04:08 PM (4df7R)

39 Everybody has AIDS!

Posted by: RasZogMediaWashPollGroup at July 02, 2012 04:09 PM (zsgo8)

40 31 I'm thinking one of the law clerks for the Dems.Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:02 PM (r2PLg)

Kennedy as the leaker makes more sense to me. But then again...I'm a Moron.a
Posted by: Sean Bannion at July 02, 2012 04:07 PM (sbV1u)

******

It keeps a negative for Republicans story --

alive and twists the knife...

I'm thinking Dem.

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:09 PM (r2PLg)

41 And look at what was posted today on NRO, 100% of Federal AG's political donations went left. The right needs to be rewarding people with these plum positions.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at July 02, 2012 04:09 PM (QxSug)

42 I mean, how many lefty knee jerk liberals with Che tatooed to their dick
judges can we conservatives just let get put through congress while we
play the one sided game that W played by letting his judges get
fake-filibustered.

-----

Well now, let me see. 1...2....3...4....{counts on fingers}

Posted by: Lindsay Graham at July 02, 2012 04:09 PM (vOMX+)

43 Of course this is in complete disagreement with the Rasmussen poll today. Who to believe? Who to believe?Posted by: the pink cracker

The poll taken on Nov. 6th.

Posted by: weft cut-loop at July 02, 2012 04:09 PM (famk3)

44 Sure is a good thing we have an independent judiciary in the Supreme Court, where life term justices need not feel pressured by politics to change their rulings.

Unless of course they happen to be a giant pussy more concerned about bad PR from the MSM than the law.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at July 02, 2012 04:10 PM (SY2Kh)

45 Step 1: Nuclear Option for Judicial Nominees (yes, this means that when the Dems are in control, they'll always get what they want. They do that anyway. At least this way we'll also always get what we want when we're in control)

Step 2: Start using "Litmus Tests." You're going to be accused of it anyway, so you might as well do it.

Step 3: Stop revering "precedent" so much. People get things wrong. The last time I checked, the Supreme Court was made up of people: ergo: the Supreme Court sometimes gets things wrong.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 02, 2012 04:10 PM (8y9MW)

46 an yeah, that would mean Romney has to embrace the evil...accept that the left will never love us. who cares, fucking break the left or demand the rules go both ways, not one way toward the left's benefit

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at July 02, 2012 04:10 PM (QxSug)

47 The only thing that will fix this shit is to take the court away from Washington. The only way that will happen is an Article V convention.

Let each State appoint 1 judge in any manner they desire and let there be 50 judges. Place the court in the geographic center of the country.


We may not be able to take the politics out of the court, but we can take it away from the federal politicians.

Posted by: Vic at July 02, 2012 04:10 PM (YdQQY)

48
Ace thinks the source of the leak can be traced back to our side.

I'll posit the opposite: the leak is from the Left.

Why? To serve to give Roberts his reward. And it also serves as a calling card to other out there like Roberts that they too will get praise and adulation if they betray their conservative principles.


Posted by: soothsayer at July 02, 2012 04:11 PM (9Q7Nu)

49 Who leaked at SCOTUS?
Not me, I'm wearing Maxi's.

Posted by: Elena Kagan at July 02, 2012 04:11 PM (wAQA5)

50 I mean, how many lefty knee jerk liberals with Che tatooed to their dick judges can we conservatives just let get put through congress while we play the one sided game that W played by letting his judges get fake-filibustered.

That's what it really boils down to. We play like it's a gentlemen's game, with rules and all.. The other side plays for keeps.

And that is why we lose.

Posted by: LGoPs at July 02, 2012 04:11 PM (+Uv5V)

51 Miss me yet?

Posted by: Harriet Myers at July 02, 2012 04:11 PM (iAUf+)

52 "An honest politician is one who, when he is bought, will stay bought."

They kilt him with they loooove.

Posted by: eleven at July 02, 2012 04:11 PM (KXm42)

53 I think the former Mrs. Tiger Woods had the right idea on how conversations should be conducted regarding loyalty issues, with aid of a seven iron.

Posted by: WalrusRex at July 02, 2012 04:12 PM (Hx5uv)

54 Ace, don't you mean a 6-3 liberal SCOTUS? I wouldn't trust Kennedy to vote conservative.

Posted by: Penfold at July 02, 2012 04:12 PM (1PeEC)

55 >>>Loved by All the Right People.

I have a different theory on this one. Roberts fell into the Hughes trap. Believing that making a politically unpopular opinion would help nominate liberal justices and undo the restraint of the court, he made a political decision to keep the decision out of the election as a positive for Obama, and so to save his philosophy of jurisprudence, he became the one who destroyed it himself, with the inward rationalization that, "If I do it, at least it can be restrained later" the Huges trap.

I have serious misgivings about that because of the historical significance of the Hughes court that established new baselines for federal power that will never be undone. In so doing the same exact thing Roberts did what the Hughes court did. But he didn't have the excuse that he didn't know better.

He let himself be seduced into making the easy decision rationalizing that it would be better in the long run to duck the political flak in an election year. We can hope, at least, the taste in his mouth sours and he reaffirms his dedication to principal. But I fear like you, once you take that first hit of leftist adulation, it's hard to quit.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 02, 2012 04:12 PM (0q2P7)

56 .... if all you seek is praise and adulation.... you never had priciples, let alone conservative ones, to begin with.

Posted by: fixerupper at July 02, 2012 04:12 PM (C8hzL)

57 well, unlike Mackerel, I get the feeling that Mitt doesn't play to lose.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at July 02, 2012 04:12 PM (QxSug)

58
So...

how about that Attorney General of ours? You know, the fugitive.

Posted by: soothsayer at July 02, 2012 04:12 PM (9Q7Nu)

59 I still think Congress should pass a law requiring that everyone own and be proficient in the use of a firearm, with a fee/tax/penalty assessed on the individual on an annual basis. Proficient would mean a trip to the local gun range, say quarterly.

Like ACA, the fee/tax/penalty needs to be based on your income (AGI anyone?).

We must eliminate these free-riders on personal protection.

Posted by: John P. Squibob at July 02, 2012 04:12 PM (kqqGm)

60 Miss me yet?

Posted by: Harriet Myers at July 02, 2012 04:11 PM (iAUf+)

Couldn't have been any worse, could it?

Posted by: eleven at July 02, 2012 04:13 PM (KXm42)

61 I think Romney should embrace Anderson Cooper. Then the media can start gushing over him.

Posted by: Cricket at July 02, 2012 04:13 PM (DrC22)

62 the leak may have the effect of shaming roberts into stop being such a pussy. Then again, if Kennedy couldn't convince Roberts to switch back with a month of persuasion, this is just an inidication that the the man was a terrible choice by W.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at July 02, 2012 04:13 PM (QxSug)

63 There's a theory in the conservative blogosphere that Roberts' decision will somehow earn him political capital and make it more difficult to smear him as a right-wing extremist when he goes the other way (the right way) in a future case, say, on affirmative action, or religious liberty, or abortion, or on some different attempt to impose government hyper-regulation via the Commerce Clause.

Well, maybe. But if we know anything about the Guantanamo bad when Bush in charge/Guantanamo good when Obama in charge Left, it's that they have very, very short and selective memories.

And the MSM, which essentially is the Left for all intents and purposes, are the worst offenders. We'll be in Orwellian territory the next time Roberts steps out of line, because he'll be lambasted just as if this never happened.

Posted by: The Regular Guy at July 02, 2012 04:13 PM (qHCyt)

64 And look at what was posted today on NRO, 100% of Federal AG's political donations went left. The right needs to be rewarding people with these plum positions.

That does not bother me at all. To the victor go the spoils. Of course, that means that Day One, say One and a Half of President Romney's term, every single last one gets fired.


Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 02, 2012 04:14 PM (VtjlW)

65 Fun Fact: Ruthy Ginsberg can suck a golf ball through a garden hose.

Posted by: John Roberts at July 02, 2012 04:14 PM (PEwU1)

66 Popularity . I haz it

Posted by: lolRoberts at July 02, 2012 04:14 PM (zsgo8)

67 We need a litmus test forword counts in nood posts that won't make your eyes bleed.

Posted by: Beefy Beefy Beefy at July 02, 2012 04:14 PM (yn6XZ)

68 First Stop for Mr. and Mrs. Roberts: Sally Quinn's house.

Posted by: kallisto at July 02, 2012 04:14 PM (jm/9g)

69
51 Miss me yet?
Posted by: Harriet Myers at July 02, 2012 04:11 PM (iAUf+)


We'd still be fucked. Alito was your replacement, and we'd have still been stuck with Robers.

Posted by: buzzion at July 02, 2012 04:15 PM (GULKT)

70 @64 true dat, but recall the "scandal" W had to deal with when he fired the AG's. As Annie C pointed out, this was in part because W stupidly played gentelman to keep Clinton's AGs.

God fucking damn it all, why were W and Mackerel so stupid?!!?!

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at July 02, 2012 04:15 PM (QxSug)

71 Yes, but if you impeach Roberts for treason and execute him, you can nominate an actual human to replace him.

Posted by: Silentbrick at July 02, 2012 04:15 PM (p7ej8)

72 So is it the embedded videos that cause the site to be so slow opening up. If so how about just linking them.

Posted by: teej at July 02, 2012 04:15 PM (0SHei)

73 PGops is right. It's always been the case. It's not in the D's character to play fair and square. But the R's never seem to get this. Hence, they get rolled and rolled and rolled.

The silver lining in ObamaTaxCare....it will completely collapse at some point, along with the the entire economic structure of our country.

Posted by: Lady in Black at July 02, 2012 04:16 PM (vOMX+)

74 It sucks that the "conservative" SC Judges get fried by liberals during the confirmation process, but Republicans just bend over and take whomever. There's really NO WAY that Kagan should've been voted in. NO. WAY.

Posted by: © Sponge at July 02, 2012 04:16 PM (UK9cE)

75 Of course,
that means that Day One, say One and a Half of President Romney's term,
every single last one gets fired.


That would be scandalous. Unlike, say, sending guns to Mexican drug lords to deliberately cause politically-helpful carnage. That's a non-scandal.

Posted by: Cicero at July 02, 2012 04:16 PM (QKKT0)

76
That does not bother me at all. To the victor go the spoils. Of course, that means that Day One, say One and a Half of President Romney's term, every single last one gets fired.




>>> This times 1000

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at July 02, 2012 04:16 PM (mFxQX)

77 Let's face it, there are a couple of pigs on the Supremes who could have squealed on him.

Posted by: Cricket at July 02, 2012 04:16 PM (DrC22)

78 I say we Bork everyone. I volunteer my services to this noble end.

Posted by: Mr. Anderson at July 02, 2012 04:16 PM (yn6XZ)

79 I have to argue with Thiessen's article in the sidebar, about 'pubs picking such awful SCOTUS justices. I say bullshit. The Republicans can pick AWESOME SCOTUS nominees, but until the frigging 'pubs in the Senate grow a fucking backbone (one each, not the shared one they pass around for difficult votes) none of them will ever get past the confirmation process. Until Republicans across the board STOP letting the leftist progs set the conversation and STOP accepting the left's flawed premises instead of throwing them back in their commie faces, the court is going to suffer the same steady leftist progression that every other institution in this country has suffered, from academia to labor to gubmint.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 02, 2012 04:17 PM (4df7R)

80 well, firing the AG's is standard at the start of the term. They serve at president's pleasure.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at July 02, 2012 04:17 PM (QxSug)

81 Rush strongly implied today that Justice Thomas may have been the leaker. The CBS reporter who broke the story previously did a long series of reports where she was "embedded" with Thomas and the reports were surprisingly fair and non-liberal, apparently.

Posted by: Ian S. at July 02, 2012 04:18 PM (tqwMN)

82 Just look at what the leftards did to Bork. And Thomas. And Alito. There was even a bit of resistance to Roberts. Ironically, Scalia may have been the last unabashed conservative to skate into SCOTUS.
We're lucky that W reconsidered Miersand appointed Alito. (The fact that he listened to the base, just that once, gives me a slight hope for the repeal effort).

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at July 02, 2012 04:18 PM (YmPwQ)

83 Pass legislation that is worded so that the Supremes never get to put holy water on it.

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at July 02, 2012 04:18 PM (mFxQX)

84
80 well, firing the AG's is standard at the start of the term. They serve at president's pleasure.
Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at July 02, 2012 04:17 PM (QxSug)


Unless you're a Republican president. Then firing a few AG's if tantamount to TREASON. If you're a Dem president, though, you can fire them all and no one cares.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 02, 2012 04:19 PM (4df7R)

85 why are GOP presidents awful at it? Probably because the Senate was historically DNC owned. And, then during W, the traitorous gang of 14 fake filibustered W's nominations. Because conservative judges are icky or something.

Embrace the evil, romney, I think the left's judges are a lot more embarrassing than anyone our side has. How many terrorist snuggling, criminal coddling, illiterate judges can we overlook?

This is another winning issue that our side is too scared to capitalize on. Lefty judges are not judges, they're placeholders for DNC politicians.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at July 02, 2012 04:20 PM (QxSug)

86 Orin Kerr doesn't know, but speculates it had to be a clerk or even a conservative justice.

*****

It's Orin Kerr--usually I bet against him.

But--the thing you have to give him credit for over at Volokh--he kept posting what Liberals and media elite thought.


Hell he thought Rush Limbaugh should watch what he said because of his power of influence.


I always thought he was wrong to think that the media mattered.

Well...Orin might have been right about the power of the media this time--

Big Time.

Even though he lost the Commerce Clause argument, the Necessary and Proper Clause arguments....


If the media influenced Roberts--none of that mattered.

I have to go re-read the briefs, and the opinion but it almost looks like Roberts did the work for them --on the-

It's Constitutional as a Tax! --tact.

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:20 PM (r2PLg)

87 Justice Thomas isn't old enough for Depends. Now, Ruth Bader Ginsburg....

Posted by: Cricket at July 02, 2012 04:20 PM (DrC22)

88
Think about it. You're John Roberts. You'd like some celebrity status. After all, you're the Boss of the Court.

So everyday you look in the papers and turn on the TV to see if they're talking about you. But in the rare moments you're mentioned, it's all negative.

By golly, they've even associated you with those crude racist Tea Baggers!
That will not do. You want to be adored. You want to rub elbows with all the beautiful people. You want to attend parties with all of Barbara Boxer's Hollywood friends.

But you can't do that because Tea Baggers Are Not Welcome. So you need to send a clear signal that you are not with the Tea Party. You will make sure everyone knows whose side you're on. You will join the liberals on the Court. Yes, that will do nicely.


Posted by: soothsayer at July 02, 2012 04:21 PM (9Q7Nu)

89 I think we just saw the birthing of a 5-4 liberal majority...


This may become a pattern or it could be a one-off; it is too soon to tell.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 02, 2012 04:21 PM (d6QMz)

90
Who got to John Roberts?

No one. Roberts acted on his own volition for reasons stated above.

