A few cases to watch in this SCOTUS term

posted at 12:31 pm on September 30, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Two branches of the federal government – the legislative and executive – have long since checked out and are now working full time to try to save their jobs for the next month or so. But the remaining branch, The Supreme Court, is heading back to work this week, hopefully oblivious to the noise on the election radar. (In theory, at least.) They’ve got a very busy schedule ahead of them, and this summary from Adam Liptak provides some background information on the highlights and lowlights to come. Here are a few that will doubtless provide a ton of controversy and outrage when the decisions finally come down.

Affirmative Action

Fisher v. University of Texas has the potential, though not the certainty, to mark a drastic change to the policy of race based quotas in college admissions. Ms. Fisher is challenging a system in Texas which left her behind when attempting to gain entry to the state university. But had she not been white, according to the complaint, she would have gotten in. The Supremes might deliver a fairly narrow decision which either upholds the current system for that one state or makes slight modifications to create a more level playing field. But they could also swing for the fences and strike down the entire idea of acceptance based on profiles rather than academic achievement in high school.

Same Sex Marriage

The justices will also decide whether or not to hear two cases affecting the gay marriage debate. One of them is a challenge to portions of DOMA which forbid the granting of certain benefits to partners in same sex marriages. The other, Hollingsworth v Perry, deals with Prop 8 in California and seeks a decision rendering the entire question of the states defining marriage in this fashion unconstitutional. Some of the close observers of the courts I’ve been reading seem to think that they will pass on the latter case, but may well take up the challenge to DOMA, setting the stage for a real firestorm on the political backfield.

International Boundaries of Law

Finally, in one of the very first cases to be considered in this term, the court will look at Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum. Here’s a brief synapses … or synopsis if you prefer…. (ed)

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum Co. is a lawsuit brought against Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., Shell Transport & Trading Co., Plc, and its wholly owned subsidiary Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd (SPDC). The suit was brought on behalf of the late Dr. Barinem Kiobel – an outspoken Ogoni leader and eleven other Nigerians from the Ogoni area of the Niger Delta. The putative class action sought damages and other relief for crimes against humanity, including torture and extrajudicial executions, and other international law violations committed with defendants’ assistance and complicity between 1992 and 1995 against the Ogoni people.

The real impact of this case is not the fate of the Ogoni people, as tragic as the story appears. We’ll be watching this one to determine if the Supreme Court feels that it is within the bounds of their authority to pass judgement on behalf of people who are not American citizens, living on another continent, against actions which also took place off our shores. Action in this case could open to the doors to a slew of similar actions which could occupy the court’s time for decades to come.

But as Liptak notes, people will be watching other things than just the outcome of specific cases. They’ll be looking for secret signals regarding the disposition of Chief Justice John Roberts after that little… “incident” earlier this year.

The term will also provide signals about the repercussions of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s surprise decision in June to join the court’s four more liberal members and supply the decisive fifth vote in the landmark decision to uphold President Obama’s health care law. Every decision of the new term will be scrutinized for signs of whether Chief Justice Roberts, who had been a reliable member of the court’s conservative wing, has moved toward the ideological center of the court.

“The salient question is: Is it a little bit, or is it a lot?” said Paul D. Clement, a lawyer for the 26 states on the losing side of the core of the health care decision.

The term could clarify whether the health care ruling will come to be seen as the case that helped Chief Justice Roberts protect the authority of his court against charges of partisanship while accruing a mountain of political capital in the process. He and his fellow conservative justices might then run the table on the causes that engage him more than the limits of federal power ever have: cutting back on racial preferences, on campaign finance restrictions and on procedural protections for people accused of crimes.

I think he may be reading a tad too much into this. I would hope that each and every case is unique and gets its own hearing before the justices. Looking for patterns and pigeonholes doesn’t seem to be particularly predictive in terms of what will happen over the course of the next decades while Roberts rules the court.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Not much to watch here. We know Roberts will vote with the liberals like the coward he is.

earlgrey133 on September 30, 2012 at 12:33 PM

This next term will likely confirm that Chief Justice Roberts is the second coming of David Souter.

I hope not, but history suggests that judges become more liberal over time, and never more conservative.

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 12:34 PM

OT- But is the Facebook experiment over?

