John Roberts Gang Of Tyrants Returns


#1

The Black Robe mob returns to further destroy the U.S. Constitution

Another big Supreme Court term kicks off Monday - News - Boston.com

The tyrannical Roberts and his band of Traitors will once again unsheathe their swords of Treason to slice away at the Liberty of men on Monday Oct 1st. What was won via blood, battle and sacrifice will be further eroded from posterity by the swing of a gavel and the desires of 5 or 6 wicked souls in service to evil.


#2

a lot of Emails should be going his way.


#3

Kennedy remains the swing Justice. While hugely disappointed in Roberts on the Obamacare decision… I think he remains largely conservative. In his OWN mind…his Obamacare decision WAS a conservative decision as he found a way to NOT over-rule the “will of the people” as expressed by their representatives and president. I’m not giving up on him just yet despite THAT piece of flawed logic.
Kennedy is the one more likely to be the 5th justice this term that will give social cons some agita.

I think we will get rulings against all affirmative action in college admissions AND for striking DOMA denial of federal rights for gay unions/marriages…and for ending discriminatory treatment of southern states in election laws.I hope I’m right about all.

The tough one to call for me is the review of PROP 8 from California… which would require reversing the 9th circuit.
I want the justices to rule that there is no FEDERAL/Universal right to marriage and uphold Prop8 on the basis that it complies with STATE law and that the 9th Circuit improperly interceded. Anything else and we will have gay marriage everywhere BY JUDICIAL FIAT which I think is the wrong way to gain public acceptance.


#4

I note with amusement that Ret refers to a gang of tyrants yet refuses to support the ONLY candidate who will appoint conservative judges…and then will be the loud voice complaining when Obama appoints 3 more Kagans.
But he will remain “pure”. [/sarc]


#5

We will have gay marriage, bank on it if bammy wins. BUT and I have argued this before…why is the fed govt involved in marriage at all?

Do YOU really care who or what I marry…the stump in my back yard, my '67 L88 Corvette etc. I personally do not care and perhaps most of all I am not interested nor do I want to know. If you can find the Church of Stmp Love and have preacher man marry you, fine, go ahead and do your thing.

Point: I want the FED govt OUT of the control and management of MARRIAGE. In my world marriage is between a man and a woman, that is my belief, it is also done in the church and THAT is far more important than what the FEDS think. I can find nothing that says the feds have any involvement in marriage. This appears to be something they generated on their own to control marriage and taxes…and yes everyone files ONLY individual taxes.

Just IMO


#6

Slightly off topic, but bugging me enough: (emphasis mine)

The written arguments submitted by both sides in the Texas case leave little doubt that Kennedy, not Roberts, holds the prized vote.

I hope I’m not the only one here who views that as an extremely callous choice of words, considering the seriousness of the situation.

Another one that dumbfounded me:

In 2006, Congress overwhelmingly approved, and President George W. Bush signed, legislation extending for 25 more years a critical piece of the Voting Rights Act. It requires states and local governments with a history of racial and ethnic discrimination, mainly in the South, to get advance approval either from the Justice Department or the federal court in Washington before making any changes that affect elections.

I beg your unholy pardon? I’m ashamed to admit that I didn’t know about that, but it is President Bush who should really be hanging his head in shame because he did.

There’s plenty of dumb (imo) cases that make it to the Supreme Court, but this one should be a no-brainer:

A high-stakes dispute, to be argued first thing Monday, between the business community and human rights advocates over the reach of a 1789 law. The issue is whether businesses can be sued in U.S. courts for human rights violations that take place on foreign soil and have foreign victims.

Last I looked, people had to follow the laws of the land in which they are residing and/or doing business.

***Rett. I don’t see where Roberts intends to do Constitutional harm. What I miss?


#7

John Roberts used the bench to rewrite Obamacare to give him an excuse to uphold a piece of legislation that forces American citizens to purchase a product whether they want or need it or face a Federal Penalty to be collected by the I.R.S. that once paid provides NO service.

This was a big story a few months ago, Roberts is a “Living Document” Traitor that belongs behind bars for his crimes against the American people and their Constitution. All the Extreme Lefties in the GOP now have him on their Christmas list and invite him to all the Parties in D.C. while the people are crushed under his Socialist agenda.


