.
Update: Re: the NY Times, Chief Justice Roberts
gave ObamaCare to the NY Times, he took 20% of the economy out of the private sector and moved it to the sector that runs the postal service.
But the NY Times says that's nothing. They still despise him because he didn't give them the Commerce Clause. This is the problem with trying to please the NY Times. They are deeply intolerant of others' views. Apparently they also feel the courts belong to them. If they are this angry after winning ObamaCare, it obviously
would have been a bit worse had they lost. Most of the world's billionaires finance far left causes the Times favors. But that doesn't count. You can twist yourself into a pretzel trying to please the NY Times. Unless you're a vicious, hateful person you won't succeed:
6/30/12, "
The Radical Supreme Court," NY Times Editorial (text posted below post)
--------------------------------------------------------
If the
NY Times and Washington Post did not exist, this country would have a chance.
6/29/12,
"How the Media Convinced Justice Roberts To Be 2012's Kathleen Parker," Breitbart Big Journalism, John Nolte
"
We all saw how the media reacted yesterday.
Overnight, Chief Justice John Roberts went from a pariah to, literally in the eyes of the media,
one of the great justices in the history of the Court. We also saw how the media
suddenly found the dreaded 5-4 Supreme Court decision perfectly acceptable. Do not make the mistake of thinking that what you witnessed yesterday was some sort of bias or double standard. It wasn't. It was a payoff to a tactic
the media's been using for years to co-opt narcissistic Republicans desperate for affirmation....
A number of conservatives whom I respect and admire and who are admittedly smarter than I am (low bar) have found a way to defend Chief Justice John Roberts' decision to side with the liberal wing of the Court and uphold ObamaCare. They wonder if Roberts wasn't playing some four-level game of chess that managed to both limit the Commerce Clause and, by outing the mandate for what it really is – a massive tax increase and redistribution of wealth – ensure Barack Obama's defeat in November.
Granted,
with the largest tax increase in history now on the November ballot, if the Romney people play it right, Obama losing his job might very well be the result.
But what Roberts really did was to abuse his power in a way that sets two precedents all freedom-loving people should find literally terrifying.
First, he told Congress that it may now tax us for standing still, for doing absolutely nothing. We can now be taxed simply for being born.
Second, Roberts rewrote the ObamaCare legislation from the bench -- literally. He turned what Congress described in its law as a mandate into a tax as a way around the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court is all about tradition and precedent.
To save ObamaCare, Roberts rewrote it, and you can bet that we will now see this kind of appalling behavior again.
Yesterday, Chief Justice John Roberts sold out the Constitution, his ideology, his word, his country, and his sacred duty.
And today he is the Kathleen Parker of 2012.
For those of you who might not remember,
Kathleen Parker is the "conservative" columnist who in 2008 sold her soul to the mainstream media. Even though our vice presidential nominee, Sarah Palin, had infinitely more political and executive experience than the other side's presidential nominee, Barack Obama, in the heat of the election,
Parker still wrote a column stating Palin should step down as the nominee. -- who reaffirmed their narrative and, for her treachery and to ensure the other narcissists among us see how such things pay off, the Devil
rewarded Kathleen Parker with instant fame and riches. Across the media landscape, she was heralded as brave and brilliant. Soon she would be
handed a Pulitzer and her own primetime CNN program.
Like Jim Jeffords, David Frum, Joe Scarborough, Meghan McCain, and now John Roberts, Parker gave in to the media's siren song,
which goes a little something like this:
They're wrong about us. We don't hate you, we don't hate conservatives. No one's asking you to stop being conservative. We would never ask that. All we're asking for is this one thing. And it's only a little thing, a small thing, a baby step. What harm can it do -- this small thing? Who can it hurt? And look at what you get in return. We'll love you. We'll adore. We'll give you affection, acceptance, and stamp your courage into the history books. It's warm here and there are cookies and before you decide, I want you to sit back, close your eyes, and just imagine what it's going to feel like to see your name heralded all across the media, academia and beyond…if you'll just do this one little thing.
Of course, that "one little thing" is always everything, isn't it?
Jeffords tipped the balance in the Senate and overnight Roberts evaporated the most potent criticism of Obama, his incompetence.
To this day, Scarborough, Frum, Meggie Mac, and Parker
continue to reaffirm the most damaging media-created narratives about conservatives: Palin is dumb, Fox News is extreme, Republicans have sold out to the extreme Right, and
- of course racism, homophobia, and blah blah blah.
Over the last few months,
Obama's Media Palace Guards weren't bullying or beating up on Justice Roberts. What they were doing was offering him a deal that he grabbed with both hands. And what you saw and will continue to see is the media fulfilling its end of the deal.
And somewhere out there is another narcissist among us watching how a such "small" betrayal can pay off in such a big way, and swaying back and forth to the sound of the siren's song."
=============================
After reading this I see Roberts on top of everything else is passive-aggressive:
The writer had a chance in 2010 to hear the great Justice Roberts speak about the weather:
"I was excited about the opportunity to see the head of one of the three coequal branches of government in person --
especially in an academic setting, ripe for debate, ideas, and insights on how things really work at the seat of power. I was really looking forward to hearing the kind of Socratic give-and-take Justice Scalia and Judge Bork are known for when they visit colleges and law schools.
I was sorely disappointed.
The event was not a "lecture"; it was formatted as a conversation between the chief and a moderator on a stage in front of about 1,300 people in the Koessler Center, the college's basketball arena.
Virtually all of it was trivia, minutiae, and nonsense -- sort of like watching Jay Leno interviewing some airheaded Hollywood actress on The Tonight Show. The chief prattled on about the weather in Buffalo, the fine print on prescriptions, etc., etc.
