Originally Posted by ralphrepo
"Looks like the typical leftist libertarian argument to me. I agree on some of it, especially the Holder and Gonzales part, but of course we cannot forget the points where the "conservatives" are chided. For the millionth time already, the term "conservative" is a general term (often utilized in a derogatory manner) used to describe but a fraction of an individuals beliefs. Not every conservative is a Republican, and not every Republican is a conservative. There are dozens of Congressmen I can name off the top of my head that are Republican, yet express liberal votes and beliefs. It is like me calling every Democrat a Communist. Also, this person is not saying anything knew. He/she apparently forgot the primary when millions of conservative people were expressing concern about Romney's past governing skills. The only reason he was chosen was because he was the lesser evil of a piece of shit crop (Yeah, that includes Ron Paul). Many conservatives understand better than anyone that we are now under the rule of a one party system, as the Democrats and Republicans perform the same functions of growing government every time they take office. So this is nothing new.
As for the Chief Justice, is this person kidding me with one of the quotes:
Luckily, Roberts turned out not to be one of those people, even as another (Scalia) remains prominently and defiantly so. Thus, Roberts, whatever his politics, is revealed as a man of idealist character who cares more for his nation than his own interests. I may disagree with his politics, but I applaud his morality in being able to recognize that our nation is larger and more important than each of us. Smaller minds of course, have failed to see this, or perhaps don't want to see this.
How do we know this decision was based on idealist grounds? There is no proof that Roberts made the opinion outside the realm of politics. Who is this person to judge other people, including many legal and Constitutional scholars and professionals, on the basis of their criticism? There are those that think the decision was correct based on the power the government already had, and there are others who believe the judgment was founded on blatant fabrication of the law (which I personally side with because all you need to do is read the decision online). Many people wanted more government in there lives, while others see this as an enormous power grab that decreases liberty and exponentially increases government intrusion in our lives (again I side with the latter). Is the Supreme Court infallible now that we cannot criticize a decision? I didn't know a Court made of fallible human beings was perfect. Thomas Jefferson constantly criticized the Court and he was a prophet of his time, despite his behavioral aspects. Was he a man of small brain? I am tired of this logic that if you don't agree with a decision made by an authority, you should just shut up and accept it. The most important aspects of "our democracy" is the freedom of speech and the will of the people. If you don't like hearing dissenting opinions, go to Russia or China, where you are arrested for such things."
-Commented by a friend of mine