Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 9
Posted: 7/1/2012 1:00:57 PM EDT
Wonder what the payoff was?  Had to be BIG to corrupt the Chief Justice.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:01:47 PM EDT
He was client number 10.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:02:54 PM EDT
Wonder if Obama threatened his family.  
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:04:45 PM EDT
He probably woke to a masked goon in his bedroom hold a picture of one of his sleeping children and bearing a warning.

Its the chicago way.

Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:04:54 PM EDT
I have thought from the very first that he was threatened in some way.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:04:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SeanR:
Wonder if Obama threatened his family.  



Just his dog.

Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:07:41 PM EDT
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.



Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:08:15 PM EDT
Somebody threatened to wok his dog.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:08:37 PM EDT
Why threaten Roberts though? Why not Kennedy, the more likely (before then) to go left?
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:08:48 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:09:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dog-meat:
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.





So you preserve the integrity of the Court by selling out?

Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:09:37 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dog-meat:
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.





if he buckled to media coverage he has absolutely no business being the chief justice on the supreme court,   fucking weakling

Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:09:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mikebiker:
I have thought from the very first that he was threatened in some way.


this is what i have been asking also
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:09:47 PM EDT
That makes this all the more interesting.



I really want to know what happened to make Roberts change his opinion and violate the very beliefs he has espoused up to this point.



Was he coerced in some way?





I really think that we need to get to the bottom of this.
CJ
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:10:53 PM EDT
Think we can get two-thirds of the senate in the next election?
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:12:14 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:13:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By dog-meat:
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.





It was a moment of truth for John Roberts, a longtime pillar of the Washington legal establishment, a member of the ultra-posh Chevy Chase Club, and someone who acquaintances say cares deeply about how he is portrayed in the press.


http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/27/john-roberts-faces-historic-moment-of-truth-as-supreme-court-confronts-obamacare.html
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:13:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:13:31 PM EDT
Originally Posted By South_Side_Shooter:
Think we can get two-thirds of the senate in the next election?


The fear of God in all of em would be enough.  Worked for the court.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:15:33 PM EDT
This has been incredibly interesting.  I hope the House does move to overturn to get a last vote on taxes before the election.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:16:03 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AR-180:
This has been incredibly interesting.  I hope the House does move to overturn to get a last vote on taxes before the election.


Even if the law is overturned, we can't overturn the expansion of the taxing authority.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:16:17 PM EDT




Originally Posted By bcsoeod:



if he buckled to media coverage he has absolutely no business being the chief justice on the supreme court, fucking weakling





Exactly. Impeach Justice Roberts.

Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:16:22 PM EDT
More like selling out to prevent people seeing you in a bad light...................with no proof that they will see you in any other light


Originally Posted By chupacabras:
Originally Posted By dog-meat:
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.





So you preserve the integrity of the Court by selling out?



Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:17:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bcsoeod:
Originally Posted By dog-meat:
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.





if he buckled to media coverage he has absolutely no business being the chief justice on the supreme court,   fucking weakling



LOL.  So, Bush's fault?
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:19:42 PM EDT
The fucker needs to be impeached.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:21:40 PM EDT
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By AR-180:
This has been incredibly interesting.  I hope the House does move to overturn to get a last vote on taxes before the election.


Even if the law is overturned, we can't overturn the expansion of the taxing authority.


Yes... we can.  
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:22:49 PM EDT
elections have consequences.

bush passed mccain feingold believing it to be unconstitutional, hoping the SCOTUS would bail him out.

The SCOTUS is becoming the whiping boy to take pressure off politicians to do the right thing.

Not the SCOTUS's job.

If you don't like Roe v. Wade, you shouldn't have a problem with what Robert's did.

If the law can be passed democratically, it can be repealed democratically.

