“This site is dedicated to preying on peoples vanity, ignorance, or loneliness, gaining their trust and betraying them without remorse.”

Thursday, June 28, 2012

John Roberts, Another Stealth Nominee

7/20/2005 

Ann Coulter

After pretending to consider various women and minorities for the Supreme Court these past few weeks, President Bush decided to disappoint all the groups he had just ginned up and nominate a white male. - -

So all we know about him for sure is that he can't dance and he probably doesn't know who Jay-Z is. Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah...we also know he's argued cases before the Supreme Court. big deal. so has Larry Flynt's attorney. - -

But unfortunately, other than that that, we don’t know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever. - -

Since the announcement, court-watchers have been like the old Kremlinologists from Soviet days looking for clues as to what kind of justice Roberts will be. Will he let us vote? - -

Does he live in a small, rough-hewn cabin in the woods of New Hampshire and avoid "women folk"?

Does he trust democracy? Or will he make all the important decisions for us and call them “constitutional rights.” - -

It means absolutely nothing that NARAL and Planned Parenthood attack him: They also attacked Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy and David Hackett Souter. - -

The only way a Supreme Court nominee could win the approval of NARAL and Planned Parenthood would be to actually perform an abortion during his confirmation hearing, live, on camera, and preferably a partial-birth one. - -

It means nothing that Roberts wrote briefs arguing for the repeal of Roe v. Wade when he worked for Republican administrations. He was arguing on behalf of his client, the United States of America. Roberts has specifically disassociated himself from those cases, dropping a footnote to a 1994 law review article that said: - -

“In the interest of full disclosure, the author would like to point out that as deputy solicitor general for a portion of the 1992-93 term, he was involved in many of the cases discussed below. In the interest of even fuller disclosure, he would also like to point out that his views as a commentator on those cases do not necessarily reflect his views as an advocate for his former client, the United States.” - -

This would have been the legal equivalent, after O.J.'s acquittal, of Johnnie Cochran’s saying: "Hey, I never said the guy was innocent. I was just doing my job." - -

And it makes no difference that conservatives in the White House are assuring us Roberts can be trusted. We got the exact same assurances from officials working for the last President Bush about David Hackett Souter. - -

I believe their exact words were, "Read our lips; Souter's a reliable conservative." - - From the theater of the absurd category, the Republican National Committee’s “talking points” on Roberts provide this little tidbit: - -

“In the 1995 case of Barry v. Little, Judge Roberts argued—free of charge—before the D.C. Court of Appeals on behalf of a class of the neediest welfare recipients, challenging a termination of benefits under the District’s Public Assistance Act of 1982.” - -

I'm glad to hear the man has a steady work record, but how did this make it to the top of his rà ©sumà ©? Bill Clinton goes around bragging that he passed welfare reform, which was, admittedly, the one public policy success of his entire administration (passed by the Republican Congress). But now apparently Republicans want to pretend to be the party of welfare queens! Soon the RNC will be boasting that Republicans want to raise your taxes and surrender in the war on terrorism, too. - -

Finally, let’s ponder the fact that Roberts has gone through 50 years on this planet without ever saying anything controversial. That’s just unnatural. - -

By contrast, I held out for three months, tops, before dropping my first rhetorical bombshell, which I think was about Goldwater. It’s especially unnatural for someone who is smart and there’s no question but that Roberts is smart. If a smart and accomplished person goes this long without expressing an opinion, they'd better be pursuing the Miss America title. - -

Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It’s as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that. - - If the Senate were in Democratic hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate?! - - We also have a majority in the House, state legislatures, state governorships, and have won five of the last seven presidential elections—seven of the last ten! - -

We're the Harlem Globetrotters now—why do we have to play the Washington Generals every week? - -

Conservatism is sweeping the nation, we have a fully functioning alternative media, we’re ticked off and ready to avenge Robert Bork . . . and Bush nominates a Rorschach blot. - -

Even as they are losing voters, Democrats don’t hesitate to nominate reliable left-wing lunatics like Ruth Bader Ginsberg to lifetime sinecures on the High Court. And the vast majority of Americans loathe her views. - -

As I’ve said before, if a majority of Americans agreed with liberals on abortion, gay marriage, pornography, criminals’ rights, and property rights, liberals wouldn’t need the Supreme Court to give them everything they want through invented “constitutional” rights invisible to everyone but People For the American Way. It’s always good to remind voters that Democrats are the party of abortion, sodomy, and atheism and nothing presents an opportunity to do so like a Supreme Court nomination. - -

