Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Surprised we didn't have a thread this year to discuss the rulings and their political impact.

With the latest abortion ruling, Roberts is implying that he doesn't want to overturn long standing precedents even if he disagrees with it. The Court doesn't appear to have votes to overturn Roe unless the GOP can get another Federalist Society member on the bench.

I also wonder if Roberts isn't playing politics some here in that he wants to go easy on controversial cases in an election year. It could imply that he will give Trump some cover with investigation/subpoena data on his financial background. I don't think Roberts would agree that a President is above the law but perhaps he can find a narrow ruling that would unlikely give future Presidents a similar right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roberts is tired of Trump running his mouth. He was ready to back this law, imo if not for trump 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Abortion law is about oppressing poor people.  No law on earth is going to stop a rich white lady from getting a safe/confidential abortion and everyone damn well knows it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, tx 3 putt said:

Roberts is tired of Trump running his mouth. He was ready to back this law, imo if not for trump 

I think it's a few things, but less a rebuke of Trump and more that he wants a challenge that isn't based on essentially the exact same law they struck down just 4 years ago. His primary concern is maintaining the Court's legitimacy in the public's eye while pushing it rightward, so he's willing to slow play his judicial activism when being too obvious about shit might become politically difficult. The last thing he wants to do right now is give the Dems even more of a reason to want to publicly criticize the Court and push for efforts to enlarge the bench. 

This doesn't mean he's not willing to neuter Roe, but like with the Census and the DACA cases he doesn't want to look like a completely partisan asshole when doing it. He's practically begging for someone to bring a more competent challenge that he can pretend to distinguish from Whole Woman's Health.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

Roberts is tired of Trump running his mouth. He was ready to back this law, imo if not for trump 

I disagree.  Didn't he write the opinion striking down the same law in Texas just a couple years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Abortion law is about oppressing poor people.  No law on earth is going to stop a rich white lady from getting a safe/confidential abortion and everyone damn well knows it.

you know the attitude: Abortions are what poor people use for birth control and the lack of judgement. Rich people are fixing a quiet issue that will ruin their daughter's life because of a small indiscretion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, DDD Dad said:

I disagree.  Didn't he write the opinion striking down the same law in Texas just a couple years ago?

He dissented 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

6 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

no, he dissented.  

 

Just now, tx 3 putt said:

He dissented 

SaneImperfectBernesemountaindog-size_res

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This doesn't shock me since the Texas case was only two years old. But when is the Supreme Court supposed to take up these "heartbeat" laws?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roberts probably sees this as protecting the GOP from itself even at the expense of his own popularity within the rank & file of the party. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

4D chess !

If Kennedy was on the court and had joined the Liberal side for this vote, I think there is a good chance Roberts would have joined the conservative side. It's not like the Supreme Court acts in some academic vacuum with their decisions. They can be just as political as the Exec and Legis branches.

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, tx 3 putt said:

4D chess !

Who was the guy who claimed that John Roberts was a Ninja because his vote to uphold the ACA actually doomed it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

If Kennedy was on the court and had joined the Liberal side for this vote, I think there is a good chance Roberts would have joined the conservative side. It's not like the Supreme Court acts in some academic vacuum with their decisions. They can be just as political as the Exec and Legis branches.

I've never been a Roberts fan and I'm still not one, but I do appreciate that at least for now he is acting as though he sees his job in terms of protecting the institution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

Roberts is implying that he doesn't want to overturn long standing precedents even if he disagrees with it. The Court doesn't appear to have votes to overturn Roe unless the GOP can get another Federalist Society member on the bench

I'm not so sure that is what he was saying. I think all he's saying is "we just fucking ruled on the same law four years ago, you don't get to just get a do-over because there are a couple of new justices, and fuck you Fifth Circuit for ignoring clear precedent and putting this back on our plate right now."