CW on September 30, 2012 at 12:35 PM

Don’t know about you, but I am so looking forward to another term of this court in anticipation of even greater examples of their judicial wisdom and restraint.

natasha333 on September 30, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Don’t know about you, but I am so looking forward to another term of this court in anticipation of even greater examples of their judicial wisdom and restraint.

natasha333 on September 30, 2012 at 12:36 PM

I sense some sarcasm.

CW on September 30, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Don’t know about you, but I am so looking forward to another term of this court in anticipation of even greater examples of their judicial wisdom and restraint.

natasha333 on September 30, 2012 at 12:36 PM

Such as, the Regime CAN make “slandering the prophet of islam” illegal under the first amendment if it’s called a TAX (jizya).

Roberts will go for that.

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 12:40 PM

I hope Roberts takes his meds.

SouthernGent on September 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Affirmative Action

If you give advantages to one over another using race one way or another it is wrong.

CW on September 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM

A few cases to watch in this SCOTUS term

All of them, since we now know that Roberts believes his version of the Constitution is much better than the original.

Left Coast Right Mind on September 30, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Roberts will go for that.

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Definitely if they can define it as a tax.
/

CW on September 30, 2012 at 12:42 PM

Affirmative Action

If you give advantages to one over another using race one way or another it is wrong.

CW on September 30, 2012 at 12:41 PM

Some discrimination can’t be legal if other forms are illegal.

Affirmative action never should have been legal. It is a blatant violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 12:43 PM

How can anyone argue that the health care decision protected the authority of the court when all the polls show that the court is more discredited than ever?

JohnJ on September 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Just wait for the debate on the 22A if obambi steals the election. And no, I am not joking.

VegasRick on September 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Roberts will go for that.

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Definitely if they can define it as a tax.
/

CW on September 30, 2012 at 12:42 PM

And we all know that you can be put in prison for owing taxes you can’t pay, right? So Roberts could go along with making speech against mohammed illegal and punishable by imprisonment so long as the jizya tax is more than anyone can possibly pay, say it’s set at total assets+100%. Even billionaires couldn’t pay.

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Such as, the Regime CAN make “slandering the prophet of islam” illegal under the first amendment if it’s called a TAX (jizya).

Roberts will go for that.

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 12:40 PM

Scary because it’s true.

JohnJ on September 30, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Just wait for the debate on the 22A if obambi steals the election. And no, I am not joking.

VegasRick on September 30, 2012 at 12:44 PM

Obama has already nullified whole other sections of the Constitution, including freedom of speech and religion in the 1st Amendment.

So what’s to stop him from claiming the 22nd Amendment doesn’t apply to him?

Hell, he might even be brazen enough to claim that it only applies to natural born US Citizens, but not to him, because he wasn’t!

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 12:46 PM

Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum.…the most vital case on the docket if for no other reason than it may establish (depending on the decision) that foreign citizens overseas, in nations that have their own judicial system, may benefit from the US judicial system to for redress in matters with which the United States has no interest, involvement, jurisdiction, nor business.

Johnson v. Eisentrager established that foreign citizens committing criminal acts overseas, (even against Americans) were not entitled to protection of the US judicial system.

This case, however, even by its merely being on the USSC docket, is tacit approval that any foreigner anywhere in any other jurisdiction can use the US judicial system at will and whim…

Seeking justice?

Not at all.

Opening the door for some sort of super judiciary, one world government, under which we, ourselves, would be subject to foreign judiciaries and sanctioned, fined or imprisoned, for “alleged crimes” committed on US soil by US citizens involving solely US citizens, with absolutely no foreign involvement in the “alleged crime” whatsoever.

And people [other than George Soros and his ilk] are OK with this?

coldwarrior on September 30, 2012 at 12:49 PM

The SCOTUS is not relevant any longer.

Roberts signaled his intent to be nothing but a rubber stamp for Congress and the White House with his support of America’s Death Panel, “ObamadoesntCare”.

*Roberts is the Benedict Arnold of our time.

***But maybe we’ll get Chief Justice Eric Holder in a 2nd Obama term to finish off America more quickly.

PappyD61 on September 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Here’s a brief synapses

LOL.. I knew what you meant. But that works too, Jazz!

Texas Gal on September 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Here’s a brief synapses.

^brief synapses^synposis

SomeCallMeJohn on September 30, 2012 at 12:51 PM

The SCOTUS is not relevant any longer.

