Chief Justice Roberts and the president
Posted by exceller 6 years ago to Legislation
Roberts rebutted the president on his remark of "Obama judges, Clinton judges" as a 9the Circuit Judge appointed by Obama blocked his order on the Central American migrants flooding this country.
According to Roberts there are no biased judges only an independent judiciary.
He must have been sleeping the past 20 years.
After Obama chastised the Court in his State of the Union message, Roberts turned around and cast the deciding vote to keep ACA. We should never forget that.
I would not be surprised that after the confirmation of Kavanaugh he'd join the liberal left of the Court.
According to Roberts there are no biased judges only an independent judiciary.
He must have been sleeping the past 20 years.
After Obama chastised the Court in his State of the Union message, Roberts turned around and cast the deciding vote to keep ACA. We should never forget that.
I would not be surprised that after the confirmation of Kavanaugh he'd join the liberal left of the Court.
Me dino feels so much better now.
Oh, and by the way~https://www.pond5.com/sound-effect/21...
Roberts is showing he will be the new "swing" vote of the SCOTUS. That's why I'm hoping the rumors of Ginsberg retiring next year are in fact true, and give Trump a chance to appoint another constitutionalist justice.
Thank you Dobrien for the link.
However, I can't deny that I feel betrayed by Roberts' "decision", even though Berstein finds it acceptable.
In his capacity as a SC Justice, he made the decision to suit his personal needs and circumstances. The decision had nothing to do with the constitutionality of the case.
He is not alone in this because most everyone in gov makes functions like this, making decisions to suit their personal interest. Now we can put the SC in the same bucket.
30 Nov 2018 - 7:27:02 PM
New: Title TBD
2512
Q
!!mG7VJxZNCI
30 Nov 2018 - 7:21:58 PM
>>4093335
Why do the CLINTON'S remain in CONTROL of many still in POWER?
>>>BLACKMAIL
The Clinton family is working overtime.
PANIC IN DC.
Nothing can stop what is coming.
Nothing.
Q
Many thanks for this......
And as far as Ruth Bader Ginsberg is concerned, you have hit on an exposed, quivering nerve of mine.
She has said that she plans to work on SCOTUS for 5 more years.
If she does retire, it certainly will be interesting.
As I wrote, if we think that the Kavanaugh confirmation was an ugly storm, “we ain’t seen nuthin yet”.
The Democrats will view the upcoming fight as existential. A 5 to 3 vote in the Scotus (sometimes plus Roberts) will stop legislation from the bench…..which the Democrats count on to implement their agenda.
As you may have guessed, I am not a Ruth Bader Ginsberg advocate.
I think she is in early stages of senility……..maybe even early stages of dementia……. and therefore is very dangerous as a result.
Ruth Bader Ginsberg was nominated by the President Sexual Predator, Bill “Put Some Ice On It” Clinton, in 1993. She was close…but got no cigar.
She has been on the SCOTUS for 25 years.
She is 85 years old….85 freaking years old…..and is making decisions on constitutionality that affects us all.
If ever, there was a need to term limit Supreme Court Justices, Bader-Ginsberg would be the “poster child” for such limits.
She is a Harvard grad and got her JD from the ultra-liberal Columbia University.
She is pro-abortion, pro-gender (women’s) rights, advocates using foreign law and norms to shape U.S. law in judicial opinions, and pro-green.
She is the first Supreme Court Justice to officiate at a homosexual marriage.
Her commentary typically parrots Democrat agenda and talking points.
She consistently votes Democrat partisan and liberal in SCOTUS decisions.
She is perhaps the most liberal of the liberal 4….Sotomayor, Kagan, Breyer, and Ginsberg.
When asked about Egypt’s drafting of a new constitution, she is on-record stating that they shouldn’t pattern their constitution after the U.S. Constitution because although the U.S. Constitution was written by very wise men, no women were able to participate directly in the process and….. slavery still existed in the U.S. She stated that Egypt should use the Constitution of South Africa as a model.
During interviews in 2016, she strongly criticized GOP nominee, Donald Trump, telling the NYT and AP that she didn’t want to think of a Trump presidency. She said she would consider moving to New Zealand if it happened…….but later walked back her comments as “ill advised”. (Too bad as I would have paid her airfare.) It is probably safe to conclude that she is a Trump-hater.
Her health is suspect…..colon cancer, pancreatic cancer, and heart disease (coronary artery stent).
She dozes off at a Obama SOU and the Pope’s address to Congress.
Actually, I’ll give her a pass on this as an Obama SOU would put me to sleep also.
It is long past the time for her to move out to pasture.
That is one of the "funny" things about Republicans and SCOTUS nominations. For all the hubbub, they tend to nominate Justices that trend toward Liberal. While the Dems were livid about a Republican replacing Kennedy, the fact is Kennedy was nominated by a Republican: Ronald Reagan. Souter was rather liberal, and appointed by a Republican. Stevens was one of the most liberal justices while on the court and he, too, was appointed by a Republican (Ford).