But if someone wants to bring a more novel argument and the question before the Court is whether Roe or Casey should be overturned rather than whether these regulations violate Whole Women's Health, he may come down a different way.

Edited by DanRydell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean, even by conservative standards, this was a bold move Cotton.  Let's ask the Court to overturn it's own ruling two years later.  I agree a different challenge could entice Roberts to severely limit or overturn Roe, but he's at the "At least buy me a drink" stage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I've always been a Roberts fan as he's always seen his job in terms of protecting the institution.

Open both eyes 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I've always been a Roberts fan as he's always seen his job in terms of protecting the institution.

Citizens United, Shelby County v. Holder, and Hobby Lobby all beg to differ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Abortion law is about oppressing poor people.  No law on earth is going to stop a rich white lady from getting a safe/confidential abortion and everyone damn well knows it.

 

1 hour ago, Nice Guy Eddie said:

you know the attitude: Abortions are what poor people use for birth control and the lack of judgement. Rich people are fixing a quiet issue that will ruin their daughter's life because of a small indiscretion. 

If they wanted access to abortions then why did they choose to be poor in the first place?

Think About It Reaction GIF by Identity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

I've always been a Roberts fan as he's always seen his job in terms of protecting the institution.

Thanks for providing a perfect example of why Roberts rules as he does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

Citizens United

here is all the proof you need of Roberts true colors 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roberts doesn't care about overturning precedent, but he's gonna make you leave the party at different times and hook up later.  He ain't walking out with your hand on his ass.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, GopherRock said:

Citizens United, Shelby County v. Holder, and Hobby Lobby all beg to differ.

Leegin, too. 
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know the Court rejected this a few years ago, but Roberts dissenting in that case and then doing a 180 now that his vote would actually be decisive  is not exactly what I would describe as upholding the integrity of the institution.  Even if you agree with the result, I think it does more to expose the Court (or at least John Roberts) as political outcome motivated schemers than it does to guard against that perception.

It’s the SCOTUS equivalent of the Republicans campaigning on repealing and replacing Obamacare for 6 years, and then when they actually get the opportunity they reveal that they were full of shit the whole time and don’t even really want it to change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DanRydell said:

I'm not so sure that is what he was saying. I think all he's saying is "we just fucking ruled on the same law four years ago, you don't get to just get a do-over because there are a couple of new justices, and fuck you Fifth Circuit for ignoring clear precedent and putting this back on our plate right now."

But if someone wants to bring a more novel argument and the question before the Court is whether Roe or Casey should be overturned rather than whether these regulations violate Whole Women's Health, he may come down a different way.

The Fifth Circuit cannot be told to fuck itself often enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, longhornmatt said:

I know the Court rejected this a few years ago, but Roberts dissenting in that case and then doing a 180 now that his vote would actually be decisive  is not exactly what I would describe as upholding the integrity of the institution.  Even if you agree with the result, I think it does more to expose the Court (or at least John Roberts) as political outcome motivated schemers than it does to guard against that perception.

It’s the SCOTUS equivalent of the Republicans campaigning on repealing and replacing Obamacare for 6 years, and then when they actually get the opportunity they reveal that they were full of shit the whole time and don’t even really want it to change.

Nah.

Having a decision overturn less-than-a-decade-old precedent just because of a change in the composition of the court is bad business.

The losers on decisions have to eat their losses.  Except Clarence, he just eats paste.

Plus, double fuck the Fifth Circuit for sending the same case to the Supreme Court twice in a decade.

Edited by TwiceHorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If any justice eats paste, it’s definitely Alito. He’s shockingly stupid for a judge, much less a Supreme Court justice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If any justice eats paste, it’s definitely Alito. He’s shockingly stupid for a judge, much less a Supreme Court justice.

I'll take your word.  Clarence has some weird ideas so you do kind of know he's thinking, if in an aberrant way.  I don't remember any Alito opinions off the top of my head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We still have California v. Texas, otherwise known as the GOP v. Americans, in the pipeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'll take your word.  Clarence has some weird ideas so you do kind of know he's thinking, if in an aberrant way.  I don't remember any Alito opinions off the top of my head.

He wrote the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby opinion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roberts and Gorsuch will defend the principle of stare decisis when needed. They are the new swing votes. 

The right to privacy has been decided. It is law.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, DanRydell said:

you don't get to just get a do-over because there are a couple of new justices

this part will be particularly difficult for trump voters (and especially trump) to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

I'll take your word.  Clarence has some weird ideas so you do kind of know he's thinking, if in an aberrant way.  I don't remember any Alito opinions off the top of my head.

I was gonna say, Clarence has always stuck out at me more than Alito in the stupid category. Where Alito has it on him is dishonesty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Aqua Buddha said:

Remember when the Republicans were against judicial activism?

 

No but I remember when they claimed they were against judicial activism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NameAlreadyInUse said:

No but I remember when they claimed they were against judicial activism.

What it was was that the liberal-types started going to the courts for things they couldn't get through the legislature:  abortion, women's rights, things of that nature.  So when the court agreed with them it was "activism."

Finally,  the GOP types (I won't say conservatives) came around to the idea that they could play in the courts, too.  

Not all that much has changed in the way courts go about their decision-making.  The role of highly politicized appointments and litmus tests has increased along with the level of #bothsides going to the courts for the purposes of their respective agendas.  And the accusations of "activism" apply to #bothsides.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, washparkhorn said:

Roberts and Gorsuch will defend the principle of stare decisis when needed. They are the new swing votes. 

The right to privacy has been decided. It is law.

Nothing has been done that can't be undone. Roberts practically laid out a roadmap today for how to get him to sign on to stricter abortion restrictions.

20 minutes ago, hpslugga said:

I was gonna say, Clarence has always stuck out at me more than Alito in the stupid category. Where Alito has it on him is dishonesty

Not that any of these are exclusive of the others, but the way I see them it's primarily:

Roberts: dishonest, Alito: stupid, Clarence: crazy

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Fucking stupid. The Turtle is the reason. Well, stupid people voting for Trump is in there too. The GOP blocked most Obama judicial appointments. It ain’t that hard to figure out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Any chance that we see an Alito or Thomas retirement in the next week or two? It's not like they can't see the possibility that Trump and the Senate flipping. They also have to realize that a Senate change could stop any new conservative justice for an extended time.

With the exception of Doug Jones this year, the Dems don't have an endangered incumbent Senator in 2022 with maybe the NV senator in question. It could be 2024 before they could lose a Senator. They take the Senate this year, it's theirs for at least 4 years.

CNN has an article about SCOTUS retirements: https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/30/politics/trump-supreme-court-campaign-boost/index.html

An open spot on the SC at this moment does help Trump too. There's no doubt that he's wanted an RBG or Breyer retirement/death but the window is closing on that. 

Edited by Nice Guy Eddie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

wapost headline: montana program aiding private schools must be open to religious schools

interesting that the court dismissed the NY gun case on mootness but came to a decision on this as montana had ended the program

 

edit: i guess the montana constitutional provision still exists, maybe that's what was decided?

 

edit2: the montana supreme court tossed the whole program, not the legislature

Edited by elfenix

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, elfenix said:

wapost headline: montana program aiding private schools must be open to religious schools

interesting that the court dismissed the NY gun case on mootness but came to a decision on this as montana had ended the program

You mean to tell me the conservatives will immediately abandon legal formalism whenever a convenient opportunity to further their political and ideological aims arises? This comes as quite a shock!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, BehoId, The Underminer! said:

It would be funny if Alito retired.  He’d go down as the biggest nothing in court history. 

He seems like a really angry guy. Probably the complete opposite of that in real life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

mpu


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Recruiting ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Help ... For Sale ... Politics ... Board Discussion
×
×
  • Create New...