John Roberts Switched His Vote Under Outside Pressure

It won’t look like decay to many.  John Roberts will be the toast of the political class for years to come. He’ll attend all the prettiest events with the prettiest people. Barbara Streisand will have him out to her massively carbon-releasing Hollywood mansion.  The Washington Post intelligentsia will place his bust in its pantheon of The Evolved.  He might even golf with Bill and Obama.


But beneath the black robe grows a dark stain on his soul.  Day by day,  decision by decision, the stain metastasizes.

He’ll look at his grand kids and wonder how they’ll react when they learn that their grandpa betrayed his conscience and his country to avoid scorn from the political class. What will his great-grandchildren’s textbooks say about him?

And what of his country?  Will his  moral collapse speed America’s descent into totalitarianism?  Maybe the government’s textbook writers will treat him with favor.

Or will his old team prevail?  The team of rugged individualism and the power of principle.  Will America somehow rally and recover its former greatness?  And if so, how will our future history books represent the Supreme Court Chief Justice who couldn’t take the heat of Chicago politics in Washington?  How will our side describe the justice who caved?

We know now that Roberts switched his vote under intense pressure from the White House and from the press.  He sold out the more than 60% of Americans who oppose socialize medicine in order to win favor with the 8% known as the “political class.”

CBS News reports the extent of Roberts’ ostracization from the court’s conservatives:

The fact that the joint dissent doesn’t mention Roberts’ majority was not a sign of sloppiness, the sources said, but instead was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him. [emphasis added]

Roberts is now a man without a country, without a cause, and without a confederate. The liberals don’t need him, and the conservatives can’t trust him.

I suspect history will be very unkind to John Roberts, no matter how America ends. History is unkind to cowards.

UPDATE:  Michael Patrick Leahy calls for lawsuit over Obamacare’s failure to adhere to origination clause.

P.S.  Sick of getting kicked in the gut? Join The After Party the 3rd Thursday each month. Next meeting is July 19th at 7 p.m. at Yacovelli’s Restaurant at 407 Dunn Rd., Florissant, MO 63031.  Free buttons!


6 thoughts on “John Roberts Switched His Vote Under Outside Pressure”

  1. I takes a lot guts and bravery to back up and see the forest through all the noise, liberal trees and barking loyal conservatives. I believe in the long run that his clever rewrite of Obamacare and to coin it constitutional has set the stage for uber conservative activism, to include a greater chance of electing Romney, a 50 plus one vote in the Senate to repeal is highly possible after Nov 4th and the now the court has redefined to Congress its limitations for of use for the “Commerce Clause.”

    I would rush to judgement just yet until after Nov. 4th and then you and others may see the craftiness the Roberts brought about in balancing the SCOTUS decisions and building a national trust again in their rulings plus all the above that I mentioned.

    Anyway, he shook me up and millions of others. It was painful, swift and unexpected. I think I love just how he smacked me, Obama, his cronies and everyone around. Democracy is now at work.

    Pharmr Phil

    1. Keep fooling yourself, Phil. If for any reason the unaffordable kare tax is not completely and utterly repudiated in November and the RINOs once again fail to keep their campaign promises next January, All Americans, not just the Ø’bumorrhoids, will be shackled to the goobermint’s every whim for generations. If Roberts is indeed playing a game in order to prove he’s the smartest fool in the room, he only proves he’s a fool because this game is for keeps. Roberts caved. It’s as simple as that. I will not be holding my breath until rum-knee actually proves he’s a smarter campaigner than his 2008 predecessor.

  2. As of June 30:
    Rehearing, Rule 44, is on page 56 of the the referenced document. Note 25 days to file unless Court agrees to extend period.

    Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States. (See Rule 44, Rehearing, below.)

    The following constitutional statutes and statements from case opinions need to be on the top of the petition.

    “3. The Constitution was written to be understood by the voters; its words and phrases were used in their normal and ordinary as distinguished from technical meaning; where the intention is clear, there is no room for construction and no excuse for interpolation or addition.” –United States v. Sprague, 1931.

    Section 8 of Article I of the Constitution

    Article V of the Constitution

    The 10th Amendment

    “State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress (emphases addded).” –Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

    “Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a state (emphasis added) and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass.” –Justice Barbour, New York v. Miln, 1837.

    “Direct control of medical practice in the states is obviously beyond the power of Congress.” –Linder v. United States, 1925.

    “Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes which are within the exclusive province of the States.” –Chief Justice Marshall, Gibbons v. Ogden, 1824.

    Rule 44. Rehearing [page 56 of referenced document]
    1. Any petition for the rehearing of any judgment or deci­ sion of the Court on the merits shall be filed within 25 days after entry of the judgment or decision, unless the Court or a Justice shortens or extends the time. The petitioner shall file 40 copies of the rehearing petition and shall pay the filing fee prescribed by Rule 38(b), except that a petitioner pro­ ceeding in forma pauperis under Rule 39, including an in­ mate of an institution, shall file the number of copies re­ quired for a petition by such a person under Rule 12.2. The petition shall state its grounds briefly and distinctly and shall be served as required by Rule 29. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). A copy of the certificate shall follow and be attached to each copy of the petition. A petition for rehear­ ing is not subject to oral argument and will not be granted except by a majority of the Court, at the instance of a Justice who concurred in the judgment or decision.
    2. Any petition for the rehearing of an order denying a petition for a writ of certiorari or extraordinary writ shall be filed within 25 days after the date of the order of denial and shall comply with all the form and filing requirements of paragraph 1 of this Rule, including the payment of the filing fee if required, but its grounds shall be limited to intervening circumstances of a substantial or controlling effect or to other substantial grounds not previously presented. The petition shall be presented together with certification of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel) that it is restricted to the grounds specified in this paragraph and that it is presented in good faith and not for delay; one copy of the certificate shall bear the signature of counsel (or of a party unrepresented by counsel). The certificate shall be
    UNIT: CLER$$RULE 01-12-10 14:42:18 PGT•CTRULE
    bound with each copy of the petition. The Clerk will not file a petition without a certificate. The petition is not subject to oral argument.
    3. The Clerk will not file any response to a petition for rehearing unless the Court requests a response. In the ab­ sence of extraordinary circumstances, the Court will not grant a petition for rehearing without first requesting a response.
    4. The Clerk will not file consecutive petitions and peti­ tions that are out of time under this Rule.
    5. The Clerk will not file any brief for an amicus curiae in support of, or in opposition to, a petition for rehearing.
    6. If the Clerk determines that a petition for rehearing submitted timely and in good faith is in a form that does not comply with this Rule or with Rule 33 or Rule 34, the Clerk will return it with a letter indicating the deficiency. A cor­ rected petition for rehearing submitted in accordance with Rule 29.2 no more than 15 days after the date of the Clerk’s letter will be deemed timely.

  3. Someone has to file a challenge on whether or not the obamacare bill was from the Senate or the House. If it’s the Senate bill – obamacare is dead.
    Who would it need to be to file a challenge?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s