There has been a demonstrated trend toward political Liberalism among SCOTUS justices the longer they are on the court. I suspect it is from being out of touch with what happens in regular courts, and possibly the position of being almost un-fireable. The more disconnected on is with everyday lives one becomes the more the trend toward Liberalism occurs.
Actually, the 9th Circuit only has the 2nd or 3rd (tie with the 11th Circuit) worse case scenario regarding overturns.
The honor goes to the 6th Circuit in Ohio.
Here are the stats:
1st: 6th Circuit of Ohio, 90% of cases overturned by SC;
2nd: 11th Circuit in Atlanta, 78%;
3rd: 9th Circuit of California, 78%, a tie with the 11th Circuit.
In sheer terms of numbers, the Ninth Circuit is by far the most overturned. In terms of percentages, they used to be the most overturned AND the most overturned volume-wise, but they have ceded that distinction to the 6th.
What I'd like to see happen is for the 9th to be divided. It currently spans an absurdly large geographical region and has nearly twice the caseload of any other Court. Let's divide it up and then see how things play out.
Instead split Texas into 10 states with 9 of them in Republican hands, and one to include Dallas and Houston run by Democrats- since both cities voted for Hitlery in 2016.
Back when I watched a TV show (or two) where there was some attack/apocalypse on the U.S. and Texas kept winding up as its own country (as opposed to regions banding together otherwise) I found it amusing. Now it is a perfectly rational and reasonable outcome in such a circumstance.
That scenario would likely be a good one for the remaining states, though NY would quickly fail (might be good for it in the long run).
California would either swing heavily conservative or fail in a decade or less. Right now they are essentially being propped up by the fedgov in that it is (somewhat) limiting their impulses and subsidizing it in ways they don't recognize.
First, CA would be faced with the realities of their open-border/immigration problem. Either they'd quickly learn they can't afford the unlimited immigration and welfare state the Libs there call for, or they'd be overrun and (even more) bankrupt in short order. Then there is the energy aspect. California consumes far more per-capita than they produce and are thus heavily intertwined with energy exporting states and the western electricity grid. You can be sure there would be an increase in costs as either the U.S. realized they could put tariffs on that exported energy, or CA decided to in order to prop up their finances in the short run.
Having "liberated" themselves from the constraints of the constitution the Dems in CA would promptly travel the path of Progressive Totalitarianism. Goodbye 2nd amendment, goodbye much of 1st amendment. We'd see a war of rubber and concrete on income taxes. The rich who remained in CA would run into their desire to keep their wealth with their public insistence on taxing the rich. It is easy for rich liberals to say they are for taxing the rich higher when they know the federal government will not do it, quite another when that hurdle is gone. If they don't massively raise their already high taxes ("after all it isn't like you're paying the fed now, right?") they go broke rapidly.
If they do raise it slows it down for a year or two as the rich decide to move back the U.S. (or to Texas). Side note on that: this is one of the reasons TX could pull it off. We don't have a state income tax. If we needed more money to cover costs of being our own country (after the savings of not following the fed) we could implement one at lower rates than the U.S. federal rates and our people would come out ahead.
Texas could easily be a "most favored trade partner" for the U.S. It would be on pretty good footing for both sides, really. We do have a lot of energy (both electrical and liquid) the U.S. enjoys. California has an energy deficit large enough I don't think Texas' surplus could fulfill it. Can you imagine how that energy problem would play out in CA?
"It must be renewable, and we don't have those pesky Republicans to worry about!!" leading to bigger boondoggles.
In fact, now that I think about it more, a standalone CA would start looking a lot like Italy in the 1920s. Instead of their fascism being military-identity based, it would be environmental-identity based with a few other Progressive identities mixed in.
I suspect we'd see the return of syndicalism. The labor unions would be tied more closely to the government, and they'd make dues and membership mandatory. Lacking a political opponent the unions and politicians would be joined at more than the hip. They would push the idea of the state controlling what companies can pay and who they can hire even further since the U.S. Constitution and SCOTUS would not be limiting them. The mandates for "renewables" would be tied to those requirements, and the tech sector would find themselves targeted even harder. That would be another case of their founders' rhetoric meeting the reality of political implementation. Would Zuckerberg be so in favor of regulation once companies in eg. WA, NY, and TX wouldn't have to follow them?
It would be one hell of a case study in letting the inmates run the asylum. How fast would the Progressive impetus toward dictatorial control push them into it? Or to put it another way, how quickly would the sovereign People's Republic of California become either Venezuela 2.0 or Mussolini's Italy 2.0? I'd say the latter is more likely and 6-10 years. Unless it was just SoCal that left, then I'd cut that time in half. :P
http://www.scotusblog.com/statistics/
What I found interesting is not that Alito and Kennedy agree 90% of the time and that Kagan and Sotomayor agree 90% of the time, but that hardly anyone disagrees with anyone else.
The way this works is that legal problems move forward. They become more complex. They hinge on new situations. Take the current case of Apple vs. Pepper. The radical view is that anti-trust is unreal and should be voided completely. But that is not the conservative or liberal assumption. Given the existence and long history of anti-trust, the case will be decided on its merits in that context. What the justices agree or disagree on will be points of law. In that, some will of necessity share more or fewer perspectives.