Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.
Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.
"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."...
Two things I re-call about the time of Robert's nomination: 1. I heard him call himself a pragmatist. Apparently. That's not very comforting; so much for moral law. Humanistic law is amoral, no standard for righteousness, pragmatic. 2. A TV News reporter saying it was the first time in history there were no Protestant voices on the Supreme Court. The reporter seemed quite pleased that was the case.
Yes, the Romish Bishops were/are against the ACA. This is why the American nuns group, many who are nurses got stepped on for supporting it. Protestant? there are no Protestants or for that matter Christians on the Supreme Court! But then that isn't overly strange. Too bad there aren't more conservative Jews on it, though. Perhaps CJ Roberts also realized that Social Security could be thrown out if he threw out the ACA, but whatever, Republicans should give Give healthcare a chance to evolve.
Jim Lincoln wrote: Roberts give me some hope for Catholics in general and the Supreme Court in particular. I suppose there has never been a time that the Supreme Court was actually an impartial body, which everyone from it's beginning hoped it would be. An example, would be Roger B. Taney the first Catholic Supreme Court Justice, who had a rather muddy career. I suppose it would to much to hope that the present day Justices would act on more what the Constitution said, than their personal ideologies. With the present Court they seem to be either extreme left -- or right. Anyway, I'll congratulate the Chief Justice in not bowing to pressure to tow the Romish bishops of America's plans.
The USCCB was against the ACA? Roberts was also against the ACA, then flipped? Who's doing what with whom? Which sitting Evangelical Protestant Justice is most biblical?
Roberts give me some hope for Catholics in general and the Supreme Court in particular. I suppose there has never been a time that the Supreme Court was actually an impartial body, which everyone from it's beginning hoped it would be. An example, would be Roger B. Taney the first Catholic Supreme Court Justice, who had a rather muddy career.
I suppose it would to much to hope that the present day Justices would act on more what the Constitution said, than their personal ideologies. With the present Court they seem to be either extreme left -- or right. Anyway, I'll congratulate the Chief Justice in not bowing to pressure to bow to the Romish bishops of America's plans.
1
There are a total of 4 user comments displayed | add new comment |
COMMENTS | 
An example, would be 
With the present Court they seem to be either extreme left -- or right. Anyway, I'll congratulate the Chief Justice in not bowing to pressure to tow the Romish bishops of America's plans.
unprofitable servant from georgia: "i keep telling my wife that i might be an angel..."
