Forum Thread

The Chief Justice And His Willful Cherry Picking of Facts

Reply to ThreadDisplaying 7 Posts
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    There is hardly a time that I agree with the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, but I just believed that he looks at the world through a different lens than I do. As much as I disagree with him on nearly every issue before the court, I still respected him as a master jurist. His vote on Obamacare was a masterful stroke by a conservative jurist. Why not vote to keep the law in place to appease the left in the country and then be free to systemically wage war on Lyndon Johnson's Great Society initiatives? Whatever little respect I had for Mr. Roberts went out the window after hearing the oral arguments regarding the re-authorization of Section V of the Voting Rights Act.

    Mr. Roberts, in my opinion, willfully distorted the 2010 census statistics to show that Massachusetts has a lower percentage of blacks voting in their elections compared to states like Mississippi. The problem with Mr. Roberts stats is that, while statistically accurate, it doesn't take into account blacks that are not eligible to vote because of their citizenship status, etc. It was a misleading statement at best and a willful untruth spoken by the Chief Justice at worst. I almost couldn't contain myself when he asked Donald Verilli, the U.S. Solicitor General, if it was the position of the U.S. Government that residents of the southern states are more racist than residents of the north. Anyone with a functioning brain knows that answer, but it was designed to force the Solicitor General into a box. Would he dare state on the record that he thought so?

    This cherry picking of stats by a sitting Supreme Court jurist, let alone the Chief Justice, is appalling. I have come to expect this type of questioning from Justices Scalia and Alito. And I'm sure if Justice Thomas ever spoke, he would say something just as appalling. But coming from the Chief Justice gives me major pause. He has been in an ideological war with the Obama Administration from day one of his administration and the only thing that will sideline him is if a conservative jurist leaves the court or dies in the next few years. Until then, I'd suggest to grab your popcorn and soft drink while you watch the Supreme Court roll back every major liberal initiative that we American's have come to appreciate.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:
    This cherry picking of stats by a sitting Supreme Court jurist, let alone the Chief Justice, is appalling. I have come to expect this type of questioning from Justices Scalia and Alito. And I'm sure if Justice Thomas ever spoke, he would say something just as appalling. But coming from the Chief Justice gives me major pause. He has been in an ideological war with the Obama Administration from day one of his administration and the only thing that will sideline him is if a conservative jurist leaves the court or dies in the next few years. Until then, I'd suggest to grab your popcorn and soft drink while you watch the Supreme Court roll back every major liberal initiative that we American's have come to appreciate.

    "[Justice Roberts] has been in an ideological war with the Obama Administration from day one of his administration and the only thing that will sideline him is if a conservative jurist leaves the court or dies in the next few years. Until then, I'd suggest to grab your popcorn and soft drink while you watch the Supreme Court roll back every major liberal initiative that we American's have come to appreciate."

    Jared predicted this in 2013. Now Judge James Dannenberg, a member of the Supreme Court Bar since 1972, has resigned his position in protest against Chief Justice Roberts for "allowing the Court to become an “errand boy” for an administration that has little respect for the rule of law."

    Quoting Dannenberg:

    "The Court, under your leadership and with your votes, has wantonly flouted established precedent. Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, as well as to elevate the grossest forms of political bribery beyond the ability of the federal government or states to rationally regulate it. More than a score of decisions during your tenure have overturned established precedents—some more than forty years old– and you voted with the majority in most. There is nothing “conservative” about this trend. This is radical “legal activism” at its worst."

    "It is clear to me that your Court is willfully hurtling back to the cruel days of Lochner and even Plessy. The only constitutional freedoms ultimately recognized may soon be limited to those useful to wealthy, Republican, White, straight, Christian, and armed males— and the corporations they control. This is wrong. Period. This is not America."

    In the seven years since Jared wrote his post, we have watched Justice Roberts do just that -- oversee the rollback of every major liberal initiative that we have come to appreciate. He did this before Trump and now for three years as "Trump's errand boy".

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I already said that the guy is an Republican asshole during the impeachment fake trial. He never acted as he should have; accepted all the B.S. of the Jordan/Collins clan and totally let the thing take its course as pre-determined by the McConnell clan. He's an piece of filth and no qualified judge at all.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    This is exactly why I have almost always believed that SCOTUS appointees should have term limits. I believe they should serve no longer than 2 or 4 years at a time. I also believe appointees shouldn't be appointed, they should be elected by a majority of eligible voters, the people.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    I've long forgotten about this thread, but it's interesting how prescient it is.

    Justice Roberts is not a centrist or an umpire calling balls and strikes. He's a far-right jurist who has worked with his other far-right justices to reshape American law for decades or more. Just imagine how different things could have been had Bernie or busters not overruled the will of the American people in 2016. We'd be living in a different world (and would trust our government more during this time of crisis.)

    The 2020 election will determine the trajectory of our country for the next 50 plus years. I wish I was being hyperbolic, but I'm not. If the Democrats are able to unite then Donald will lose and we will be able to prevent Donald from stacking the Supreme Court with a 7-2 majority. If we don't then the Supreme Court will be in Republican hands for a generation or more.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    jaredsxtn Wrote:

    The 2020 election will determine the trajectory of our country for the next 50 plus years. I wish I was being hyperbolic, but I'm not. If the Democrats are able to unite then Donald will lose and we will be able to prevent Donald from stacking the Supreme Court with a 7-2 majority. If we don't then the Supreme Court will be in Republican hands for a generation or more.

    And it is not being hyperbolic to say that Trump never should be allowed to appoint anybody to the SC, especially when he no longer has to face reelection. There is no requirements for being a SC justice, and don't think Trump would not put that "No Requirement" to the test. Someone with no law degree, or someone has been disbarred, but very appealing to the Republican party and Republican Senators. And with Trump, he might just do it for his own personal entertainment of watching Dem vs Rep go to war over a SC nomination

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Yes Jared you are correct; that is what Dock said correctly, indeed there should be term limits, plus proper screening for qualifications which should determine if such person is not "partisan" but is "independent". Any such court never should be filled with "party" affiliated people. But yeah they refuse to implement such by law. The laws in this country are skewed all the way because the "system" is outdated and are "corrupted" over time.