Law Professor Says John Roberts Should Resign Over Obamacare Ruling

[joe bloe]

It appears that John Roberts has knowingly ruled contrary to the Constitution, in the bizarre belief that his ruling will protect the reputation of the court. The four dissenting judges are reportedly furious over Robert's decision to side with the liberals and did not reference Robert's arguments, in their dissenting opinion, as a way of showing their disrespect for Roberts. This ruling, to uphold Obamacare, is being called 4-1-4 ruling, meaning four liberals to uphold, four conservatives to overturn and Roberts.

From Mediaite.com

Chief Justice John Roberts, normally a reliably conservative member of the Supreme Court, stunned quite a number of people when he sided with the four more liberal justices and upheld the entire Affordable Care Act yesterday. On The O’Reilly Factor today, guest host Laura Ingraham gauged the right’s reaction to the ruling, and one of her guests went as far to suggest that Roberts should resign from the bench.

“If the assumption is right, that he thinks was unconstitutional but found a way to uphold it to preserve the integrity of the court, then he really ought to resign because it proves he doesn’t have the judicial fortitude to do the job that he’s been chosen to do.”

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/on-oreill...macare-ruling/

[pyramider]

Since the Chief Justice chooses which dissenting argument to post its all hearsay.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by pyramider

Since the Chief Justice chooses which dissenting argument to post its all hearsay.

I wonder if the four dissenting opinions were all uniform in their "failure" to reference Robert's argument to uphold.

[CuteOldGuy]

The Chief doesn't choose which dissents to post.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

The Chief doesn't choose which dissents to post.

You're in the law biz. Do you think the decision to uphold Obamatax is going to effect the use of the commerce clause in future rulings? Some people are saying that the silver lining, to the decision, is that it will make it harder to use the commerce clause to justify government growth in the future.

[CJ7]

so the entire GOP called Obamacare RAISING TAXES and bankrupting the country during the entire period up to the time the law was passed, and were STILL calling it RAISING TAXES and bankrupting the country until Roberts ruled congress can raise taxes ergo the Law WAS constitutional ... NOW the right is calling for Roberts resignation or impeachment ...

ok, fine.

The entire GOP should resign or be impeached because they have unknowingly supported Roberts decision ever since the debates for/against the law FIRSTstarted.


see how that works?

[Ducbutter]

Originally Posted by CJ7

so the entire GOP called Obamacare RAISING TAXES and bankrupting the country during the entire period up to the time the law was passed, and were STILL calling it RAISING TAXES and bankrupting the country until Roberts ruled congress can raise taxes ergo the Law WAS constitutional ... NOW the right is calling for Roberts resignation or impeachment ...

ok, fine.

The entire GOP should resign or be impeached because they have unknowingly supported Roberts decision ever since the debates for/against the law FIRSTstarted.


see how that works?

I'm not sure the entire GOP argued that the mandate was a tax. They certainly noted the other taxes included in the bill and argued that aspect. But I could be wrong. Any link?
It seems to me that it's immaterial to the SC what anybody said outside the court. Only what was argued in front of the justices where the admin's solicitor made a cursory allusion, at best, to it being a tax. I could be wrong about it being cursory too as I've read no transcript of the arguements.

[Sidewinder]

My layman's opinion is that the Obamacare ruling will not result in greater use of the Commerce clause to justify whatever the bleep Congress wants to pass. Why should Congress waste their time on that turkey, when the Roberts Doctrine gives them an absolutely unlimited free pass under the tax and spend clause?

I'm waiting for Boehner et al to pass a law requiring every adult male who is not otherwise legally barred from doing so to own a firearm or pay an annual 'gun-free fool" tax. The Supreme Court case on that one will be "interesting".

[CJ7]

Originally Posted by Ducbutter

I'm not sure the entire GOP argued that the mandate was a tax. They certainly noted the other taxes included in the bill and argued that aspect. But I could be wrong. Any link?
It seems to me that it's immaterial to the SC what anybody said outside the court. Only what was argued in front of the justices where the admin's solicitor made a cursory allusion, at best, to it being a tax. I could be wrong about it being cursory too as I've read no transcript of the arguements.

