quote:

Originally posted by dewhorse:
Very good point, this mess will be one of the most important opinions in our time not just for the win for states rights but as you mentioned. If they back down and change the opinion the supreme court loses it's credibility.

The justices are smart people one hopes this makes them stand firm.

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:
Y'know, it's just possible Roberts made the decision he made simply because he believed it was the correct decision. Not "because of the mob." Not "because of politics." Not "because somebody's got something on him" or "because somebody got to him." Just because he thought that was the correct decision.

Maybe, just maybe, Roberts simply isn't the judge GWB thought he was? (Wouldn't be the first time that's happened.) Or maybe he is and what the Court got was what GWB wanted the Court to get?

Why must so many people believe the absolute worst of anybody with whom they disagree?

I sit here, more-or-less in the middle (well, much more right than left, these days, because the left has moved so far left) and see both sides doing the same things. The other side is completely out to lunch. Their motives and motivations entirely suspect, if not downright evil. Everybody on the other side is out to destroy the American Way Of Life.

I'm reminded of Justices Scalia and Ginsberg. Polar opposites on the Bench, but respected one another and got along with one another famously.

I wish more people were like them

quote:

Originally posted by Lefty Sig:
I don't think Roberts really thought the Obamacare mandate was really a tax. I think his intent was to put the pile of shit that is the ACA back to Congress and saying "you fix it".

In some ways I agree with the point that it is not the job of the Supreme Court to clean up bad legislation.

R v. W was a bad decision based on very strained legal reasoning. The Court may very well tell Congress "it's up to you to legislate the legality of abortion, not us, do your job and stop asking us to do it for you." Or they may let it stand. We won't know until the decision is announced.

Could he have done this in a better way with Obamacare? Sure he could have struck down the mandate and fine and left the rest of it in place. Then it would be up to Congress to figure out how to fund it. The constitutional question was the mandate, and the use of a fine to enforce it.

I don't think he bends to activist pressure. I think he thinks too much about his legacy and the image of the court.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:
Ahole Roberts still working to try to have Kavanaugh and Barrett change their minds. What a shock. NOT! Working on the 2 most junior justices, knowing he only needs to be 50% to win.

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

One interesting twist is that according to the info that was leaked to Politico, 5 of the conservative justices were known to have voted in favor of overturning Roe. Roberts' position was unknown. If he was in the minority (i.e. a 5-4 decision), there is a decent chance that these protests could cause him to join the majority to create a 6-3 decision in order to show unity and avoid the doubts that 5-4 decisions create. He is particularly interested in the reputation of the Court, so such a move to strengthen the majority would definitely be in his playbook. Of course, he might have been in the majority the whole time. We may never know.

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

One interesting twist is that according to the info that was leaked to Politico, 5 of the conservative justices were known to have voted in favor of overturning Roe. Roberts' position was unknown. If he was in the minority (i.e. a 5-4 decision), there is a decent chance that these protests could cause him to join the majority to create a 6-3 decision in order to show unity and avoid the doubts that 5-4 decisions create. He is particularly interested in the reputation of the Court, so such a move to strengthen the majority would definitely be in his playbook. Of course, he might have been in the majority the whole time. We may never know.

I don't know whether this is allowed but I'm sure the Supreme Court could do this to send a message that they are not to be fucked with as an institution: Have the Justices vote 8 - 1, even though 3 of them don't agree with the decision and have the 1 write the dissenting opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
A proposed national Abortion Rights law by the Democrats would be just as devastating.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
A proposed national Abortion Rights law by the Democrats would be just as devastating.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
They will vote how they like, not to make a point.

quote:

Roe v. Wade was a disaster in 1973. It forced all states to be Abortion States, just as the Dred Scott decision forced all states to be Slave States. A proposed national Abortion Rights law by the Democrats would be just as devastating.
Effectively, the Supreme Court had forced the institution of slavery upon the North.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
They will vote how they like, not to make a point.

Kinda, but not really. Looking at voting records, 'no' case attacking a liberal supported issue or position will ever receive even tacit consideration by Sotomayor or Breyer (Ginsberg also followed this practice). They vote to protect the power of the state every time regardless the merits or basis of the particular case. Kagan simply asks Sotomayor how she'll be voting and votes the same way. The woman is an embarrassment. And from all indications, Katanji will likely do the exact same thing when she blesses us with her monster judicial prowess. Then Roberts laments his reputation as chief justice and that of the court and does everything he can to run away from anything that might be hugely controversial regardless the legal aspects of a case (Ex. BarryCare and the mandate). So yeah, they absolutely 'can' vote anyway they want, but its a virtual given how many will vote if its a case attacking a liberal supported position or issue....or if the case might impact Roberts position on the Washington cocktail circuit.

quote:

Originally posted by chellim1:
Difficult political decisions are probably best left to the States because the mores of one locality may be different than another.

quote:

Whoever, with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice, or with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness, or court officer, in the discharge of his duty, pickets or parades in or near a building housing a court of the United States, or in or near a building or residence occupied or used by such judge, juror, witness, or court officer, or with such intent uses any sound-truck or similar device or resorts to any other demonstration in or near any such building or residence, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
It’s a violation of Virginia state law too. But I don’t see any state troopers locking up protesters in VA streets in front of the judges. Their governor obviously doesn’t care.

quote:

Originally posted by mutedblade:

quote:

Originally posted by MikeinNC:
It’s a violation of Virginia state law too. But I don’t see any state troopers locking up protesters in VA streets in front of the judges. Their governor obviously doesn’t care.

Not sure that the Governor is the issue. Gary Settle (VSP Superintendent) is a piece of shit and he's not gonna do anything that makes waves for anyone left leaning, regardless of what the Governor says.