He erected a roadblock to judicial activism against Congressional legislation.

mintycrys on November 9, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Thats nice.

How do you suppose that will work after one man appoints 4-5 SCOTUS judges.
That would be bad enough if the rest of the judges were constitutional conservatives. They are not. If 5 are appointed to the existing mix…game over man..game over. Nuke it from orbit. Its the only way to be sure.

The real takeaway from his opinion is that he states that it is not the purpose of the Supreme Court to protect us from our poor electoral skills and the legislation that results from it.

mintycrys on November 9, 2012 at 12:49 PM

If that’s the real takeaway from his opinion that means the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court either A) Doesn’t understand his job; B) doesn’t understand the constitution, C) Is a coward; or D) all of the above.

None of which are very comforting.

No way man. Robert’s is a genius. He made Obama call Obamacare a tax! It was one of the great judicial finesses of all time! Plus Obamacare will be reversed on Mitt’s first day in…oh wait.

Kataklysmic on November 9, 2012 at 11:57 AM

The real takeaway from his opinion is that he states that it is not the purpose of the Supreme Court to protect us from our poor electoral skills and the legislation that results from it. If Obama fills the Supreme Court with liberals, there is precedent to say that they have little standing to repeal or render unconstitutional any legislation from a potentially conservative Congress.

He erected a roadblock to judicial activism against Congressional legislation. All judicial activism must be performed in-house on their own decisions. Then again, I suppose the whole point of judicial activism is the utter disregard for precedent when formulating decisions.

Final thought: How does one fight a foe that has total belief in the absolution of its own moral authority? There’s no way to combat a true believer on equal terms short of complete systematic dismantling of the core of their belief system.

Kind of socialist of you to suggest the the federal government must FORCE free citizens to comply.

Charlemagne on November 9, 2012 at 12:22 PM

That doesn’t make sense. You possibly misunderstood my position.

I don’t know how pointing out the facts of the way the process seems to work at this time would make the messenger (me) “socialist”.

The facts are that the federal government does force compliance.

LOL– Yep even our “conservative” appointed justices are hit or miss.

melle1228 on November 9, 2012 at 11:52 AM

Sadly true.

However, “hit or miss” (and usually hit more often) is a lot better than someone who’s a straight-line liberal on the law.

The SCOTUS is going to potentially be the scariest long-term effect of ’12.

Mimzey on November 9, 2012 at 11:59

There’s a way around that tyranny too. http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2010/01/18/resistdc-the-federal-tax-funds-act/

Kind of socialist of you to suggest the the federal government must FORCE free citizens to comply.

If the states say “screw you” there’s little the courts can do.

Long live Red state federalism!

Charlemagne on November 9, 2012 at 11:56 AM

Really?
How about having all federal monies withheld until compliance?

LOL– Yep even our “conservative” appointed justices are hit or miss.

melle1228 on November 9, 2012 at 11:52 AM

No way man. Robert’s is a genius. He made Obama call Obamacare a tax! It was one of the great judicial finesses of all time! Plus Obamacare will be reversed on Mitt’s first day in…oh wait.

Long live Red state federalism!

This one issue of SC Justices was a huge huge reason bho should not have be re-elected, but alas, was!
L