December 27, 2012
NCR's Person of the Year: Chief Justice Roberts
Find out why here. A bit:
From federal budget debates echoing with catch phrases like "subsidiarity" and "common good," to a vice presidential contest between two members of the faith, it's clear: Catholics are engaged in the larger culture like no other time in the nation's history. We help shape national conversations and hold influential posts that affect lives across the country in profound ways.
Our choice for person of the year acknowledges this growing reality. Decisions made by him and his court, which currently includes a total of six Catholics, altered in a fundamental manner the way in which U.S. politics are conducted, ensured that a major policy goal of the U.S. church for almost a century will be implemented, and limited civil law's reach into the personnel policies of religious institutions.
For 2012, our person of the year is John Roberts, chief justice of the Supreme Court of United States of America. . . .
Our person of the year comes from the Catholic milieu, formed and educated in its institutions. He is reserved and circumspect in public, has a reputation for being a family man and an active Catholic who attends his children's sporting events. His wife, Jane, also a lawyer, is active in such nonprofits as Feminists for Life (which gave qualified approval to the court's health care ruling) and the environmental group Citizens for Affordable Energy and, in the recent past, as a member of the advisory board of the Washington Home and Community Hospices.
Roberts does not hide his religious affiliation, but he also demonstrates that while religious attachment may provide a philosophic underpinning for decisions with ethical significance in public service, it doesn't guarantee unanimity of thinking or consensus on such issues. . . .
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference NCR's Person of the Year: Chief Justice Roberts:
Man of the Year???? What the hell are they smoking???? Not even sure Roberts is a man ... he showed he had no testicles in several high profile cases and is guilty of murdering thousands. Ad the swing vote decalring Obama Care as Constitutional he enshrined abortions and denied the Constitution's Freedom if Reilgion clause. He is no more Catholic than Attila the Hun, Hitler or Stalin. For an encore in 2013 watch for him to grant Constitutional protection to gay marriage. NCR selected a smacked ass Heretic as it's Man of the Year ... just proves the old adage about birds of a feather ...
Posted by: Harry | Dec 27, 2012 9:28:45 PM
Yikes! To say that requiring Health Insurance is valid as a tax, is not to say that Obama Care, with all the details, some of which have yet to be determined, is constitutional. Your argument is thus based on a faulty premise.
Posted by: N.D. | Dec 28, 2012 2:17:07 PM
That should read the fact The Court ruled that taxing those who don't provide Health Insurance for employees would be valid, is not to say...
Posted by: N.D. | Dec 28, 2012 3:56:56 PM
Harry's is one of the silliest and most ignorant comments in MOJ history. "Guilty of murdering thousands?" Insane.
Posted by: Rgarnett@nd.edu | Dec 28, 2012 5:14:40 PM
Not to mention it is not necessary, nor is it proper, to use obscenity.
Posted by: N.D. | Dec 29, 2012 8:42:53 AM
I don't think it is justified to deem Justice Roberts "Man of the Year." However, he does have a fair claim on being "Conservative Who Caved to Liberals of the Year," which is of course why he caught NCR's attention.
Posted by: Dan | Dec 30, 2012 7:30:38 PM
One could also argue that acquiring Health Insurance is a conservative means of obtaining quality and affordable Health Care, and thus a tax equivalent to the price of Health Insurance could be considered a fair tax. It would be premature to suggest that Justice Roberts has "caved" to a liberal view, as The Supreme Court did not rule on what is necessary and proper, or what is necessary and thus sufficient in a Health Care Plan, including whether The Federal Government or The State can coerce any Insurance Company to become a peddler of contraception, which promotes promiscuity and thus the sexual objectification of the human person, and in some cases, destroys a human life, and is thus not Life affirming or Life sustaining to begin with. I predict Justice Roberts will rule that the contraception mandate is unconstitutional.
Posted by: N.D. | Dec 31, 2012 10:43:09 AM
The PPACA case resulted in five votes to hold the requirement in question was not authorized by the Commerce Clause and seven votes that another provision could not constitutionally require states to provided expanded health benefits to the poor (not sure how "Christian" that is exactly for the purposes of this award). The 'caving' to the liberal side is therefore open to question. Distasteful language also isn't very apropos to this blog either, is it?
The choice is interesting. Given the other Catholics on the Court, four others "demonstrate that while religious attachment may provide a philosophic underpinning for decisions with ethical significance in public service, it doesn't guarantee unanimity of thinking or consensus on such issues."
Posted by: Joe | Jan 2, 2013 12:14:26 PM