Case: closed.

Posted by: soothsayer at July 02, 2012 04:22 PM (9Q7Nu)

91 It's Constitutional as a Tax! --tact.

******

It's Constitutional as a Tax--tack.


(damn it--need more coffee--writing Orin might have been right--is flaring my dyslexia.)

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:22 PM (r2PLg)

92 My formerly decent opinion of the SC in general is now kaput. It's time for term limits on these shitheels. ALL Federal judges included.

Posted by: GnuBreed at July 02, 2012 04:22 PM (ccXZP)

93 John Roberts comes out, Anderson Cooper comes out; who's next? Allahpundit is stood in line to see Magic Mike?


Posted by: Fritz at July 02, 2012 04:04 PM (/ZZCn)


Edited for accuracy.

Posted by: © Sponge at July 02, 2012 04:22 PM (UK9cE)

94 Just ONCE I would like a Republican senator -- I'm thinking Rand Paul -- when confronted with a baldly partisan attack on an otherwise staunch conservative SCOTUS nominee, to turn to the progressive Senator waging the attack -- let's go with Harry "I'm seriously not a pedophile, stop it with the creepy looks" Reid -- and say, "Senator Reid, are you really that stupid, or do you make a special effort?" And then proceed with the approval vetting as if the nakedly partisan attack hadn't even happened.

Posted by: MWR, Proud Tea(rrorist) Party Hobbit and ABO Supporter at July 02, 2012 04:22 PM (4df7R)

95
We are officially an oligarchy.

Posted by: Soap MacTavish at July 02, 2012 04:23 PM (vbh31)

96 John Roberts. May his name live in infamy along with Arnold, Quisling and Vichy France(led byPetain).

Posted by: LGoPs at July 02, 2012 04:23 PM (+Uv5V)

97 But you know, Roberts did what he did to best give a conservative spin on the law...which was stupid because the best conservative spin would be winning the case and thereby making the dicta to be precedent.

Posted by: joeindc44 says choom on fuckers at July 02, 2012 04:23 PM (QxSug)

98 If Romney is elected, we can just dig up the dead hookers under his porch, impeach him and replace him, right?

Anyone as unprincipled as Roberts has gotta have a ton dead hookers stashed somewhere...right?

Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at July 02, 2012 04:25 PM (7IYab)

99 Have you finished seeing your constitution yet? Can I bag it
up now?

Posted by: Justass Roberts at July 02, 2012 04:25 PM (AWmfW)

100 If I had a choice to be loved by the people or the press and Washington insiders, I would choose the people.

They can gush all they want and Roberts can bask in that love at the cocktail parties.

But he is loathed by ordinary people and the greater courts reputation is mud with them as well.

So Roberts put his desire for personal affection above legitimacy.

It's also about time for fucking Romney to answer that age-old question: who is a model for the type of justice you would select to SCOTUS?

Posted by: Exile at July 02, 2012 04:25 PM (O0lVq)

101 Rush had a good point for the 10 minutes I listened today: jurors are instructed not to speak with anyone about the trial or view any media reports about them. For reasons that are easy to understand, I add. the SCOTUS is the judge and the jury. Chief Justice Voldemort ought to fucking know better.

Posted by: Spicy Spicy Spicy at July 02, 2012 04:25 PM (yn6XZ)

102 Allen G,

Something you requested from a few threads ago.

http://tinyurl.com/czoe7yz

or

http://tinyurl.com/cssss9p

Posted by: Tonic Dog at July 02, 2012 04:25 PM (X/+QT)

103 comment at Volokh

Tom
Ann Althouse has the same theory: http://althouse.blogspot.com/2...


****

Damn it! Settled--it's a Liberal law clerk.

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:25 PM (r2PLg)

104 I think Roberts has pushed Kennedy over the edge and he's going to be the solid 4th conservative vote people thought Roberts was. Meet the new squishy, same as the old squishy. Except the old squishy is royally pissed at the new squishy and he's probably not going to be squishy anymore.

We need to get 1 or 2 more reliable conservative justices so Roberts can have the vapors all he wants and it won't matter. The man lost his balls after Citizens United and it's unlikely he's ever going to find them again.

Posted by: deepelemblues at July 02, 2012 04:26 PM (lFU4D)

105 I hear that Waffle House is thinking of naming one of their syrupy breakfast goodiesafter the Chief Justice.

Posted by: LGoPs at July 02, 2012 04:26 PM (+Uv5V)

106 Anyone as unprincipled as Roberts has gotta have a ton dead hookers stashed somewhere...right?___

This is what I think flipped his vote. The Obamob are experts at digging up dirt on people.

Posted by: kallisto at July 02, 2012 04:26 PM (jm/9g)

107 Chief Justice Voldemort ought to fucking know better...

He's gotta be a closet one of those "living document" types.

Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at July 02, 2012 04:27 PM (7IYab)

108 Judge Roberts nomination......Just... a bit outside.

Posted by: Harry Doyle at July 02, 2012 04:27 PM (L2p1h)

109
Additional speculation: Roberts most likely holds President Bush in contempt, on a personal level.

And Roberts is resentful that he was Bush's appointee. Roberts felt marred, stained by Bush.

This was the move, in Roberts' mind, to lift that stain.

Posted by: soothsayer at July 02, 2012 04:27 PM (9Q7Nu)

110 My guess is that Roberts will be fuzzy from now on rather than strictly left-wing. He'll try to be the swing vote. I suspect he likes the attention he's getting and will want more and more of it.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at July 02, 2012 04:27 PM (C8mVl)

111 I don't think Roberts did this to be loved by the left. I think he did it to avoid being denounced as a radical extremist by the left. They set up that narrative, and he took a bite. He went for it, despite it being so transparently false because he's weak and easily manipulated, apparently.

That's not much better than approval-seeking, in many ways its the same. He's proven that he's easy to manipulate and the press will pull that weapon out every single time the court is looking at a controversial decision from now on, hoping to get that to work again.

Volokh Conspiracy kept running pieces on how the press was trying to manipulate the court and I shrugged at it. The court is incredibly self-important and pompous, they won't listen to the media, I thought. Apparently they knew their target, or at least someone did - and word got around. Who spread the word? My guess is one of the other justices, such as Kagan.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 04:27 PM (r4wIV)

112 "There's a theory in the conservative blogosphere that Roberts' decision
will somehow earn him political capital and make it more difficult to
smear him as a right-wing extremist when he goes the other way (the
right way) in a future case, say, on affirmative action, or religious
liberty, or abortion, or on some different attempt to impose government
hyper-regulation via the Commerce Clause.
"

=====

This theory makes no sense, because ObamaCare was precisely the sort of case where you'd SPEND this kind of political capital, not EARN it.

Posted by: Kensington at July 02, 2012 04:27 PM (/AHDz)

113 Roberts wasn't Bush's choice. He was mostly the choice of the elite right wing political pundit claque. These people insist if someone doesn't have an Ivy League education and didn't spend years schmoozing the right wing pundits and politicking at Federalist Society meetings they simply aren't fit for the federal bench.

Unfortunately many of these are the same people who savaged everyone who stood between Romney and the 2012 nomination.

Posted by: NC Mountain Girl at July 02, 2012 04:27 PM (0a9xw)

114 This is one of those days where I just feel we are all fucked. The Libs are going to win and suck the country down into the abyss.

Is Liberalism some kind of mass murder/suicide mental disorder that is spread as an air-borne contagion?

Posted by: Dave in Fla at July 02, 2012 04:27 PM (FJP6/)

115 I actually disagree. I think in the long run Roberts' decision is a very conservative one.

But if it's true that he switched his vote the more important question is WHY? I do not agree that he did it to be "loved." If he did switch his vote, I suspect it's b/c there was a threat made against him, either about his private life or to someone in his family.

But we'll never know.

Posted by: Thea at July 02, 2012 04:27 PM (1mYui)

116 maybe Roberts read de Tocqueville and decided to join the other DC hoi polloi fiddling while the country inevitably burned...

Chief Justice Machiavelli

Posted by: reality check at July 02, 2012 04:27 PM (zsgo8)

117 Ginsberg and Kennedy will both be replaced by the next administration, and Souter looks kinda sickly.

Posted by: Vegan Meatball at July 02, 2012 04:28 PM (yn6XZ)

118 OT (linked on Drudge): Big Sis Napolitano is concerned because three illegal aliens sneaking into the country across the desert have died of the heat. So, 300 dead Mexicans (not to mention two US LEOs): No BFD. Three dead illegals: BFD.

Posted by: WalrusRex at July 02, 2012 04:28 PM (Hx5uv)

119 By the way, I hope they kick his ass out of The Federalist Society.

There is no way he can state with a straight face or without someone throwing rotten vegetables that he is either a conservative or libertarian.

Posted by: Exile at July 02, 2012 04:28 PM (O0lVq)

120 Well Johnny, you sure saved the reputation of the Court... unfortunately onlyin the eyes of its blackmailers.
ps. Never saw an answer: if a President Romney gets to make an SC appointment, can he designate the new guy the Chief Justice? TYes, that would be petty, but a little petty payback wuodl feel good right about now.

Posted by: sherlock at July 02, 2012 04:29 PM (H9eC4)

121 I hear that Waffle House is thinking of naming one of their syrupy breakfast goodiesafter the Chief Justice.

Butt squirt berry pancakes?

Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at July 02, 2012 04:29 PM (7IYab)

122 Swing, pendulum, swing. Sweet, sweet pendulum. Inevitable, invincible. Smash.

Posted by: ktnxbai *cough* lace wigs and rolex replicas at July 02, 2012 04:29 PM (lNXlN)

123
@102
Tonic Dog,
I love it. ....Nice work!
But did you misspell "Laser" on purpose?

Posted by: wheatie at July 02, 2012 04:29 PM (MbB0O)

124 106 - Yeah, I've been thinking in the dark corner of my mind "Someone got to him". I have no doubt that this administration would do it if they could.

Posted by: Dave in Fla at July 02, 2012 04:30 PM (FJP6/)

125 brb, torturin' the constitution.

Posted by: John Roberts at July 02, 2012 04:30 PM (ccXZP)

126 #117. Souter retired...

Posted by: the pink cracker formerly known as the hobbit Donna at July 02, 2012 04:30 PM (ZHge+)

127 104 ---"The man lost his balls after Citizens United and it's unlikely he's ever going to find them again."

BINGO!
Although he may swing on some relatively unimportant cases just to keep the excitement (attention) up.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at July 02, 2012 04:30 PM (C8mVl)

128 But did you misspell "Laser" on purpose?

Posted by: wheatie at July 02, 2012 04:29 PM (MbB0O)

You say 'laser', I say 'Pock-e-stahn.' (And that's the lol way to spell laser anyways...ha)

Posted by: Tonic Dog at July 02, 2012 04:31 PM (X/+QT)

129 Incidentally you cannot trust Kennedy to be a conservative, because he's not. He's a libertarian. He's conservative on fiscal issues, and leftist on social ones. He's remarkably consistent in this pattern. Strong on liberty to the point of license. Kennedy isn't random or unpredictable at all.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 04:31 PM (r4wIV)

130 Butt squirt berry pancakes? No! Barry likes waffles! WITH syrup! Barry wants butt squirt syrup on his waffles!

Posted by: Barry Syrup, Int'l Man of Waffles at July 02, 2012 04:31 PM (yn6XZ)

131 concerned because three illegal aliens sneaking into the country across the desert have died of the heat

Truth be told, there's probably hundreds a year expire in the desert. They come very ill prepared.

Posted by: Purp (@PurpAv) at July 02, 2012 04:31 PM (7IYab)

132 And bullshit on him not continuing the liberal rulings.

Look at the Arizona decision. That's been lost in the shock over PPACA.

I expect more siding with the liberals.

It's like Cooper outing he is gay. Roberts has now outed he is a liberal.

Posted by: Exile at July 02, 2012 04:31 PM (O0lVq)

133
Garcon! Where in the hell are my fuckin' grilled bell peppers?

Posted by: CJ Roberts, reporting from Malta at July 02, 2012 04:32 PM (vbh31)

134 Fuck this culture. I don't want our culture to be infested with grabasstic layabouts always hungry for the next gimme from Uncle Fed. I want them in the minority.

They are in the minority. We are being lied to by the MFM.

Remember, it's one of Alinsky's Rules: Hide your numbers, make the enemy think there are far more of you than there really are.

Also remember: self-admitted conservatives outnumber liberals 2:1.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 02, 2012 04:32 PM (d0Tfm)

135 #126 Thanks, was thinking of Breyer.

Posted by: Vegan Meatball at July 02, 2012 04:33 PM (yn6XZ)

136 EVERYONE IS THINKING ABOUT THIS ALL WRONG:

You have to think long ball. You have to think like a chess player.

The best way to judge someone's intent is to look to the results. What is the result of the Robert's decision? An incredibly motivated Republican base. An insanely motivated GOTV effort. A revitalization of the Tea Party (expect HUGE rallies). For all intents and purposes, the Robert's decision increases rather than decreases our chances of winning the White House and the Senate.

In Romney we have an unexciting candidate. Roberts just made this exciting. He just gave us a MISSION. He just gave us a CAUSE. He also exposed Obamacare for what it is - a HUGE tax on the middle class.

So, Roberts just slipped poison into the Democrats political tea and for this he is now a lapdog of the left? He just utterly fucked them. Do you think Romney's fundraising will increase or decrease because of this?

I swear some of you people are so reactionary. Was it a complete bullshit decision? Yes. Does it make a White House win more likely? Yes. So we get the White House and the Senate and we overturn Obamacare anyway.

So stop your bitchin and play some chess.

Posted by: Bill Mitchell at July 02, 2012 04:33 PM (hlUJY)

137 The standard that judges have to satisfy to remain on the bench is pretty low, only to maintain "good Behaviour".

Art III, sec 1: "The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, ..."


Benedict Roberts obviously failed that, miserably, and needs to be impeached.

Chances are that a coward of his ilk will resign as soon as impeachment talk gains some ground. He'll catch that dreaded disease restricted to public figures ... exhaustion.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at July 02, 2012 04:33 PM (X3lox)

138 Posted by: Tonic Dog at July 02, 2012 04:25 PM (X/+QT)

That's awesome.

Yep. Going on Twitter.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 02, 2012 04:34 PM (8y9MW)

139 Actually I think we should review his remarks before Congress, charge him with lying to Congress and then impeach the unprincipled bitch.

Posted by: Exile at July 02, 2012 04:34 PM (O0lVq)

140 Aw, not this shit again.

Posted by: DaveA at July 02, 2012 04:35 PM (864A5)

141 124
106 - Yeah, I've been thinking in the dark corner of my mind "Someone
got to him". I have no doubt that this administration would do it if
they could.


