PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on June 29, 2020, 02:46:18 PM
-
What happened to him?
Today he proved that even Supreme Court Justices need term limits.
-
He is either a "Progressive" by nature, or the Left has something on him in which to make him vote their way. I don't know. It seems only the Republican appointed Justices flip to the Left. Why is that? The Democrat appointed ones are all lock step, Far Left Progressive, and can be counted on to always vote that way. We need a real Constitutionalist to replace that Commie Ginsberg.
Do the words in the Constitution no longer matter? Can Justices no longer read English?
-
How many folks know that legislation was written by a Black Senator in LA? It also had super majority bi-partisan support in LA.
-
How many folks know that legislation was written by a Black Senator in LA? It also had super majority bi-partisan support in LA.
What legislation? This?
The chief justice didn’t just protect abortion. He went out of his way to protect it.
Ayear ago, almost to the day, writing for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts upheld the constitutional right of a property owner divested by a local government ordinance to sue for just compensation. The owner in Knick v. Township of Scott had failed to seek compensation in state court before filing her federal lawsuit. That meant her federal case should have been barred under the Court’s 1985 ruling in Williamson County Regional Planning Commission v. Hamilton Bank. But no, reasoned the chief justice. If the justices upheld that precedent to foreclose Ms. Knick’s suit, they would be elevating their own wrongly decided precedent over the Constitution’s prohibition on government takings without just compensation.
Yet Monday, in June Medical Services v. Russo, Roberts clung to stare decisis, the principle of upholding precedent, in order to protect the putative “right” to abortion, a wholesale invention of willful progressive justices that is bereft of constitutional grounding.
There are, of course, four uber legislators on the Court — Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — who reliably vote as a bloc whenever doing so is necessary to advance the Left’s agenda or hold ground previously won. Roberts used stare decisis as his rationale for joining them, yet again, on Monday. Together, they denied the state of Louisiana its sovereign power to regulate medical practice in furtherance of its indisputable interest in preserving life.
All five justices relied on Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt (2016), in which the Court barred the state of Texas from implementing a similar law mandating that abortionists have admitting privileges in a nearby hospital (in the event something goes wrong during the abortion). Roberts had dissented in Whole Woman’s Health because, so poorly reasoned was the decision, he concluded it was flat wrong. Now, however, he insists that stare decisis requires honoring this abortion precedent he knows is wrong.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/supreme-court-john-roberts-protects-abortion/
At this point I firmly believe Roberts would vote with the four Far Left anti American, anti Constitution Communists against any case that supports the Second Amendment.
-
I object (no pun) to the notion that justices on the US Supreme Court must be liberal or conservative, or must be expected to vote in line with DNC or GOP agendas.
My (probably pollyanna) view is that the justices should be deciding based on the law, not what society wants or expects.
A consequence of my (pollyanna) view, that those 4 liberal-agenda-over-the-us-constitution justices will be an extraordinarily heavy anchor dragging decisions to the left left left.
I wonder how many judges and lawyers actually studied the US Constitution in law school...
-
I totally agree with you, that the case should be decided based on the constitution and the law. The problem is that language is imperfect, and it's impossible to cover all possible interpretations. Just take the second amendment. It can be interpreted several different ways based on one's particular point of view. "a well-regulated militia" vs. "shall not be infringed".
-
I totally agree with you, that the case should be decided based on the constitution and the law. The problem is that language is imperfect, and it's impossible to cover all possible interpretations. Just take the second amendment. It can be interpreted several different ways based on one's particular point of view. "a well-regulated militia" vs. "shall not be infringed".
Actually, no. The 2A is clear. Well Regulated does not mean restricted by government rules. It means well equipped and trained and refers to something in proper working order. All the Justices know that, but allow their political bias to rule them.
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it[/b].
https://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
-
I object (no pun) to the notion that justices on the US Supreme Court must be liberal or conservative, or must be expected to vote in line with DNC or GOP agendas.
My (probably pollyanna) view is that the justices should be deciding based on the law, not what society wants or expects.
A consequence of my (pollyanna) view, that those 4 liberal-agenda-over-the-us-constitution justices will be an extraordinarily heavy anchor dragging decisions to the left left left.
I wonder how many judges and lawyers actually studied the US Constitution in law school...
We had a lawyer here not that long ago that displayed total ignorance to the constitution as well as the structure of the federal government.
Law School has become a complete joke in this country.
-
Actually, no. The 2A is clear. Well Regulated does not mean restricted by government rules. It means well equipped and trained and refers to something in proper working order. All the Justices know that, but allow their political bias to rule them.
https://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
I completely agree with you, and for me it is completely unambiguous. It was just an example of how two sides can take the same phrase and have two completely different interpretations. I think the other side can find as many arguments to justify their view. They are wrong, but that doesn't keep them from trying.
-
What legislation? This?
Yes, Louisiana legislation that Scotus just shot down.
-
What happened to him?
Today he proved that even Supreme Court Justices need term limits.
Which decision specifically? For the abortion law, it was only a matter of time since an almost identical Texas law was struck down several years ago. "Undue burden" is a concept called "the Casey test" and it's an important one. Laws which require so much burden to comply with are illegitimate because they effectively ban what they legislate. If you'd like a more friendly example, consider some state's gun control laws. They could be considered overly burdensome and therefore the laws will be struck down. However the Court has no gotten any such cases recently.
Just because you disagree with someone does not mean you should cancel them, that is what the Left does. We should continue to respect everyone, even "them". Maybe especially them.
-
Which decision specifically? For the abortion law, it was only a matter of time since an almost identical Texas law was struck down several years ago. "Undue burden" is a concept called "the Casey test" and it's an important one. Laws which require so much burden to comply with are illegitimate because they effectively ban what they legislate. If you'd like a more friendly example, consider some state's gun control laws. They could be considered overly burdensome and therefore the laws will be struck down. However the Court has no gotten any such cases recently.
Just because you disagree with someone does not mean you should cancel them, that is what the Left does. We should continue to respect everyone, even "them". Maybe especially them.
Roberts indicates he was a textualist in his confirmation hearings. He is not. He’s an activist in that he is looking at meaning beyond what the legislature wrote.
A justice doesn’t need to consistently vote the “conservative” or “liberal” party line. However, he should vote in the way in which he testified. He has failed that test.
Personally, he should not be a Chief Justice. I think he is playing umpire and calling balls and strikes so that neither party can say he was partisan. He doesn’t want to be excluded from any DC cocktail parties.
-
I think he hates Trump and his decisions are reflecting that.
He reminds me of Romney and McCain.
-
Roberts indicates he was a textualist in his confirmation hearings. He is not. He’s an activist in that he is looking at meaning beyond what the legislature wrote.
Personally, he should not be a Chief Justice. I think he is playing umpire and calling balls and strikes so that neither party can say he was partisan.
He sees them as he calls them.
-
Roberts indicates he was a textualist in his confirmation hearings. He is not. He’s an activist in that he is looking at meaning beyond what the legislature wrote.
A justice doesn’t need to consistently vote the “conservative” or “liberal” party line. However, he should vote in the way in which he testified. He has failed that test.
Personally, he should not be a Chief Justice. I think he is playing umpire and calling balls and strikes so that neither party can say he was partisan. He doesn’t want to be excluded from any DC cocktail parties.
His "judicial" and "legal" "reasoning" for the way he voted on Obamacare were actually the exact opposite. I assume when some individuals attain a pinnacle power such as this they view themselves as God.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/how-john-roberts-turned-the-supreme-court-into-a-legislative-body-to-save-obamacare
-
john roberts is george bush's revenge.