When the moderator asked Roberts if he had a judicial philosophy in approaching cases and he replied that he "really didn't have any," I got up and left. Listening to Roberts was a complete waste of my time.
I came away with the distinct impression that Roberts was a milquetoast, country-club Republican who had gotten to his station in life by having impeccable Harvard credentials and sitting around the clubhouse after the golf game and chatting amiably with the other lawyers and never saying anything even slightly controversial or partisan. Roberts seemed like the master of pleasing everyone all the time by saying nothing of substance."
=============================
"John McCain's main constituency is the New York Times Editorial Board." Jed Babbin on the John Batchelor Show, Monday night 6/20/11, about 11:26PM.
-----------------------------
1/17/11, "
China-style dictatorship of climatologists," Washington Times, Patrick Michaels
-----------------------------------
9/8/09, "Our One-Party Democracy ," Tom Friedman, NY Times
.
"One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks.
But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party
can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed
to move a society forward in the 21st century."...
=====================
5/22/11,
Jeb Bush praises Obama, lectures conservatives
=====================
6/19/12,
Scott Walker and Marco Rubio rebuke Jeb Bush
=====================
If we raise our voice above a whisper, a greasy
slob like Jeb Bush smacks us across the face. Or someone like
Mitt Romney says we're 'excitable' and he's not going to '
light his hair on fire' for us.
..............
------------------------------------
2/28/12, "
Romney, Acknowledging Mistakes, Says He Won’t Say ‘Outrageous’ Things to Win," ABC News, The Note
"
Mitt Romney vowed that he would
not “light his hair on fire” just to rally the conservative base, even if it means not winning the GOP nomination.
“You know it’s very easy to excite the base with incendiary comments,” said Romney. “We’ve seen throughout the campaign that if you’re willing to say really outrageous things that are accusatory and attacking President Obama that you’re going to jump up in the polls. You know, I’m not willing to light my hair on fire
- to try and get support. I am who I am.”"
==========================
............
Rush Limbaugh: Conservatives have played by the rules yet are laughed at everywhere they look. "Nobody fights back for 'em."
.................
-----------------------------
..................
The NY Times editorial after the ObamaCare ruling is beyond sick. Without the NY Times, this country would have a chance.
.....................
................
6/30/12,
"The Radical Supreme Court," NY Times Editorial
..............................
"
The Supreme Court’s landmark decision upholding the Affordable Care Act was a deft turn by Chief Justice John Roberts Jr., who voted with the court’s four moderate liberals
for the first time in a 5-to-4 ruling. Yet, while they upheld the law’s mandate for individuals to buy insurance under Congress’s taxing power, the chief justice joined the four other conservatives to reject that provision under the Constitution’s commerce clause.
...................
That rejection underscores the aggressiveness of the majority’s conservatism and marks a stunning departure from the long-established legal consensus that Congress has broad power to regulate the economy.
....................
The court’s conservatism calls to mind the defiance of the court in the 1930s when it regularly struck down New Deal statutes during the Great Depression. But there are important differences. The 1930s court saw itself as preserving established precedents and principles. The Roberts majority does not have that conservative role. Nor does it play the role of the 1960s court, whose rulings reinforced a relatively liberal trend in politics.
....................
The current conservatives are not preserving a tradition or articulating a new social consensus. Instead, as the
legal historian Robert W. Gordon put it, they have regularly been radical innovators, aggressively stepping into political issues to empower the court itself.
.........................
The majority took that approach this term in the politically charged fields of union governance and campaign finance regulation. In a
union dues case, it broke a court rule by deciding an issue that was not presented in the case and went out of its way to take the side of right-to-work laws, which have been the subject of bitter political debate. On campaign finance, it
overturned the Montana Supreme Court
ruling in favor of the state’s anticorruption law without hearing oral argument or considering a substantial factual record. In doing so, it extended to state campaign finance regulation the Citizens United
ruling, which allows corporations and unions to spend freely in elections, the Roberts court’s most devastating decision.
.....................
The court took a similar path in retreating from the constitutional right of criminal defendants to confront witnesses against them in cases involving
forensic evidence. It refused to follow recent precedents, which say clearly that defendants must be allowed to cross-examine crime lab analysts responsible for forensic tests.
The term’s statistics belie the fractiousness of the court, which decided almost half its cases by 9 to 0. (Many involve technical legal issues, and sometimes the justices’ different legal approaches lead them to the same result.)
.....................
In some important cases, with one or two conservatives going over to the moderate side, the majority reached conclusions that went against the court’s conservative politics. It held that criminal defendants had
a right to effective lawyers during plea negotiations; that three of four provisions of Arizona’s deplorable immigration law were
pre-empted by federal law; and that mandatory life without parole for juveniles was
cruel and unusual punishment. While Justice Anthony Kennedy is clearly a conservative, his inner compass sometimes leads him to vote with the court’s moderate liberals, as in the right-to-counsel, immigration and juveniles cases.
..........................
Six full terms after Justice Samuel Alito Jr. joined the court, the five in the majority have redefined judicial conservatism. The contrast in style and philosophy with the moderate minority is pronounced, including the conservatives’ willingness to flout court rules, constraints of precedent and well-established practices of legal reasoning to reach results they seek.
.......................
It is no wonder that the court’s standing in
public opinion polls is at its lowest level in a quarter of a century, with just one in eight Americans believing that the justices decide cases based only on legal analysis.
Justice Elena Kagan
said last month, dissenting in the crime lab evidence case, that the conservative majority sometimes forsakes “precedent-based decision making,” which guides lower court judges and provides predictability in the justice system. The court reached the right result on the Affordable Care Act, but that ruling was not a sign of change in
a strident conservative majority."
...........................
----------------------------------------------
Ed. note: Please excuse the bright white background behind part of this post. It was put there by hackers I've had for several years.
.
No comments:
Post a Comment