Roberts signaled his intent to be nothing but a rubber stamp for Congress and the White House with his support of America’s Death Panel, “ObamadoesntCare”.

*Roberts is the Benedict Arnold of our time.

***But maybe we’ll get Chief Justice Eric Holder in a 2nd Obama term to finish off America more quickly.

PappyD61 on September 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Roberts in many ways is even more dangerous than Barack Obama to the Republic.

We can get rid of Barack Obama in November. We will only be rid of John Roberts when he resigns or dies.

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Electing R&R is of the utmost importance just on the issue of being able to appoint another 1, 2, or possibly 3 SC Justices!

We can NOT HAVE bho going is anti-American evil deed having him appoint, by hook or crook, any new Justices, Period!
L

letget on September 30, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Roberts voted against affirmative against once. But it seems to me Roberts is becoming full Souter.

Let’s not forget Souter was “conservative” his first few terms on the Court before going full lib. (Voted 90% with Rehnquist first 3 years).

Seems Roberts going same direction.

Raquel Pinkbullet on September 30, 2012 at 12:54 PM

Here’s a brief synapses…merely shorthand for there not being a lot of thought behind it? [Especially the particular case in question.]

It works.

:-)

coldwarrior on September 30, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Roberts is a criminal and should be thrown from the courts. He lied and manipulated the law to suit his elitist positions and he lied under oath during his Senate Confirmation.

He is a Ginsberg clone and hide it until he could make a major impact and really shred the Constitution. He is an enemy of the State and needs to be sent away to Leavenworth. That is all.

Tbone McGraw on September 30, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Here’s a brief synapses…merely shorthand for there not being a lot of thought behind it? [Especially the particular case in question.]

It works.

:-)

coldwarrior on September 30, 2012 at 12:55 PM

Lack of functional synapses seems to be a qualifier for the federal judiciary.

We need term limits for judges. NO ONE should be granted a position of power like that for life!

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Roberts voted against affirmative against once. But it seems to me Roberts is becoming full Souter.

Let’s not forget Souter was “conservative” his first few terms on the Court before going full lib. (Voted 90% with Rehnquist first 3 years).

Seems Roberts going same direction.

Raquel Pinkbullet on September 30, 2012 at 12:54 PM

So far Justice Kennedy is the ONLY example anyone can think of who evolved conservative from liberal on the court. 99% of the time it’s pretend conservative to get appointed then go communist. Like Souter. Like Roberts.

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 12:57 PM

It will be interesting to see if Roberts decides he’s bigger & badder then all previous Chief Justices and tries again, to make headlines instead of hold the court & the law to constitutional standards. Now that the “Enemy media” & the Obama Regime think they can influence the Chief Justice, you’re going to see a lot more “Grand Standing” in order to get the decisions they want from a seemingly squishy Chief Justice.

Update for those following,How to take on the Obama Enemy media: http://paratisiusa.blogspot.com/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-those-who-should-know.html?spref=tw

God Bless America!

paratisi on September 30, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Texas Gal on September 30, 2012 at 12:50 PM

Okay, okay… I fixed it. YOU try typing with this bad of a hangover.

Jazz Shaw on September 30, 2012 at 12:58 PM

The Obamacare fiasco proves them all a worthless bunch.

That at least 5 of these idiots failed to issue what should have been a simple ruling that: the SCOTUS could not rule on the case until after a tax had been ordered paid and a citizen protested to the Court about it demonstrated the incompetence of this body.

One has little hope for better on future decisions knowing they are such a majority batch of buffoons.

profitsbeard on September 30, 2012 at 12:59 PM

profitsbeard on September 30, 2012 at 12:59 PM

Good point and even if a tax the law is not authorized by the enumerated powers. To think we have 5 judges that don’t even know these simple points is downright scary and depressing.

CW on September 30, 2012 at 1:02 PM

Justice Roberts doesn’t “rule the court.” The designation “Chief” is for most part ceremonial. He has many administrative duties as head officer of the federal judiciary, but on the Supreme Court itself his most consequential power is that gets to assign the majority opinion is those cases in which he’s part of that majority. And during oral argument, Roberts is kind of a weenie; listen to this little exchange between Justices Robers & Breyer at around the 29 minute mark (“Excuse me. Sorry.“)

A very minor incident, but it indicates the guy is kinda humorless & self-important. Justice Roberts also pussed out and and wrote an opinion he didn’t actually believe in the Obamacare case.