During the “filibuster” fracas, one lonely voice in the woods admonished Republicans: “Of your six minutes on TV, use 30 seconds to point out the Democrats are abusing the filibuster and the other 5 1/2 minutes to ask liberals to explain why they think Bush's judicial nominees are ‘extreme.’" Republicans ignored this advice, spent the next several weeks arguing about the history of the filibuster, and lost the fight. - -

Now we come to find out from last Sunday’s New York Times—the enemy’s own playbook!—that the Democrats actually took polls and determined that they could not defeat Bush’s conservative judicial nominees on ideological grounds. They could win majority support only if they argued turgid procedural points. - -

That’s why the entire nation had to be bored to death with arguments about the filibuster earlier this year. - -

The Democrats’ own polls showed voters are no longer fooled by claims that the Democrats are trying to block “judges who would roll back civil rights.” Borking is over. - -

And Bush responds by nominating a candidate who will allow Democrats to avoid fighting on their weakest ground—substance. He has given us a Supreme Court nomination that will placate no liberals and should please no conservatives. - -

Maybe Roberts will contravene the sordid history of “stealth nominees” and be the Scalia or Thomas Bush promised us when he was asking for our votes. Or maybe he won’t. The Supreme Court shouldn't be a game of Russian roulette.

68 comments:

  1. Deuce:
    I'd appreciate you telling me how to avoid having paragraph spaces stripped out when I publish a post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you using the html option?

      Delete
    2. Musta tried it for the first time just before you asked.
      Guess I'll set up a private blog to experiment on so as not to continue to mar your aesthetically appealing institution.

      If I ever get my life back together, I may even start contributing graphic additions as I used to do on a now defunct Honolulu based publication.

      ...if

      Delete
  2. Readers:

    Click on Coulter's name to get to the original in readable form.

    ReplyDelete
  3. The Supreme Court has now ruled that the government can tax us for inactivity.

    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can Rufus be taxed for sitting on his ass year after year?

      b

      Delete
    2. They always could. I'm about the most inactive person in America, and they tax me. :)

      Delete
  4. "Apparently, Roberts decided early on that he wanted to be on the Supreme Court and that the way to do that was not to express a personal opinion on anything to anybody ever. It’s as if he is from some space alien sleeper cell. Maybe the space aliens are trying to help us, but I wish we knew that. - - If the Senate were in Democratic hands, Roberts would be perfect. But why on earth would Bush waste a nomination on a person who is a complete blank slate when we have a majority in the Senate?!"

    Hewitt worked at the Whitehouse at the same time as Roberts:

    When he was nominated, he also said then he had no idea whatsoever about any of Robert's views.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I worked hard this mornin'. Must be about Oh One Naptime. :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I read the 'silver lining' in this ruling is they didn't expand the commerce clause.

    But who needs a commerce clause when you can tax anything.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  7. Silver will be confiscated by our rulers.

    ReplyDelete
  8. That doesn't reflect to well on quirk's constitutional acumen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      That?

      Doug's observation that silver will be confiscated by our rulers?

      .

      Delete
    2. No, your conviction that the mandate wouldn't pass constitutional muster.

      Delete
  9. George Bush: another Mission Accomplished

    ReplyDelete
  10. Abraham Lincoln: another Mission Accomplished

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This is the beginning of an end for the United States. The country is now as split as it was before 1861. Remote as it is, another civil war is now a possibility. The only hope lies in Obama's defeat in November; even so, it may bring only a delay of the inevitable.

      Delete
  11. Obama fell in love with Air Force One and Judge Roberts fell in love with his throne.

    ReplyDelete
  12. QuirkThu Jun 28, 07:53:00 AM EDT
    .

    No ancient king had such power. If we are free, why don’t we prove it?

    A less than silent rant.

    What do you suggest as an alternative? Whatever it is, I'm confident I can offer an adequate rebuttal.

    .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies

    DeuceThu Jun 28, 05:54:00 PM EDT
    * No direct election of Senators.
    * Election of Supreme Court Judges by the same electors as the Senate for 6 year terms with a two term limit.
    * Any ruling by the supreme court can be overturned by a simple majority of one house and a 2/3 vote by the other.
    * Any ruling by the Supreme Court can be overruled by a simple majority of the states.

