On Sat, 11 Jul 2015 07:03:04 -0400, "Robert Green"
wrote:

"rbowman" wrote in message

Perhaps I'm wrong but I thought the purpose of The Supreme Court was to
rule on the constitutionality of a law, not to legislate. I thought to
legislate was the job of Congress.

So Roberts says when he isn't busy legislating.

Yes, "don't watch what I say, watch what I do" is the operative principle
here. I recall at his confirmation hearings him saying how much he
respected "stare decisis" (not to re-litigate something that's already been
decided). I guess that went out the window along with an implied promise
not to legislate from the bench.

In his defense (and it hurts to say it) he's also well aware that the normal
process of the SC invalidating a law - and then Congress reworking that law
to be within the Constitution's framework - has broken down. If the SC
strikes down a law for a particular, although small technicality, the
results now are that we won't have ANY law to replace it because Congress
has basically abdicated their role in that process.

So Roberts is faced time and time again knowing "if I vote Nay then the
small technicality will end up controlling the issue in its entirety." That
is a little bit backwards from what the Frowning Fathers intended. I
suspect he feels forced to legislate because Congress often won't. )-:

Yeah, that's what he basically implied. But I suspect it would not be
hard to find cases where he had no trouble throwing out a law he
DIDN"T like because of a technicality even knowing that congress would
be too grid locked to fix and repass it.