In response to:

John Roberts in Context

gtanv Wrote: Jul 07, 2012 8:56 AM
Medved's saying denounce the ruling not the guy. It makes sense. What does it matter if Roberts is a good guy or bad guy --- the ruling, the legal reasoning is what matters. You can say "this ruling makes no sense" or you can say (to sample this thread) Roberts was drugged, is a liar, coward, traitor etc. What value is there in the latter approach?
gtanv Wrote: Jul 09, 2012 12:11 PM
No, Dave, it's not. The argument needs to be that it's a bad ruling, not that Roberts is a bad guy. if the attack is on Roberts as a bad guy, people who might be swayed think "Jeez this guy agrees with them 9 times out of 10 and they rip him to shreds personally over the disagreement. They are not reasonable people". If you argue the ruling is wrong, the focus remains on the ruling. if you argue Roberts is a crook, liar, etc. you put the fopcus on whether you are a reasonable person or not. Do we want to vent spleen or win the marketplace of ideas? If all I'm doing is venting, I can find better ways to use my time.
Dave M Wrote: Jul 07, 2012 3:03 PM
Since the "Guy" makes the "Ruling" this is a non-sequitur

While conservatives feel appropriate indignation, even rage, over John Roberts’ surprising, unpersuasive decision to uphold ObamaCare, we should avoid personalized denunciations of the Chief Justice.

He previously served in both the Reagan and first Bush administrations, and voted with the court majority in the landmark 2008 Heller decision, finding a fundamental right under the Second Amendment for citizens to keep guns in their homes. He also cast decisive votes in Citizens United, protecting free speech in elections, and in Crawford vs. Marion County, allowing states to require photo identification for voters.

Roberts is only 57 and...