#8

The thing is did Robert’s do it out of malice or is the current GOP leadership secretly pleased he did it? Several of the GOP have already said they want to keep parts of Obamacare and Rommey is being very cagey about what he wants to do.


#9

[quote=“RET423, post:7, topic:36363”]
John Roberts used the bench to rewrite Obamacare to give him an excuse to uphold a piece of legislation that forces American citizens to purchase a product whether they want or need it or face a Federal Penalty to be collected by the I.R.S. that once paid provides NO service.

This was a big story a few months ago, Roberts is a “Living Document” Traitor that belongs behind bars for his crimes against the American people and their Constitution. All the Extreme Lefties in the GOP now have him on their Christmas list and invite him to all the Parties in D.C. while the people are crushed under his Socialist agenda.
[/quote]And a Republican nominated this traitor. Lends weight to your assertion that Romney will not appoint an any more conservative justice, than Bush did. Liberal Lites, all of them.


#10

All government should be “out of marriage” …not just the feds. Gov’t should provide a “civil union” for ALL who want one to secure LEGAL rights under the law… but marriage should not be a government function. Find a church or a coven to do it. :smiley:
Of course, what we would LIKE has nothing to do with the legal questions raised by the cases at hand. DOMA prevents FEDERAL benefits to gay couples AND defines marriage for FEDERAL purposes, (estates, tax returns, SS benefits etc.), as between a man and a woman. The fed government has NO right to IMPOSE their view of marriage on the states…but they do have the right to define it as it pertains to federal laws. Of course such definitions must pass constitutional muster and it is my view that the equal protection clause is violated by DOMA.


#11

On balance I still think Roberts was a good pick. Would you rather have Sotomayor in charge?


#12

Exactly, and Bush had a stellar record of looking for Strict Constructionist Judicial Nominees in spite of Roberts slipping through the cracks.

Romney has never once nominated a Strict Constructionist, he has nominated 100 percent Liberals to the bench so we will lose huge regardless of who wins this election in the already decimated Judicial Branch.


#13

The choice was not Stomayor or Roberts for Chief Justice, the choice was Roberts or Scalia.

And I would be thrilled with Scalia, then and now.


#14

Roberts had a constitutionally sound reason for his part of the majority ruling on Obamacare. Obviously, Justices Thomas and Scalia might question that assertion. Roberts will be highly likely to remain the conservative justice he’s always been. The case only serves to point out that elections matter. Which is something the ideologically pure should bear in mind come November when they waste their vote on someone other than Romney. I didn’t think the Republicans in general, or McCain in particular, deserved my vote in 2008, but I had no trouble envisioning that, despite my misgivings regarding McCain, an Obama administration would be much worse, as it’s proven to be. Yeah, it’d have been nice if Roberts had bailed us out on Obamacare, but only children cry over the actual USSC vote, when they should be asking, ‘where’d all those Democrats, and their votes, come from?’. Oh, yeah…they came from wasted votes on “principle”, the last refuge of the immature and the whiner. Of course they’re insane; they’re expecting a different result this time.

It’s long past due that the portions of the Voting Rights Act, that empower the Justice Department to oversee select state and local elections in some areas, be overturned. It is obvious that there is no evidence that will meet Justice Department, or congressional, approval that it is no longer necessary, in spite of the facts upon the ground that it is not. It is an infringement on state’s rights that probably should never have been passed in the first place and only continues to exist because, to vote against it is the political equivalent of answering, “are you still beating your wife?” type of a question. It’s not particularly fair to blame GW Bush for not vetoing the extension, which has been passed ever time it has been up for renewal, as the numbers in favor of the extension, in both House and Senate, were sufficient to override his veto. It’s fair to say that he didn’t have the political capital to expend, while he was trying to reform Social Security, to veto something that congress was going to pass over that veto.

