Chief Justice Roberts Sends Dangerous Message: He Can Be Manipulated

CBS has confirmed what many speculated - Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote from a 5-4 majority with the conservative justices plus Kennedy to overrule Obamacare, to a 5-4 majority with the liberal justices to uphold it as a tax.

Although I knew Roberts is too much of a pragmatist, more concerned about the perception of the Court as an authority and his legacy, this section of CBS' report is still particularly disturbing (emphasis added):

Some of the conservatives, such as Justice Clarence Thomas, deliberately avoid news articles on the court when issues are pending (and avoid some publications altogether, such as The New York Times). They've explained that they don't want to be influenced by outside opinion or feel pressure from outlets that are perceived as liberal.
But Roberts pays attention to media coverage. As chief justice, he is keenly aware of his leadership role on the court, and he also is sensitive to how the court is perceived by the public.
There were countless news articles in May warning of damage to the court - and to Roberts' reputation - if the court were to strike down the mandate. Leading politicians, including the president himself, had expressed confidence the mandate would be upheld.

The courts are supposed to be independent and above politics.  The notion that the President, the head of a competing branch of government, could browbeat the court into a decision is especially galling.  Not to mention the blackmail from the mainstream media and liberal elites, threatening the legitimacy of the court based solely on the outcome of the decision.  The fact that a chief justice could be influenced by these external forces is shameful and unbecoming of the prestigious position he holds. 

I can't help but think such a chief justice is unfit for the role.  His duty is to the Constitution, not to his own legacy, not to Congress or the President, and not to the perceptions of the Supreme Court.

The perceived authority of the Supreme Court has ebbed and flowed over the last 200 plus years.  It is extremely short-sighted for Roberts to think he has to safe-guard today's perception.  The Supreme Court is much bigger than him, it is not going away, no matter how much the liberals pout and cry.  It is disgusting to think that their threats of a temper tantrum would make him change his mind.  This is similar to when liberals wanted to abolish the Electoral College after Bush v. Gore.  They ridiculously want to change the rules when they don't win the game.  But our institutions, while not perfect, were expertly designed and are meant to endure temporary partisan heartache.

Justice is supposed to be blind, but Roberts is wide-eyed to the external pressures he is supposed to ignore.  This is precisely why justices are given lifetime appointments - so that the politics of the day do not influence them.  They are to have no constituencies of their own, no fickle voters to appease, their only duty is to their oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." 

One must stand with the Constitution, not cave into the threats to destroy it.  Unfortunately, Roberts does not have that kind of courage.  Yes, Chief Justice Roberts is a wimp.  The chief justice of the Supreme Court should not be susceptible to blackmail and professional threats. This sets an extremely dangerous precedent.  How can the Constitution be upheld when the leader in charge of safe-guarding it can be manipulated?  What other outrageous laws could President Obama enact in - God forbid - a second term that Roberts will feel pressured to uphold?

Ironically, in twisting and contorting himself to supposedly protect the court's and his own legitimacy, he has further damaged the institution.   Unlike Roberts, I can see the big picture.  I know the court will endure.  The question is, will the character of our once great republic under Obamacare?

President Obama, Are You Serious? Are You Serious?!

President Obama made some unprecedented and extraordinary statements yesterday about Obamacare and its prospects at the Supreme Court, to which I had to say, Pelosi-style, "Are you serious?  Are you serious?!"  For starters, he said:

I am confident the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress. ...

As many have pointed out, this is a laughably unprecedented and extraordinary definition of the words "unprecedented" and "extraordinary."  It's as if President Obama thinks the Supreme Court has never struck down a law before!  Or that Congress has never passed an unconstitutional law in its history!

After his Solicitor General got terrible reviews for his oral arguments, which some think put the case in jeopardy, Obama is trying to reframe the debate in case he loses.  If Obamacare goes down, Obama wants you to think it is because of an activist, extreme Supreme Court - not because the law itself is an unconstitutional federal intrusion into your life.

And is Obama really calling a bill that had zero Republican votes and passed 219-212 in the House a "strong" majority?  Obama did do better in the Senate, on a 60-39 party-line vote taken on Christmas Eve.  But where's that "strong majority" now?  Less than a month after the Senate vote, Scott Brown was the first Republican to be elected to the Senate from Massachusetts in decades, in part because he ran as the 41st vote to stop Obamacare.  Today, the Democrats are down to 51 Senators and the House saw a 60 person swing and a switch over to GOP control since the vote, which played a huge part in the 2010 elections.

In his weakened state, Obama is reduced to lecturing conservatives on what he thinks we say:

I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. ... 

Obama seems to think that simply striking down a law passed by Congress is what makes a ruling judicial activism - as if not acceding to whatever the legislative branch wants is judicial excess.  But it's not whether a law is upheld or struck down, it is whether the law was Constitutional and whether an originalist or strict constructionalist theory was applied that matters.

