Quote:Stop me if you’ve heard this one before: Chief Justice John Roberts attempts to twist the law into nothingness in order to appease leftwing activists.

That’s the story of a fresh leak from CNN claiming that Roberts attempted to convince several of the real conservative justices on the Supreme Court to reaffirm Roe v. Wade. That confirms what many suspected as the saga unfolded for months prior to the dropping of the Dobbs decision, which sent the issue of abortion back to the states.

Roberts has a long history of ignoring the aspects of the law so that he can come to the least controversial decision in any given case. The most infamous example happened during Barack Obama’s tenure. Obama administration officials were stringently arguing that the Affordable Care Act wasn’t a tax, both publicly and in court, because they felt that was politically expedient.

Yet, Roberts managed to uphold the ACA by finding that it was a tax despite the very people who wrote it saying it wasn’t. It was one of the more surreal Supreme Court decisions in modern history, having a justice ignore the stated intentions of a piece of legislation in order to cause the least amount of public consternation, specifically on the left (the ACA was overall unpopular at the time).

There are other examples, such as Roberts joining the liberals of the court in a failed attempt to uphold unequally applied COVID restrictions on prayer meetings. And who could forget him voting to strike down a Louisiana law that simply required abortion facilities to follow basic health standards? In that case, Roberts had previously cast a vote the other direction on the same question before he claimed he was bound by precedent over something he pointedly said was decided wrongly.

You get the idea. Roberts is a coward, constantly shifting his standards in order to keep the left happy because he’s terrified their public outbursts might “delegitimize” the court. But the Supreme Court does not exist in order to soothe public opinion. Rather, it exists to interpret the law and rule based on its plainly stated merits. That Roberts’ concerns about legitimacy only seem to go in one political direction only makes things worse.

Yet, there’s something else to note about this CNN leak. Namely, it’s specifically designed to make you believe that the Dobbs draft leaker was a conservative. Note the framing that had the leak not happened, Roberts may have succeeded in shifting Justice Brett Kavanaugh or Justice Amy Coney Barrett.

To be frank, that’s a ridiculous assertion. No conservative justice leaked that draft knowing full well it was going to lead to threats on their lives and abject pandemonium outside their homes. If anything, the leak made it harder for those voting to overturn Roe to stand firm.

Besides, Roberts was never going to convince Kavanaugh or Barrett to change their votes based on his ridiculous notion that Roe and Casey could be preserved while getting rid of the viability test. That would have been absolutely contrary to the law, but so on brand for the chief justice. Roberts may not care about such particulars, but Kavanaugh and Barrett do.

In the end, this leak simply confirms what I and others on the right have been saying for years. Roberts is absolutely terrible. That this latest leak even occurred is a sign that his influence on the court has collapsed. My response? Good.

Link

Did anyone read Robert's opinion.

It was basically his wish list for what abortion law should be in this country

Raw judicial activism

I'm of the opinion that Justice Thomas is the heart and conscience of this court. He's the leader, both in intellect and instincts.

Roberts 'sell by' date has passed. He's a wuss and a pushover, easy to push into supporting the liberal positions. Not a leader.

Never liked Roberts anyways. He's always bent the knee to the left, and I have no problem with the left (CNN in this particular case) burning him.

He's a SCOTUS version of Romney, McCain, and Graham. Snakes.

He's been a tool since fellow tool GW nominated him.

Like Toolman Taylor said, "Tools to fix tools!!"

I've found Roberts to be rather underwhelming. He's probably done more damage than good.

A big mistake by W.

Bottom line, I believe the SCt could have upheld the Mississippi statute as a valid and reasonable exercise of states' rights (a concept that got tarred and feathered over segregation/integration, but frankly needs some revival/restoration), without overturning Roe v. Wade, and that's the way I would have voted. Per Roe, states cannot outlaw abortion outright, but do have the power to impose restrictions, and should have some latitude to do so. Basically, the historic (first 100-150 years of the republic, and thus conservative?) position--that abortion was permitted until "quickening" (the unborn's movements can be felt by the mother) and thereafter in the case of rape, incest, or health of mother/child--is where I think we should end up, but states should have the power to go more or less.

The problem with Roberts, and with the court in general, is too much groupthink. Every justice except Barrett attended Harvard or Yale law school (zero intellectual diversity there), all except Barrett and Gorsuch came from the northeast corridor (1st, 2nd, or 3rd Circuit or DC Circuit, virtually zero diversity of experience), and in a Protestant plurality nation, everybody but Gorsuch is either Jewish or Roman Catholic. Bottom line, the SCt looks nothing like 80% of the nation. In the battle between elite experts and common sense, the SCt is clearly on the elite experts side. And you don't have that degree of shared intellectual background without severe groupthink, whether you are nominally conservative or leftist. I expect that Gorsuch and Barrett will become, if not already, a couple of breaths of fresh air.

I've said before, the OwlNumbers proposal--Increase to 13 justices, one from each of the 11 federal circuits, the DC Circuit, and the Federal Circuit. Vacancies must be filled by appointing someone from an unrepresented circuit until every circuit is represented--that means the next justices must come from the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 11th, and Federal Circuits. You need an interim process to add the 4 justices--let democrats nominate 2 and republicans nominate 2, all from unrepresented circuits, and approve all 4 together. Once every circuit is represented, each seat becomes that circuit's seat. Chief Justice would be the senior justice in time of service, and non-voting except to break a tie. Put all of this in statute and start a simultaneous amendment process to make future changes (packing the court?) extremely difficult to impossible.

