How John Roberts Lost His Court.

[MisterBeale]

Roberts lost the court when he decided to be a prop player for the permanent political class.

He can eat a bag of dicks.

Yeah, I lost respect for him on his reasoning on the ACA. What a joke.

 

[airplanemechanic]

What existed was Roe v Wade which each judge swore during their confirmation to be settled law

No they didn't. STFU liar.

 

[airplanemechanic]

The Supreme Courts reputation used to be above reproach

They have now become the Swamp

Translation: The SCOTUS is no longer a free-for-all for everything liberal. Now the court actually rules in the favor of BOTH parties equally. And for this I whine like a bitch.

 

[rightwinger]

No they didn't. STFU liar.

Each of the Conservative Judges was asked if they supported Roe v Wade
They arrogantly snapped at the question and said Roe was settled case law.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

It’s said with some frequency that Chief Justice Roberts, outflanked by five activist justices to his right, has “lost the court.” While that was painfully obvious in the Dobbs case two years ago, when the Alito-led majority ignored his call for restraint and barreled through to a total erasure of the constitutional right to abortion, it’s an imprecise assessment.

Approaching his 19th anniversary on the court, the chief justice surely takes satisfaction in having accomplished central elements of his own agenda. His name is on majority opinions that have curbed affirmative action, struck at the heart of the Voting Rights Act and empowered religious conservatives, all with the support of his conservative colleagues and over vigorous dissenting opinions by the liberal justices.

What he has “lost,” rather, isn’t control of the court’s judicial output, but of something less tangible but no less important: its ability to assure the public that it is functioning as a court where all parties get a fair hearing and where individual justices aren’t beholden elsewhere, either financially or politically. In the current toxic atmosphere, that’s a heavy lift, dependent on skills other than those that made John Roberts, once among the star Supreme Court lawyers of his generation, a contender for the job President George W. Bush nominated him for in September 2005.

Persuading a majority of the court to rule for one’s client is simple compared with persuading a fellow Supreme Court justice to withdraw from a case in which the public has reason to suppose partiality.

Opinion | How John Roberts Lost His Court

New challenges to the Supreme Court’s image of probity and detachment seem to keep coming.

www.nytimes.com

Executive Summary​

• During his 2005 confirmation hearings, John Roberts emphasized his respect for Supreme Court precedent, affirmed that flaws in a precedent are “not enough...to justify revisiting it,” and underscored “the values of respect for precedent, evenhandedness, predictability, stability.”
• Chief Justice Roberts’s frequent votes to overturn precedent, however, are wholly inconsistent with his testimony at his confirmation hearing that he would respect past Supreme Court rulings.
• During his During his 14 years as Chief Justice, Roberts presided over 21 precedent-overturning cases and voted to overturn precedent in 17 of them (81%), making him the second-most frequent member of the majority in precedent-overturning cases. Only Justice Thomas has been a more frequent member of the majority in such cases (90%).
• Nor is Chief Justice Roberts’s voting record in precedent-overturning cases ideologically balanced. Quite to the contrary, his track record in such cases is among the most partisan of any Supreme Court Justice in the modern era.

Chief Justice Roberts Almost Always Votes to Overturn Precedent — Take Back the Court Action Fund

Chief Justice Roberts’s frequent votes to overturn precedent, however, are wholly inconsistent with his testimony at his confirmation hearing that he would respect past Supreme Court rulings.

www.takebackthecourt.today

Perhaps when the most recent conservative supremes were testifying during their confirmation hearings John gave them some advice on how to lie about their positions on Roe. He having mastered the art of disingenuously saying what he needed to say to get confirmed 20 years ago.

I think Roberts will be disappointed when the history of his leadership of the Court is written. Not only because of the record reflecting he presided over such a nakedly partisan Court but because of his deception in getting confirmed in the first place.

20 year limit on SC justices. It's about time for this.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Damn.. . I'm even seeing ads about how the left want the SCOTUS to rule on the immunity case. I'm like, WTF? I have absolutely nothing to do with that, and even if I were to call my Senator or rep., there is nothing they could do either.

I'm not sure what those ads are trying to accomplish.

All this whining is stoopid.

From this leftist/commie's opinion piece;

View attachment 963760

I've never seen libs twitching, twerking, tweaking like they are now.

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

No they didn't. STFU liar.

Except they did. And then turned right around and got on bended knee and swore to do "God's will".

 

[rightwinger]

Translation: The SCOTUS is no longer a free-for-all for everything liberal. Now the court actually rules in the favor of BOTH parties equally. And for this I whine like a bitch.

Accepting millions of dollars in gifts is not a liberal policy.
It brings the integrity of the court into question

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

constitutional right to abortion

Fake news.

 

[beautress]

That'

The Roberts Court will be scorned by history

Not just for their Conservative leanings but willingness to tell any lie to be confirmed and then quickly abandon precedence.
But the worst is how their lack of ethical standards were flaunted and Justices just sneered at the public for trying to hold them accountable

That is a lot of charges without any information on specifics.

 

[marvin martian]

Damn.. . I'm even seeing ads about how the left want the SCOTUS to rule on the immunity case. I'm like, WTF? I have absolutely nothing to do with that, and even if I were to call my Senator or rep., there is nothing they could do either.

I'm not sure what those ads are trying to accomplish.

All this whining is stoopid.

From this leftist/commie's opinion piece;

View attachment 963760

If anyone wants to see what actual election denial looks like, it's working in Joe Biden's administration:

 

[rightwinger]

That'

That is a lot of charges without any information on specifics.

