- Sep 19, 2011
- 28,407
- 9,984
- 900
And last term, what Roberts has described as the chief justice’s “particular obligation to try to achieve consensus” paid off.
Obamacare threatens to end John Roberts s dream of a nonpartisan Supreme Court - The Washington Post
Really? "Consensus" the objective? What happened to abiding by basic principles?
I can have consensus with a Obama/liberal/progressive person IF the principles I adhere to are the measuring stick for the decision.
In other words "consensus" for the sake of "consensus" is totally stupid.
The objective of the SCOTUS should be to make decisions based on adherance to mutual principles.
For example the "Thou shalt not kill" is a principle that almost every principled person adheres to.
But as the case of Roberts and ACA, the objective was to gain consensus... and NOT determine if ACA adhered to fundamental principles of the United States!
"Consensus" was the objective...not getting it right!
Obamacare threatens to end John Roberts s dream of a nonpartisan Supreme Court - The Washington Post
Really? "Consensus" the objective? What happened to abiding by basic principles?
I can have consensus with a Obama/liberal/progressive person IF the principles I adhere to are the measuring stick for the decision.
In other words "consensus" for the sake of "consensus" is totally stupid.
The objective of the SCOTUS should be to make decisions based on adherance to mutual principles.
For example the "Thou shalt not kill" is a principle that almost every principled person adheres to.
But as the case of Roberts and ACA, the objective was to gain consensus... and NOT determine if ACA adhered to fundamental principles of the United States!
"Consensus" was the objective...not getting it right!