BCrago66 on September 30, 2012 at 1:02 PM

I’m sure our Great And Glorious Dear Leader, should He win a second term, will give Roberts a public nudge here and there when needed about the absolute necessity of SCOTUS not going past its time-honored roll as a mere rubber stamp of approval for whatever the executive branch and legislative branch should decide to do.

MidniteRambler on September 30, 2012 at 1:06 PM

Affirmative Action
Same Sex Marriage
International Boundaries of Law

Roberts: They’re all taxes. They’re legal. OK guys, we’re done here! Have a great Winter!

john1schn on September 30, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Affirmative Action
Same Sex Marriage
International Boundaries of Law

Roberts: They’re all taxes. They’re legal. OK guys, we’re done here! Have a great Winter!

john1schn on September 30, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Or are covered by Interstate Commerce.

Off to Vail for some shushing!

profitsbeard on September 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM

OT here…I hope all is well with everyone. I went on leave from AFG this last week or I should say just returned and while home was proud to cast my early ballot for the Romney/Ryan ticket. As far as local judges, one thing I always hate is the questions on whether you want to retain the current ones in office. I never know what their records are as far as judicial review? So about every other election I rotate between yes and no…hahaha

Go R/R!!!

g2825m on September 30, 2012 at 1:21 PM

According to Roberts, Sotomayor, Kagan, Ginsberg, and Breyer the Constitution means whatever is convenient to the Democrats at any given moment; with no internal consistency of decisions required. With Roberts’ breakthrough decision that the Federal government can enforce any mandate in violation of the Constitution through the simple expedient of calling the penalty a tax; court cases are just more prolonged versions of the spew from Jay Carney’s mouth.

If Obama holds on to power by any means, including those not covered by a legitimate re-election, the decisions of the courts will be moot anyway. And the 22nd Amendment will have as much practical effect as the 18th does today.

Subotai Bahadur on September 30, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Jazz Shaw on September 30, 2012 at 12:58 PM

Booze Hound!! Lmao…

Some people are just too darn picky! The smart ones amongst us knew what you meant…

Scrumpy on September 30, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Okay, okay… I fixed it. YOU try typing with this bad of a hangover.

Jazz Shaw on September 30, 2012 at 12:58 PM

LOL.. so it was a synapse short circuit?

At least you know I read every word you write!

Texas Gal on September 30, 2012 at 1:23 PM

Subotai Bahadur on September 30, 2012 at 1:22 PM

I am not up on the judicial aspects, I have a question, can Roberts decision be overturned?

Scrumpy on September 30, 2012 at 1:25 PM

The decision point has come and passed with the betrayal of the American people by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Take down the flags, folks. This no longer a free country.

Stepan on September 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

OT: OK and SC united in fighting Dodd Frank!! On fox now…

Scrumpy on September 30, 2012 at 1:28 PM

The Obamacare fiasco proves them all a worthless bunch.

profitsbeard on September 30, 2012 at 12:59 PM

But is not up to the citizens, as pointed out by Roberts, to express their desire by their votes. And for them to moan about ObamaCare and re-elect Barry, it is the people’s fault.

bayview on September 30, 2012 at 1:29 PM

If Obama holds on to power by any means, including those not covered by a legitimate re-election, the decisions of the courts will be moot anyway. And the 22nd Amendment will have as much practical effect as the 18th does today.

Subotai Bahadur on September 30, 2012 at 1:22 PM

The way Obama has been governing since the beginning of this year has rendered the entire Constitution moot. He’s putting officials in place without confirmation, being the SOLE arbiter of whether Congress is in recess or not, he’s issued EO after EO nullifying laws, granting amnesty to illegals amongst other things, he’s eliminated the freedom of speech and of religion from our law by declaring blasphemy against one religion a criminal offense (by having someone arrested) but that requiring another (Catholic Church) to provide something (abortion, birth control) that their religion CONSIDERS blasphemy! The entire US justice system has become subverted to politics under Eric Holder. His Regime has been purchasing ammunition by the MILLIONS OF ROUNDS of a type that is BANNED by international law from being used against foreigners in warfare, which means they are INTENDED TO BE SHOT AT US!