    Delete
    Reply

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. All excellent ideas but none is going to happen. The only practical thing any of us can do is vote for the Republican/Tea candidate, donate, etc. Not vote for some 3rd party candidate. It's the only way to push back.

      b

      Delete
    2. Only the 3rd option remains.

      Delete
    3. .

      Excuse me Deuce I misread what you were trying to say. Here is the entire post I was responding to.

      Why are we ruled by nine wizards in black robes? How did 315,000,000 people allow themselves to get in this position where nine political hacks, lawyers, recipients of political favors, rule and master over us like ancient demons divining meanings of written works? No ancient king had such power. If we are free, why don’t we prove it?

      From that, I thought you were suggesting the Court be done away with. Possibly through a return to the agora and casting stones to vote on issues. Kind of simplistic on my part but you will have to admit you were going a little heavy on the poetic illusions. Wizards? Demons? Devination? Sounds like something out of the Elder Scrolls.

      Now that I see the point you were trying to make, I can agree with you up to a point. At a minimum, there should be an maximum age limit. This would eliminate some of the uncomfortable issues we went through with Rehnquist at the end and would probably help with the impression you get that some of these guys hang on past their time in order to allow a president of their philosophical persuasion to elect the next justice.

      Beyond that, if a change is necessary (haven’t really thought that much about it), it seems to me there are much simpler ways than those you have suggested to get it accomplished, ways that would neither diminish democracy in nor increase the politics of the nomination process.

      One suggestion I have seen before which seems to have some value is to elect each justice for eighteen years on a rotating basis. When fully implemented, each sitting president would be picking a new justice every two years.

      With regard to your suggestion that decisions could be overturned by a simple majority of the states, perhaps I was right with my initial impression regarding your views on the agora and the voting stones.

      :)

      .

      Delete

    4. With regard to your suggestion that decisions could be overturned by a simple majority of the states, perhaps I was right with my initial impression regarding your views on the agora and the voting stones.

      Does the collective wisdom of 26 states pale next to the blinding intellectual might of a John Roberts or
      the learned wisdom of a Judge Kagan?

      Delete
    5. .

      In this case, probably yes. There is already a process for doing what you are suggesting; however, it requires two thirds of the states. And there is a reason the founding fathers made it hard to change the Constitution.

      Those who talk about the benefits of democracy are either cynically doing it to promote their own ideology or they are truly unaware of the dangers democracy can bring.

      It is not off the wall to speculate that in a country of ever shifting demographics like the US, what you suggest would promote the tyranny of the majority, increase partisan divisions even beyond where we are now, and lead to an ideological (if not physical) civil war.

      And you complain about Lincoln.

      :)

      .

      Delete
  13. On balance I believe a parliamentary system would be better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So do I. I've come to that view.

      But that's not going to happen either.

      b

      Delete
    2. At least I think I'm coming to that view.

      b

      Delete
    3. What do you think, Rufus? Think I'll catch a break on my property taxes now that every mother's son has to buy an ObamaTaxCare policy?

      b

      Delete
    4. Talking about taxes, is there a 3% or so tax written into this monstrosity when you sell your home to help pay for this fiasco? That's what I read somewhere.

      b

      Delete
    5. http://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/realestate.asp

      b

      Delete
    6. Not to worry, it just hits the 'wealthy'.

      b

      Delete
  14. You have to hand it to the Bush’s: Souter & Roberts

    ReplyDelete
  15. All the countries with "parliamentary" systems had healthcare a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  16. In fact, "Everyone" had healthcare a long time ago.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Right, that's why they come down from Canada. That's why the Brit Lady healthcare boss there died awaiting for her operation. That's why the Brits after long experience are trying to shed the damn albatross. That's why everyone praises the 'free' healthcare system in Cuba.


    Holder is now in Contempt of Congress, a first for an AG. My rep Raul Labrador made a good little speech today in the House.


    Rufus, you want to smoke whatever locoweed you wish, but at the same time insist on sticking your nose into the private medical lives of every family in America.

    I'm going to the Casino where some good sense still prevails.

    b

    ReplyDelete
  18. Yeah, the good sense prevails there, alright. But, it doesn't enter through the "Customer" entrance.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Well Rufus, I think "grouchy" has been left in the dust.

    The intensity level was ratcheted up a notch or twenty.

    I wonder if Cohen of The Washington Post is wishing he could retract his op-ed on how boring this campaign is.