Judicial activism is about judges who disregard the Constitution and make up rights out of whole cloth.  Like "penumbras, formed by emanations" that magically find rights to abortion or separation of church and state hiding in the text of the Constitution all along.  It's about illiterate judges who uphold gun bans despite the clear wording of the 2nd Amendment.  It's about courts that think the the Founders' original intent in the 1st Amendment was to ban prayer.  Obama has no idea what judicial activism is, for him, words only mean what he wants them to mean, only at that particular point in time.

Finally, let's hear why Obama thinks Obamacare should be upheld:

I am confident this will be upheld because it should be upheld. ...

Ok, nevermind, I take it all back - Obama's astounding powers of persuasion and impeccable reasoning skills have convinced me of the error of my ways!  He wins!
.
UPDATE: Looks like the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals is taking Obama's words seriously:

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
...
In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president's comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws "have troubled a number of people" and that the suggestion "is not a small matter."
The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss "judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation."
"I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday -- that's about 48 hours from now -- a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president," Smith said. "What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?"

I'm glad there are consequences for Obama's irresponsible words.  This is part of why the Founders' system of checks and balances is so brilliant.  Instead of each branch colluding with each other, they are pitted in competition with each other, with each not wanting the others to overstep their bounds and encroach into their territory.  Here the judiciary branch is pushing back against an executive assault on its Constitutional powers.  This system is meant to break allegiances across the branches on partisan lines, but alas that has been happening far too often these days.
.

My Top 5 Must Reads of the Day 7/1/10

1. Six Months to Go Until The Largest Tax Hikes in History ATR




In 2001 and 2003, the GOP Congress enacted several tax cuts for investors, small business owners, and families. These will all expire on January 1, 2011

Just what we need during a recession - thank you Obama and Democrats!


2. Gunfire hitting City Hall prompts Texas AG to ask for more troops on border El Paso Times




"More than 1,300 people have been murdered in Juárez this year as a war continues relentlessly between the Juárez and Sinaloa drug cartels," he told Obama. He also said the "time for talk has passed."

The number of people being killed in the drug war is staggering, meanwhile Obama gives a speech to mollify his pro-amnesty base.


3. Florida school district bans Bibles on Religious Freedom Day Orlando Sentinel




“How sad that on the eve of Independence Day, when we celebrate the religious and political freedom our forefathers won for us at the cost of much blood and great sacrifice, we are compelled to sue to protect the right simply to make free Bibles available to students in public schools,” said Mathew D. Staver, Liberty Counsel founder.

Sad indeed. But typical of public schools.


4. Supreme Court gun rights ruling will add to death toll The Hill
By Sen. Roland Burris (D-Ill.)



Amid one of the most violent and deadly summers Chicago has ever experienced, in which only the last few weeks have seen shootings that left 81 wounded and 13 dead, the Supreme Court ruled on Monday that an almost 30-year-old citywide ban on handgun ownership is unconstitutional.

Yeah, um, cuz that gun ban thing y'all have going is working out so well for ya!


5. Crist says no hookers on Bahamas trip Tampa Bay Times




Beth Kigel, a lobbyist, fundraiser and member of the state party executive committee from Palm Beach County, told investigators she had heard about a men-only trip to the Bahamas and that "women were involved and paid."

Threw that one in there just for fun!

My Top 5 Must Reads of the Day 6/29/10

1. 
   

   Five Gun Salute

   WSJ Editorial
   
   
   

   Judicial liberals have been discovering the virtues of legal precedent now that conservatives are finally winning a few cases at the Supreme Court, but in yesterday's major gun rights case that all went out the window. The four liberal Justices rejected a 2008 landmark precedent as well as one of their own bedrock Constitutional principles. 

   Liberals changing their tune for political expediency?!  NO WAY!
   
   
2. 
   

   Federal gov’t should follow Virginia’s lead and establish consensus to reduce deficit

   By Gov. Bob McDonnell (R-Va.) (The Hill)
   
   

   Waiting for our administration was a Virginia budget with an unprecedented $4.2 billion deficit, a politically divided General Assembly and the toughest economy in modern Virginia history. ... Remarkably, even in these tough times, we will likely realize a small budget surplus at the end of this fiscal year.

   Funny, Gov. McDonnell doesn't point fingers and complain about the $4.2B budget deficit HE inherited. Instead, he fixed it!
    
3. 
   

   Obama’s big oil spill bungle

   By Dick Morris (The Hill)
   
   
   

   ...The short answer is that every agency — each with its own particular bureaucratic agenda — was able to veto each aspect of any plan to fight the spill, with the unintended consequence that nothing stopped the oil from destroying hundreds of miles of wetlands, habitats, beaches, fisheries and recreational facilities.

   Don't read this if you don't want to make your blood boil.
   
   
4. 
   

   School Officials in Mass. Town Won't Let Students Recite Pledge of Allegiance
   
   FoxNews.com

   The Arlington, Mass., school committee has rejected the 17-year-old's request to allow students to voluntarily recite the Pledge of Allegiance, because some educators are concerned that it would be hard to find teachers willing to recite it, according to a report in the Arlington Patch. 