(07-26-2022 12:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line, I believe the SCt could have upheld the Mississippi statute as a valid and reasonable exercise of states' rights (a concept that got tarred and feathered over segregation/integration, but frankly needs some revival/restoration), without overturning Roe v. Wade, and that's the way I would have voted. Per Roe, states cannot outlaw abortion outright, but do have the power to impose restrictions, and should have some latitude to do so. Basically, the historic (first 100-150 years of the republic, and thus conservative?) position--that abortion was permitted until "quickening" (the unborn's movements can be felt by the mother) and thereafter in the case of rape, incest, or health of mother/child--is where I think we should end up, but states should have the power to go more or less.

The problem with Roberts, and with the court in general, is too much groupthink. Every justice except Barrett attended Harvard or Yale law school (zero intellectual diversity there), all except Barrett and Gorsuch came from the northeast corridor (1st, 2nd, or 3rd Circuit or DC Circuit, virtually zero diversity of experience), and in a Protestant plurality nation, everybody but Gorsuch is either Jewish or Roman Catholic. Bottom line, the SCt looks nothing like 80% of the nation. In the battle between elite experts and common sense, the SCt is clearly on the elite experts side. And you don't have that degree of shared intellectual background without severe groupthink, whether you are nominally conservative or leftist. I expect that Gorsuch and Barrett will become, if not already, a couple of breaths of fresh air.

I've said before, the OwlNumbers proposal--Increase to 13 justices, one from each of the 11 federal circuits, the DC Circuit, and the Federal Circuit. Vacancies must be filled by appointing someone from an unrepresented circuit until every circuit is represented--that means the next justices must come from the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 11th, and Federal Circuits. You need an interim process to add the 4 justices--let democrats nominate 2 and republicans nominate 2, all from unrepresented circuits, and approve all 4 together. Once every circuit is represented, each seat becomes that circuit's seat. Chief Justice would be the senior justice in time of service, and non-voting except to break a tie. Put all of this in statute and start a simultaneous amendment process to make future changes (packing the court?) extremely difficult to impossible.

Thats what Roberts wanted to do

He wanted to eliminate the "viability standard", a court creation, into his desired standard "sufficient opportunity"

The "sufficient opportunity" standard actually sounds good in theory as a compromise and would have been a major win for abortion limitation from present Roe state, BUT it is still the epitome of judicial activism.

Creating a standard on something like that is a legislative function. If liberals were willing to compromise I bet the sufficient opportunity standard would have a good shot at being codified as it is in line with most European law.

Its Congress' job to legislate not the Courts. The Court should not be creating standards and law out of whole cloth. That's how we got into this mess in the first place.

(07-26-2022 01:08 PM)solohawks Wrote:  Thats what Roberts wanted to do

To be clear, what Roberts wanted to do is not what I am proposing.

That's the problem. He wanted to legislate from the bench. Legislation is the function of the legislative branch, and unless it involves interstate commerce, that legislative branch must be state legislatures. That's what I mean about giving deference to states' rights. As long as they don't outright outlaw abortion 100%, they can coexist with Roe v. Wade.

(07-26-2022 12:46 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line, I believe the SCt could have upheld the Mississippi statute as a valid and reasonable exercise of states' rights (a concept that got tarred and feathered over segregation/integration, but frankly needs some revival/restoration), without overturning Roe v. Wade, and that's the way I would have voted. Per Roe, states cannot outlaw abortion outright, but do have the power to impose restrictions, and should have some latitude to do so. Basically, the historic (first 100-150 years of the republic, and thus conservative?) position--that abortion was permitted until "quickening" (the unborn's movements can be felt by the mother) and thereafter in the case of rape, incest, or health of mother/child--is where I think we should end up, but states should have the power to go more or less.

The problem with Roberts, and with the court in general, is too much groupthink. Every justice except Barrett attended Harvard or Yale law school (zero intellectual diversity there), all except Barrett and Gorsuch came from the northeast corridor (1st, 2nd, or 3rd Circuit or DC Circuit, virtually zero diversity of experience), and in a Protestant plurality nation, everybody but Gorsuch is either Jewish or Roman Catholic. Bottom line, the SCt looks nothing like 80% of the nation. In the battle between elite experts and common sense, the SCt is clearly on the elite experts side. And you don't have that degree of shared intellectual background without severe groupthink, whether you are nominally conservative or leftist. I expect that Gorsuch and Barrett will become, if not already, a couple of breaths of fresh air.

I've said before, the OwlNumbers proposal--Increase to 13 justices, one from each of the 11 federal circuits, the DC Circuit, and the Federal Circuit. Vacancies must be filled by appointing someone from an unrepresented circuit until every circuit is represented--that means the next justices must come from the 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 11th, and Federal Circuits. You need an interim process to add the 4 justices--let democrats nominate 2 and republicans nominate 2, all from unrepresented circuits, and approve all 4 together. Once every circuit is represented, each seat becomes that circuit's seat. Chief Justice would be the senior justice in time of service, and non-voting except to break a tie. Put all of this in statute and start a simultaneous amendment process to make future changes (packing the court?) extremely difficult to impossible.

Very true about groupthink. Barrett is an important breath of diversity.

(07-26-2022 12:09 PM)B_Hawk06 Wrote:  Never liked Roberts anyways. He's always bent the knee to the left, and I have no problem with the left (CNN in this particular case) burning him.

He's a SCOTUS version of Romney, McCain, and Graham. Snakes.

agreed