    Or?? Sound and Fury signifying ?????????

    .....

    Deuce's institutional tweaks have a lot of academic support. What's missing is leadership. MENSA we got in spades. Leadership, not so much.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. more proof that hobama is worse than gwb x 2

      gwb never forced/fined me to buy anything

      hobamacare will be a predator drone on all medical care and the patient care industry

      bet!

      may god bless us all


      also

      gwb tortured
      hobama just kills

      predator drones trump waterboarding

      ask libya/syria/somalia/africom etc

      shame!!!!!!!

      Delete
    2. Yep, "grouchy" sounds pretty good along about now. :)

      Delete
  20. In Australia:

    Everybody is on public health by default.

    If you are single and make > $80k/year, you must have private health.

    If you are couple/family and make > $160k/year you must have private health.

    If you fall into those categories and you do not have private health you taxed 1%.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oh noes, does that mean if Bob goes to Australia they'll euthanize him?

      Delete
    2. Put him in front of de dreaded "Death Panel?"

      Delete
  21. The Supreme Court reached its decision in the final week of its 2011-12 term, following an extraordinary three days of oral argument in late March at which conservative justices sharply questioned the mandate. Justice Scalia suggested that under the government's logic, Congress could require the purchase of any product and "you can make people buy broccoli."

    Justice Kennedy confounded many predictions by turning out not to be the swing justice on the court as he sided with conservatives in calling for the entire law to be struck down.

    Instead Chief Justice Roberts proved the decisive vote with his opinion that rejected much of the Obama administration's case but still gave the president a de facto victory on the centerpiece of the law.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Advantages and Disadvantages of Parliamentary Government

    It's not the architecture so much as the people. USA system forces the people skills to evolve - faster than, say, a parliamentary system.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Obamacare survives on June 28, 2012. It falls on November 6, 2012.

    As I wrote a few weeks ago:

    Put not your trust in judges​—​nor in other berobed or bejeweled personages. To the degree you trust anyone: Trust the people.

    ...

    More concretely: While a defeat for Obamacare in the Court would be nice, the defeat of President Obama at the polls on November 6 is crucial. If electoral victory is achieved, Obamacare can and will be repealed​—​and more judges of a constitutionalist persuasion will be appointed by the next president.


    - Bill Kristol

    ReplyDelete
  24. Apple admitted it had a human rights problem at its biggest Chinese supplier, Foxconn, in February when it launched an investigation by the Fair Labour Association following the suicide or attempted suicide of 13 Foxconn staff . In a report in March, the FLA found "serious and pressing" concerns over excessive working hours, unpaid overtime and health and safety failings, prompting Foxconn and Apple to promise they would end the abuses within a year.

    But according to China Labor Watch (CLW) – which investigated 10 Apple suppliers in Shenzhen, Shanghai and Jiangsu Province for the first four months of this year – abuses exist across Apple's Chinese suppliers and are worse at non-Foxconn factories.

    ...

    Apple, the world's biggest company, did not dispute CLW's findings. In an email to Reuters, Kristin Huguet, spokeswoman for the company wrote: "As part of our ongoing supplier responsibility program, our team has conducted thorough audits at every facility in China Labor Watch's report.

    ReplyDelete
  25. So, since the Arizona police cannot arrest and incarcerate anyone for undocumented presence and since they cannot deliver anyone so arrested to the feds, what legitimate governmental purpose will be served by what remains of Arizona's law? None.

    ...

    Have we lost sight of the perpetual tension between human freedom and human law? Either freedom is integral to our nature, as Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, or it comes from the government, as the president and the Supreme Court demonstrated they believe this week.

    If it is integral to our nature, no government can tell us with whom we may freely associate. If it comes from the government, we should abandon all hope, as the government will permit the exercise of only those freedoms that are not an obstacle to the contemporary exercise of its powers.

    ReplyDelete
  26. On June 28, 2000, after what is probably the biggest parental custody battle in history, Elian Gonzalez was sent back to Cuba.

    ReplyDelete
  27. What the case really means is that the elite can do whatever they want and the courts job is to find the proper excuse for letting it happen. Just like the government can discriminate when it really wants to , can violate double jeopardy when it wants to, and can control (not regulate) private business when it wants to, now the government can force people to buy somethng just as long as the IRS collects the money due.