Obama IS ALREADY A DICTATOR. He’s been ruling as such for at least the past year which the left wing media will NEVER report, and those on the right are TOO COWARDLY to say!

What, at this point, makes ANYONE believe that anything we do in November will remove Obama from office on 1/20/13?

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 1:31 PM

The decision point has come and passed with the betrayal of the American people by Chief Justice John Roberts.

Take down the flags, folks. This no longer a free country.

Stepan on September 30, 2012 at 1:27 PM

Time to bring back the Stars and Bars?

Could be…

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 1:32 PM

To clarify my last post, my favored “rebel flag” of the future would be the Stars and Stripes, with the stars including only those states that reject the Obama Regime.

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 1:38 PM

That court has lost all credibility to me, politics has tainted it, it died with the Obamacare ruling sham. Hope that changes one day, but I doubt it will be any time soon.

Alinsky on September 30, 2012 at 1:48 PM

That court has lost all credibility to me, politics has tainted it, it died with the Obamacare ruling sham. Hope that changes one day, but I doubt it will be any time soon.

Alinsky on September 30, 2012 at 1:48 PM

It won’t change until all 9 justices are replaced with ones who evaluate cases before them on whether the law underlying them is Constitutional and connected directly with an Enumerated Power or not.

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 1:55 PM

Not much to watch here. We know Roberts will vote with the liberals like the coward he is.

earlgrey133 on September 30, 2012 at 12:33 PM

…yep!…everything will be considered a tax!
see!…

Affirmative Action
Same Sex Marriage
International Boundaries of Law

Roberts: They’re all taxes. They’re legal. OK guys, we’re done here! Have a great Winter!

john1schn on September 30, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Or are covered by Interstate Commerce.

profitsbeard on September 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM

…we’re all on the same page.

KOOLAID2 on September 30, 2012 at 1:58 PM

But is not up to the citizens, as pointed out by Roberts, to express their desire by their votes. And for them to moan about ObamaCare and re-elect Barry, it is the people’s fault.

bayview on September 30, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Pope Jugears has already won reelection thanks to Benedict Roberts.

SagebrushPuppet on September 30, 2012 at 1:58 PM

SagebrushPuppet on September 30, 2012 at 1:58 PM

No, the decision was supposed to be unpopular and a motivating factor for the electorate, but if the voters re-elect Barry, they have no one to blame but themselves.

bayview on September 30, 2012 at 2:03 PM

No, the decision was supposed to be unpopular and a motivating factor for the electorate, but if the voters re-elect Barry, they have no one to blame but themselves.

bayview on September 30, 2012 at 2:03 PM

Oh, give me a break!

SagebrushPuppet on September 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

…yep!…everything will be considered a tax!
see!…

Affirmative Action
Same Sex Marriage
International Boundaries of Law

Roberts: They’re all taxes. They’re legal. OK guys, we’re done here! Have a great Winter!

john1schn on September 30, 2012 at 1:07 PM

Or are covered by Interstate Commerce.

profitsbeard on September 30, 2012 at 1:13 PM

…we’re all on the same page.

KOOLAID2 on September 30, 2012 at 1:58 PM

I wonder if any of the “geniuses” in government have ever thought that the closer the combination of taxes one pays approaches 100% the closer to 0% productivity and compliance becomes?

I am low middle income. I lose about 1/3rd of my check each week DIRECTLY to taxes (state, local, federal, mediscare, socialist security, etc). On top of that I figure I lose another 10% when you factor in sales and gasoline taxes… So as it is now, I make $35K a year and am BARELY getting to keep HALF what I make!

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 2:16 PM

This next term will likely confirm that Chief Justice Roberts is the second coming of David Souter.

I hope not, but history suggests that judges become more liberal over time, and never more conservative.

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 12:34 PM

Why do you think that?
Robert’s decision on Obamacare wasn’t particularly liberal — just non-activist. The sad fact is that there are no constitutional limits on federal taxes (which causes no end of problems).
I suppose he could go liberal, I just don’t see the Obamacare decision as an indication of it.

Count to 10 on September 30, 2012 at 2:24 PM

Why bother following the courts, I’ll fast forward it- The Libs win!