Im sure there are links that quote republicans saying the mandate raises taxes all over the internet, but Im not going to bother to hunt them down.

from my personal experience on this board, when the desision went to the SC the right was arguing the law raised taxes,and was unconstitutional, I commented if that was the case congress is granted the constitutional power to raise taxes just like it has the power to lower taxes and that alone made the law constitutional. ... and as recent as yesterday, 2dogs called it "the biggest tax grab ever" ...

did all the inane rhetoric from the right have a direct impact on the CJ's ruling? Certainly not. IMO, Roberts ruled on constitutional values, not down the party line.

Refreshing.

[Old-T]

Originally Posted by joe bloe

Chief Justice John Roberts, normally a reliably conservative member of the Supreme Court, stunned quite a number of people when he sided with the four more liberal justices and upheld the entire Affordable Care Act yesterday. On The O’Reilly Factor today, guest host Laura Ingraham gauged the right’s reaction to the ruling, and one of her guests went as far to suggest that Roberts should resign from the bench.

Oh my! Vote contrary to what some people think and get impeached! Wow. If a liberal voted with the conservatives he'd be crowned an enlightened hero! What hypocracy.

And you didn't really reference Laura Ingraham as your wonderful source? What an amazing waste of protoplasym she is. Comes across as an empty headed sound box who thinks she is so far superior to the rest of humanity. I bet every night she dresses up like Queen Elizabeth and looks in the mirror, hoping she will wake up as royalty one day.

The scary part is while Beck uses hate to get rich, Ingraham seems to believe her trash.

PS: I am against the Obama health care law so my comments are not because I agreed with the vote.

[joe bloe]

Originally Posted by Old-T

Oh my! Vote contrary to what some people think and get impeached! Wow. If a liberal voted with the conservatives he'd be crowned an enlightened hero! What hypocracy.

And you didn't really reference Laura Ingraham as your wonderful source? What an amazing waste of protoplasym she is. Comes across as an empty headed sound box who thinks she is so far superior to the rest of humanity. I bet every night she dresses up like Queen Elizabeth and looks in the mirror, hoping she will wake up as royalty one day.

The scary part is while Beck uses hate to get rich, Ingraham seems to believe her trash.

PS: I am against the Obama health care law so my comments are not because I agreed with the vote.

The best source for what really happened behind the scenes at SCOTUS is CBS News. If you're interested in learning, instead of just insulting people for fun, you should read the article I'm providing a link to. It's the Washington Post, hardly a right wing newspaper.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...JRIW_blog.html

[Old-T]

I have read it. I take much of it to be likely true. I am not in favor of people making important decisions that way, and I think Roberts is a very poor example of a Chief Justice.

But to be shocked that such thinking happens is to be naieve. Politics--both partisan and otherwise--is supposed to be absent on the SC, but it never has been. I ridiculed the "impeach Roberts" thread this time, but I would be equally harsh on the Libs calling for the impeachment of one of their own in like circumstances.

To impeach a justice because they didn't vote as you wanted (and as I said, I am against the OHC law so I was not pleased by the ruling) says we don't really believe in our system of justice. The justices are people--and they do some good things and some bad. I would be far more upset with a justice who felt obliged to vote "with his party".

Roberts was a political gamesmanship appointee. There was essentially nothing showing he should have been appointed chief justice when he was by Bush. He was marginally qualified to be a justice at all from what I heard from DOJ Republicans. We are living with yet another less-than-the-best on the bench, and now those who put him there want a redo?

[pyramider]

If they get rid of Roberts somehow ... can they get rid of Thomas, Scalia, and Kennedy, too?

[CJ7]

does it worry anyone else that a SC judge can remain in office for so long theyre too old to wipe their own ass but have the power to issue opinions and make rulings that effect the entire country?

it does me.

[CuteOldGuy]

I do not want Roberts impeached because I disagree with his decision. The thought of him being impeached did not come up until we learned that he changed his mind due to political pressure. He does not have the fortitude or judicial temperament to be on the Court.