   This makes me sick.  Good for those students for being more mature and respectful than the supposed adults "teaching" them. 
   UPDATE: Velvet Hammer blogs on this as well.

5. 
   

   G8: Obama interested in Huntsville’s golf courses: Clement

   National Post (Canada)
   

   When U.S. President Barack Obama stepped off his helicopter in Huntsville on Friday, the first thing he said was, “You’ve got a lot of golf courses here, don’t you?” Industry Minister Tony Clement told the National Post in an exclusive interview.

   How many more times is this man going to golf while oil is spilling, jobs are being lost, and a war is going on?!?!

You Have the Right to Remain Stupid

We're heading into summer and that means Supreme Court decisions - YAY!  I love Con Law.  Of course there are the obligatory stupid or almost-stupid rulings every year.  Here's an almost-stupid one - only one judge away from a stupid decision, via WaPo: 

In the case about Miranda rights, suspect Van Chester Thompkins remained mostly silent for three hours of interrogation after reading and being told of his rights to remain silent and have an attorney. ... When asked, “Do you pray to God to forgive you for shooting that boy down?” Thompkins looked away and answered, “Yes.”

The statement was used against him, and Thompkins was convicted of killing Samuel Morris outside a strip mall in Southfield, Mich.

Um...which part of "anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law" is unclear to FOUR of our Supreme Court Justices?!  Justice Kennedy gives the obvious response:

“If Thompkins wanted to remain silent, he could have said nothing in response to (the detective’s) questions, or he could have unambiguously involved his Miranda rights and ended the interrogation,” wrote Kennedy ...

Well, DUH! Somehow Justice Sotomayor fails to grasp this simple concept:

“Today’s decision turns Miranda upside down,” wrote Sotomayor. “Criminal suspects must now unambiguously invoke their right to remain silent, which, counterintuitively, requires them to speak.”

No, actually, all they have to do is NOT SPEAK.  And by the way, the 5th Amendment has to be unambiguously invoked and spoken, does Sotomayor have a problem with that, too? 

Counterintuitively, Sotomayor wants the reading of Miranda rights to mean that anything said following the reading of the rights is inadmissible in a court of law. 

I don't know why criminals still have trouble with Miranda anyway, haven't they ever seen an episode of Law & Order? Geez, shut up, get a good lawyer, and hope to go before judges like Sotomayor.

Related posts that eviscerate liberals on the Supreme Court:

5-4?!

Supreme Idiot

What does empathy have to do with the Supreme Court?

Liberal Change the NYT Can Believe In

What does empathy have to do with the Supreme Court?

I'm not that upset about Justice Souter retiring - it doesn't change the Supreme Court, just replacing one liberal for another. But I do want to talk about the ridiculousness of what Obama says he is looking for in a justice.

During the campaign, he said:

"We need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom, the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor or African-American or gay or disabled or old—and that's the criterion by which I'll be selecting my judges."

Well, first of all, all the justices are old, so they can all understand that. Justice Clarence Thomas KNOWS what it's like to be poor and African-American - but that doesn't count to Obama, it has to be a liberal without first hand experience who feels enough guilt to empathize with the perceived weaker side and rule in their favor no matter the circumstances. To him, empathy is more important than truth, heart over head.

Speaking of Justice Thomas, Obama has pretty much called him stupid:

"I don't think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretations of a lot of the constitution. I would not have nominated Justice Scalia though I don't think there is any doubt about his intellectual brilliance. Because he and I just disagree."

(Of course it's only racist to question the intellect and qualifications of a black person if they're liberal, black conservatives are fair game for the worst racial taunts imaginable.)

When officially announcing the retirement of Souter, Obama again spoke of empathy:

I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving as just decisions and outcomes. I will seek somebody who is dedicated to the rule of law, who honors our constitutional traditions, who respects the integrity of the judicial process and the appropriate limits of the judicial role. I will seek somebody who shares my respect for constitutional values on which this nation was founded and who brings a thoughtful understanding of how to apply them in our time.

Empathy has nothing to do with justice. You can empathize with someone all day long but they could still be wrong. Judges are supposed to be dispassionate and objective; empathy is all about emotions and subjectivity. I don't believe Obama in his second sentence where he pays lip service to the rule of law and constitutional traditions - his view of those are far different from the rest of the country.

I think the last sentence is telling; he seems to be saying, "I respect the constitutional values this country was founded on, but they need to be updated and I need someone to think of creative ways to do this." One example of a potential Obama update on our constitutional values would be to say, "the 2nd Amendment was great in the 17th century when people hunted for food or needed protection on the frontier, but today guns kill too many people and we need to control them."

Another Obama criteria is that the justice has to be as militantly pro-abortion as he is. I don't need to get into this except to say, maybe more empathy wouldn't be so bad: