Breaking news and current events worldwide.
Well if the court didn't engage in clearly partisan politics, maybe the liberal justices wouldn't have anything to criticize.
Does he realize how bad it looks when he voices that his problem is criticism and not like, I don't know, taking money from political interests? Or refusing to recuse in cases where there's a relative directly involved?
It is really incredible how far down the drain the SCOTUS has gone in such a short period of time. Not saying it was great before Justice Kennedy retired either, but at least back then it was generally respected.
I hope RoyGBiv is rolling in her grave at refusing to step down and let Obama select a replacement when she knew the power of her position.
Unfortunately, she's dead which means she will never even have the capacity to understand what her decision meant.
Why do you think they would've filled her spot when they didn't fill the other one with Merrick Garland? She protected her spot or they would've held it up until Trump.
She could have retired at any time, including right after Obama was elected. The Republicans couldn't have held the spot open for years. It would have become a major election issue.
"Why won't they just let us make wildly unpopular decisions that jeopardize the livelihoods of Americans without having to make us feel bad about it?!"
-Roberts, 2023
"Why can't we be blatantly corrupt without getting called on it? "
Let me know when Roberts begs the others to stop taking massive gifts that look like bribes.
Tsk, they only look like bribes if you're looking. You should stop doing that as well.
None of these people deserve their positions.
I don't know, I like Sotomayor. And Brown-Jackson seems alright. And I really don't have much opinion on Kagan aside from the fact that I usually agree with her rulings. As for Conservatives, I disagree with all of them almost always, but Gorsuch at least seems to care about consistency, and I think his views on Native affairs is admirable.
If it's not clear, I mean all the conservatives that clearly were put there for nefarious reasons. And none of them deserves a life time position on the supreme court regardless, and by them here I mean everyone, not just conservatives.
Snowflake behavior
Holy crap this is endgame. The head of the judicial body is too concerned about the feelings of the body?
So, just logically. I have a personal commitment and value to something. And somebody gets mad at me about it. My values and commitment should be able to withstand that? Yes? As soon as someone has a different opinion it's like "I can't bear to hear a different opinion (clutches pearls) and I can't stand to have my opinion critiqued"
For you and me and the lady in the checkout line (and I say that as a lady who is often in checkout lines), that's great. But this is the head of the judicial body of one of the most powerful nations - most powerful democracies - on earth. These are opinions that shape the lives of 300 million people at least. And he's gonna be there for another quarter of a century.
Like how many steps is Roberts from a kind of de facto chilling effect, and I'm not trying to be funny
Thank God for the generations who hear a public figure try to corral or control a situation and then begin to act in doing the exact opposite. Definitely need to remind the conservative justices that there are people out here
End rant (for now)
I don’t think he is anywhere near a chilling effect on the liberal justices.
They main problem we have with SCOTUS is that they don’t have to GAF what anybody says.
That is good if the person has principles, but has problems if they are grifting trash.
The thing he should be complaining about is the bribes - I’m sorry, speech - that the justices are taking. But since he gets 8 figures of speech by consulting gigs for his wife, there is no chance the Chief Grifter will tackle the real problem.
People should be silent while we destroy their future - Roberts, 2023
The supreme court even as a concept is one of the most asinine yet accepted institutions in the world. On par with the Catholic church, but so much worse because it actually has enormous and direct power over 330+ million people. I am dreaming and pining for the day that someone in power, most likely a president, just legitimately tells them to fuck off. They have no enforcement power and they fucking know it. I'm yearning for someone to have the courage, but it's as clear as it possibly can be that it certainly won't be a Democrat.
The thing is that the court only has so much power right now because Congress is so fucking broken. If Congress where in working order it could just legislate all the shit that the court is blocking the executive on.
Can you elaborate on the comparison to the church? You don't like a panel having authority so you want to consolidate it to a president unilaterally ignoring the third branch? Would term limits on judges change how you see the court?
The fact that these republicans took nearly a million dollars in loan forgiveness for covid themselves then complain about helping kids out is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Roberts complains about his extreme right wing judges being singled out then takes away rights for LGBTQ people on a hypothetical not actual laws. The person never existed and was all thought up by the extreme right billionaire friends to put in front of the court.
Absolutely disgusting. So John roberts deserves all the criticism coming at him.
Undoing decades of precedent to make political agenda-based rulings that will drastically change the lives of people in this country forever... That's fine, just don't criticize the court, or expect them to adhere to any ethical guidelines...
I am sympathetic to Kagan's argument on standing and similarly I understand why Roberts is trying to lower the pressure. In any case this seems to come back to Congress no longer passing legislation and instead relying on executive powers for all political requirements. Not really seeing a solution until primary rules change. Centrists are left unserved presently.
Centrists can go suck a fat one. The primary reason we're in this fascistic mess globally is the centrists' aversion to being inconvenienced for the rights of their fellow people and for the future of the planet.
That's what creates dictatorships, that's what starts world wars, in summary, that's what enables fascists.
Can you give me an example? Some purple states have protected reproductive health in response to the court overturning Roe. My perception is that the primary races are selecting increasingly polarizing candidates who's goal is just notoriety/fundraising over governing. MTG is a prime demonstration of this effect.
similarly I understand why Roberts is trying to lower the pressure
Allow me to cite a passage from Kagan on WV v. EPA.
It seems I was wrong. The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the “major questions doctrine” magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.
In short, "weak ass arguments receive rebuttal for being weak ass arguments." The Court is fine to actually start issuing judgement that follows in step with the history of the court. But then you have something like Dobbs and the majority opinion.
The doctrine of stare decisis does not counsel continued acceptance of Roe and Casey. Stare decisis plays an important role and
protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision.
So after indicating that people might plan their lives on court decisions, the majority then begins to explain why "none of that matters" without actually explaining why none of it matters outside of "because unborn babies are important" WITHOUT explaining the "why" of that statement. That's the point of the court to establish the "why" of an argument. It might be plainly obvious to the Justices the why unborn babies are important, it's their job to then hit the letters on the keyboard to spell that out. That's the justice system, you spell it out in insanely ornate detail. That's literally what all lawyers love to do, unload heaps of words onto people. When they do not do that, well then that's how you know they are full of shit.
So no, I dissent here. The Justices must do better and not simply provide weak-ass arguments with nothing but circles for the explanation. The more expansive reading justices are rightly apt to apply heat to bullshit. A weak ass court is only made stronger when it's weak ass arguments and opinions are called out for everyone to read.
That said.
In any case this seems to come back to Congress no longer passing legislation and instead relying on executive powers for all political requirements
That's broad powers. That's how that works. We do not list explicitly every single animal that needs to be on the endangered species list. We do not list in law every single road that will be paved with public works money. We do not itemize in law every single uniform that we will purchase for every member of the military. At some point we just say in law "protect animals that might go extinct", "fix our highways", and "protect our armed forces" and let the Executive dictate how best to achieve those goals. And when the Executive fails on that in a particular way, well they're Congress, they can pass a law that gets more specific.
But even then, when specificity is given, the only thing I hear is "OH NO THIS LAW IS A 1000 PAGES LONG! I CAN NOT READ THIS!" Yeah, who knew complex societies were, IDK, complex?! The Executive powers are JUST THAT, the part of the Government that gets shit done. Congress indicates their broad wishes and the Executive deals out the finer details. How pray tell, is that thinking NOT centrist? How are you left unserved by your supposed current model of governance? Yes, you might be unserved because the political party system is fucked but that is distinctly NOT a function of the balance of power between branches as outlined in our form of government.
Just accept your lot peasants and obey