Results 1 to 2 of 2
Thread: Did OBY and DEMs bully Roberts?
Did OBY and DEMs bully Roberts?
I was thinking this as soon as the vote came down. Remember the arguments and then the first mock vote and then the final recent vote.
The first vote was just a show of hands but they can change their minds.
OBY went into his "unelected judges" tirade shortly after that vote and DEMs piled on.
OBY was obviously tipped off on the first time. That allowed him to apply pressure and the liberals on the bench obviously made some deals to forgo Meidcare Expansion and let Roberts keep the Mandate as a tax therefore criticizing the commerce act. That was the final nugget.
I really believe Roberts changed his mind after the full court press was on but he still managed to take a lot of the teeth of the law
out like with the Arizona law.
That was the tipoff.
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Governm...Obama-BullyingUBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.
Re: Did OBY and DEMs bully Roberts?
Here's someone who thinks Roberts changed his mind late in the game and he says the dissenting opinion starts out reading like the original majority opinion and then changed.
But I don't think so now. I just read this. He said when he became chief justice his legacy would be to make the court bi-partisan and he has. He said all the previous chiefs got caught up in the polarization of the vote and voted the party line. He voted with the liberals before on other issues and now in the most important one
in history. I said months ago I was worried about Kennedy and Roberts but Roberts was the wild card.
He was more concerned about his legacy than the constitution - a real blow to constitutionalists. As this guy says, this is the first time the bench levied taxes on the people and it's the biggest tax we've ever seen.
How could both pop Bush and his son be so stupid to appoint judges
thinking they were conservatives when they weren't. Hell, Souter even voted for Gore in the Bush v Gore recount decision.
Roberts legacy in the end could bite him in the ass because he politicized the decision by putting it back in the campaign arena
after saying he didn't want the court's decision to be politicized.
I too have heard the many theories behind Roberts' opinion. The one I tend to side with is that it was a late in the game switch. One expert on reading into Supreme Court rulings opined yesterday that the dissenting opinion (by Kennedy I think) reads like it was at one point written to be the majority opinion. It would also explain the very weak reach of the majority opinion regarding the penalty/tax. I heard one commentator make a very important point this morning. Activist judges and legislating from the bench are certainly deplorable actions - but we've seen it before and we'll see it again. However, yesterday's ruling was the first time that a tax has been legislated and levied from the bench upon the people. Excellent point - and a very, very bad and scary precedent.
Last edited by AirFlacco; 06-29-2012 at 11:01 AM.UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.