Chief Justice is a flip-flop

[katsung47]

Just three months ago, Roberts sided with Republican, why does he suddenly change his mind? Because the Feds want the Health care law. (detail see my later journal)
Quote, “Chief Justice Roberts: Can government require you to buy a cell phone?

Mar. 27, 2012 - Chief Justice Roberts asks the Solicitor General Verrilli if the government can require the purchase of cell phones for emergency services, just as the health-care law requires for health insurance.(The Washington Post)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...reS_video.html “

Now he takes off his mask and follow the wand of his master. It proves what I said six years ago. He is a puppet tool of the Feds (D.O.J.) Here is article written in 2005:

344. Roberts, a secret agent of D.O.J. (9/18/05)
http://katsung47.yuku.com/topic/4/Th...the-USA?page=4

[cp1]

Judges aren't supposed to side with Republicans / Democrats. They're supposed to side with the Constitution.

[Daelak]

Just three months ago, Roberts sided with Republican, why does he suddenly change his mind? Because the Feds want the Health care law. (detail see my later journal)
Quote, “Chief Justice Roberts: Can government require you to buy a cell phone?

Mar. 27, 2012 - Chief Justice Roberts asks the Solicitor General Verrilli if the government can require the purchase of cell phones for emergency services, just as the health-care law requires for health insurance.(The Washington Post)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politi...reS_video.html “

Now he takes off his mask and follow the wand of his master. It proves what I said six years ago. He is a puppet tool of the Feds (D.O.J.) Here is article written in 2005:

344. Roberts, a secret agent of D.O.J. (9/18/05)
http://katsung47.yuku.com/topic/4/Th...the-USA?page=4

Here is another resident conspiracy theorist. He wanted to make sure the supreme court of the US didn't look like a tool for the right. He gained political capital for FUTURE CASES which is a GOOD THING if you are a right winger.

[Yuyn]

Deciding matters based on the merits of the matter itself? No, screw that! More obsessive partisan politics is obviously the way to go!

In case you didn't catch the sarcasm, I think that having judges sitting on the highest court of the land decide matters based on their own sensibilities and the merits of the question itself is the best way to go. If they're just obsessive party-liners, you're removing one of the most important checks and balances from the political system -- the judiciary's independence.

[Grraarrgghh]

Judges aren't supposed to side with Republicans / Democrats. They're supposed to side with the Constitution.

Exactly. Why would you want your Justices to participate in partisanship? That kind of defeats the purpose of the Supreme Court, doesn't it?

[Porcell]

Judges aren't supposed to side with Republicans / Democrats. They're supposed to side with the Constitution.

Exactly. I should hope that the justices "flip flop" as occasion arises, based on the law and the Constitution.

[Caiada]

What a pathetically bad oversimplification.

[Reg]

Judges aren't supposed to side with Republicans / Democrats. They're supposed to side with the Constitution.

I came in here to say exactly this. While there is interpretation of the law, a justice of the Supreme Court is supposed to remain non-partisan and make decisions based on the language of the Constitution, not by party lines.

[Zoranon]

The fact that Roberts is able to decide on the merits means that he is dooing his job,

I am far more concerned by the fact that 6 of the judges are pretty much set in their ways and their votes are far too predictable. That includes all the liberal judges, Scalia and Thomas.

To see the unanimous liberal voting block is actually fairly sad to watch, nearly all important decisions of SCOTUS have seen them voting as one.

[Venant]

Doesn't make sense that he is an agent of the DOJ, considering that the Department of Justice is drastically changed with each administration. (you referenced an article written during the Bush administration. Are you saying that he is loyal to the Bush DOJ, which is why he sided with the Obama administration?_

The funny thing about the supreme court is that they can really rule in either direction, since they have the final say on any law. Their rulings, by definition, define constitutionality; which is why it is idiotic when somebody like Rand Paul says a law is unconstitutional after it has been ruled constitutional by the supremes.

Roberts was probably acting to defend the court against the otherwise insane partisanship which has become so prevalent in Washington, partisanship which becomes worse with every new dollar injected into politics through lobbyists, special interest groups and PACs. The court should be apolitical, every decision should not fall along party lines, otherwise it risks being seen as just as illegitimate as Congress.

Oh and also, having the mental capacity to change ones mind is not a bad thing, what is bad is that many who are indoctrinated to either the left or the right have the mindset of kamikaze pilots, to the point where they will deny reality before questioning why they believe in what they are told to believe in.

[saffi]

IF I was an american, I'd find it a bit scary that supreme court judges have been labeled as "liberal" and "conservative"...They are kinda meant to be bipartisan..