There are plenty of specifics of them lying during confirmation and refusing to adopt standards of ethics

Want to discuss ?

 

[MisterBeale]

There are plenty of specifics of them lying during confirmation and refusing to adopt standards of ethics

Want to discuss ?

All questions posed during confirmation are hypotheticals. . . they are suppositions .. . .

. . . none of the justices can know specifics on questions of law, until presented with cases.

Thus? You are purposely being hyperbolic by characterizing their answers as. . . "LIES."



There ain't shit to discuss, other than what an excellent and entertaining paid troll you are, and what a debt of gratitude this entire forum owes you for our years of entertainment!

 

[rightwinger]

All questions posed during confirmation are hypotheticals. . . they are suppositions .. . .

. . . none of the justices can know specifics on questions of law, until presented with cases.

Thus? You are purposely being hyperbolic by characterizing their answers as. . . "LIES."



There ain't shit to discuss, other than what an excellent and entertaining paid troll you are, and what a debt of gratitude this entire forum owes you for our years of entertainment!

Very True…they had no idea what legal issues negating Roe v Wade may come up

Dodd was not one of those cases
They used Dodd to go above and beyond what was being raised and struck down Roe

 

[beautress]

^^^Biden cultists are trying to attack the last institution of government standing between them and the total tyrannical fascist dictatorship they want.

There are plenty of specifics of them lying during confirmation and refusing to adopt standards of ethics

Want to discuss ?

It's a little difficult to discuss information that is merely the accusation of a lie told without knowing who are "them" nor what the "lie" was. I am leaving this guess all thread. Thanks anyway.

 

[rightwinger]

Supreme Courts are judged by the significance of their findings
Most are recognized for expanding human rights

This court will be known for restricting human rights in favor of corporate interests

 

[berg80]

Yeah, I lost respect for him on his reasoning on the ACA. What a joke.

It was sound reasoning motivated by not wanting to be responsible for millions of Americans losing affordable health care insurance.

 

[berg80]

All questions posed during confirmation are hypotheticals. . . they are suppositions .. . .

. . . none of the justices can know specifics on questions of law, until presented with cases.

You sound as though you've been prepped by conservative advisors on how to dodge specific questions on specific issues.

 

[struth]

It’s said with some frequency that Chief Justice Roberts, outflanked by five activist justices to his right, has “lost the court.” While that was painfully obvious in the Dobbs case two years ago, when the Alito-led majority ignored his call for restraint and barreled through to a total erasure of the constitutional right to abortion, it’s an imprecise assessment.

Approaching his 19th anniversary on the court, the chief justice surely takes satisfaction in having accomplished central elements of his own agenda. His name is on majority opinions that have curbed affirmative action, struck at the heart of the Voting Rights Act and empowered religious conservatives, all with the support of his conservative colleagues and over vigorous dissenting opinions by the liberal justices.

What he has “lost,” rather, isn’t control of the court’s judicial output, but of something less tangible but no less important: its ability to assure the public that it is functioning as a court where all parties get a fair hearing and where individual justices aren’t beholden elsewhere, either financially or politically. In the current toxic atmosphere, that’s a heavy lift, dependent on skills other than those that made John Roberts, once among the star Supreme Court lawyers of his generation, a contender for the job President George W. Bush nominated him for in September 2005.

Persuading a majority of the court to rule for one’s client is simple compared with persuading a fellow Supreme Court justice to withdraw from a case in which the public has reason to suppose partiality.

Opinion | How John Roberts Lost His Court

New challenges to the Supreme Court’s image of probity and detachment seem to keep coming.

www.nytimes.com

Executive Summary​

• During his 2005 confirmation hearings, John Roberts emphasized his respect for Supreme Court precedent, affirmed that flaws in a precedent are “not enough...to justify revisiting it,” and underscored “the values of respect for precedent, evenhandedness, predictability, stability.”
• Chief Justice Roberts’s frequent votes to overturn precedent, however, are wholly inconsistent with his testimony at his confirmation hearing that he would respect past Supreme Court rulings.
• During his During his 14 years as Chief Justice, Roberts presided over 21 precedent-overturning cases and voted to overturn precedent in 17 of them (81%), making him the second-most frequent member of the majority in precedent-overturning cases. Only Justice Thomas has been a more frequent member of the majority in such cases (90%).
• Nor is Chief Justice Roberts’s voting record in precedent-overturning cases ideologically balanced. Quite to the contrary, his track record in such cases is among the most partisan of any Supreme Court Justice in the modern era.

Chief Justice Roberts Almost Always Votes to Overturn Precedent — Take Back the Court Action Fund

Chief Justice Roberts’s frequent votes to overturn precedent, however, are wholly inconsistent with his testimony at his confirmation hearing that he would respect past Supreme Court rulings.

www.takebackthecourt.today

Perhaps when the most recent conservative supremes were testifying during their confirmation hearings John gave them some advice on how to lie about their positions on Roe. He having mastered the art of disingenuously saying what he needed to say to get confirmed 20 years ago.

I think Roberts will be disappointed when the history of his leadership of the Court is written. Not only because of the record reflecting he presided over such a nakedly partisan Court but because of his deception in getting confirmed in the first place.

Only radical demafacist thinks he lost the court.

 

[Missourian]

They hate democracy! They attack our institutions! They love pootin!

Your sarcasm is fire My Man.