Law Professor Says John Roberts Should Resign Over Obamacare Ruling

The entire SC should be removed for being partisan hacks. There should be no conservatives or liberals on the SC, just the best people that can interpret the law of the land. Once partisan politics is involved, you cannot trust their decisions. Originally Posted by icuminpeace

If you define conservatives as those who believe in abiding by the Constitution, then it logically follows that all the SCOTUS judges should be conservatives.

If you define liberals those who believe that the government is the answer to every problem and that the Constitution is outdated and stands in the way of progress, then it logically follows that there should be no liberals on SCOTUS.

We're 30 posts in and we still don't have a name for this "law professor" that you cite in the title of your thread.

John Eastman
Chapman University Law
Orange, Ca. Good school. My niece went there.

I meant conservative in the way Americans define themselves as conservatives or liberals (as in political definition). No one in the SC should have a political position, they should be neutral. Of course, conservatives would like everyone to be a conservative and liberals would like everyone to be a liberal. Independent thought and common sense are completely lacking in the political discourse in America.

LOL, COsfB and the other TPunks showing genius at work - again....clown school must have let out for recess.

Here's a WetOne---> lose the drool.

And what is your source for the statement that Roberts changed his mind due to political pressure? The WP blog cite? Not one word is mentioned there about political pressure. And, if you think John Roberts gives a rat's ass what President Obama or John Boehner think, want or desire, you're delusional. That's why it's a lifetime appointment, chief.

A justice changing his mind while a case is pending (assuming that actually happened here) is not at all unusual. Happens frequently, as anyone who has read anything about the SCOTUS would know.

And it is just astonishing that the word "impeach" is mentioned in the same sentence with John Roberts. I disagree with every single opinion he has ever written, including this last. But, he's done nothing even remotely close to a justification for impeachment. It's just more sad evidence of the right-wing lunatics lack of respect for the rule of law....unless the particular law at issue happens to comport with their bizarre and twisted opinions. Originally Posted by timpage

Good call on the question of political pressure. Better call on the lack of respect for the rule of law.

I meant conservative in the way Americans define themselves as conservatives or liberals (as in political definition). No one in the SC should have a political position, they should be neutral. Of course, conservatives would like everyone to be a conservative and liberals would like everyone to be a liberal. Independent thought and common sense are completely lacking in the political discourse in America. Originally Posted by icuminpeace

Fuck you icuminmyownmouth. Who the FUCK are You.

And who the FUCK are You?

I wonder if the four dissenting opinions were all uniform in their "failure" to reference Robert's argument to uphold. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Only two real dissents, one of which was a dissent in part and concurrence in part, from Ginsberg. In reality, Scalia's opinion was also a dissent in part and concurrence in part although he refused to call it that.

You're in the law biz. Do you think the decision to uphold Obamatax is going to effect the use of the commerce clause in future rulings? Some people are saying that the silver lining, to the decision, is that it will make it harder to use the commerce clause to justify government growth in the future. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Maybe, but there is lots of weasel room in Robert's opinion for the bad guys to let through stuff they like, like a mandatory participation in private retirement accounts to replace Social Security. Though that is clearly "compelling participation in a market," if enough right wing kooks get elected and were to pass that as a sop to Wall Street, these five bozos wouldn't hesitate for a minute to ignore this case and declare that fine and dandy. It just depends on what the program is who is on the court at the time, and whose ox is getting gored.

Maybe, but there is lots of weasel room in Robert's opinion for the bad guys to let through stuff they like, like a mandatory participation in private retirement accounts to replace Social Security. Though that is clearly "compelling participation in a market," if enough right wing kooks get elected and were to pass that as a sop to Wall Street, these five bozos wouldn't hesitate for a minute to ignore this case and declare that fine and dandy. It just depends on what the program is who is on the court at the time, and whose ox is getting gored. Originally Posted by TexTushHog

Maybe, it's only four conservatives on the court, or as you call them, bozos. John Roberts just lost his claim to being a conservative. If Obama gets reelected, he may get the chance to put a couple more Marxists on the court. Then he can finish destroying the country, without that pesky constitution getting in the way.

Maybe, it's only four conservatives on the court, or as you call them, bozos. John Roberts just lost his claim to being a conservative. If Obama gets reelected, he may get the chance to put a couple more Marxists on the court. Then he can finish destroying the country, without that pesky constitution getting in the way. Originally Posted by joe bloe

Joe,you remind me a lot of chicken little.

Ekim, you remind me of Pollyanna. Isn't he cute?

Ekim, you remind me of Pollyanna. Isn't he cute? Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I do have a brighter outlook than most of you doomsayers.

Joe,you remind me a lot of chicken little. Originally Posted by ekim008

I remember when Ross Perot warned the country, in 1992, that if we didn't get deficit spending under control, we would be ruined. A lot of people said he was a "chicken little." It turned out he was right. With 15 trillion in debt and over 100 trillion in unfunded liabilities, I'm not so sure, the sky isn't falling.