[Darnash]

I am a Republican. I read the health care ruling. It is a legitimate ruling. Congress has the authority to tax pretty much however they want, and to offer tax breaks for whatever they want, so long as those laws are applied universally across the states. If Congress wanted to make a new tax, and then offer a new tax break for owning a Cell Phone and call it a mandate, they'd damn well be able to do that for the same reason they can offer tax breaks on the plethora of things they currently do. It seems to me that this is a relatively new strategy to legislate behavior, so I still do not agree with it's practice as it does open the door to an absolutely absurd amount of federal power... but is it Constitutional? The answer is yes. Roberts' job is to judge Constitutionality. He did that.

In a more political sense, some, including myself, theorize that, although appearing unbiased in his analysis, Roberts did have an ulterior motive for his ruling. Face it: the Republican campaign was losing steam. Gas prices are dropping, home prices are recovering, and jobs reports are getting better (even if they are very, very tricksy in their definitions of "unemployment"). Remember, this isn't about reality, it's about the perception of the public, and things seem to be looking up. The economic argument for a Republican presidency was disappearing... all we really have left is the debt, and although that is a very big issue, it's hard to get the average voter to understand WHY it is a big issue. If Obamacare was dismantled before the election, what would be the voting issue? With Obamacare intact, the base has something to rally around.

Of course, this is all really a moot point, as the real danger from Obamacare was that it opened a door for greater government power. At this point, even if it is repealed, that door is still wide open with the new "tax argument". Will businesses suffer? Sure, so that's bad for the economy, but theoretically it's only temporary. Will insurance prices rise? Undoubtably, which is also bad. But that will also stabilize, and new legislation can also fix that. The real issue is the legacy and the establishment of a dangerous precedent...

[speehs]

Holy shit. Just looked at the second link out of curiosity, and there's literally hundreds of articles of conspiracy theories with a pervasive terror of "the Feds." I don't even... I think my brain just broke.

[Very Tired]

Personally I'm glad he flip flopped on the issue even though I don't care for universal health care. Just siding with your political party for political reasons is a mockery of justice. The court is here to decide if this health care is legal, not if its a good idea or not.

[Shadowmelded]

Conveniently forgetting that the bill was basically a Republican bill anyway, and Romney supports everything in it except the mandate. Right leaning justices approving legislation written by the right, SHOCKER.

[Thage]

Judges aren't supposed to side with Republicans / Democrats. They're supposed to side with the Constitution.

Right on the money. Party partisanship has no place in the courts, the judges' duty is to side with the law, not whichever political blowhard happens to spin the best rhetoric.

[Mukki]

Judges aren't supposed to side with Republicans / Democrats. They're supposed to side with the Constitution.

Of course, as a country we CLAIM to follow the constitution, but in practice, we don't. Politicians simply cite it when it's beneficial to them.

[Thage]

Of course, as a country we CLAIM to follow the constitution, but in practice, we don't. Politicians simply cite it when it's beneficial to them.

We haven't since leather jackets and Model Ts were in style, brother.

[Mukki]

Conveniently forgetting that the bill was basically a Republican bill anyway, and Romney supports everything in it except the mandate. Right leaning justices approving legislation written by the right, SHOCKER.

Lol, Romney's so far to the left, it's unreal. Actually, he's every which way. Not sure why he's running against Obama, as I'm pretty sure they agree on everything.

We haven't since leather jackets and Model Ts were in style, brother.

Truly the end of an era.

[Tastyfish]

IF I was an american, I'd find it a bit scary that supreme court judges have been labeled as "liberal" and "conservative"...They are kinda meant to be bipartisan..

Most Americans don't get that they are expected to be above party lines.

---------- Post added 2012-07-05 at 07:14 PM ----------

Doesn't make sense that he is an agent of the DOJ, considering that the Department of Justice is drastically changed with each administration. (you referenced an article written during the Bush administration. Are you saying that he is loyal to the Bush DOJ, which is why he sided with the Obama administration?_

The funny thing about the supreme court is that they can really rule in either direction, since they have the final say on any law. Their rulings, by definition, define constitutionality; which is why it is idiotic when somebody like Rand Paul says a law is unconstitutional after it has been ruled constitutional by the supremes.

Roberts was probably acting to defend the court against the otherwise insane partisanship which has become so prevalent in Washington, partisanship which becomes worse with every new dollar injected into politics through lobbyists, special interest groups and PACs. The court should be apolitical, every decision should not fall along party lines, otherwise it risks being seen as just as illegitimate as Congress.

Oh and also, having the mental capacity to change ones mind is not a bad thing, what is bad is that many who are indoctrinated to either the left or the right have the mindset of kamikaze pilots, to the point where they will deny reality before questioning why they believe in what they are told to believe in.

Well Typed!