Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

quaker bill

(8,253 posts)

17. It was an entirely conservative ruling

Reply to yurbud (Original post)

Sun Jul 1, 2012, 01:36 PM

Jul 2012

There is no change. It is essentially conservative for the court to uphold a law passed by congress and signed by the President, if there is any inherently constitutional rationale for doing so. This is the way the founders divided the powers.

There was nothing at odds with his "originalist" point of view in this decision. The decision was completely unspectacular, being unexpected does not equal spectacular. A vote to overturn would have been partisan activism. He did not go there. I was surprised only he busted this move, I expected at least Kennedy to join in as well. Perhaps once there were 5 votes to uphold, the rest took leave to raise a bit of political hell.

No one blinked, not even a bit.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

22 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Was Roberts vote conservatism/neoliberalism blinking? [View all] yurbud Jun 2012 OP

I voted Other because TeamPooka Jun 2012 #1

This. He's a conservative judge, but as chief, didn't want to deligitimize the image of SCOTUS /nt Proles Jun 2012 #8

exactly TeamPooka Jul 2012 #9

so it was a lesser blink yurbud Jul 2012 #18

That's why I voted "Other" too...nt SidDithers Jul 2012 #10

I voted other because Roberts is the right age to know that act is a conservative idea Johonny Jul 2012 #14

I have no clue. Maybe Roberts is ill, we don't know it, and he's Sarah Ibarruri Jun 2012 #2

No, they never blink or quit or back down. MrSlayer Jun 2012 #3

if they never blinked, Bush would have figured out a way to privatize SS without congressional yurbud Jul 2012 #19

No. elleng Jun 2012 #4

He voted for a republican policy potentially limiting xchrom Jun 2012 #5

The five drew straws to see who was going to support the corporatists instead of the crazies.. Fumesucker Jun 2012 #6

He set a dangerous precedent Ruby the Liberal Jun 2012 #7

i just shuddered... silvershadow Jul 2012 #11

Here are a couple of articles about this Ruby the Liberal Jul 2012 #13

I see it more as conservatism and neoliberalism fluttering their eyelashes at one another Tom Ripley Jul 2012 #12

LOL EFerrari Jul 2012 #15

Maybe he saw that, ultimately, this was an argument over a REPUBLICAN policy. Marr Jul 2012 #16

I agree that going the other way COULD have led to Medicare for all, but... yurbud Jul 2012 #20

It was an entirely conservative ruling quaker bill Jul 2012 #17

one of the few times I was more optimistic than general DU opinion yurbud Jul 2012 #21

It was ROBERTS & KENNEDY doing a tandem stranglehold on both decision writing sides UTUSN Jul 2012 #22