Posted by: Dave in Fla at July 02, 2012 04:30 PM (FJP6/)

Bribed, bullied or blackmailed.

Posted by: Missing FBI Files at July 02, 2012 04:35 PM (+4zf0)

142 I don't think Roberts did it to seek praise. He did it to avoid demonization. He isn't a sycophant, he's a coward.

I agree with MikeTheMoose, that Roberts didn't want to take the flak of making a politicized decision in an election year. But, Roberts... that's your f'n job.

Posted by: sandy burger at July 02, 2012 04:35 PM (k0pNf)

143 Anderson Cooper is gay. Who'd a thunk?

My blood pressure needs a diversion.

Posted by: Exile at July 02, 2012 04:35 PM (O0lVq)

144 Enjoy the Left's adulation as long as you can Mr. Chief Justice, because it will be short-lived. The instant you step off the reservation you will become Attila the Hun and they will scream for your scalp. Worse yet, they won't invite you to anymore cocktail parties. The Horror. The H.O.R.R.O.R.

And conservatives will never forgive, or respect you, again. Of that you can be sure.

Looks like a bad call all the way 'round, Mister Chief Justice.

Just pathetic.

Posted by: LGoPs at July 02, 2012 04:35 PM (lHn6+)

145
Roberts' decision just shows how dysfunctional Washington is, in both parties and in both political philosophies. Roberts wants to go to dinner parties. Perhaps Mrs. Roberts wants to play bridge or mah-jongg or tiddlywinks with Sally Quinn or Moochelle. All of that trivial crap is more important than the future of our country or of freedom.

It makes me want to puke.

Posted by: jclittlep at July 02, 2012 04:36 PM (DuB6V)

146 Volokh Conspiracy kept running pieces on how the press was trying to manipulate the court and I shrugged at it. The court is incredibly self-important and pompous, they won't listen to the media, I thought. Apparently they knew their target, or at least someone did - and word got around. Who spread the word? My guess is one of the other justices, such as Kagan.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 04:27 PM (r4wIV)

******

Correct.

You could get another message from all of this--

The Left Won by Threat.

Republicans lost because they could be trusted to take it like adults.

Remember all the veiled--

Court Packing stories--Roberts knew one thing--

that was Obama talking.

As we were discussing the WaPo's co-ordination with the Obama Administration on the high school Romney story timed with Obama's Evolution and--

The Bain Capital story.

Justice Roberts took the threat seriously--.

It is always Liberals that theater court packing right.

Hell Solicitor General Verrilli brought up -

The Lochner Court during oral argument when arguing-

for The Government./Obama.

*****

The first call President Obama made after learning that the Supreme Court had upheld his health care law on Thursday was to thank his solicitor general, Donald B. Verrilli Jr., who had been much maligned for his at-times rocky performance during oral arguments in March.

The NYT

Bad argument--but he managed to carry the threat--

Italian, err mob style.

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:36 PM (r2PLg)

147 Posted by: Bill Mitchell at July 02, 2012 04:33 PM (hlUJY)

I'll have some of what he's smoking.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) Channelling Breitbart at July 02, 2012 04:36 PM (8y9MW)

148 Roberts joining the libs on this decision still makes me sick to my stomach. I would like to think he didn't "switch" so much as he carefully considered all arguments.

But, as to who has the most to gain from the leak that he did switch- definitely the liberal media. That they have the power to effect SCOTUS decisions, which will make them har... er, happy for a long time.

Posted by: LASue at July 02, 2012 04:36 PM (wAhNv)

149 My blood pressure needs a diversion.

Here. Have some chocolate.

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 02, 2012 04:37 PM (VtjlW)

150
Who Leaked Roberts' Vote-Flip?
I still wanna know who put the bomp in the bomp bah bomp bah bomp and
who put the ram in the rama lama ding dong?


Posted by: YIKES! at July 02, 2012 04:37 PM (1e9m1)

151 It is always Liberals that *threaten* court packing.

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:37 PM (r2PLg)

152 No, nobody had to get to him. He wants his legacy to be glowing and lauded, he wants to go down in history as the greatest justice of all time and he doesn't want his court to be tainted with controversy. The Citizens United case bothered him a lot, he didn't want this one to be the same way. At least that's my read on it.

The guy's entirely life has been about becoming a supreme court judge and being glorious at it. He refused to join the federalist society in college because he thought it would hurt his chances to be confirmed.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 04:38 PM (r4wIV)

153 90 Who got to John Roberts?

No one. Roberts acted on his own volition for reasons stated above.

Case: closed.


> Then why were the liberals-- from SCOAMF on down-- running an orchestrated campaign meant to get a certain outcome? Why preemptively smear the Court as being illegitimate (if they rules against ObamaCare), and why the focus on Roberts in particular?

Obama slams SCOTUS as being an "activist court"- http://youtu.be/qLq8mVCxPgQ

Patrick Leahy targets CJ Roberts- http://youtu.be/AWmfyCi6r6o

Why did Leahy focus on Roberts? > http://bit.ly/LI0DUL

Robert Creamer- "Overturning Obamacare Would Make Roberts Court Most Activist, Partisan in Modern History" > http://preview.tinyurl.com/6utnoew

Volokh Conspiracy- "Back in May, there were rumors floating around relevant legal circles that a key vote was taking place, and that Roberts was feeling tremendous pressure from unidentified circles to vote to uphold the mandate."

WSJ: "Targeting John Roberts (May 21st)
http://on.wsj.com/J9lKhV

"The Public Trial of John Roberts" (May 22nd)
http://wapo.st/LAtn7x

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 02, 2012 04:38 PM (d6QMz)

154 @145: The three branches of government shouldn't be in the same city where they end up socializing with each other in the off hours. That's one mistake you can really pin on the Founders.

Posted by: Ian S. at July 02, 2012 04:38 PM (tqwMN)

155 For our desserts on our Fourth of July picnics we ought to all have John Roberts upside down cake. Heavy on the bananas and nuts.

Posted by: WalrusRex at July 02, 2012 04:38 PM (Hx5uv)

156 153 Should be "if they ruled"

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 02, 2012 04:39 PM (d6QMz)

157 Besides being a good looking ginger babe, Jan Crawford Greenburg (now just Jan Crawford) wrote a damned good book about the court a few years ago. I highly recommend it to all. She has been involved with the court for a long time and has had unprecedented access to the justices.

http://is.gd/lxpwD1

Posted by: Vic at July 02, 2012 04:39 PM (YdQQY)

158
"Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress. It seemed like a
good idea," Roberts said, drawing laughter from about 300 judges,
attorneys and others attending a four-day conference Friday at a posh
southwestern Pennsylvania resort.


hahahaha, that's so funny

it's funny when you screw over The People and then laugh at their shock and anger

Posted by: soothsayer at July 02, 2012 04:39 PM (9Q7Nu)

159
So far, Ted Kennedy is the only liberal who has invited me to a cocktail party.

Posted by: CJ Roberts, reporting from Malta at July 02, 2012 04:39 PM (vbh31)

160 Jesus, old Bill Mitchell is smoking some really good shit. He's fucking tripping. Better call the paramedics because this ain't gonna end well. I think he's OD'd bigtime and his heart will follow his hallucinogenic brain into oblivion.

Posted by: maddogg at July 02, 2012 04:40 PM (OlN4e)

161 I think I know why Roberts flipped. He woke up, covered in blood, and found a donkey head in his bed.

Posted by: WalrusRex at July 02, 2012 04:41 PM (Hx5uv)

162 Besides being a good looking ginger babe, Jan
Crawford Greenburg (now just Jan Crawford) wrote a damned good book
about the court a few years ago. I highly recommend it to all. She has
been involved with the court for a long time and has had unprecedented
access to the justices.

http://is.gd/lxpwD1


Posted by: Vic at July 02, 2012 04:39 PM (YdQQY)

=====================

Wow....the Kindle version is twice the price of the paperback!

Posted by: Tami at July 02, 2012 04:41 PM (X6akg)

163 Posted by: Bill Mitchell at July 02, 2012 04:33 PM (hlUJY)
___

I understand what you're saying, but it's going to be really difficult to repeal Obamacare now. The best we can hope for is that it will be tweaked around the edges. Hopefully they'll throw out most of the 2700 pages of shit sandwich, especially the parts where they give so much power to HHS Sec.

Anthony Kennedy was trying his best for a month to get Roberts to do the right thing. ANTHONY frickenKENNEDY.

Posted by: kallisto at July 02, 2012 04:41 PM (jm/9g)

164 He refused to join the federalist society in college because he thought it would hurt his chances to be confirmed.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 04:38 PM (r4wIV
**
I thought he was a member? BRB goin to wiki...

Posted by: dananjcon at July 02, 2012 04:41 PM (eavT+)

165 #150 Guilty

Posted by: Anderson Cooper 365 at July 02, 2012 04:42 PM (yn6XZ)

166 I was so upset about this, it took me the whole weekend to calm down and write a response the decision. It's a pile of excrement, that Roberts allowed himself to believe is a good idea, and objectively is an utter failure of the court.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Lite! 98% Anger Free! at July 02, 2012 04:42 PM (0q2P7)

167 Bill Mitchell thinks that anything that destroys liberty is a good thing because it stirs up the masses. Consequences? Schmonsequences, as long as you get out the vote! Its a win for Republicans! You can trust the Republicans!

Fat, stoned, and stupid is no way to go through life.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 04:42 PM (r4wIV)

168 While the only person who can definitively say that Roberts wilted under pressure is the man himself, the fact remains that the Dems tried their best to affect the outcome of this case.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 02, 2012 04:43 PM (d6QMz)

169 Republicans bring slingshots to Judicial Confirmation Hearings, DemocRats launch the Thermonuclear Warheads at the first whiff of conservative penumbras formedby emanations.

Posted by: Making Friends With DemocRats Only Gets You Knifed In The Back at July 02, 2012 04:43 PM (L2p1h)

170 GENERAL VERRILLI: But this — but, Your Honor, this is — what the Court has said, and I think it would be a very substantial departure from what the Court has said, is that when Congress is regulating economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce that will be upheld. And that is what is going on here, and to embark on — I would submit with all due respect, to embark on the kind of analysis that my friends on the other side suggest the Court ought to embark on is to import Lochner-style substantive due process -

*******

Might have been all the Solicitor General Verrilli needed to say--in order to confirm that the threats in the media were --


"official."

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:43 PM (r2PLg)

171 I think we can expect more trolls like Billy and Simpleton.

Posted by: Vegan Meatball at July 02, 2012 04:44 PM (yn6XZ)

172 Roberts is already lost. He has the absolute power to re-write laws from the bench, and it's corrupted him.

The small group of conservative writers praising him are guaranteeing he'll vote with the liberals on the next landmark/historic case, because there's no penalty to do so. All the downside exists on the conservative leaning side.

He has to be saved by conservatives, if only to let the next SC Justice know that there is a penalty for torturing logic and reason to achieve the outcome you want. He needs to be made an example of and called out as the pathetic activist judge he is.

Roberts is lost- the next one doesn't have to be.

Posted by: BadgerHawk at July 02, 2012 04:44 PM (+IACL)

173 136 - long ball? chess player? I have not got that long dammit!

Posted by: ktnxbai *cough* lace wigs and rolex replicas at July 02, 2012 04:45 PM (lNXlN)

174 That's one mistake you can really pin on the Founders.

American politics had men of character back then, at least to a greater extent than today. There were still a few scumbags, but by and large, they were God-fearing men who could be counted upon to do the right thing.

Today, notsomuch.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 02, 2012 04:45 PM (d0Tfm)

175 Who keeps pissing on my leg, and telling me it's raining?

Posted by: Clueless Republicans at July 02, 2012 04:45 PM (L2p1h)

176 My libertarian teachings are expressivly against Roberts decision but my progressiveish belief in tolerance is ok with it

Posted by: hooray for me fuck you dick in the ass indie voter at July 02, 2012 04:46 PM (Qr9Rc)

177 This could have been-

"the switch in time to save nine" of our time.

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:46 PM (r2PLg)

178
As I wrote, Roberts was reading all the negativity in the press associated with him. But I don't think anyone got to him.

It is peculiar that Roberts was identified as the weak link. Turns out the Left/media did their homework and knew the negativity would eventually make Roberts crack.

Posted by: soothsayer at July 02, 2012 04:46 PM (9Q7Nu)

179 I've been upset ever since this shit of a decision came out.I'm not one of those "silver" linings sort of people but hopefully the public still hate this thing as much as they did before. I'm tired of all the "polls" saying the folks want to keep it. Just don't buy it...

Posted by: the pink cracker formerly known as the hobbit Donna at July 02, 2012 04:46 PM (ZHge+)

180 Republicans have been playing a game so long, the benefits don't even start to accrue until about 2347.

Time to play a few years of short ball so we have a country when the long game really gets going.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 02, 2012 04:46 PM (bxiXv)

181 If Romney wins we could see Roberts feeling safe to rule more broadly.

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:47 PM (r2PLg)

182
Lots of folks have been blaming Bush, but if there is blame to be placed (aside from on Roberts directly, of course) it should be on the Senate.

For real! Twit from Maine who let this crap sandwich out of committee.

Posted by: Sheriff Joe Biden at July 02, 2012 04:47 PM (WGmy2)

183 I'm tired of all the "polls" saying the folks want to keep it. Just don't buy it...
Posted by: the pink cracker formerly known as the hobbit Donna at July 02, 2012 04:46 PM (ZHge+)


The polls were always 70/30 or so until suddenly they magically all changed to 50/50 when the MFM needed them to.

I've never answered a poll, apart from actually voting. I honestly think a significant number of polls are deliberate setups for vote fraud, which is a gigantic industry.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 02, 2012 04:48 PM (bxiXv)

184 RE Leahy's floor speech back in May-

"Equally weird was the senator’s [Leahy] focus on the Chief Justice at a time when most Court-watchers still expected Justice Kennedy to play his traditional swing-vote role. But Senatory Leahy’s remarks don’t even mention Justice Kennedy. Instead, he zeroes in on the Chief...The Chairman of the Judiciary Committee has not seen much commentary devoted to the Chief Justice’s role in the healthcare case, so he decides to give a speech that reads like like it was written for an audience of one. It offers flattery and it offers threats, all of them personalized to appeal to Chief Justice Roberts alone."

http://bit.ly/LI0DUL

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 02, 2012 04:48 PM (d6QMz)

185 Then why were the liberals-- from SCOAMF on down-- running an orchestrated campaign meant to get a certain outcome? Why preemptively smear the Court as being illegitimate (if they rules against ObamaCare), and why the focus on Roberts in particular?

I thought the wholereason for life long tenure was so that the Justices would not be vulnerable to this sort of corrupt influence!