    The real impact of the outcome is that the Obama Administration now has the ability to create a huge, new entitlements and will create more automatic Democratic Party voters. As healthcare becomes a government run entitlement that many people will see as something paid by others, it should be obvious that the game is rigged (no surprise) and Roberts is thrilled with his superior intellect and tripped on his own hem.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Can anyone see this as anything other than a victory for civilized values? Roberts is a Roman Catholic and his view reflects traditional Catholic values. Like it or not, the USA is becoming a liberal, socialist, progressive nation and there's nothing you can do about it. Americans now have something that modern civilisations take for granted. There are people that continue to try and live in the past. They can't see the changes taking place, or refuse to accept them. Look at the huge shift in ethnic demographics of the US. It's irreversible. The WASP is becoming a minority, and about time too.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Why, gummint healthcare is just destroying Australia. Right, Sam? Right??? Sam? Right???

    ReplyDelete
  30. Maybe somebody from Germany, or Switzerland can chime in, and tell us how their universal healthcare is destroying their countries.

    Or, at least somebody from Massachusetts.

    Anyone? Anyone?? Bueller? Bueller???

    ReplyDelete
  31. :)

    I think Australia is the last country standing with solid economic growth, great lifestyle, 5.1% unemployment, great beaches, great weather (pretty hard to beat sunshine damn near 24 x 7, the sun does wonders for the soul and general well-being), shitloads of wineries, great fucking beer.

    Hell, I'm just generally downright happy and feel fucking great. Not much to complain about down here.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Chief Justice Roberts said that would put a "gun to the head" of states, and said participating in the expanded program should be voluntary. Some Republican governors said they might choose not to participate.

    That could mean some lower earners in those states would lose their chance to gain coverage under the law.

    "Wisconsin will not take any action to implement ObamaCare," said Gov. Scott Walker, a Republican. "I am hopeful that political changes in Washington, D.C., later this year ultimately end the implementation of this law at the federal level."

    ReplyDelete
  33. And let's not forget that little Australian dollar buying 1.01 greenbacks. Not too shabby.

    And Australia is basically the same size as US with a current population the US had in 1895. Lotsa room and wide open space to move around.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If I weren't so old.....

      b

      Delete
  34. The question is whether either candidate will convey that he knows what this election is really about. Obama can’t say it’s about Obamacare — even though that’s what he considers it to be about — because he’ll lose if he does.

    Regardless, the Court has cleared the field. The stakes are historic.

    The citizenry will decide.

    ReplyDelete
  35. If ObamaCare is a tax, how can it be a properly enacted tax, since the legislation originated in the Senate, not the House?

    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Always read HotAir before asking a question, b.

      http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/say-doesnt-the-constitution-require-tax-bills-to-originate-in-the-house/

      The old yes, but.....

      b

      Delete
  36. Quotes of the day
    posted at 10:48 pm on June 28, 2012 by Allahpundit

    Conservatives won a substantial victory Thursday. The physics of American politics — actions provoking reactions — continues to move the crucial debate, about the nature of the American regime, toward conservatism. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. has served this cause…

    This victory will help revive a venerable tradition of America’s political culture, that of viewing congressional actions with a skeptical constitutional squint, searching for congruence with the Constitution’s architecture of enumerated powers. By rejecting the Commerce Clause rationale, Thursday’s decision reaffirmed the Constitution’s foundational premise: Enumerated powers are necessarily limited because, as Chief Justice John Marshall said, “the enumeration presupposes something not enumerated.”

    ***

    Reading over the Roberts opinion, the opinion strikes me as quite conservative. The opinion starts from the premise that the federal government is a government of limited powers. The opinion goes on to reject the federal government’s power to regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. It then goes on to reject a broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause. The opinion also imposes new limits on the federal government’s ability to force the states to adopt federal programs, striking down the condition that Congress can withdraw all medicaid funding if a state refuses to go along with the medicaid expansion.

    These sections of the opinion are all about about the need to narrow Congress’s power, and they impose new limits on federal power that have not been seen before. They nicely match what a lot of conservatives have been saying about the Affordable Care Act. Roberts even comes very close to using the broccoli hypothetical — he ends up using a generic example of “vegetables” instead of broccoli, but he’s singing the conservative tune on these parts of the opinion…

    The result is an opinion that happens to please today’s liberals and annoy today’s conservatives, because the liberal law that was passed and that conservatives hate remains on the books. But the key opinion that leads to that result is not a liberal opinion; rather, it strikes me as a largely conservative opinion that just happens to get to a liberal result.