We should remember that in most, if not all, of the federal cases regarding DOMA there hasn’t been a ruling by a court, but by only one justice on the specific court in a hearing before that court. I expect the chances of it being overturned no better than even, and probably a good deal less. Despite Cam’s flawed view, the Court will not find a right to marriage as there is no such right within the constitution, and they won’t be ruling on whether there is or not. Even were they to want to find one, that is not what the cases on the matter before the Court are about. I expect that they will uphold DOMA because the alternative is to require the review of thousands of pieces on legislation, now established law, so as to redefine the intent of congress in passing. I think the Court will narrowly find for upholding it, if only upon the basis that the state cannot dictate to the federal government what the federal government shall pay for based up whatever state laws the states may respectively pass.

I also think the Court will narrowly rule on the 1789 law which makes US federal courts available for resolution of disputes originating on foreign soil but now emigrated to the US. I expect they’ll keep the law, but put the kibosh on venue-seeking in such cases. There are cases where such a law and procedure is valuable…which is why it’s been around since 1789.

If they fail to uphold Prop 8 it is not going to go well for Americans going forward. If they strike it down, it will never matter again what is accomplished under state-wide referendum, state constitutional ballot initiative, or any other democratically passed state law or constitutional amendment, so long as one can find one federal judge to over rule it. Let’s hope Ted Olson was right in asserting that a USSC case was not the way to go…if you supported homosexual marriage, because if lost, it would set that cause back decades. One may only hope.


#15

I’m aware of all that. I was referring to this present article, and all the cases listed that are to come before SCOTUS now, (or in the near future.) From what was reported, it appears Roberts has every intention of ruling with the Constitution.


#16

I would not trust this lying scumbag any farther than I could throw him, he has proved that he values the Constitution about as much as He values toilet paper.


#17

Fixed it for you (for accuracy)


#18

[quote=“17Oaks, post:17, topic:36363”]
Fixed it for you (for accuracy)
[/quote]If you ask some people, used toilet paper has more value than not used.


#19

Sway

We should remember that in most, if not all, of the federal cases regarding DOMA there hasn’t been a ruling by a court, but by only one justice on the specific court in a hearing before that court. I expect the chances of it being overturned no better than even, and probably a good deal less. Despite Cam’s flawed view, the Court will not find a right to marriage as there is no such right within the constitution, and they won’t be ruling on whether there is or not. Even were they to want to find one, that is not what the cases on the matter before the Court are about. I expect that they will uphold DOMA because the alternative is to require the review of thousands of pieces on legislation, now established law, so as to redefine the intent of congress in passing. I think the Court will narrowly find for upholding it, if only upon the basis that the state cannot dictate to the federal government what the federal government shall pay for based up whatever state laws the states may respectively pass.

I think you quite misunderstand my argument on DOMA. I do not expect the DOMA case to decide that there is a federal or Constitutional right to marriage. I do expect that they will find treating citizens unequally under the law by DEFINING marriage is unconstitutional. Marriage is a state function under the constitution and under your view, the feds could just as easily say that federal benefits of marriage would not accrue to anyone no capable of producing children due to age or medical condition or to those who divorce and then remarry or to those who have children outside of wedlock before getting married. (All in the name of promoting a moral family life being essential to the well being of the republic.) We shall see…but I don’t see Kennedy going along on this one.

As to the rest of it…we are in agreement and well said.


#20

Cam…I’m not sure they’re going to be quite so willing as to let marriage go undefined, as if there are, or can be, various definitions of it. This has to be one of the reasons Olson was so reticent about going to the USSC with Prop 8 because, if they do “define” it expansively, what immediately happens is exactly what the homosexual lobby said would not happen; every polygamy statute in the land immediately becomes null and void. Either way, this ain’t gonna be an easy decision…

No, marriage is not a state function, under my view or any that I support. Nor is marriage even a contract, though it might once have been correctly viewed that way under existing law. In my view, marriage is an extro-state institution that the state has an inherent interest in fostering and supporting. And yes, you’re correct in that the state could well regulate marriages more closely, which is not to obviate its inherent interest only in marriages of a certain sort; those that produce, or potentially produce, children.

In my view, we’re nowhere near a view of marriage as a right. There’s no such thing…never has been. That state’s only interest in marriage is as a matter of public policy, having nothing to do with the individuals concerned happiness, fulfillment, self-actualization, or hangnails. The state’s only legitimate interest is in the replication of society, ie…the production of future taxpayers, in the cynical view. We’re not at all sure that the state is required to be blind to biology to mete out that interest.