Posted by: LGoPs at July 02, 2012 04:48 PM (lHn6+)

186 Tell me about Republicans sticking together.

Posted by: Zombie Richard Nixon at July 02, 2012 04:48 PM (mka2b)

187 It is peculiar that Roberts was identified as the weak link. Turns out the Left/media did their homework and knew the negativity would eventually make Roberts crack.
Posted by: soothsayer at July 02, 2012 04:46 PM (9Q7Nu)

******

Well I think the Krauthammer piece that he wrote right after the vote hit the nail on the head--they knew to get to Roberts by his consideration for his role as--

"Chief Justice".

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:48 PM (r2PLg)

188
I blame Jack Ryan for divorcing that Borg chick.

Posted by: soothsayer at July 02, 2012 04:49 PM (9Q7Nu)

189 Oh, and you thought the media/political assault was bad on this case? Now that they know they can bully a justice towards their desired outcome, expect it to get a lot worse.

They treated Roberts like garbage and he still got down on his knees for them.

Posted by: BadgerHawk at July 02, 2012 04:49 PM (+IACL)

190 Anthony Kennedy was trying his best for a month to get Roberts to do the right thing. ANTHONY frickenKENNEDY.

Posted by: kallisto at July 02, 2012 04:41 PM (jm/9g)

And you know this how? Because of a report by SeeBS News? You think SeeBS might just have a liiiiitle bit of interest in stirring up shit among conservatives?

Why the fuck are conservatives suddenly believing everything they hear from CBS???

Posted by: rockmom at July 02, 2012 04:50 PM (aBlZ1)

191 These bastards actually threatened Court Packing--and we know how the media has been reduced to being the propaganda arm of Obama--Justice Roberts knows that...


The Curt Packing stores were as coordinated as any Journolist operation before it.

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:51 PM (r2PLg)

192 Wow....the Kindle version is twice the price of the paperback!


Posted by: Tami at July 02, 2012 04:41 PM (X6akg)

I got if from my local library. And if our shitty little library had it I am sure yours would.

Posted by: Vic at July 02, 2012 04:51 PM (YdQQY)

193 And of course, Donald Trump is the ultimate authority on the motives of the Chief Justice.

Good grief.

Posted by: rockmom at July 02, 2012 04:51 PM (aBlZ1)

194
Chief justice or associate justice, the vote counts as the same. I don't understand what the Kraut is getting at.

If anything, the Court's chief would be the last justice I'd try to turn because I'd assume he was a rock.

Posted by: soothsayer at July 02, 2012 04:51 PM (9Q7Nu)

195
OK who's going to the big bash at Matt Damon's? Ruthie can I get a ride?

Posted by: SCROTUS CJ Roberts at July 02, 2012 04:51 PM (cjTjM)

196
Who keeps pissing on my leg, and telling me it's raining?




"My good friends, this is the second time there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honour. I believe it is piss for our time. We thank you from the bottom of our hearts. Now I recommend you go home, and sleep quietly in your beds."

Posted by: John Neville Roberts Chamberlin at July 02, 2012 04:51 PM (WGmy2)

197 @189: Yeah, the worst problem with the whole episode is easily that Roberts has now set the precedent that the MFM can successfully bully SCOTUS.

Posted by: Ian S. at July 02, 2012 04:51 PM (tqwMN)

198 Fuck this. Let's simply vote in a 60 majority Senate, for two Romney terms. All the old libs on the Court should be gone by then, replaced with ultra-conservative Originalists.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 02, 2012 04:52 PM (f9c2L)

199 172- He has to be saved by conservatives...

Dammit. Savaged, not saved. This is why you shouldn't write comments angry. Or drunk.

Posted by: BadgerHawk at July 02, 2012 04:44 PM (+IACL)

Posted by: BadgerHawk at July 02, 2012 04:52 PM (+IACL)

200 Yeah, I've been thinking in the dark corner of my mind "Someone got to him". I have no doubt that this administration would do it if they could.
Posted by: Dave in Fla at July 02, 2012 04:30 PM (FJP6/)


-------------------------------------------------


I call it unlikely, but not impossible. The people in the SCOAMT's regime are ruthless marxists. If there were threats, it would be on his family.

Posted by: Soona at July 02, 2012 04:52 PM (Mtcin)

201 Tis better to be loved and lost than to not be loved at all!

Posted by: Laurence Tribe's bitch aka CJ John Roberts at July 02, 2012 04:52 PM (+56Bh)

202 Posted by: rockmom at July 02, 2012 04:50 PM (aBlZ1)
___

I'm pretty sure it was the subject of a blog post this past weekend.

Posted by: kallisto at July 02, 2012 04:53 PM (jm/9g)

203 It offers flattery and it offers threats, all of them personalized to appeal to Chief Justice Roberts alone."

http://bit.ly/LI0DUL
Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 02, 2012 04:48 PM (d6QMz)

*******

Off to go take a look--and in complete agreement with rock mom here:

And you know this how? Because of a report by SeeBS News? You think SeeBS might just have a liiiiitle bit of interest in stirring up shit among conservatives?

Why the fuck are conservatives suddenly believing everything they hear from CBS???
Posted by: rockmom at July 02, 2012 04:50 PM (aBlZ1)

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:53 PM (r2PLg)

204 Fuck this. Let's simply vote in a 60 majority Senate, for two Romney terms. All the old libs on the Court should be gone by then, replaced with ultra-conservative Originalists.

Someone is bogarting the Val U Rite IV I see

Posted by: alexthechick - SMOD SMOD SMOD SMOD at July 02, 2012 04:53 PM (VtjlW)

205 Hey, they call him "Chief Justice" and nobody has a cow. It's just racism and sexism that when I do it, they all come after me.

Posted by: Lizzie Warren at July 02, 2012 04:53 PM (Hx5uv)

206 "Just look at what the leftards did to Bork. And Thomas. And Alito. There
was even a bit of resistance to Roberts. Ironically, Scalia may have
been the last unabashed conservative to skate into SCOTUS."

That's true. It's a given that conservative or libertarian-leaning nominees are going to be beaten up, maligned, and have their views distorted beyond recognition. But so what? It's not like it's going to get any easier for them once they're confirmed and start handing down principled decisions.

And if our representatives in Congress can't be bothered to defend a decent SC nominee every couple decades, what good are they as lawmakers?

Anyway, the environment for pushback against media distortions is better now than at any time in the last century. If we're going to take back the culture, then now's the time to do it.

Posted by: GalosGann at July 02, 2012 04:54 PM (T3KlW)

207 Take your pick
1) He was nominated by a compassionate conservative/limo RINO
2) He did have a stroke.
Killer combo

Posted by: MDr at July 02, 2012 04:54 PM (WZT1d)

208 Better yet, Ace - I have a feeling that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and even Kennedy are going to hold this against him for a long, long time. The libs don't really trust him, and now the conservatives won't even want to talk to him unless absolutely necessary. And, maybe Kennedy has turned a corner, seeing how much damage a poor judicial decision can do. That's my hope, anyway.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 02, 2012 04:55 PM (JfxJx)

209 Justice Roberts is the last true conservative on the court, much as I am on the Internet. A calm, steady Burkean temperament among neofascists like Anthony Kennedy.

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan at July 02, 2012 04:55 PM (60GaT)

210
158
....."Malta, as you know, is an impregnable island fortress. It seemed like a
good idea," Roberts said, drawing laughter from about 300 judges
,
attorneys and others attending a four-day conference Friday at a posh
southwestern Pennsylvania resort.


The interesting thing about him saying that.....is that he made the decision to go to Malta....last fall.

Linky in my sig.

Posted by: wheatie at July 02, 2012 04:55 PM (MbB0O)

211 I wonder if we'll ever get a good conservative pick to finally stand up to the cretinous lefties in the Senate? I'd love to hear someone say that yes, they considered the plain meaning of the Constitution to be the law of the land (not case law), point out the many decisions of the SCOTUS that upended it (like that shitty 14th Amendment ruling that gave us anchor babies in clear violation of the Const.)and say that he or she believes that the govenment should have some severe restrictions on its power.

And that as a SCOTUS judge, he or she could be counted on to limit the power of government and side with freedom every single time.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 02, 2012 04:56 PM (d0Tfm)

212
"I blame Jack Ryan for divorcing that Borg chick."

Or for Ryan pushing her to accompany him to a swinger's club. Or, conversely, for 7 of 9 not volunteering to go with him to get, um, assimilated by sumdood and his skeezy wife.

Posted by: Jaws at July 02, 2012 04:56 PM (4I3Uo)

213 Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:53 PM (r2PLg)
___

Sharyl Atkinson is the only MSM reporter that has investigated Fast and Furious. She works for CBS. I shouldn't believe her?

Posted by: kallisto at July 02, 2012 04:56 PM (jm/9g)

214 @ 190

Roberts torturing logic for any reason other than media adulation and concern over how he's written about doesn't make any sense.

His decision is so all over the place that it can only be explained by him deciding he wanted to keep ObamaCare legal and then figuring out a way to do it.

Posted by: BadgerHawk at July 02, 2012 04:56 PM (+IACL)

215 Why the fuck are conservatives suddenly believing everything they hear from CBS???

Because the particular reporter in this case has some past credibility from that book that was linked earlier and some of her other reporting. Rush said today that she was very fair to Thomas and the other conservative justices, and he stopped just short of saying Thomas probably leaked the story of Roberts' flip to her.

Posted by: Ian S. at July 02, 2012 04:56 PM (tqwMN)

216 Of all things, it may take John Roberts to get me to pull the lever for Mitt Romney, for all the reasons Ace mentions.

Of course, considering the fact that Romney is well to the left of the Bush's who nominated turncoats, I'm not sure President Romney would nominate someone with good conservative credentials.

Part of me...a big part of me, believes we're fucked either way.

Posted by: Sgt. York at July 02, 2012 04:56 PM (pqW4Y)

217 there's a good Coulter article from 2005 on how Roberts's lack of "controversial" statements and lack of paper trail was an issue. dare i say even, prophetic.

Posted by: JDP at July 02, 2012 04:56 PM (60GaT)

218
And I'm willing to believe in Roberts' genius in this decision.

But only after you also show me the evidence of genius in Roberts' AZ opinion.

Posted by: soothsayer at July 02, 2012 04:56 PM (9Q7Nu)

219 According to Wiki, Robert's was definately a member of Fed Society..alot of good that did us.
**
Heh...the whole idea of Federalism seems rather quaint now...doesn't it?

Posted by: dananjcon at July 02, 2012 04:56 PM (eavT+)

220 #198: If you think Romney will nominate anyone to the right of Sandra Day O'Connor, you're smokin' crack, dude. He won't even pick someone conservative for the court.

He's just slightly better than Obama only by not deliberately picking the most insanely leftist boutique minority every time for a court appointment.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 04:57 PM (r4wIV)

221 The people in the SCOAMT's regime are ruthless marxists. If there were threats, it would be on his family.

Which is precisely why we cannot coexist with these bastards. How do you live with an opposition whose prime directive is "Win at all costs"?

Posted by: LGoPs at July 02, 2012 04:57 PM (lHn6+)

222 To hell with the court, let's get back to winning the other two branches.

Posted by: d_fitz at July 02, 2012 04:57 PM (+/Eq7)

223 I hope he enjoys his fucking cocktail parties and dinner soirees. 'Course, the economy won't much longer stand such things, but I'm sure that second divine martini will make it all worth it.

Posted by: Filly at July 02, 2012 04:57 PM (xiJmL)

224 That was a great double-bogey. It'll make me try harder...

Posted by: Things Jack Nicklaus Never Said at July 02, 2012 04:58 PM (FcR7P)

225 also i am beyond sick of outlets like the NYT labeling the liberal Supreme wing "moderate liberal" or WTFever. i know i shouldn't care but i do. conservatives are upfront about their ideology, why can't libs be? Jonah Goldberg's latest book is OTM

Posted by: JDP at July 02, 2012 04:58 PM (60GaT)

226 Holy...eery.

...from the Philadelphia Inquirer


WHEN Franklin Roosevelt tried to pack the Supreme Court with liberal justices in an attempt to save his legacy, something extraordinary happened. A conservative justice by the name of Roberts swung to the left on a key decision, thereby preserving a crucial element of the New Deal.



Owen Roberts' vote was called the "switch in time that saved nine," the "nine" being the justices already firmly ensconced on the bench. FDR's unconstitutional plan failed. History has forgiven him this trespass, and so it could legitimately be said that Roberts, a Pennsylvania native, saved the president's hide.

Eighty years later, another conservative justice named Roberts sashayed to the left and possibly saved another president's nether regions. This week, Chief Justice John Roberts showed himself to be what he promised during those confirmation hearings years ago: a brilliant and independent thinker.



Woah...I didn't know that Justice's last name was also--


Roberts.
Story continues below.

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 04:58 PM (r2PLg)

227
What's the point in pre-worrying about who Mitt will nominate to the bench?

We have our priorities askew, ol chums.

Posted by: soothsayer at July 02, 2012 04:59 PM (9Q7Nu)

228 Having Roberts think we were "his side" got us bad decisions on both healthcare and Arizona. We got to where we are today because Roberts believed that enraged conservatives wouldn't be as nasty as enraged liberals. He voted the way he did to placate those inclined to be nasty. Taking this lying down would only encourage future betrayals, no?

Posted by: NotALibertarian at July 02, 2012 04:59 PM (Ym6ye)

229 Yeah, I've been thinking this more and more since the ruling dropped. The libs own the Court now, because Roberts obviously has a linguine spine.

John Brennan Roberts.

It doesn't seem nearly as snarky today as it did last Thursday.

Posted by: holygoat at July 02, 2012 04:59 PM (XnwWl)

230 @221: The Dems have had that as an animating principle since at least the 60s. The sooner the GOP realizes that the better.

Posted by: Ian S. at July 02, 2012 04:59 PM (tqwMN)

231 220--- You never know. Bush 41 gave us Thomas.

The point is that we know with 100% certainty that Obama's picks will be far left. With Romney we have at least a CHANCE of getting something better.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at July 02, 2012 05:00 PM (C8mVl)

232 @189: Yeah, the worst problem with the whole episode is easily that Roberts has now set the precedent that the MFM can successfully bully SCOTUS.

Posted by: Ian S. at July 02, 2012 04:51 PM (tqwMN)
-----------------------------
Expect to see politicians doing it too. Obama called out the court in his SOTU knowing they had to just sit there, and later threatened that overturning his achievement would be unprecedented.

Posted by: BadgerHawk at July 02, 2012 05:00 PM (+IACL)

233 Obama's managed to delegitimize the court by swaying Roberts to make a political decision. Worse than if ObamaCare was struck down and Obama, the Left the MSM had launched a war on the court. Thoroughly depressing.

