Partisanship v. Law | Chief Justice Roberts versus Right Wing Ideologues

Discussion in 'Law and Justice System' started by Dante, Jun 30, 2012.

  1. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Partisanship v. Law | Chief Justice Roberts versus Right Wing Ideologues

    I have seen posts, by right wing ideologues, all over the world wide web accusing Chief Justice Roberts of choosing the other side. This is odd since most people understand the Courts' Justices are sworn to uphold law, not partisan sides. Justices owe NO allegiance to any person, any party, or to any ideology.

    What does the right in America desire? Partisan hacks on the federal bench? It seems so. So much for talk of principles and support for the US Constitution. What about the American flag and all it stands for? How can any honest and decent right winger ever fly the American flag without betraying their hypocrisy?

    There are more than a few reasonable, rational, and respected conservatives on this message board, and they know who they are. How do they feel about their compatriots? About not only their expected meltdown, but of the high profile public exposure of their contempt for over 200 years of American values and traditions?

    :confused:

    with respect and sadness for all the true conservatives here at USMB
    :cool:
    Dante

    note: GOP Senator Tom Coburn has said "We have said it was a tax all along." So why are right wing ideologues and the GOP upset at the Court agreeing with them?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2012
  2. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    For all you partisan right wingers out there, you have become exactly what you profess to hate. How sad is that? All partisan fighting aside, how could you demand that a partisan fight in the Courts require our sworn Justices take partisan sides instead or ruling with dignity and respect for American law and the American judicial system?

    I know from experience you have no shame, but I didn't know you had absolutely no love of our country and it's values and traditions.

    :(

    note: GOP Senator Tom Coburn has said "We have said it was a tax all along." So why are right wing ideologues and the GOP upset at the Court agreeing with them?
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2012
  3. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    137,190
    Thanks Received:
    12,326
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,489
    The far right extremist and some libertarians have an absolute hatred of constitutional, judicial, and electoral process if they don't get their way. They in no way represent the great heart and spirit of American Republicanism that loves the flag and the Constitution.

    And have no doubt about it: if far right extremist and some libertarians ever get the power they want, they will bring a hitlerian era to America.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  4. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    :clap2:

    Like I've told you, I respect conservatives and Republicans I know. We may not see eye to eye on some things, okay on most things, but we all have a healthy respect for American institutions, traditions and values that have allowed millions of Americans to bridge their differences in civil and respectful ways. There was an American Civil War, and that was a sad and horrific period in our nation's history, but we did our best to move beyond that with forgiveness and fairness and even with respect for unsettled differences that war could not and would not totally heal.

    We have great traditions and values to fall back on to guide us through times like this, but at times like this history demands profiles in courage. People who will stand for all that is fair and honest and right.

    Where are our profiles in courage? I don't know, but I do believe with all my heart that they are out there, maybe even in here, waiting to answer the call -- the call of courage.

    :cool:


    note: GOP Senator Tom Coburn has said "We have said it was a tax all along." So why are right wing ideologues and the GOP upset at the Court agreeing with them?
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2012
  5. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    What conservative principle did Roberts violate?

    The Republicans who challenged the law...said the power to regulate commerce does not permit the government to require people to "engage in commerce." If so, they said, the federal government could require everyone to buy healthy vegetables like broccoli, join a health club or buy an American-made car...The oral arguments focused on the argument over the meaning of the Constitution's commerce clause, and the court's conservative majority peppered Verrilli with skeptical questions on that topic. The tax argument got little attention...Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said the court had a duty to uphold an act of Congress if there was a constitutional basis for doing so.
    Scorned after oral arguments on healthcare, Verrilli emerges a winner - latimes.com

    not a one.

    well that's it for now.

    I hope you people take a close look at what is going on around us.

    later
    :cool:
    dD


    note: GOP Senator Tom Coburn has said "We have said it was a tax all along." So why are right wing ideologues and the GOP upset at the Court agreeing with them?
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2012
  6. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    It's like the right wing says "We put him in their to do our work, to vote against anything the middle or left wants, even if it is Constitutional." "We wanted Roberts to act like a political partisan fighter, striking down anything that would help this President." "We don't care what he said during his confirmation hearings." "We would not hold him to his promises made before the US Senate and the American public." "We want him to be as politically partisan as can be."

