Chief Justice Roberts and the president

Posted by exceller 1 year, 8 months ago to Legislation
29 comments | Share | Flag

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.

Add Comment


All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by starznbarz 1 year, 8 months ago
    It occurs to me, that given the fact there has been no consequence for the statutory crimes committed of Obama, Holder, Brenner, Hillary, Strzok, Comey, Lynch, etc. , etc., there is no longer a legitimate rule of law. Having established that, what Roberts thinks, says, or does means nothing. Unless and until those illegal acts by public officials are corrected, the folks that make their living with their mouth should consider the consequences if those that make their living with their hands decide they have had enough.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 year, 8 months ago
    This wouldn't be the first time a supposedly conservative justice turned liberal. David Souter was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, and quickly showed his very liberal personal slant, becoming a reliable member of the liberal voting bloc.

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ Dobrien 1 year, 8 months ago
      Funny some of the Bushes appointees switch to liberal after being sworn in. That family originally named Scherff has been as bad or worse for humanity than The Rodhams In fact when the two meet now it’s like a make out session. Why no liberals change to Conservative? Roberts acts now like his strings are being pulled.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by rtpetrick 1 year, 8 months ago
        Bush appointees flip to liberal after appointment? Perhaps they were liberal all along...not the result of a "flip". Hmmmmm…….why would the Bushes nominate liberals for the SCOTUS? Are the easily dazed and there another reason?
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Dobrien 1 year, 8 months ago
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by 1 year, 8 months ago
            At the time when Roberts managed to come up with a reason for ACA NOT being unconstitutional, on the rationale that it is a "tax", there were a lot of talks on what does Obama and his thugs blackmailed him with b/c nobody believed he came to this conclusion without force.

            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ Dobrien 1 year, 8 months ago
              This is how the Cintonista’s operate.

              30 Nov 2018 - 7:27:02 PM
              New: Title TBD
              30 Nov 2018 - 7:21:58 PM

              Why do the CLINTON'S remain in CONTROL of many still in POWER?
              The Clinton family is working overtime.
              PANIC IN DC.
              Nothing can stop what is coming.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by rtpetrick 1 year, 8 months ago
      If you guys think the crap storm surrounding Kavanaugh’s confirmation was bad, wait until President Trump nominates the replacement for Ruth Buzzy Ginsberg. I’m sure Feinstein and Schumer are already lining up the phony allegations with a blank space at the top of the pages…..Just fill in the blanks when President Trump declares. It will be outrageous, sad, and entertaining....all at once.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by DrZarkov99 1 year, 8 months ago
        Ginsberg has fallen not once, but twice in her own office. That shows a serious lack of physical stability (you can guess how I feel about her mental stability) indicating underlying conditions, such as Parkinsons. The rumor about a January retirement revolved around a recurrence of cancer, possibly melanoma. The original plan may have been based on her wishing for a Democrat-controlled Senate after the elections. Now that her wish didn't get granted, I suspect we may not see her go until she topples from the bench, dead before she hits the floor.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by mia767ca 1 year, 8 months ago
    the Supreme Politburo does know or understand the Constitution, the framers of the Constitution, or the philosophers who influenced the framers or naturalist law and philosophy...they are Marxist/Leninist/Kantian/Hegelian totalitarians..
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by TheRealBill 1 year, 8 months ago
    "I would not be surprised that after the confirmation of Kavanaugh he'd join the liberal left of the Court."

    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.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by rtpetrick 1 year, 8 months ago
    Regarding Roberts' disappointing decision on Obamacare (ACA), I strongly suspect that "they" got to him. Maybe he was bribed (doubtful), or threatened in some way. Maybe "they" threatened the safety of his they did with General Flynn. Maybe "they" have photos of Roberts in a homosexual bathhouse. Maybe "they" have 3 women willing to come forth and swear that a drunken Roberts tried to rape them....30 years they tried on Justice Kavanaugh. The man was definitely flipped on Obamacare. We haven't much from him since, until now with his ridiculous assertion that there are "No Obama Judges". Of course there are
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 1 year, 8 months ago
    I'd like to see the stats on the overturning of Circuit Court decisions, I did not see anything on that SCOTUS blog link.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 1 year, 8 months ago

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ blarman 1 year, 8 months ago
        As a percentage yes, but the 9th Circuit also hears more cases than any other Circuit - and by a wide margin. (

        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.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by MinorLiberator 1 year, 8 months ago
          I agree on all, especially the geographical breakup. Long overdue. Similar to California (where reasonable arguments to divide it into three States have been made), the 9th Circuit, although it contains areas of diverse and opposing ideologies, is currently dominated by a Leftist, activist majority. Exactly what the Founders warned against.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by jabuttrick 1 year, 8 months ago
            Various proposals to split the 9th circuit have been bandied about for over 25 years. Congress has acted on none of them and it is doubtfull it will happen anytime soon. The first problem is lack of consensus that the circuit should be split at all. Splitting circuits cause problems with precedent within the circuit at the district court level. It adds administrative costs also. But the main problem is lack of agreement as to how to split the circuit. Should California have its own stand alone circuit? Should the new successor circuits each have half of California? Should there be geographic proximity within the circuit? That is, should the states in circuit all touch each other? For instance, if California is in one circuit, should Oregon be with it or in the other circuit? If the other then should Washington also be in the other? Finally, this will almost certainly lead to the need for more judges on the circuit level. The minority party almost always opposed this for obvious reasons. These proposals have gone nowhere to date, but then no President has proposed any of them. Mr. Trump?
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by freedomforall 1 year, 8 months ago
            You don't really want to give CA 4 more Democrat senators do you? That is what would happen if it was split into 3 states, and the senate would be in Democrat control (along with 4 more electoral votes for Democrat presidential candidates.) The proposals chose borders that keep the Democrats in the urban areas firmly in control of all three proposed states.
            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.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by MinorLiberator 1 year, 8 months ago
              No, absolutely not, if that’s the probable split...the proposals I’ve read had Republican areas being created...devil’s in the details...Texas idea sound good....
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by TheRealBill 1 year, 8 months ago
                There are times where I suspect the best division for Texas is to divide it from the U.S. entirely. Of all the U.S.' states to be plausibly capable of being their own country, Texas is at the top. It has the most overlooked but vital aspects for such a prospect going for it. It has sea ports, energy reserves, its own energy grid (to avoid federal energy regulations, mostly), tons of space, a history of being a country (though mostly broke at the time, in full disclosure), a robust and diversified economy ranging from ag and energy to tech and finance, etc..

                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.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by MinorLiberator 1 year, 8 months ago
                  IMO, if Texas, California and NY seceded, the remaining US would be much better off...and no offence to Texas... it would become a great trading partner, while the other two went to Socialist Hell...
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by TheRealBill 1 year, 8 months ago
                    No offense taken. ;) Shedding NY and CA alone would be good for the remaining states, with or w/o TX. I suspect that, even then, TX being independent would be better for the remaining U.S.

                    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
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ MikeMarotta 1 year, 8 months ago
      On the blog, at the right, about halfway down is the Statistical Snapshot.

      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.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  


  • Comment hidden. Undo