Posted by: Lizzy at July 02, 2012 05:00 PM (zsRKf)

234 "I blame Jack Ryan for divorcing that Borg chick."Or for Ryan pushing her to accompany him to a swinger's club. Or, conversely, for 7 of 9 not volunteering to go with him to get, um, assimilated by sumdood and his skeezy wife.

Nah........want someone to blame, blame Mike Ditka. Right after Ryan got "Chicagoed" the Illinois GOP went all out to court Ditka. And Ditka, at first, showed some inclination to get in th race. And the initial polls that came out showed Ditka behind Obama by 4. Oh, what could have been.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at July 02, 2012 05:00 PM (OWjjx)

235 We are done either way. A Romney presidency means maybe a few years more before it all goes to hell but I see no way out short of an Act of God. And I don't mean a nice one.

The left is giggling because they know this was the death knell of the America the founding fathers envisioned. They know this "fundamentally transforms" America like President Obama claimed. Its an act of horror, and they are dancing in the streets, even though they all hate the bill and admit that Obama and congress lied about it.

Because they know its just the Trojan horse and nobody listened to Cassandra. Again.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 05:00 PM (r4wIV)

236 Someone is bogarting the Val U Rite IV I see


Posted by: alexthechick
..........
It's a better idea than Ace's goofy shit about a freakin' "treaty" with the libtards.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 02, 2012 05:00 PM (f9c2L)

237 Posted by: Bill Mitchell at July 02, 2012 04:33 PM (hlUJY

It's 9 hours later and you're still a moby.

Posted by: Sean Bannion at July 02, 2012 05:01 PM (KLJ6d)

238 Wait....wait after further review Wiki says...."Roberts was reported to have been a member of the Society, but Roberts's membership status was never definitively established. DeputyWhiteHouse press secretarysaid Roberts "has no recollection of ever being a member."

Posted by: dananjcon at July 02, 2012 05:01 PM (eavT+)

239

Sorry but CBS earned all lack of respect by the crap they pulled with-

TANG.

That was to throw a national election.

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 05:01 PM (r2PLg)

240 All I can say is that those Washington cocktail parties must really be something.

Posted by: jwest at July 02, 2012 05:02 PM (ZDsRL)

241 Sharyl Atkinson is the only MSM reporter that has

Posted by: kallisto at July 02, 2012 04:56 PM (jm/9g)


ATTKISSON.
ATTKISSON.
ATTKISSON.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 02, 2012 05:02 PM (bxiXv)

242 So the uninsured will get health care but the medical profession as we know will be ruined plus so many taxes will be implementedforcing companies to go out of business hmm what to do what to do

Posted by: hooray for me fuck you dick in the ass indie voter at July 02, 2012 05:02 PM (Qr9Rc)

243
@ 240
The grilled-herbed peppers are outstanding!

Posted by: Laurence Tribe's bitch aka CJ John Roberts at July 02, 2012 05:03 PM (+56Bh)

244

Am I the only one who sees the Irony....in Roberts making that remark about "political decisions".....just as he is making a --- political decision?

Posted by: wheatie at July 02, 2012 05:03 PM (MbB0O)

245 George Carlin had a saying about doing cocaine (which apparently he did plenty of in his day):

"When you do coke, it makes you feel like a new man. But then the new man wants to feel like a new man. So you have to keep doing the coke."

Now that Roberts (*spit*) has gotten his taste of liberal love and adulation, and fawning writeups by lefty writers, he will become the new man. And have to keep giving the lefties what they want, so he can continue to bask in their love.

We are so screwed. When Mitt wins in November, his first Supreme Court appointment has to be Mark Levin.

Posted by: Boots at July 02, 2012 05:03 PM (neKzn)

246 ROBERTS IZ PLAYIUNG THREE DIMENSIONAL TWISTER YOU STUPID KNEE JERK H8RS !!!!!111!!!
ALL PART OF ROMNEY'S MASTER PLAN TO FIX AMERICA !!!!11111!!!!!!11111






(sob)

Posted by: Desperately Sweating Conservatives Who Really Want To Believe at July 02, 2012 05:04 PM (zsgo8)

247 GalosGann:
And if our representatives in Congress can't be bothered to defend
a decent SC nominee every couple decades, what good are they as
lawmakers?


Amen, brother. We need to use the primary process to unseat more of these corrupt tools.

Posted by: sandy burger at July 02, 2012 05:04 PM (k0pNf)

248 I can't deny the fact that you like me, right now, you like me!

Posted by: c.j. roberts accepting the MFM Oscar at July 02, 2012 05:04 PM (nrW1y)

249 He voted the way he did to placate those inclined to be nasty. Taking this lying down would only encourage future betrayals, no?

Posted by: NotALibertarian at July 02, 2012 04:59 PM (Ym6ye)
----------------------------
Ding ding ding.

It's harsh, but Roberts legacy has to be destroyed to show the next SC justice who's a bit light on principle that there is indeed a downside to betraying them.

Posted by: BadgerHawk at July 02, 2012 05:04 PM (+IACL)

250 60 seats for Republicans has not happened in over 100 years and it is not going to happen this time.

Democrats up for reelection on 2012

4.2.1 Dianne Feinstein of California
4.2.2 Tom Carper of Delaware
4.2.3 Bill Nelson of Florida
4.2.4 Ben Cardin of Maryland
4.2.5 Debbie Stabenow of Michigan
4.2.6 Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota
4.2.7 Claire McCaskill of Missouri
4.2.8 Jon Tester of Montana
4.2.9 Bob Menendez of New Jersey
4.2.10 Kirsten Gillibrand of New York
4.2.11 Sherrod Brown of Ohio
4.2.12 Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania
4.2.13 Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island
4.2.14 Bernie Sanders of Vermont (Independent)
4.2.15 Maria Cantwell of Washington
4.2.16 Joe Manchin of West Virginia

Democrats retiring

4.1.1 Joe Lieberman of Connecticut (Independent)
4.1.2 Daniel Akaka of Hawaii
4.1.3 Ben Nelson of Nebraska
4.1.4 Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico
4.1.5 Kent Conrad of North Dakota
4.1.6 Jim Webb of Virginia
4.1.7 Herb Kohl of Wisconsin

We need 13 flips to get to 60.

There is no chance we will get CA, DE, MD, NY, RI, VE, CN, NJ, and HI. There is slim chance of getting MN, MT, WA, and NM. That means we have to get ALL the rest plus at least 3 more of the slim and nones. AND we can not lose ay of our seats. ME?


This is NOT going to happen.

Posted by: Vic at July 02, 2012 05:04 PM (YdQQY)

251 The leakbolsters Obama and the media's power and influence. Considering CBS is under Barack's thumb, its a safe bet that it's coming from the left.

Posted by: Dorian Taupe at July 02, 2012 05:04 PM (Pfr2x)

252 What is the most frustrating is that one man, who is supposed to be the highest judge in the land, created a law out of a failed lawsuit, creating from whole cloth a new set of rights for the state, using the lies told by the executive branch, and the press is talking about how wise and judicial he is. This decision is more activist than Roe ever was.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at July 02, 2012 05:05 PM (JfxJx)

253
I call it unlikely, but not impossible. The people in the SCOAMT's regime are ruthless marxists. If there were threats, it would be on his family


I have been thinking that too. The left are a bunch of thugs. I wouldn't put it past them that they threatened the lives of Roberts's wife and kids. It's how they roll.

Posted by: runningrn at July 02, 2012 05:05 PM (WGmy2)

254 @202 All the blogs are just circulating the same story by Jan Crawford at CBS. That report is extremely self-serving for Anthony Kennedy, which is why I think it may have come from one of his clerks and is bullshit.

Posted by: rockmom at July 02, 2012 05:05 PM (aBlZ1)

255
ROBERTS IZ PLAYIUNG THREE DIMENSIONAL TWISTER YOU STUPID KNEE JERK H8RS !!!!!111!!!
ALL PART OF ROMNEY'S MASTER PLAN TO FIX AMERICA !!!!11111!!!!!!11111

---

No, no. He wants to play naked twister at all of the best D.C. soirees.

Posted by: WalrusRex at July 02, 2012 05:05 PM (Hx5uv)

256 Nah........want someone to blame, blame Mike Ditka.
Right after Ryan got "Chicagoed" the Illinois GOP went all out to court
Ditka. And Ditka, at first, showed some inclination to get in th race.
And the initial polls that came out showed Ditka behind Obama by 4. Oh,
what could have been.

Posted by: Mallamutt,
.........
You're dreamin'..

Between the Dem machine in Cook Cty and Chicago who have enough votes (alive or otherwise) to win most any election, and the black population in this state, there was no way that fool Ditka (da Coach!) could have won.

Although imagining a debate between Obama and Ditka is a pretty wonderful fantasy...

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 02, 2012 05:06 PM (f9c2L)

257 We need 13 flips to get to 60

Since you can use reconcillation to dispose of OBamacare, we need..........52. Cause, yea, I too have little faith that Collins, Madcowski or someone else will vote no.

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at July 02, 2012 05:06 PM (OWjjx)

258 The why and hows just don't matter anymore. Genius or fucktard? I think fucktard, but I don't care. The ruling just plain sucked ass. If there is a silver lining, it is that I am still really fucking pissed off, and I am not alone. Has the Sleeping Giant awakened? No. But there's a lot of assholes like us pouring water on his head.

Posted by: Vegan Meatball at July 02, 2012 05:06 PM (yn6XZ)

259 One would hope that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States would have a little backbone.

Well, he's Obama's bitch now...

Posted by: Jones in CO at July 02, 2012 05:06 PM (8sCoq)

260 Has quisling conservative David Brooks scratched out his inevitable column explaining how Roberts' wise and judicious betrayal of Tea Party conservatives will ultimately help the Right win?

Posted by: Cicero at July 02, 2012 05:07 PM (QKKT0)

261 @ 255 No, I just want to nosh on some grilled-herbed peppers!

Posted by: Laurence Tribe's bitch aka CJ John Roberts at July 02, 2012 05:07 PM (+56Bh)

262 There's no chance that Republicans get 60 votes in congress. Never. There are too many 100% guaranteed Democrat seats out there in the big cities of the states that will never, ever go Republican unless the parties undergo a transformation of roles and identity like in the late 20th century.

The thing everyone has to understand is that what we're facing isn't a political problem. Its a soul problem. We have the politicians we do not because of corruption or vote fraud or trickery, but because our culture WANTS these people in power. We aren't getting freakish accident after bizarre unexpected flip flopper in office, we're getting exactly what people want and vote for.

Until the culture changes, until the worldview shifts in America, its going to get worse, not better.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 05:07 PM (r4wIV)

263 Nope, no treaty with the other side. How about this for a end game: We win, they lose.

Scratch ObamaCare Delenda est from the earlier article and replace it with DEMOCRAT delenda est. Destroy them root and branch.

Yes we need to get pissed. Obviously we need to push Romney's sorry ass across the finish line and then ride it like a cheap mule until he actually signs a repeal of this monstrosity. And that means we push until we get a RINO proof Senate. Fifty one won't cut it, we need at least fifty five to have reasonable chance of success.

But that is not our goal. Our goal must be to rip out the roots that nourishes the diseased tree. No Red state should permit a D to hold office at any level. Stop the farm team. Not only that if we purge Ds from Red states to the point only majority minority urban areas can elect them they won't be a political force in those states. Then we can play hard ball, exactly like they have been doing for generations.

Imagine Arizona having the political strength to align with a dozen more super Red states and force a confrontation. Tell the Feds to choose. Either a State may enforce ANY Federal law on the books or they are ALL optional. Cease all enforcement of all environmental, labor, drug, etc. laws or regulations. Oh, and by the way Feds, a fed can't actually do squat without buy in from local sheriffs and good luck with that.

Imagine every student in a Red state facing a graduation requirement to demonstrate basic Civics literacy. Actually being forced to read the US and their State Constitution and be able to pass a test on them. And throw in some basic philosophy and logic while we are dreaming big. Watch legacy media newscasts in class and then identify at least half of the factual errors and logical fallacies. What would that do for the long term balance of power?

And imagine what mischief we could do to progressives with control of the small and medium cities and at least enough seats on the controlling body to stop the crazy. More important to stop the machine from self perpetuating if we could maintain it for a generation.

I have a dream. I dream of a day when we have carved their bones into tiny flutes for our children. Come, dream it with me and decline doesn't have to be our unalterable destiny.

Posted by: John Morris at July 02, 2012 05:08 PM (YhRJW)

264 152
No, nobody had to get to him. He wants his legacy to be glowing and
lauded, he wants to go down in history as the greatest justice of all
time and he doesn't want his court to be tainted with controversy. The
Citizens United case bothered him a lot, he didn't want this one to be
the same way. At least that's my read on it.


The guy's entirely life has been about becoming a supreme court
judge and being glorious at it. He refused to join the federalist
society in college because he thought it would hurt his chances to be
confirmed.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 04:38 PM (r4wIV)
Then we have to destroy his legacy.

Posted by: Temper Tantrum at July 02, 2012 05:08 PM (AWmfW)

265 This is NOT going to happen.

FL just might get Nelson out. There are many ads down here calling him a rubber stamp for the OAmin. And there are a lot of pissed off poor people down here who want a change, this time for the better.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 02, 2012 05:08 PM (d0Tfm)

266 @ 259 No, I am Laurence Tribe's bitch!

Posted by: Laurence Tribe's bitch aka CJ John Roberts at July 02, 2012 05:08 PM (+56Bh)

267 Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith at July 02, 2012 05:02 PM (bxiXv)
___

OK thanks boss

Posted by: kallisto at July 02, 2012 05:08 PM (jm/9g)

268 Can we just cut to the chase? get to the part where we start throwing bombs?

Posted by: Jones in CO at July 02, 2012 05:08 PM (8sCoq)

269 Between the Dem machine in Cook Cty and Chicago who have enough votes (alive or otherwise) to win most any election, and the black population in this state, there was no way that fool Ditka (da Coach!) could have won.

You underestimate the power of celiberity. While we will never know (proving that this is truly a useless internet debate), I suspect that Ditka could have done o.k. out of Chicago (o.k. being 25%). And even as bad as it is, a GOP candidate can still occassionaly win statewide (see, Mark Kirk and Judy Barr Topinka). If they either hail from or can maximize the collar county vote and win downstate (which is why Jason Plumber was the wrong Lt. Governor pick for Brady - two downstater's are never going to win).

Posted by: Mallamutt, RINO President for Life at July 02, 2012 05:09 PM (OWjjx)

270 Well, he's Obama's bitch now...

Noooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

Posted by: Kal Penn at July 02, 2012 05:10 PM (KLJ6d)

271
I'm baffled as to why we aren't hearing more stories about redrawing the districts.

I'd like to know how we made out, seat-gaining wise.

