Since his decision on the Affordable Care Act, Chief Justice John Roberts has now found there is no shortage of GOP and other Conservative causes that have now turned against his appointment to the Supreme Court.
I may be naïve but have always harbored a faith in our Democracy in practice is that no matter the divisive political rhetoric of our elections those flung into high office will abandon any extreme view and exercise the duty of the office. I first thought this applies to the Presidency and later include our Congress. Recent developments in the Supreme Court decision now find that Chief Justice Jon Roberts is not the monster his detractors claim. Read the Oath Justice Roberts vowed his allegiance.
“In December 1990, the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 revised Judicial Oath, found at 28 U. S. C. § 453, reads:
________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as _________ under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."
If you read the key words and phrases of the Oath one can begin to understand, what I hope gave impetus to Robert’s swing decision. For once in more than a dozen years, partisan politics is cast aside in favor of what is in the best interest of all Americans.
Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA): “I don’t want to drink a beer with him today. I’m not calling for his impeachment, I’m just very disappointed.”
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN): “I urge people to read the dissent …Because that opinion said very clearly, this was an activist court that you saw today. What they did is not just uphold Obamacare, this Supreme Court re-wrote Obamacare in line with its own designs.”
Rep. Mick Mulvaney (R-SC): “The Supreme Court’s precedent in this case will far exceed health care. In short, government is now able to make you do anything by penalizing you with a tax. If future governments don’t like marriage, it will be able to tax you if you want to get married.
Pamela Karlan, Stanford University law professor said Roberts’s health-care compromise was “certainly designed to make the court look less political. But in fact it is setting the seeds for the future.”
Is she forgetting the partisan, pro corporate decision removing any limits on individual and corporate contribution to political campaigns?
“Roberts’ argument was disingenuous at best, dishonest at worst. professor called Roberts’ contentions “absurd.”
Bandow concluded the dissent: “The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.”
Liberals can easily use Bandow’s same argument in supporting the decision.
Michael Savage (broadcaster)
"Let's talk about Roberts. I'm going to tell you something that you're not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It's well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore, he has been on medication. Therefore, neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts' writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying," Michael Savage said on his radio program this evening.
Glenn Beck “saying the Supreme Court decision “destroys Bush’s legacy,” dimmed conservative star Glenn Beck put his rhetoric where his online store is. He is for $30 a pop.”
How Glenn Beck believes the Bush legacy is only now been destroyed is beyond me. George Bush set his legacy as one of the lowest in history.
“I’m not really sorry,” he opened.
“But I am a man of my word. So I apologize for not factoring in the John Roberts situation. Truthfully, I may be an idiot for not considering that.”
The existence of these negative and idiotic statements by conservatives in general and Republicans only indicates they have misguided intentions in serving in Congress and more importantly, they serve large corporate interests rather than the people who elected them.
The TV pundits and writers lack knowledge of our democracy, our history and lack a clear vision as to what is contained in our Constitution and Declaration of Independence. “It’s a no brainer” you have heard the President declare. One can see to whom he identifies.
These elected politicians, media and even previous appointments to the Court endanger not only our Democracy but demonstrate their resolve to further erode and destroy the middle class and enslave the poor.
My final argument regarding our responsibility in serving this great nation rests not with just the high federal officials but as one, each citizen must ponder.
In 1957, John F. Kennedy won the Pulitzer Prize when he wrote, “Profiles in Courage.” He adroitly utilizes examples in history where “individuals stood against party politics or in the face of popular opinion and voted or acted upon their conviction. The literary quote below adeptly depicts what is lacking is conviction in Washington, D.C.
“In a democracy, every citizen, regardless of his interest in politics, “holds office”; every one of us is in a position of responsibility; and, in the final analysis, the kind of government we get depends upon how we fulfill those responsibilities. We, the people, are the boss, and we will get the kind of political leadership, be it good or bad, that we demand and deserve.”