Comments on: Chief Justice John Roberts rewrites his legacy
Add a Comment
- This move had to be based on a political opinion of the Judge. It accomplished one thing--Now it up to the voters to decide what will happen. Point being he will not be observed as a very bad Judge but he sure forced the Voters to issue to final decision as to what will happen to Obamacare. His flop is a REAL key to a political tap dance. The Past history of votes by the Supreme Court is loaded with this same type of divided by a one vote margin. Look it up for yourself.
- Reply to this comment
- This action provokes a bunch of questions.
1. How do you collect a penalty when the Court says it MUST be a Tax?
2. Can the people vote to remove Judges from the Court?
3. Who runs the country the people or elected and nonelected officals?
4. Is this a scam to promote business for attorneys?
5. Why has the record demonstrated that the Court ALWAYS split its vote on any political issue--is that an agreement?
6 There is a bunch more that will be raised before this is done.
Point now is it AGAIN up to the voters to decide or face the problem that is coming under this bill. Will the Court override voters and their decision? - Reply to this comment
- Evidently someone has found a new offshore account with a lot of new money.
- Reply to this comment
- He is a shining star in some eyes, but not all...
- Reply to this comment
- Why is the question asked of Justice Roberts? Is this because he's a conservative?
Justice Roberts ruled in favor of "the patient protection and affordable care act of 2010" and wrote the argument not based upon POLITICS..as JUSTICES are supposed to do.. and for that premise- will be the legacy of Justice Roberts ..
I commend Justice Roberts for standing upon the principal rights of the constitution and NOT POLITICS..
Justice Thomas is the BIGGEST JOKE of the current Justices.. he has YET to present or make an argument upon ANY case presented to the supreme court as an Supreme Court Justice... - Reply to this comment
- The Republicans did such a shoddy job, I don't think they are really serious about repealing the healthcare reform law.
They just want to rally their base on on an issue that is not stupid, racist or would alienate normal people. - Reply to this comment
- It's nice to know their is a conservative judge who not partisan.
the supreme court is an independent body. it should not answer to any legislative branch nor any political party's agenda. So, you republicans grow up and stop fighting everything that the democrats is doing. - Reply to this comment
- I would not want to be remembered as the man who helped the dummycrats destroy the United States.
- Reply to this comment
- Let me 1st say that I'm against Obamacare and was hoping it was overturned, and will be voting for Romney in November. That said, as an American and as an attorney, I thought Justice Roberts penned a wonderful decision and here is why.
1st off and perhaps most importantly, the court specifically held as UNCONSTITUTIONAL the ability of congress to use the commerce clause as a way to compel people into the stream of commerce against their wishes. This is a big deal. For decades, the court has been ever expanding the power of congress under the color of the commerce clause. Had the mandate been deemed valid under the commerce clause, Congress would essentially have a precedent to control every aspect of our lives. Fortunately that didn't happen.
2nd, when Justice Roberts was nominated for the court, he said that his judicial philosophy was that courts must show restraint and deference to the fact that the laws which they review are the product of a legislature and executive who are elected officials and reflect the collective will of the people. As such, according to Roberts, laws should not be overturned if it can be avoided in good faith. He went on to say that if a particular provision could be considered unconstitutional on one hand (as in the mandate under the commerce clause) but constitutional on the other hand (as in the mandate as a tax) then the courts have a duty to rule constitutional in deference to the will of the people. That's what he did yesterday and that was impressive.
3rd, for those critics of Roberts from the right now accusing him of judicial activism, you couldn't possibly be more wrong. This is the ultimate example of judicial restraint. Obama voted NOT to confirm Roberts back in 2005. Obama then had the nerve, in front of a nationally broadcast joint session of congress, to call out the Chief Justice over the Citizens United decision. Then this spring, the President essentially threatened the court to uphold healthcare. If ever someone would have been justified in sticking it to the president, it was Roberts. But he didn't. He instead followed his judicial philosophy. He alone had the power to stop Obamacare (and if you read between the lines of his decision he is obviously no fan of Obamacare), but he didn't do so because of what he saw as his duty as the Chief Justice. That's commendable. That is something none of the other 8 would have done. And it is something that is necessary for the legitimacy of our courts.
The good news, as I see it, is the states are not required to participate in the massive expansion of Medicaid. It's possible now that the 26 states who stood as plaintiffs yesterday will opt not to participate in Medicaid. Possibly this may be used a tactic to bring the left back to the table to renegotiate healthcare and find common ground, rather than force feed it on the coutry the way the Dems when they passed it in the 1st place. - Reply to this comment
- The SCOTUS has fallen into the political abyss. Thier job is to assess whether laws are constitutional and if so are applied fairly. It is obvious that the decision released yesterday was clearly 9 citizens exercising their opinions versus doing their job. Whether you are for or against Obamacare the debacle yesterday should scare the daylights out of you. How is it possible that 9 highly experienced justices can possibly be split 5-4 with 5 saying their is no issue with the law at all while the other 4 stated it is completely unconstitutional and the entire law should be striken. That simply can not happen if the Justices acted impatially based upon legal processes. Yes, there are split decisions all the time but to be this polarized clearly shows they acted with their hearts versus the rules of law. All nine of them should be deeply ashamed of themselves. They hold some of the most important positions in the nation charged with keeping us true to our values but all 9 decided to act on their feelings versus doing their job. Disgraceful!
- Reply to this comment