Posted by: soothsayer at July 02, 2012 05:10 PM (9Q7Nu)

272 It's amazing that this monstrosity has come down to one person, one vote.... The first was Ben Nelson of Nebraska and now Roberts... Ben Nelsen is retiring and I attribute it to his vote on this POS....

Posted by: mkn at July 02, 2012 05:11 PM (XJtuW)

273 "...what we're facing isn't a political problem. Its a soul problem."

THIS.
All we can do politically is try to slow down the institutional damage. Or try to bite the Left's ankles, just to make things a tiny bit harder for them.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at July 02, 2012 05:12 PM (C8mVl)

274 And why does Roberts -- or anyone -- think it is reasonable to say that the Supremes are somehow obliged to try to uphold whatever Congress passes? That just turns them into a subservient branch. You cannot have checks and balances if one of the entities doing the checking and balancing is on a lower footing.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at July 02, 2012 05:12 PM (Ym6ye)

275 "I have a dream. I dream of a day when we have carved their bones into tiny flutes for our children. Come, dream it with me and decline doesn't have to be our unalterable destiny."
Posted by: John Morris at July 02, 2012 05:08 PM (YhRJW)Sir, I will follow you into Hell itself. Carrying gasoline cans.

Posted by: Jaws at July 02, 2012 05:13 PM (4I3Uo)

276 Roberts torturing logic for any reason other than media adulation and concern over how he's written about doesn't make any sense.
His decision is so all over the place that it can only be explained by him deciding he wanted to keep ObamaCare legal and then figuring out a way to do it.

Posted by: BadgerHawk at July 02, 2012 04:56 PM (+IACL)

I think that is essentially right. Though he did vote with the majority on the Medicaid expansion. I think he just did not believe he had grounds to throw out the whole law, and he was willing to throw out the mandate, but he could not get 5 votes for throwing out the mandate and keeping the rest.

Posted by: rockmom at July 02, 2012 05:13 PM (NYnoe)

277 We aren't getting freakish accident after bizarre unexpected flip flopper in office, we're getting exactly what people want and vote for.

I disagree. We're being manipulated and misled into voting for lying lefties and progressive Pubbies. Our enemies have stated exactly what they planned to do to us, and no one took them seriously. They said they'd take over academia and Hollywood and the media. They did, and we are living the horror of that right now.

We have proven we can make good, common sense decisions when we have accurate information. We aren't getting that anywhere except at places like here.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at July 02, 2012 05:14 PM (d0Tfm)

278 I don't know if I believe this story or not, but Jan Crawford Greenburg has no love for Kennedy. She excoriated him in the book.

She said his 'flips" depended on whether or not he was having a tiff with Scalia or not on the day they voted.

Posted by: Vic at July 02, 2012 05:14 PM (YdQQY)

279 Ace, I think you're hooking into the rough on this one. What Roberts did is hand conservatives a BIG advantage going into this election, and he defanged the left's biggest handiest distraction of the season. The more you and other conservative pundits linger on looking back at this, the more time you waste bashing Roberts, the more momentum you'll lose. Let the left love him, that does not matter.

What matters is that ObamaCare is now officially the Largest Tax Increase and Power Grab Ever and must go down. Roberts booted this back to the people, and the people should get the final say. If the Supreme Court had nixed it, the left would have seen to it that the judgement would never be seen as legitimate. But if We-the-People nix it? So get on the ball. USE this! Not A Path to Victory but ALL Paths to Victory. Go!!!

Posted by: starboardhelm at July 02, 2012 05:15 PM (hHgxI)

280 Posted by: John Morris at July 02, 2012 05:08 PM (YhRJW)

I like your dream.

Posted by: LGoPs at July 02, 2012 05:16 PM (+Uv5V)

281 The Unseen Hand

Posted by: teej at July 02, 2012 05:16 PM (RM1gx)

282 Nah, Kennedy is pretty consistently a libertarian, you can track his votes by it. Fiscal right, social left.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 05:16 PM (r4wIV)

283 #263 Oh, Captain! My Captain!

Posted by: Vegan Meatball at July 02, 2012 05:17 PM (yn6XZ)

284
"I don't know if I believe this story or not, but Jan Crawford Greenburg has no love for Kennedy. She excoriated him in the book.

She said his 'flips" depended on whether or not he was having a tiff with Scalia or not on the day they voted."

It's nice to know we have such serious, well-adjusted people on the highest court in the land. I need a drink.

Posted by: Jaws at July 02, 2012 05:17 PM (4I3Uo)

285 And why does Roberts -- or anyone -- think it is reasonable to say that the Supremes are somehow obliged to try to uphold whatever Congress passes? That just turns them into a subservient branch. You cannot have checks and balances if one of the entities doing the checking and balancing is on a lower footing.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at July 02, 2012 05:12 PM (Ym6ye)

Are you serious???? The presumption is ALWAYS with Congress because IT IS THE BODY ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE.

Posted by: rockmom at July 02, 2012 05:18 PM (qE3AR)

286 Owen Roberts' vote was called the "switch in time that saved nine

Had no idea that our neighboring high school, Owen J. Roberts were "The Douchebags".

Posted by: t-bird at July 02, 2012 05:19 PM (FcR7P)

287 This Republic started dying at least 100 yrs ago, when the statists started injecting it with their poison. There is no antidote to the massive amount of poison currently in its system. It's reached the tipping point. The patient needs to die and the spirit which was within it needs to be reborn in a new body.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at July 02, 2012 05:19 PM (zpqa2)

288 "What Roberts did is hand conservatives a BIG advantage going into this election"

Conservatives already had a BIG advantage going into this election. The Supreme Court striking down Obama's only accomplishment would have signaled to the great Uninformed that Obama is a loser. Now we are left with Obamacare being validated and a Chief Justice who is willing to re-write legislation before him any way the Statists want him to.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at July 02, 2012 05:19 PM (Ym6ye)

289 And why does Roberts -- or anyone -- think it is reasonable to say that
the Supremes are somehow obliged to try to uphold whatever Congress
passes? That just turns them into a subservient branch. You cannot
have checks and balances if one of the entities doing the checking and
balancing is on a lower footing.


You are absolutely correct, sir. Just because a law is passed and supported by the will of the majority, that's no reason not to subject it to the very strictest Constitutional scrutiny. Take the gay marriage prohibition, for instance. Or welfare cutoffs for illegals. Or abortion restrictions. The mind reels with the possibilities...

Posted by: The 9th Circuit at July 02, 2012 05:19 PM (QKKT0)

290 Hey Starboard, if you have one of your testes snipped off with tin shears, do you consider that an advantage because not only do you have one left, but you will be more careful around people with garden implements from now on?

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 05:20 PM (r4wIV)

291 Posted by: Mallamutt
.....
Ok.. I'll agree there was a long shot chance.. anything woulda been better than that idiot Alan Keyes!

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 02, 2012 05:20 PM (f9c2L)

292 "The Supreme Court striking down Obama's only accomplishment would have signaled to the great Uninformed that Obama is a loser."

Plus it would further demoralize the left. Now, they're gleeful and energetic, and the general uninformed public thinks "well it must not be so bad, what are the Republicans mad about?"

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 05:21 PM (r4wIV)

293 "Are you serious???? The presumption is ALWAYS with Congress because IT IS THE BODY ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE."

The justices are charged with upholding the Constitution which is a document that PROTECTS THE PEOPLE -- from Congress.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at July 02, 2012 05:21 PM (Ym6ye)

294 Until the culture changes, until the worldview shifts in America, its going to get worse, not better.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 05:07 PM (r4wIV)


-------------------------------------------------


Tis true. The congress we have now is a direct reflection on the rest of America and their desire for our country. My hope in preserving the republic started downhill when the SCOAMT was elected.

I blame ignorance (our public school system) and a media that is nothing but 1960's radicals. We've been fumbling the ball since FDR, and I'm afraid it's finally slipped from our fingers.

Posted by: Soona at July 02, 2012 05:22 PM (Mtcin)

295 Terrific post, Ace. Agree completely (particularly about the birth of a new liberal majority). Once they cross that line, they don't come back.

I would simply note that the time to have drawn an irrevocableline in the sand was about 25 years ago when the liberals borked Justice Bork. Conservatives were outraged, but as usual, it was a lot of sound and fury that meant nothing. If they had stood up to the bully then, we probably would not have this situation now. And that goes for more than just SCOTUS. IMO, the unanswered Borking emboldened the Dems and gave them a successful template they've been using ever since.

Better late than never, though, and at least you do have some alternative media to help get the message across.

Posted by: RM at July 02, 2012 05:22 PM (TRsME)

296 Ok.. how about this?

If we can't win 60 Senate seats, we simply take the nuclear option and go for broke?

If we allow the liberal agenda to go on much longer, this country is fucked anyway. So we take the chance and do the nuclear option and hope we can put in enough conservative judges and laws in one or two Romney term that it will be very difficult for the Dems to un-do in the future. The gamble is that if/when Dems get back in power, nothing will stop them.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at July 02, 2012 05:23 PM (f9c2L)

297 John Roberts is playing Minecraft on the most difficult setting.

He's playing Contra without the Konami code.

He's playing Guitar Hero 2 on Expert setting.

Posted by: Kensington at July 02, 2012 05:23 PM (/AHDz)

298 Go back one more president Soona and you'll have it.

Posted by: teej at July 02, 2012 05:24 PM (RM1gx)

299 "I thought the wholereason for life long tenure was so that the Justices would not be vulnerable to this sort of corrupt influence."
=====

This is an excellent point. If the lifetime tenure isn't going to accomplish this, then maybe something should be done so we aren't stuck with men like John Roberts for thirty years or more.

Posted by: Kensington at July 02, 2012 05:25 PM (/AHDz)

300 Conservatives already had a BIG advantage going into
this election. The Supreme Court striking down Obama's only
accomplishment would have signaled to the great Uninformed that Obama is
a loser. Now we are left with Obamacare being validated and a Chief
Justice who is willing to re-write legislation before him any way the
Statists want him to.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at July 02, 2012 05:19 PM (Ym6ye)


Benedict Roberts didn't just rewrite legislation, he introduced an all-new, unlimited concept of "tax" that will never be fixed. He mangled and distorted the language so that it can never serve as the structural language for a limited government again. He has destroyed pretty much everything.

It's impossible to express how much damage Benedict Roberts did, not only to America (which he beheaded) but to civilization.

Welcome to the American Socialist Superstate. How does Benedict Barky Roberts' A.S.S. taste?

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at July 02, 2012 05:27 PM (X3lox)

301 @279
ObamaCare is now officially the Largest Tax Increase and Power Grab Ever and must go down

SO

Tax Successfully increased - check

Power Successfully grabbed - check

must go down - um, no

Congress? Give back power and money?
notsomuch

Posted by: liberalism is a mental disease at July 02, 2012 05:27 PM (zsgo8)

302 The Dems sacrificed themselves for the zerocare bill. They knew that they were gonna lose the House...but they also knew that it was gonna be hard to overturn. In a few more election cycles...unless Romney is Reagan II and the GOP congress knows what the hell it's doing this time...people will forget aboutall of this and put the Dems back in charge.
So maybe the GOP needs to think the same way, if they are serious at all about repeal. Repeal the f'n thing, the whole thing, damn the torpedoes

I can dream, can't I?

Posted by: Damn Sockpuppet at July 02, 2012 05:30 PM (YmPwQ)

303 249 It's harsh, but Roberts legacy has to be destroyed to show the next SC justice who's a bit light on principle that there is indeed a downside to betraying them.

First of all, retaliating is unhelpful and does nothing to help elect conservative judges. Secondly, I feel Roberts already marred his own legacy. He angered his allies and friends, alienated his colleagues, and damaged his reputation (both intellectually and morally). Moreover, regarding the Court as an institution, he did the very thing he was trying to avoid.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 02, 2012 05:32 PM (d6QMz)

304 "So maybe the GOP needs to think the same way"

I'm really hoping the GOP is ready to do some backroom deals and unseemly bribes to get this thing repealed.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at July 02, 2012 05:33 PM (Ym6ye)

305 "Why Justice Roberts, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Washington Liberals?" Apologies to Thomas More

Posted by: natasha at July 02, 2012 05:33 PM (pyYXJ)

306 Yeah you can dream and really that's all it is. They'll never give up that much money and power. Oh, they'll make changes. They'll make little shifts and snip some things but it is here to stay. Nothing ever, ever goes away in Washington DC. Its just an outhouse that's been used so long people are sitting on the roof and crap is pouring out the little moon-shaped window.

As I said a few days ago here, we're still paying for the installation of telegraph lines and the Spanish American war. There's still a 6-digit paying job to make sure the border between Canada and the US doesn't change somehow.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 05:34 PM (r4wIV)

307 "First of all, retaliating is unhelpful"

The willingness to engage in nasty retaliation is what handed Roberts' vote to the Libs in the first place. I don't like it either, but DC is DC.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at July 02, 2012 05:34 PM (Ym6ye)

308 I'm not buying that Roberts is now gonna go full liberal. Roberts is known for his narrow decisions favoring the government. U.S. v. Comstock was an alarming Commerce Clause case where he joined the liberals. The nature of Roberts' decision making is not new - nor is it in any way doctrinally liberal.

It's painfully obvious that Roberts' heart wasn't in this opinion. Not only is it not logically coherent, internally or otherwise, he admitted that he would find "no basis" for calling the mandate a tax if it did not fail under the Commerce Clause. He took his fetish for narrow decisions in favor of the government to new heights, but I see no reason for that to propel him into a Ginsburgian view that the government has the power to tax so shut up. His opinion on the Commerce Clause is quite radical - insofar as liberal scholars are concerned.

Maybe Roberts will be emboldened to continue in this vein of illusory judicial modesty. It will be interesting to see how he deals with DOMA, which is not so easy even for conservatives, as it does encroach upon the states' definition of marriage by conditioning receipt of federal benefits not on how the state defines marriage (which is the normal rule, because marriage law is reserved to the states). In theory, liberals should love that part of the law, since the federal government should be able to attach any conditions and set the standards it wants for its own programs - rather than let the states dictate. It's taken serious consideration, but I think that part of DOMA should be unconstitutional as an abrogation of state sovereignty. Liberals would strike it down under the 14th Amendment. I don't see Roberts going there. Another big case will be affirmative action, if he preserves it, I think it will be on narrow grounds.

Posted by: Crispian at July 02, 2012 05:36 PM (uBMtY)

309 I don't see the Defense of Marriage Act surviving Supreme Court challenge, nor should it, in my opinion. I'm strongly social conservative, I'm a Christian who believes that homosexual activity is a sin, but that's no business of the federal government.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 05:39 PM (r4wIV)

310 Chi-Town Jerry @ 296 said:

"If we can't win 60 Senate seats, we simply take the nuclear option and go for broke?"