SMACKRUNNER on September 30, 2012 at 2:33 PM

Oh, give me a break!

SagebrushPuppet on September 30, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Are you a democrat who would not own up to responsibility and always looking for someone else to bail you out? Roberts had it down in black and white: if you do not want ObamaCare, take political action. Again, if Americans re-elect Barry, there is no one but themselves to blame for the inability to reverse the damages from his first term, and all the damages he will do in the second term.

bayview on September 30, 2012 at 2:34 PM

The Supremes might deliver a fairly narrow decision which either upholds the current system for that one state or makes slight modifications to create a more level playing field. But they could also swing for the fences and strike down the entire idea of acceptance based on profiles rather than academic achievement in high school.

With the cowardly spineless bastard John Roberts in charge?

Not happening.

Hawkins1701 on September 30, 2012 at 2:47 PM

I don’t know about anyone else but I’m about sick and tired of waiting each year to find out which of my liberties that these jack-holes decide I get to keep. How did we end up with the imperial judiciary? It certainly does not seem like a feature of of a true republic.

Mormon Doc on September 30, 2012 at 2:50 PM

That court has lost all credibility to me, politics has tainted it, it died with the Obamacare ruling sham. Hope that changes one day, but I doubt it will be any time soon.

Alinsky on September 30, 2012 at 1:48 PM

I’ll do you one better.

I work as a paralegal in the bankruptcy field.

Between O-Care and the hogwash I see everyday coming from some of the judges our firm has to deal with….I’ve no use for the entirety of the law profession. Garbage, all of it. Judges aren’t ruling based on the law anymore (if they ever did in the first place). I’m convinced now that there is no such thing as an independent judiciary. It is now nothing more than an oligarchy of robed overlords.

Hawkins1701 on September 30, 2012 at 2:55 PM

This next term will likely confirm that Chief Justice Roberts is the second coming of David Souter.

I hope not, but history suggests that judges become more liberal over time, and never more conservative.

wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 12:34 PM

I would be utterly depressed by your comment were it not for the recent behavior of Kennedy.

trapeze on September 30, 2012 at 2:58 PM

Most decisions by the Supreme Cort are not subjected to the will of the people, but that decision on ObamaCare is, and Roberts had pretty much said so in his written opinion. We, as the voters, will blow it if we give Barry another 4 years, and let ObamaCare stand. Take responsibility, the election is in November.

bayview on September 30, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Go to hell Roberts you turncoat POS disgrace.

WisCon on September 30, 2012 at 3:06 PM

Every time I start to get excited about making positive changes, I am reminded that a small group of unelected, unaccountable people get to decide whether I may or may not make them. In its current form, this branch of government is a lead ceiling, or maybe a coffin lid. Whatever it is, it’s above our heads and heavy.

Axe on September 30, 2012 at 3:29 PM

It matters not how Roberts votes on ANYTHING in the future. He is liberal to me and always will be. What difference does it make if he is token conservative on a thing or two. He has ruined healthcare for all time. Our only chance was to throw Obama out in November–but the establishment Republicans and the media and today FOX News Sunday have reported that we have already lost–so were are doomed! (I guess those Republicans declaring we have already lost will not want any more donations, right?).

AnnaS on September 30, 2012 at 3:33 PM

I am not up on the judicial aspects, I have a question, can Roberts decision be overturned?

Scrumpy on September 30, 2012 at 1:25 PM

Not a lawyer, although I wanted to be one when I was an undergrad. Later in my career as a Peace Officer, I found out what traitors to the rule of law and the Constitution that they are. Would not be one today, for any reason.

That said, it can be undone one of the following 4 ways:

1) another case proceeding to the Supreme Court on slightly different grounds, and the Court voting to overturn its own case. Would take years, and getting the Court to admit it made a mistake is not going to happen.

2) Defeating Obama, removing him from office after such defeat, and passing a repeal through the regular procedure for a bill. Not going to happen, because best case there will not be enough Republicans in the Senate to end a filibuster. And that is assuming all Republicans in the Senate support repeal. There are more than a few Democrats who are technically registered Republicans in the Senate. Not gonna happen.

3) Obamacare was passed [unconstitutionally, but what does that mean any more] as a Budget Reconciliation Bill, which cannot be filibustered. If Obama is defeated and successfully removed from office; if Mitt pushes it, it might be theoretically possible to repeal it by the same mechanism used by TWANLOC to put it in place. Possible, but dependent on a number of variables.