    ***

    The business about “new and potentially vast” authority is a fig leaf. This is a substantial rollback of Congress’ regulatory powers, and the chief justice knows it. It is what Roberts has been pursuing ever since he signed up with the Federalist Society. In 2005, Sen. Barack Obama spoke in opposition to Roberts’ nomination, saying he did not trust his political philosophy on tough questions such as “whether the Commerce Clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce.” Today, Roberts did what Obama predicted he would do.

    Roberts’ genius was in pushing this health care decision through without attaching it to the coattails of an ugly, narrow partisan victory. Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress’ power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.

    ***

    If you were above all interested in the bill being struck down, it was mostly a loss. On the other hand, if you were more concerned about the qualitative expansion in the power of the government that the bill represented, it was definitely a win…

    Conservatives have a shot at getting the best of both worlds: having the Supreme Court use Obamacare as a way to limit federal power while also using the democratic process to overturn the law. I didn’t think we could have one without the other, but now maybe we can.


    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/28/quotes-of-the-day-1071/

    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  37. http://broun.house.gov/

    Dr. Broun's House bill 4224--

    http://broun.house.gov/healthcarebill/brounbill.htm

    He was just on Dennis Prager explaining how and why ObamaCare is an absolute disaster.
    ....

    No ditto, Quirk? I'm wondering why.

    nite

    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. .

      No, I agree with it all.

      Ditto seemed a little trivial and presumptious after such a good analysis. George Will has written a column that pretty much mirrors this one.

      .

      Delete
  38. Maybe Michael Savage has it right. Robert's epilepsy drugs have disappeared his rational faculty.

    If it's no good as a mandate, just call it a tax and you are good to go. And not even say what kind of tax it is.

    WND EXCLUSIVE
    Michael Savage: Roberts affected by medication
    Swing vote in Obamacare case suffered epileptic seizures
    Published: 17 hours ago

    inShare1
    Printer Friendly
    Share
    Text smaller
    Text bigger

    120628obamaroberts

    Talk radio host Michael Savage told his listeners today that the use of mind-altering drugs to treat seizures could explain why Bush-appointed Chief Justice John Roberts upheld Obamacare today along with four liberal colleagues.

    Roberts shocked most analysts by siding with Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor in a 5-4 decision upholding the lynchpin provision of the president’s signature legislation, the so-called individual mandate in the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act.

    Savage told his “Savage Nation” listeners that on the way to the studio for his program tonight he visited a world famous neurologist he knows, and they talked about Obamacare.

    The physician urged Savage to check out Roberts’ history with epilepsy, referring him to a New York Times report in August 2007. The article said that after Roberts suffered a seizure, doctors were weighing whether to treat him with powerful drugs with “troubling side effects,” including mental slowing and forgetfulness.

    Roberts had suffered a seizure 14 years earlier. The seizures meet the criteria for epilepsy, the Times report said, because they were “unprovoked,” meaning that they were not caused by a head injury, a drug reaction or another known factor.

    The neurologist told Savage that Roberts’ cognition could be affected by taking epilepsy medicine.

    “I’m going to tell you something that you’re not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to,” Savage said.

    “It’s well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication.”

    Savage said that “if you look at Roberts’ writings you can the cognitive disassociation in what he is saying.”

    “Roberts has no logic in what he said,” Savage asserted.

    “He said the law is a tax, but if the law wasn’t written as a tax, how can he say it’s taxation?”

    Savage was referring to the fact that the Obama administration had argued that the law’s mandate for individuals to buy health insurance was based on the power given to Congress under the Commerce Clause to regulate interstate trade. The administration, including President Obama himself, however had vehemently argued that the mandate was not a tax.


    b

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I have never been so wrong in my assessment of a POLITICIAN, for that is what this "Cheif Justice" has proved himself to be.

      Medication may have aided his discarding of all morality, but the man is DC centric based SCUM.

      Too smart by about 5 to 1:
      When you strip all his "high minded" BULLSHIT from his "argument" it boils down to rewriting the "law" to justify blessing it.

      Legislation that NEVER would have passed if it had be advertised as re-written by "Justice" Roberts.

      Better described as a cheap whore who has already been paid what he whores for:

      The approbation of "conservative" "intellectuals" like Krauthammer and Wills.
      (not to mention a temporary pass by the MSM)

      Fuck them all to Hell.

      Delete