The fact is congress easily has the power to pass a law that states the medicare is extended to all people living in america.  It lacks the political capital or public will to do so.  You want a supreme court to just rule, "all americans have the right to free universal health coverage paid for by the public treasury?"

quit bitching about the court, start fighting politically.  bunch of slack jawed faggots around here.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:22:51 PM EDT
Originally Posted By South_Side_Shooter:
Think we can get two-thirds of the senate in the next election?


Not ginna happen. Especially with the boys from chicago counting votes.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:24:14 PM EDT


Now if congress were serious they would start impeachment hearings first thing Monday morning.







Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:24:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Rogue-Sasquatch:
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By AR-180:
This has been incredibly interesting.  I hope the House does move to overturn to get a last vote on taxes before the election.


Even if the law is overturned, we can't overturn the expansion of the taxing authority.


Yes... we can.  


Only by a constitutional amendment or taking another case to the supreme court.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:25:08 PM EDT
Which Justice was it that had their vacation bungalow robbed not too long ago?

Between that convenient little robbery, and the break ins of the guys involved with Fast and Furious, I'm really starting to distrust my government. And that is a very bad thing for me.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:25:14 PM EDT
I fail to see how stepping out of the bounds of the supreme courts function, to determine constitutionality of the law, preserves the integrity of the court.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:26:57 PM EDT



Originally Posted By Sylvan:


elections have consequences.



bush passed mccain feingold believing it to be unconstitutional, hoping the SCOTUS would bail him out.



The SCOTUS is becoming the whiping boy to take pressure off politicians to do the right thing.



Not the SCOTUS's job.



If you don't like Roe v. Wade, you shouldn't have a problem with what Robert's did.



If the law can be passed democratically, it can be repealed democratically.



The fact is congress easily has the power to pass a law that states the medicare is extended to all people living in america.  It lacks the political capital or public will to do so.  You want a supreme court to just rule, "all americans have the right to free universal health coverage paid for by the public treasury?"



quit bitching about the court, start fighting politically.  bunch of slack jawed faggots around here.


This.

 
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:28:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/1/2012 3:10:44 PM EDT by SIRIUS1]
He faked his other position until the situation was clear and then he played the card that he was put there to play. In my opinion that vote and the result of his decison was the plan all along. Consider the outcome of his last to decisions and exactly who's agenda it benefits..

Just another couple more important peices of the puzzle.

You don't have to coerce the willing.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:28:25 PM EDT
Originally Posted By FlyingIllini:
The fucker needs to be impeached.



Just needs an update.

Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:29:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bcsoeod:
Originally Posted By dog-meat:
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As Chief Justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the Court, and he also is sensitive to how the Court is perceived by the public.

There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the Court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the Court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the President himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.





if he buckled to media coverage he has absolutely no business being the chief justice on the supreme court,   fucking weakling



I read the entire article and agree with this assesment.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:29:41 PM EDT
Sotamayor and Kegan immediately informed Team Obama (Valerie Jarrett & her worker's party handler) that the socialist NHS had been defeated by SCOTUS.  Remember, they were openly laughing at Obama's attorney during the oral arguments, as broadcast on radio for the whole Nation to hear.

This was when Team Obama was switching back and forth on calling the Law a Tax, versus not a Tax.

Do you think it's coincidence that Roberts made sure it was called a Tax in his written decision?

Where do you suppose the pressure came from?

And why was Elena Kagan allowed to even include herself on this vote, since she helped advise the WH on the fricken thing?

It's like FDR all over again.  Racist justices appointed to rubber-stamp an international worker's party pile of oppressive, anti-Ameican crap, and even that didn't work, so they strong-armed Roberts somehow.  Isn't Roberts the one who swore Obama in, but the ceremony didn't follow protocol, so they assured us it was done in the WH out of view?
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:30:55 PM EDT
What an asshole...

Roberts is even more contemptible to me than Sotomayor or Kagan, at least those two stick to their statist convictions.


Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:31:22 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:32:28 PM EDT
The court is corrupt.

The fed govt has the power to tax.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it have the power to force the individual to buy a product or service or tax the individual for not doing something that is mandted.

The collection of income tax required an amendment to the constitution, the collection of tax as a condition of not buying a private product from a private company does not?

The Constitution is dead.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:34:44 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SIRIUS1:
He faked his other position until the situation was clear and then he played the card that he was put there to play. In my opinion that vote and the rsult of his decison was the paln all along.

You don't have to coerce the willing.


I can't help but think he was waiting for something his whole career. IMO, now that he has unmasked, he will be a reliable vote for the left side of the aisle.

Scary to think of that from here on out, the court may very well be shifted to the left. Something to think about for any future 2A cases that make their way to the SCOTUS. Also downright frightening to think that Zero (if he gets a second term, will be able to really stack the court).



Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:35:19 PM EDT
Originally Posted By c0t0d0s0:
Originally Posted By AR-180:
This has been incredibly interesting.  I hope the House does move to overturn to get a last vote on taxes before the election.


Even if the law is overturned, we can't overturn the expansion of the taxing authority.


Give it time.  All it's going to take is for the Republicans to introduce a bill taxing some inactivity that will make the left collectively shit their pants and the court will fix that right up.  This thing isn't over by a long shot.  

Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:35:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
That makes this all the more interesting.

I really want to know what happened to make Roberts change his opinion and violate the very beliefs he has espoused up to this point.

Was he coerced in some way?


I really think that we need to get to the bottom of this.



CJ

Yep...lets get the AG on it

Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:35:36 PM EDT
Question, for anyone who might know:



Is it even possible for a Supreme Court justice to reverse his decision retroactively?





If not, under what provision of the law do you make that determination?





I see that the activities of the Supreme Court seem to be mostly at their own discretion.   Within their authority to determine

the Constitutionality of existing laws,  they seem to have great latitude to do things as they please.



With this in mind,  can a justice change his mind after the fact and thus change the decision?






Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:35:52 PM EDT
Originally Posted By callgood:
Originally Posted By FlyingIllini:
The fucker needs to be impeached.



Just needs an update.

http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2011-10/65418124.jpg


warren did EXACTLY what everyone is stating Robert's should have done.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:36:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By skygod:

Originally Posted By Sylvan:
elections have consequences.

bush passed mccain feingold believing it to be unconstitutional, hoping the SCOTUS would bail him out.

The SCOTUS is becoming the whiping boy to take pressure off politicians to do the right thing.

Not the SCOTUS's job.

If you don't like Roe v. Wade, you shouldn't have a problem with what Robert's did.

If the law can be passed democratically, it can be repealed democratically.

The fact is congress easily has the power to pass a law that states the medicare is extended to all people living in america.  It lacks the political capital or public will to do so.  You want a supreme court to just rule, "all americans have the right to free universal health coverage paid for by the public treasury?"

quit bitching about the court, start fighting politically.  bunch of slack jawed faggots around here.

This.  


+87
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:40:02 PM EDT
Originally Posted By krpind:
Originally Posted By cmjohnson:
I really think that we need to get to the bottom of this.


I'm not sure how that could even be attempted much less accomplished.


Yeah, I'm sure Holder will be right on it...
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:42:38 PM EDT
Originally Posted By pcsutton:

Originally Posted By bcsoeod:

if he buckled to media coverage he has absolutely no business being the chief justice on the supreme court, fucking weakling


Exactly. Impeach Justice Roberts.


Based on what? The fact that you disagree with him?
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:42:54 PM EDT
Future votes by Roberts will tell if he has become a Souter or just had a temporary mental illness.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:43:59 PM EDT
The fact that the POTUS has Handed put over 1200 waivers to individual companies exempting them from federal law and nobody does anything about it shows how corrupt the government is.
Link Posted: 7/1/2012 1:44:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr_Happyface:
What an asshole...

Roberts is even more contemptible to me than Sotomayor or Kagan, at least those two stick to their statist convictions.


Notice how the leftist judges never break ranks or "evolve" their positions.  Always just the "conservative" ones.  

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 9
Top Top