First we could force them to really mount a fillibuster. Bring in cots and lots of Depends and just tell em to 'bring it bitches!' Even Exalted Cyclops Byrd couldn't keep one going long enough to change the outcome and that bastard could blow hot air like the one the Princess on Spaceballs was packing.

Obamacare isn't popular. And it will be safe to assume that if we win the White House and the Senate while holding a House filled with freshmen Tea Party folks that it won't be popular then. So push em to the wall until the lose the PR war. Break them.

Stop trying for a winning tactic. Stop trying to bargain with them. Stop trying to reason with them. Just beat them. And when they stand up and whinge about a majority trampling the minority have our new leader stand right up at the top spot and with every TV in the country tuned in look the D leader dead in the eye and say this:

"We won. Stings don't it. Bet you thought we had forgot that one. You were wrong; about many things."

Posted by: John Morris at July 02, 2012 05:39 PM (YhRJW)

311 I doubt Roberts did what he did because of some desire to be liked. He did it because he believed (however wrongly) in the conclusion he reached. He forced the American citizen to man up and save his/her own country. He put the SCOAMF on defense for the campaign. He gutted the Commerce Clause as an instrument of unlimited Federal expansion. He bought cover for those unpopular 5-4 votes down the road. And at what cost? Making us wait for the repeal of OshitCare a few months. A law that will implode regardless due to its innate financial absurdity.

Posted by: Wonkish Rogue at July 02, 2012 05:40 PM (WItBr)

312 "First we could force them to really mount a fillibuster."

Exactly. none of this phantom filibuster crap. Make them go through with it if that's what they want. Don't count votes and run for the hills, force them to carry it out. That on its own is enough to do it.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 05:43 PM (r4wIV)

313 " but that's no business of the federal government."

So private property rights are the business of the federal government, but marital/parental rights are not?

Posted by: NotALibertarian at July 02, 2012 05:44 PM (Ym6ye)

314 Not loving me is taxable.

Posted by: John Roberts at July 02, 2012 05:44 PM (MMC8r)

315 "So private property rights are the business of the federal government, but marital/parental rights are not?"

Not according to the US Constitution, no. Absolutely no mention of marriage or anything of the sort. We can add that in with an amendment if you want but I strongly advise against it.

I think homosexual "marriage" is not just idiotically illogical but very bad for society, but its not a federal government issue.

Its a mistake to use or expect the federal government to protect us from ourselves, at any level.

Posted by: Christopher Taylor at July 02, 2012 05:47 PM (r4wIV)

316 307 "First of all, retaliating is unhelpful"

The willingness to engage in nasty retaliation is what handed Roberts' vote to the Libs in the first place. I don't like it either, but DC is DC.


Are you telling me you think you have some duty to retaliate, as if it will change his mind/teach him some lesson? We are conservatives, we do not engage in character assassination to achieve certain ends just because someone has done something wrong.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 02, 2012 05:52 PM (d6QMz)

317 106 - Yeah, I've been thinking in the dark corner of my mind "Someone got to him". I have no doubt that this administration would do it if they could.
Posted by: Dave in Fla at July 02, 2012 04:30 PM (FJP6/)
As I said yesterday, The left would have done it to Thomas and Scalia a long time ago if it were possible. C'mon with these theories that someone physicially threatened him, as if he were some obscure judge in a one-horse town someplace, instead of the Chief Justice of the SC.. As if a SC Justice would have no recourse. As if you could rub out a Justice or his family (while the country awaits a momentous decision from the bench) and nobody would suspect a thing. It's a goofy scenario. I'm going with Occam's razor. The theory that Roberts became a turncoat to be loved by the left is the most sensible because it's not like it's never happened with "conservative" justices before. I really don't understand people who have to make this into some big conspiracy theory, or Mafia drama, or drag Roberts' epilepsy or supposed gheyness into it.

Posted by: Donna V. at July 02, 2012 05:52 PM (EflcN)

318
Roberts earned himself no immunity from political criticism. Here, I'll write the future headline that will appear when Roberts makes his next rightish decision:
"Roberts bows to pressure from Republicans, swingscourt to the right"

Posted by: JustLikeDavidHasselhoff at July 02, 2012 05:53 PM (wWZWw)

319 You seem to misunderstand the significance of marriage not appearing in the Constitution. It's absence does not mean that a minority of states has the power to impose the recognition of gay marriage on everyone else. That is what DOMA prevents.

Posted by: NotALibertarian at July 02, 2012 05:54 PM (Ym6ye)

320 "We are conservatives, we do not engage in character assassination"

What are you talking about? Conservatives believe in proportionate speech. Outlandish actions warrant a proportionately outraged response. What Roberts has done -- the Through The Looking Glass opinion he just wrote -- warrants calls for his resignation. How is that not conservative?

Posted by: NotALibertarian at July 02, 2012 05:57 PM (Ym6ye)

321 296 Ok.. how about this?

If we can't win 60 Senate seats, we simply take the nuclear option and go for broke?



Since the mandate has been declared a tax, it can be repealed via budget reconciliation, which (1) only requires a simple majority and (2) means the Ds could not filibuster. A majority of other provisions in the bill can be repealed the same way.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 02, 2012 05:58 PM (d6QMz)

322 isn't rather a bit RIDICULOUS of us to be predicting a permanent defection based on a SINGLE RULING that, while politically unpalatable, is not particularly JUDICIALLY indiscreet?

the law hasn't changed much, except it's now supreme court precedent that inactivity cannot be regulated under the ill-enumerated (and now slightly better so) commerce-clause powers.

john roberts, from a LEGAL standpoint, didn't engage in the massive expansion of taxing power that many conservative pundits are decrying. the reason we won't see a bunch of new coercive taxes in the wake of the obamatax decision is the PRECISE reason we have not yet seen such a tax-wave to date: taxes are EXCEEDINGLY unpopular, and the congress is therefore hesitant to impose them upon the public that effectively governs their cushy employment status.

therein, the root of a more informed frustration at roberts' decision: he gave congress a poll-box mulligan, so to speak. instead of having to own up to the tax they imposed on the nation at the time of imposition, they even have limitted political cover to DENY the court's language and maintain that the "penalty" is not a tax.

rdbrewer had a good post on this point: robert's PRAGMATIC approach led him to rule that something that waddles and quacks is, in fact, a duck. but the ESSENTIAL underlying assumption that "terminology doesn't matter" is clearly directly controverted by congress' terminological shenanigans -- and rejection of any consideration of a "tax" label for the penalty -- that lay at the heart of obamatax's legislative history.

roberts is probably a political creature. but it's absurd to think that HIS politics are YOUR politics...he's been a member of the judicial sphere for quite some time and is certainly far more attuned to the political considerations of THAT sphere, rather than the political considerations of the general population. future liberals on the court -- and future liberal administrations and congresses bent on massive expanding the government's power to coerce "proper" behaviour from its citizens, was dealt a great blow...and, i guess in john roberts' mind, he followed the rules about making every effort to save a law as written.

it's not that roberts didn't have the votes to limit commerce powers by striking the mandate, it's that he apparently didn't have the legal conscience to allow himself to strike the mandate AS A TAX, too.

at any rate, for us to instantly assume that john roberts is some sort of permanent turn-coat based on a SINGLE decision in which he joined the liberals on the court to author a decision written in rather conservative language is a bit ridiculous, especially given his record to-date. it's akin to what the left did with juan williams. juan williams, employment by fox notwithstanding, is still reliably liberal in the political domain. i suspect that we shall see john roberts acting as the same conservative that he has been to date when the court kicks back up next sesh.

...and furthermore, it's REALLY a bit daft to believe any speculation about the "leak" of roberts' supposed "flip". honestly...after how wrong we all got in the wake of supposed "whispers" to obama about his impending judicial repudiation, we're still going to accept anonymous speculation about the most closely-guarded decision in history as a reliable "leak"?

i mean, YOU YOURSELF RE-POSTED the video in which an avuncular roberts is essentially arguing the "tax" argument FOR a beleaguered verelli. why should you think he "flipped", when he clearly telegraphed his line of reasoning in the orals?

Posted by: jimi ray at July 02, 2012 05:58 PM (79EF9)

323 "Ace, I think you're hooking into the rough on this one. What Roberts did
is hand conservatives a BIG advantage going into this election, and he
defanged the left's biggest handiest distraction of the season. The more
you and other conservative pundits linger on looking back at this, the
more time you waste bashing Roberts, the more momentum you'll lose. Let
the left love him, that does not matter."

i mean, maybe. but just cuz decision ---> backlash happens doesn't mean it wasn't a loss. the constant "losing is winning" rhetorical contortions that have been going on with this decision are a bit much.

Posted by: JDP at July 02, 2012 05:59 PM (60GaT)

324 Vic at July 02, 2012 05:04 PM (YdQQY)
Vic, we don't need 60 GOP Senators to repeal the damn thing. We need 51 plus at least a couple more for insurance against the Olympia Snows of the world, but not 60.

Posted by: Donna V. at July 02, 2012 05:59 PM (EflcN)

325 Mark my words. If Obama is re-elected, the 2nd Amednment is next. Especially when he then has the needed 'flexibility' to not worry about running for re-election. Mark my words.

Posted by: LGoPs at July 02, 2012 06:00 PM (lHn6+)

326 This seething at such a prudent decision just further proves that the GOP is now the party of Caesarist theocrats who enjoy pissing on the working poor.

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan at July 02, 2012 06:00 PM (60GaT)

327 How do we get the culture back?

We don't.

And jimi ray, eat me raw.

Posted by: Scobface at July 02, 2012 06:00 PM (IoNBC)

328 It's an awfully big leap to jump from Roberts's decision to a deep craving for liberal affirmation. I'd like to see some evidence before you just make some blanket analysis on a man's inner psychology.

The man doesn't like the idea of the Supreme Court overturning legislation. He thought he figured out a way to do it without too much damage to the court and to precedent.

I'm disappointed and pissed and ready to fight, but it is conservative to think that laws ought to be passed by the legislature and not second-guessed by the courts.

Posted by: Arms Merchant at July 02, 2012 06:01 PM (+XVQe)

329 Spare me the propriety argument, Kagan helped draft the damn thing.

Posted by: elliot m at July 02, 2012 06:01 PM (zPich)

330 320 "We are conservatives, we do not engage in character assassination"

What are you talking about? Conservatives believe in proportionate speech. Outlandish actions warrant a proportionately outraged response. What Roberts has done -- the Through The Looking Glass opinion he just wrote -- warrants calls for his resignation. How is that not conservative?

If what he has done warrants calls for his resignation, then he should step-aside, hopefully under a Romney presidency. But I got the impression (perhaps wrongly?) that a few were arguing for more than just his resignation.

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 02, 2012 06:03 PM (d6QMz)

331 Vic, we don't need 60 GOP Senators to repeal the
damn thing. We need 51 plus at least a couple more for insurance against
the Olympia Snows of the world, but not 60.

Posted by: Donna V. at July 02, 2012 05:59 PM (EflcN)

My post wasn't based on repealing the law. It was based on someone saying we need to press for 60 seats this fall.
In any case, in order to legally use reconciliation, it can not increase the deficit. (Bing up the Byrd Rule)
The Democrats will assert that repealing the 20 taxes in Obamacare will increase the deficit. Republicans will argue that the CBO says Obamacare will cost billions of dollars and in itself increases the deficit.

Posted by: Vic at July 02, 2012 06:04 PM (YdQQY)

332 There was no leak. this is CBS remember. They lie.

Posted by: VADM (Red) Cuthbert Lord Collingwood (mentioned in dispatches) at July 02, 2012 06:05 PM (m7blM)

333 "but it is conservative to think that laws ought to be passed by the legislature and not second-guessed by the courts."

well if there's serious doubts about the constitutionality then "second-guessing" is in fact the Court's job.

in any case "conservatism of temperament" (big ups to Andrew Sullivan! and Davids Brooks and Frum) is totally worthless to me

Posted by: JDP at July 02, 2012 06:09 PM (60GaT)

334 The progs have had their foot on the gas for 100 years. Occasionally the right manages to step on the brake, but the progs' foot is still on the gas. Driving a car toward a cliff in this fashion ultimately results in driving over the cliff.

Mittens in the WH is just getting some mild pressure on the brake again.

In order to effect real change, you either need to cut off that foot on the gas, or turn the wheel 180 degrees. Or, paradoxically, put your foot on the gas also.

Posted by: hannitys_hybrid at July 02, 2012 06:14 PM (zpqa2)

335 83
Pass legislation that is worded so that the Supremes never get to put holy water on it.

Posted by: Velvet Ambition at July 02, 2012 04:18 PM (mFxQX)
--That's what Arizona did with SB 1070. They mirrored federal law in every detail, so it couldn't possibly be in conflict with federal law and there was nothing to judge.
It didn't work. Arizona SB 1070 got struck down anyway. (And Roberts was one of those who struck it down.)

Ace is right. It's all about appointments. The cases are won and lost in advance when the judges are appointed.

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 02, 2012 06:14 PM (hx4wy)

336
i mean, YOU YOURSELF RE-POSTED the video in which an avuncular roberts is essentially arguing the "tax" argument FOR a beleaguered verelli. why should you think he "flipped", when he clearly telegraphed his line of reasoning in the orals?
Posted by: jimi ray at July 02, 2012 05:58 PM (79EF9)

******

Do you have a link or can you quote the part of the oral argument where you see this?

Posted by: tasker at July 02, 2012 06:21 PM (r2PLg)

337 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at July 02, 2012 06:25 PM (Xb3hu)

338 I think now we see why Scalia was so pissy.

Posted by: John Roberts at July 02, 2012 06:26 PM (MMC8r)

339 Like I said, Roberts is a traitor to the right but he is NOT a hero to the left at all. He is just a pinata that will yield their heart's desire if they only hit him hard enough. They know that when he puts out they need to praise him for it but they will put the pressure on him before every major decision to make sure the bitch stays in line and knows his place.

And wasn't there some article about how Obama picked one of his nominees because he thought she could sway another female member of the court... that being Roberts of course?

Romney needs to come out and say that we will ask Roberts to step down and we need to go ahead and have this fight now. If justices can change the text of laws put before them then we really have no republic worth fighting for so we ought to just go ahead and settle it. Even when the right wins the legal argument they lose the case.

Will the legislators make the laws or will the judges? Put that and the economy before the people and let them decide.

Posted by: Voluble at July 02, 2012 06:35 PM (Ub+ky)

340 I'd appoint justices like Scalia, Thomas and Rober---wait people don't like him anymore right? Yeah, fuck that guy yo!

Posted by: Mitt Romney in the next debate at July 02, 2012 06:35 PM (60GaT)

341 the law hasn't changed much, except it's now supreme court precedent that inactivity cannot be regulated under the ill-enumerated (and now slightly better so) commerce-clause powers.