4) The restoration of a Constitutional Republic. Not a short term project. I will leave it to the reader to make his own judgment as to time and means required.

Subotai Bahadur on September 30, 2012 at 4:01 PM

It’s really interesting how the states have given up their right to judge for themselves as to what is or is not Constitutional vie resolutions if they have to.
They like their Federal dollars too much, which buys them the votes of their constituents through this illusion of the local politician ‘bringing home the bacon’ for their states.
Politicians have become nothing more than money funnelers.
And so we live & die by all arms of the Federal Government without letting the states exercise their right & DUTY to protect its citizens from tyrannical SCOTUS judgments.

Badger40 on September 30, 2012 at 4:43 PM

repercussions of Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.’s surprise decision in June to join the court’s four more liberal members and supply the decisive fifth vote in the landmark decision to uphold President Obama’s health care law.

Man, I had forgotten the depths of anger and loathing for Benedict Roberts that his decision had elicited. Yep, it’s still there. Benedict Roberts is the lowest of the low.

Every decision of the new term will be scrutinized for signs of whether Chief Justice Roberts, who had been a reliable member of the court’s conservative wing, has moved toward the ideological center of the court.

Bull Hockey! Ideological center my backside! That decision was the farthest left a Supreme Court Justice could go. He essentially opened the Constitution to communism as long as it is implemented with the vaguest shred of being a tax.

The only way to redeem himself would be for Benedict Roberts to come out and say, “Just kidding, I really am ruling against the law and it is struck down as of today”, or “Due to my failure to defend and uphold the Constitution of the United States of America, I am resigning my office effective January 31, 2013. At such time I will also give up my citizenship in the United States and move to Venezuela where my ideological viewpoint is more in line with that country’s leadership. I apologize profusely to my former countrymen for the betrayal of your Constitution and rule of law that my decision caused”.

AZfederalist on September 30, 2012 at 4:53 PM

The supreme court Lucy pulling the football. I dont trust them or even care anymore.

newportmike on September 30, 2012 at 5:55 PM

After the outrageous Obummercare decision I no longer have any faith in the Supreme Court. Roberts will be responsible if my disabled child dies young because the government cuts off her health care and my husband and I run out of money to pay for her care with cash. I despise Roberts, Obummer, and every Demoncrat, no matter where they are from.

My family has Tricare (military insurance) and my husband has been unemployed for over a year. We are rapidly approaching the point where my husband and I will have to stop our own needed health care so we can afford health care for our children. The copays are just getting too high for us to afford and we keep losing coverage for more and more services.

sherrimae on September 30, 2012 at 8:58 PM

If any believe that US Supreme Court decisions are always wise, and permanent, I refer you to Dred Scott v. Sandford.

An historic legal abomination.

Any supreme court can overturn in its entirety any previous supreme court decision.

So can the legislature.

There will have to be a lot of unravelling to do once Obama and the lib/progressives are no longer running things.

But, it will take a defeat of Obama in November to prevent legacy appointees (liberal/progressive judges) being appointed to the federal courts and the USSC.

If Obama gets re-elected…over the next four years he can pack not only the Supreme Court with liberal/progressive justices, but also the federal courts at all levels.

Yet another reason Obama needs to see his career ended in November.

coldwarrior on September 30, 2012 at 9:58 PM

Looking for patterns and pigeonholes doesn’t seem to be particularly predictive in terms of what will happen over the course of the next decades while Roberts rules the court.

The one thing that we do absolutely know is that John Roberts is a traitor to the Constitution and very happy to rewrite legislation to suit his whims.

We live in “interesting times”.

RJL on September 30, 2012 at 10:14 PM

Affirmative action never should have been legal. It is a blatant violation of the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
wildcat72 on September 30, 2012 at 12:43 PM

Affirmative action stands for the proposition that two wrongs DO make a right.

tommyboy on October 1, 2012 at 6:45 AM

Chief Justice Roberts has some opportunities to prove he is not a stealth Leftist like that buffoon David Souter who was championed by the disgraced John Sununu and nominated by the tired and wimpy GHW Bush.
There’s always HOPE for CHANGE I suppose.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on October 1, 2012 at 12:33 PM