    ---

    During his confirmation hearing, Chief Justice John Roberts promised to work for greater civility and consensus on the court and to look beyond politics in addressing legal issues.

    Read more: Roberts's Ruling Showed Restraint, Checked Congressional Power | The Health Care Decision: Deliverance or Disaster? | TIME Ideas | TIME.com



    note: GOP Senator Tom Coburn has said "We have said it was a tax all along." So why are right wing ideologues and the GOP upset at the Court agreeing with them?
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2012
  7. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,849
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,863
    I think You too should get a room.
     
  8. Intense
    Offline

    Intense Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2009
    Messages:
    44,909
    Thanks Received:
    5,849
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +5,863
    Or we could say that we expect Him to hold up the Constitution. The Tax that is not a Tax, That is a Tax Argument, may beat the Dog ate my homework argument, granted, but it does appear lame. Obama still says it's not a Tax. All this makes total sense to you both, granted. To those that view Statist Progressivism, as a Threat to Individual Liberty, (I know all of the syllables here confuse you, so I apologize for using big words and complex thought patterns here, but I need to, to make my point), a conflict with Free Will. We end up in the long run spending more time paying for other peoples selfish mistakes, and less time in our own pursuits. This encourages more wrongful action from the Something for nothing, hordes, while transferring the true cost away from the decision makers, on to pretty much anyone still generating income independent of you. That is the real purpose here, that and Control. Why not seek treatment for these destructive Control issues instead? How Many Trillion will be enough each year to satisfy your hunger? You can't print enough, you can't even account for what you already spend.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  9. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    who says we don't already share one, our IPs? :eusa_whistle:
     
  10. Dante
    Offline

    Dante On leave Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2008
    Messages:
    52,463
    Thanks Received:
    3,324
    Trophy Points:
    1,825
    Location:
    On leave
    Ratings:
    +6,054
    Free Will? Some recent groundbreaking science questions that even exists. :lmao:

    btw, thanks for your concern about what you view as big words and complex thought patterns. Where I come from (a big, complex city overflowing with educational institutions big and small thoughts and ideas that have helped the world progress...) your words and thought patterns are quite pedestrian. :eusa_whistle:

    ...

    thank you :clap2: thank you for a prime example of what I posit

    Am I correct in stating: "You want the Court to function according to an interpretation of what it's role and responsibilities." because if not we have a problem. The Founding Fathers and the Framers argued over what exactly the Court's role and responsibilities are, especially during the Marshall Court.

    If so, can we agree the main role of the Court is to function as a complete and separate, independent branch of government?

    1) In your first sentence, you state that right wing ideologues (you self-identify as one with your use of 'we' in your fist sentence), 'expect' the Chief Justice to 'hold' the Constitution, methinks you meant right wing ideologues want Chief Justice Roberts to uphold the Constitution. Yes? :eusa_whistle:

    2) You argue Chief Justice Roberts opinion that the mandate is a tax, that it functions as a tax, is a tax argument and not truly a tax? You also argue that Robert's opinion that it is a tax is partly negated because President Obama's stated opinion is that the mandate is not a tax.

    What the President says in public speeches and conversations is not a legal argument. The legal argument Obama's Solicitor General made before the Court -- pay attention here -- posited that the Court must look at the mandate as a tax, if the Court ruled the commerce clause out.

    If you bothered to read the Court's opinion, in addition to your regular diet of right wing blogs and news for talking points, you'd see where Robert's based his opinion on the arguments made by the Solicitor General, and Court precedent. The precedents referred to are cited as is the norm with Court rulings.

    What about the simple and clear words and thought patterns in the two statements below, do you construe to be evidence of abdication of constitutional duty and responsibilities?

    In pressing it's taxing power argument, the Government asks the Court to view the mandate as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.

    Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices. - Chief Justice John Roberts



    note: GOP Senator Tom Coburn has said "We have said it was a tax all along." So why are right wing ideologues and the GOP upset at the Court agreeing with them?
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2012

Share This Page