Posted by: jimi ray at July 02, 2012 05:58 PM (79EF9)


Inactivity can now be "taxed", which is even more powerful and offers whole new incentives for a feral government that craves MONEY above all. Ordinarily, the new "Roberts Tax On Whatever You're Not Doing" would have to be introduced as a Constitutional Amendment, but we're well past silly little things like the Constitution. That old-fashioned federalism or limits on government action have no place in the new American Socialist Superstate. The national feral government knows all, and can tax anything ... and nothing. Taxing nothing is so cool.

Posted by: ThePrimordialOrderedPair at July 02, 2012 06:39 PM (X3lox)

342 If a candidate for public service did not live and breathe conservatism, he/she is not a conservative and will act accordingly when appointed/elected.

Your presidential nominee is another case in point.

Posted by: Valiant at July 02, 2012 06:43 PM (aFxlY)

343 Transcripts-

*March 26: http://bit.ly/H5kRoH

*March 27: http://bit.ly/GXI8xc

*March 28: http://bit.ly/GTUUKS; http://bit.ly/GYu0WW

Posted by: Miss80sBaby at July 02, 2012 06:44 PM (d6QMz)

344 "This suggests that Republicans can no longer confirm liberal justices, at least not until a treaty is reached on this point."

Fuck that noise. Any Republican who votes to confirm ANY Supreme Court justice appointed by any Democrat has lost my vote and the party loses more of my money, time and energy.

Posted by: someguy at July 02, 2012 06:53 PM (sEXZ/)

345 This is why the Senate and House races are SO important this year. If Romney gets a chance at replacing one or more Justices, then we have to have CONSERVATIVES in the House and Senate by HUUUUUUUGE majorities. Yes, the MSM will still smear and attack any nominee, but we'd have the numbers in Congress for confirmation and that's all that matters.

Posted by: Aslan's Girl H8s Roberts & Roberts' defenders at July 02, 2012 07:05 PM (KL49F)

346 No way do I believe Roberts has become a liberal in the Souter (sp?) mold (i.e. "a new 5-4 liberal majority" from the initial blog).

He may have gone a little left in finding that it (the penalty) was constitutional on under the "taxing power" of congress...which is a ruling I agreed with, but I would not have gone out of my way to give the libs that help...however I would have just struck down the Mandate not the rest of the law (the libs would have accepted the severability if the cons would not).

But I do not believe in striking down laws just because they are bad laws and I do not think the Mandate makes the rest of the ObamaCare invalid.

I think Robert's thinking was the same...had the cons bent on severabilty we might not be dealing w/ this now. So why blame only him?

Who leaked all this? I think Scalia et al did. They were after all "shunning" him w/ their dissent by not mentioning him as the leaks have said.

That's why I'm not as ticked as many at this ruling (I've had fights here and a reason.com about it).

I really only wanted the Mandate gone in this ruling. Taking out the rest was legislating from the bench in the way that libs try to do w/ something like Citizens United (i.e. bad law in their opinion = unconstitutional).

I wish he'd just chucked the Mandate, but now that it's a "tax" it's easily repealed, if Romney can get elected (I don't see a way we don't take the Senate if Romney is elected). You don't need to break a D filibuster to repeal a tax, it can be done w/ 50 Sens + the VP.

And if Romney can't get elected aren't we probably screwed anyway? One more lib Justice and they'd probably just legislate Medicare for All from the bench under the Equal Protection Clause or something (i.e. healthcare is a right, not a privilege, therefore we all have an equal right to it etc). And while medicare for all might be as big an expansion of government, it'd be more efficient than Obamacare which any intelligent person realizes is unworkable, whatever your ideology.

Once we've repealed the Mandate we'll have the leverage to change the rest. But you can't use Judicial power to throw out parts of laws that aren't unconstitutional.

I know many or most disagree w/ me on that. But it's simply not the conservative/libertarian thing to do (IMO). You can't use the enemy's methods to defeat him. It's like trying to kill someone else by drinking poison yourself.

Posted by: trickamsterdam at July 02, 2012 07:19 PM (uTBHY)

347 I am still hoping that Dick Cheney invites Roberts out for a little duck hunting.

Posted by: vivi at July 02, 2012 07:31 PM (OTPxW)

348 STEP ONE: no more withholding tax.
STEP TWO: taxes due 3 days before election day

Right there you swing 10% of the electorate to your side.

Posted by: sexypig at July 02, 2012 07:41 PM (wWV5q)

349 "You don't need to break a D filibuster to repeal a tax, it can be done w/ 50 Sens + the VP"

Sorry, but the libs say you can't do that because it would increase the deficit.

*snicker*

Posted by: sexypig at July 02, 2012 07:43 PM (wWV5q)

350 "gets to choose two (or at least one) more conservative justices."

Yeah! Conservative justices like John Roberts!

You're just PRECIOUS.

I keep reading this site because occasionally it has interesting links, but more because I want to see the limits of your self-delusion.

Posted by: Rollory at July 02, 2012 08:03 PM (kFIsy)

351 Impeach the spazzing cocksucker

Posted by: TexasJew at July 02, 2012 08:41 PM (8xOfO)

352 I keep reading this site because occasionally it has interesting links, but more because I want to see the limits of your self-delusion.

You just can't quit us.

Posted by: toby928© Sad Monarchist at July 02, 2012 08:42 PM (QupBk)

353 The news is wondering whether Roberts changed his opinion to be loved, save the courts reputation, etc., etc.

But nobody has mentioned straight up blackmail for something shady or embarrassing in Robert's past, and I would not put it past the progressive coalition.

Posted by: raawwr at July 02, 2012 09:28 PM (Z77mb)

354 "I mean conservatives simply refuse to confirm known liberal justices (and appellate judges, too). That will of course be a "crisis" in their eyes, and therefore the media will play up the Crisis in the Judiciary."

Sounds good to me. Whatever the media is up in arms about isn't worth devoting the time of day to, as far as I'm concerned.
"But that's what it will take."Yep. Republicans can either stiffen up and put their foot down or keep on playing the game of "Heads I win, Tails You Lose".

Posted by: Blacque Jacques Shellacque at July 02, 2012 10:18 PM (4s7w4)

355 Ace, you've been of the pragmatic school on Supreme Court appointments, right?

I mean, your advice has been like, "Kagan / Sotomayor / whomever is going to get appointed anyway, let's not be idiots and have a fight we can't win," and "we can't expect much without a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, plus a margin against defectors" (which never happens, and never can happen) "so let's be happy with what we are getting," and "Ann Coulter is an idiot" more or less. (I mean when she says things like <a href="http://www.anncoulter.com/columns/2005-07-27.html">FOOL ME EIGHT TIMES SHAME ON ME</a>.) This has been the conventional wisdom and your opinion, right?

(Personally I thought Roberts was a dangerous pick, because super-genius hero judges have a bad record from Warren on. But I changed my mind when he was on the bench, so I was as wrong as you, I just took longer to get around to being that wrong.)

Would you now agree, in the light of the Roberts Court's judicial endorsement of Obamacare, with judges Ginzberg, Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor and Roberts in the majority, that in appointments to the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, pragmatic politics just doesn't get the job done?

You make all these decisions that each look reasonable individually, and as long as you have an attitude that you are not a "revolutionary" they are reasonable, but at the end of the day the rewards will be shared out like this: you appoint the judges you want, but often enough when it's a really big one, enough of them will vote as the left wants.

So the revolutionary road is the only road, and the pragmatic road is the road to defeat, time after time after time. (Fool me eight times, shame on me.) Agreed?

Will you think that from now on? Or next appointment, or the one after, will it be back to the smart pragmatists and the dumb radicals?

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 02, 2012 11:06 PM (4YEC3)

356 If we can't repeal this thing then let's pass a law that puts every congressman, judge and federal employee in the exchange of least repute

Posted by: Marlborough at July 02, 2012 11:10 PM (u3N3z)

357 Ace, if you think this case marks the beginning of a consistent five-vote liberal majority, you're seriously overwrought.

Get a sense of history, man. Yeah, this was an important case, but it's still just one case. You're being hysterical.

Posted by: Beldar at July 02, 2012 11:20 PM (LR7//)

358 353 The news is wondering whether Roberts changed his opinion to be loved, save the courts reputation, etc., etc.

But nobody has mentioned straight up blackmail for something shady or embarrassing in Robert's past, and I would not put it past the progressive coalition.

Posted by: raawwr at July 02, 2012 09:28 PM (Z77mb)

--

The left has a perfect record of appointing Supreme Court justices who vote their way. So if one of their ideological fighters in black robes changes sides, then you can talk about blackmail, horses heads on pillows and so on. When the result is extraordinary you may wonder if some extraordinary means brought it about.

The right does worse than flipping a coin with its picks. The average, normal result is a flipper like Kennnedy or Roberts, or an outright enemy like Souter. Sometimes there's a good one, such as Alito seems to be so far, but that's not something you can count on.

Not only for decades but for the whole historic era since World War II, America has been pushed left and left and further left by judges appointed by Republican Presidents. These judges then act as permission givers and endorsers for left-wing projects, and they stifle and condemn right-wing projects. Obamacare? Constitutional! Arizona SB 1070? No way! The Great Society and the Civil Rights revolution? It's all good, take your fill! Restrictions on abortion? No way!

Generations of have labored in vain, just because of Roe and Casey. The genius hero judges of the Supreme Court set the direction of the nation, and that is that.

That is what has to be explained. Not that Roberts flipped, but that Republican Presidents usually appoint flippers, squishes and outright enemies like David Hackett Souter.

And when that is explained, the point is to change it.

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 02, 2012 11:32 PM (4YEC3)

359 Generations of pro-lifers have labored in vain, just because of Roe and Casey.

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 02, 2012 11:36 PM (4YEC3)

360 Get a sense of history, man. Yeah, this was an important case, but it's still just one case. You're being hysterical.

Posted by: Beldar at July 02, 2012 11:20 PM (LR7//)
--
Two cases, if you think Arizona SB 1070 was important. Which it was, because that was a model other states were following.
And Roberts doesn't have to vote with Ginzberg, Kagan, Breyer and Sotomayor every time to show that the "pragmatic" approach that the right has had leads to bad results and that the scorched earth "revolutionary" approach that the left has had leads to perfect results.
Losing a few big ones from time to time is enough to shape the history of America and the whole Western world with it.

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 02, 2012 11:47 PM (4YEC3)

361 @ 355 Daybreaker: "Would you now agree, in the light of the Roberts Court's judicial endorsement of Obamacare, with judges Ginzberg, Kagan, Breyer, Sotomayor and Roberts in the majority, that in appointments to the judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, pragmatic politics just doesn't get the job done?"

I'm a Roberts defender, because I think he's a conservative, but not an activist (to me, it's equally activist to throw the whole Obamacare law out instead of just severing the mandate).

But I've never seen one liberal Justice who isn't an activist. Their who judicial philosophy involves treating activist decisions as settled law (e.g. Roe v Wade).

Yeah...if Pres Obama were to win again and tried to appoint someone and I were a Senator I'd try to organize a filibuster...and if we sit w/ eight Justices on the SC for a year, then we do.

The compromise (since he has a right too) would be someone like a A. Kennedy...maybe I'd accept someone more liberal, like a Byron White if the public tide was going against us.

But, yeah...this is a hill to die on.

Posted by: trickamsterdam at July 03, 2012 12:44 AM (uTBHY)

362 Trickamsterdam, you would have a good point on severability of the mandate but you must first get past two problems.

#1. Congress explicitly considered and rejected including the typical boilerplate severability language. Which ties into...

#2. Without the mandate the rest is insane even by progressive notions of mental health. If 'insurance' companies must issue a policy after one is sick it sort of defies the definition of the word insurance. Which was the point behind the mandate, that everyone must buy insurance.

So if you also sever exclusion of preexisting conditions along with the mandate there is just a jumble of taxes and special giveaways that were only there to sweeten the main turd sandwich. Well that and the Medicaid expansion cramdown that even Roberts couldn't go along with anyway so, like I said, just assorted bits and bobs left over after taking out everything really important.

Posted by: John Morris at July 03, 2012 01:30 AM (YhRJW)

363
Lay down with RINOs, wake up with fleas.

Posted by: Born Free at July 03, 2012 01:32 AM (8qx2W)

364 It just occurred to me why I never trusted Roberts: it seems I only see pictures of him smiling. When I was a kid, I smiled all the time. Partly because I wanted to please people. Ideologues (which is what everyone really wants) can be grouches. People-pleasers can't be.

Posted by: Baldy at July 03, 2012 01:42 AM (opS9C)

365 But, yeah...this is a hill to die on.

Posted by: trickamsterdam at July 03, 2012 12:44 AM (uTBHY)
-
Good.

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 01:56 AM (wnl1Y)

366 @362 "John Morris":

"#2. Without the mandate the rest is insane even by progressive notions of mental health. If 'insurance' companies must issue a policy after one is sick it sort of defies the definition of the word insurance. Which was the point behind the mandate, that everyone must buy insurance." - John Morris

See that's the thing that makes me think it's activism. Why should a Justice even worry about that?

I'd send it back to Congress and let them deal w/ it. They would. Most are elected every two years and Obamacare doesn't really go into effect until 2014.

It would have given people a life-lesson in liberalism. Admittedly, the Roberts' decision didn't but cutting down the whole law wouldn't have either.

I just think it's like in sports. They train you not to do the job of the other positions on the field, because then no ones get done.

Why not throw that mess back to Congress? With what either Roberts did or what the four Cons wanted to do you were cleaning their mess.

Let the People of the US see them sit in it.

Posted by: trickamsterdam at July 03, 2012 04:41 AM (uTBHY)

367 "Who Leaked Roberts' Vote-Flip?"

Why are we taking the word of Crawford at CBS anyway?

He has no sources.

The Court will never speak to confirm or deny rumors, even when false.

So Crawford can just spin crap about this decision and it will likely be ten years or more before anyone retires or someone in any position to actually know the events of the supposed Roberts flipflip will describe the event with any credibility.

Certainly, libs love to manufacture stuff. And CBS is desperate for any "scoop".

So why does anyone find this sketchy report from Crawford credible?

Posted by: TooCon at July 03, 2012 12:37 PM (YcTIW)

368 It's not that the reputation of CBS is strong but that the oddities in the PDF of the Supreme Court's decision are intriguing. A normal deliberative process would have brought about a normal document. That's not what we've got.

Posted by: Daybreaker at July 03, 2012 01:13 PM (NJpun)

369 Maby he is just comfortable being the leftists boy instead of a man

Posted by: big c at July 03, 2012 01:14 PM (CzJsd)

370 Who leaked in a previously tight court? Well, let's see. Who's the new person? Oh, I know!

Posted by: Bhagwani at July 04, 2012 07:42 PM (y/wWL)






Processing 0.06, elapsed 0.075 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.021 seconds, 378 records returned.
Page size 220 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat