John Roberts

#51
#51
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
Maybe he is playing politics but why? For what gain?

His reasoning and opinion is legitimate, if the courts are truly interested in getting to the issue of constitutionality.
Click to expand...

I am not a lawyer (thank goodness) but from what I have read the actually legalese behind the majority ruling is 100% sound. Roberts dissented because he doesn't want to send a "jolt" through the legal system. Roberts has demonstrated that he weighs politics and the view of the court equally or even more than the law. Why? I can't answer that question.

John Roberts has lost control of the Supreme Court - CNNPolitics
 
#52
#52
hog88 said:
This is Roberts playing politics for the umpteenth time. From what I have read the ruling is legally sound but Roberts as he tends to do let's politics override the law.
Click to expand...
When has this guy ever voted with the conservatives on anything of significance?
 
#56
#56
Cnn is applying this decision to Robert's confirmation hearing 16 years ago that he did not believe in jolts to the system. I do not think he said those words specifically about this case.

Roberts has continued to express a version of the mantra he offered during his confirmation hearings 16 years ago: that the justices should avoid a "jolt" to American's legal system. CNN

This is Roberts reason that makes sense. As many posters have commented on the other thread that they do not think this is a good law.

Wednesday night's order, issued with barely three days of consideration, represented nothing short of a jolt and an assault on a woman's constitutional right to end a pregnancy in its early months. CNN

"I would accordingly preclude enforcement of S. B. 8 by the respondents to afford the District Court and the Court of Appeals the opportunity to consider the propriety of judicial action and preliminary relief pending consideration of the plaintiffs’ claims," Roberts said in a dissenting opinion. FoxNews

Basically, Roberts wants to pump the breaks on this to figure out all the angles and impacts. You know, the guy that you wish was apart of every government decision that says maybe we should think this all the way out or how exactly will this work. Certainly, wish that guy would have been in the room on the Afghanistan pull out.
 
#58
#58
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
Cnn is applying this decision to Robert's confirmation hearing 16 years ago that he did not believe in jolts to the system. I do not think he said those words specifically about this case.

Roberts has continued to express a version of the mantra he offered during his confirmation hearings 16 years ago: that the justices should avoid a "jolt" to American's legal system. CNN

This is Roberts reason that makes sense. As many posters have commented on the other thread that they do not think this is a good law.

Wednesday night's order, issued with barely three days of consideration, represented nothing short of a jolt and an assault on a woman's constitutional right to end a pregnancy in its early months. CNN

"I would accordingly preclude enforcement of S. B. 8 by the respondents to afford the District Court and the Court of Appeals the opportunity to consider the propriety of judicial action and preliminary relief pending consideration of the plaintiffs’ claims," Roberts said in a dissenting opinion. FoxNews

Basically, Roberts wants to pump the breaks on this to figure out all the angles and impacts. You know, the guy that you wish was apart of every government decision that says maybe we should think this all the way out or how exactly will this work. Certainly, wish that guy would have been in the room on the Afghanistan pull out.
Click to expand...

I too think this law is atrocious and I hope like hell it is struck down but it appears that Roberts is wrong in his dissent reasoning.
 
#59
#59
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
Cnn is applying this decision to Robert's confirmation hearing 16 years ago that he did not believe in jolts to the system. I do not think he said those words specifically about this case.

Roberts has continued to express a version of the mantra he offered during his confirmation hearings 16 years ago: that the justices should avoid a "jolt" to American's legal system. CNN

This is Roberts reason that makes sense. As many posters have commented on the other thread that they do not think this is a good law.

Wednesday night's order, issued with barely three days of consideration, represented nothing short of a jolt and an assault on a woman's constitutional right to end a pregnancy in its early months. CNN

"I would accordingly preclude enforcement of S. B. 8 by the respondents to afford the District Court and the Court of Appeals the opportunity to consider the propriety of judicial action and preliminary relief pending consideration of the plaintiffs’ claims," Roberts said in a dissenting opinion. FoxNews

Basically, Roberts wants to pump the breaks on this to figure out all the angles and impacts. You know, the guy that you wish was apart of every government decision that says maybe we should think this all the way out or how exactly will this work. Certainly, wish that guy would have been in the room on the Afghanistan pull out.
Click to expand...
He’s probably trying to prevent businesses from shutting down over a law that everybody agrees will eventually be struck down.
 
#60
#60
RockyTop85 said:
He’s probably trying to prevent businesses from shutting down over a law that everybody agrees will eventually be struck down.
Click to expand...

That shouldn't be his concern and if that is his reasoning he is not doing his job.
 
#61
#61
I have no issues with Roberts. We need more people like him on the SC that don't vote purely for the R or D side on an issue. We've had way too many partisan hacks on the SC recently.

I don't always agree with his rulings but right now, we have 7/9 that will vote a particular way on political hot buttons no matter what the facts are. That's not how the SC should be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AshG
#62
#62
hog88 said:
That shouldn't be his concern and if that is his reasoning he is not doing his job.
Click to expand...
That’s incorrect. The law is designed to promote consistent expectations, otherwise why codify anything? Just leave it up to arbitrary decisions.
 
#63
#63
RockyTop85 said:
That’s incorrect. The law is designed to promote consistent expectations, otherwise why codify anything? Just leave it up to arbitrary decisions.
Click to expand...

No, all judges should be focused on the law and it's constitutionality not what effect it will have. If the plaintiffs in this case didn't have standing the rightful ruling was given.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vol423
#64
#64
hog88 said:
No, all judges should be focused on the law and it's constitutionality not what effect it will have. If the plaintiffs in this case didn't have standing the rightful ruling was given.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Judges at all levels are asked to weigh the effects of their decisions every day. Saying the Supreme Court should/can not is silly.

Also, this wasn’t a case about constitutionality, at least not at this stage. It was a case about whether to enjoin certain conduct by the defendants. The likelihood of Irreparable harm is one of the considerations when determining whether to grant an injunction, so Robert’s was focused on the correct legal analysis. His position is defensible.
 
#66
#66
RockyTop85 said:
Wrong. Judges at all levels are asked to weigh the effects of their decisions every day. Saying the Supreme Court should/can not is silly.

Also, this wasn’t a case about constitutionality, at least not at this stage. It was a case about whether to enjoin certain conduct by the defendants. The likelihood of Irreparable harm is one of the considerations when determining whether to grant an injunction, so Robert’s was focused on the correct legal analysis. His position is defensible.
Click to expand...

Yes, I took Roberts stance of supporting the injunction as a way to give SCOUTUS time to properly hear arguments on the constitutionality of a Texas state law law. Basically, saying that, state law should not, even temporarily, be allowed to violate the constitution. I really do not think he was taking any stance on the constitutionality other than it should be properly heard.

Reminds me of Shelby v. Holder which eliminated pre-clearance that required states to get any voting laws cleared by the U.S. Attorney General. I think pre-clearance would have helped with many of the issues some had with the 2020 election.
 
#67
#67
VFFL@THE BEACH said:
Yes, I took Roberts stance of supporting the injunction as a way to give SCOUTUS time to properly hear arguments on the constitutionality of a Texas state law law. Basically, saying that, state law should not, even temporarily, be allowed to violate the constitution. I really do not think he was taking any stance on the constitutionality other than it should be properly heard.

Reminds me of Shelby v. Holder which eliminated pre-clearance that required states to get any voting laws cleared by the U.S. Attorney General. I think pre-clearance would have helped with many of the issues some had with the 2020 election.
Click to expand...
I think they all avoided making comments about the ultimate outcome* because Dobbs, the MS case is on the docket in October. This may signal that they’re about to change Casey in that case, but that’s speculation.

* - Sotomayor may have been different. I honestly don’t usually read her dissents.
 
#68
#68
"Inappropriate Political Influence": Chief Justice John Roberts Responds To Threats Against The Court | ZeroHedge

Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer chaffed at the claim that this is a “conservative” court and noted “The chief justice frequently speaks on this subject as well and says, no, no: we don’t look at our rulings from the point of view of our personal ideology.”

Justice Thomas criticized those who seem intent on diminishing the authority or respect for the Court: “the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference…They think you become like a politician. That’s a problem. You’re going to jeopardize any faith in the legal institutions.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently told an audience that “My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”

ACB will show the media they are not partisan hacks by allowing this Biden mandate.
 
#69
#69
Rasputin_Vol said:
"Inappropriate Political Influence": Chief Justice John Roberts Responds To Threats Against The Court | ZeroHedge

Liberal Justice Stephen Breyer chaffed at the claim that this is a “conservative” court and noted “The chief justice frequently speaks on this subject as well and says, no, no: we don’t look at our rulings from the point of view of our personal ideology.”

Justice Thomas criticized those who seem intent on diminishing the authority or respect for the Court: “the media makes it sound as though you are just always going right to your personal preference…They think you become like a politician. That’s a problem. You’re going to jeopardize any faith in the legal institutions.”

Justice Amy Coney Barrett recently told an audience that “My goal today is to convince you that this court is not comprised of a bunch of partisan hacks.”

ACB will show the media they are not partisan hacks by allowing this Biden mandate.
Click to expand...

Because the left assumes judges appointed by republicans will behave as insanely as their judges. “She will rule with her heart”-Barrack Obama
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88
#73
#73
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top