Roberts complained Wednesday that people view the justices as "political actors." They are, though, issuing political decisions that have real-world consequences.
And he has had the opportunity to defend the third branch, the judiciary, of which he is supposedly the symbolic leader, and he has failed to do so. Because he is political?, timid?, limited in his views?
Please provide proof of Trump being a "racist" and "sexual abuser". The case of E. Jean Carroll never proved beyond a reasonable doubt, besides clear and convincing evidence and preponderance of the evidence, that he ever sexually abused Carroll. It was a New York left-wing jury of Trump haters that made the decision to find him liable, not guilty, of some perceived "assault", where evidence in Trump's favor was obstructed, tampered with and concealed from the jury. Such evidence included the fact that E. Jean Carroll couldn't remember dates, times and places she was at when the purported act occurred. She claims she had the dress when the alleged "assault" occurred--except that the dress hadn't been made and produced until 5 years after the fact. She met Trump at a big money social gathering with hundreds of other people. Witnesses were not allowed by the biased left-wing judge to testify they saw nothing and don't even remember E. Jean Carroll at the social.
E. Jean Carroll is nothing but a grifter looking to hit the "lottery" based on false allegations.
Trump has hired more minorities at his company and has more minorities in his administration than most CEOs or Presidents ever did.
The Roberts court has just had enough. Enough of voter rights, environmental protection, consumer protections, women wanting to control their bodies, enough advancement of the truths once held to be self-evident.
John Roberts can't say the court isn't political when a 6-3 majority gave Trump complete immunity. That ruling goes against everything our country stands for. He's just mad that the public can see the truth. The SC needs massive reform.
Roberts doesn’t like to admit he’s a political shill for Republicans. His particular form of butthurt is nothing compared with losing your congressional representation because of his false belief that racism is over in the US.
Roberts is on track to be the worst Chief Justice since Roger Taney, and history may treat him just as harshly. Taney gave America Dred Scott. Roberts gives us cowardice by committee: shadow-docket mischief, selective restraint, institutional preening, and rulings that bend whichever way protects the Court’s image or the regime’s pressure points.
I cannot stand Roberts because he sells weakness as statesmanship. He lectures America about “politicizing” the Court while presiding over decisions that shape the political battlefield. Spare me the civics sermon. If Roberts wants political power, he can take political heat. MAGA sees him clearly.
Judge Sotomayor in a panel discussion once noted, adding it's something that many rather not admit, that appellate courts are where policy is made. She noted in her confirmation hearing:
<i>An appellate court’s decision sets a “precedent [that] has policy ramifications, because it binds not just the litigants in that case, it binds all litigants in similar cases,” Sotomayor said at her confirmation hearing today.</i>
The term "political" has a certain baggage that Chief Justice Roberts doesn't like as seen by his infamous balls and strikes reference. The statement that some institution, it wasn't always the courts, was an "umpire" goes back to the Founding. It doesn't mean it lacks "political" context.
(Congress, for instance, was cited as an umpire by some people.)
The Supreme Court, from the first days, had a "political" aspect. Honesty is the first step to the possibility of congressional reform.
Sotomayor is a left-wing political hack. Of couse she would say the appellate courts are where policy is made. Look at her own 2nd Circuit in New York. It's as close to a communist left-wing court as there is. Even the 9th Circuit in California has lately made common sense rulings.
He’s acting like he’s dumb when, of course, he isn’t.
Roberts: The race to racism aloud.
Oh man, the caption says it all — bravo!
This article fails to mention Roberts role in Citizens United. Talk about tipping the political environment.
And he has had the opportunity to defend the third branch, the judiciary, of which he is supposedly the symbolic leader, and he has failed to do so. Because he is political?, timid?, limited in his views?
Roberts is, in effect, a liar. Not something we want on a Supreme Court, or any court.
Gaslighting 101.
Standard behavior for regressives
Lastly, I find it strange - and telling - that Roberts uses Trump - racist and sexual abuser - to fulfill his Confederate dreams.
Please provide proof of Trump being a "racist" and "sexual abuser". The case of E. Jean Carroll never proved beyond a reasonable doubt, besides clear and convincing evidence and preponderance of the evidence, that he ever sexually abused Carroll. It was a New York left-wing jury of Trump haters that made the decision to find him liable, not guilty, of some perceived "assault", where evidence in Trump's favor was obstructed, tampered with and concealed from the jury. Such evidence included the fact that E. Jean Carroll couldn't remember dates, times and places she was at when the purported act occurred. She claims she had the dress when the alleged "assault" occurred--except that the dress hadn't been made and produced until 5 years after the fact. She met Trump at a big money social gathering with hundreds of other people. Witnesses were not allowed by the biased left-wing judge to testify they saw nothing and don't even remember E. Jean Carroll at the social.
E. Jean Carroll is nothing but a grifter looking to hit the "lottery" based on false allegations.
Trump has hired more minorities at his company and has more minorities in his administration than most CEOs or Presidents ever did.
Oh, that bitch!
The Roberts court has just had enough. Enough of voter rights, environmental protection, consumer protections, women wanting to control their bodies, enough advancement of the truths once held to be self-evident.
John Roberts can't say the court isn't political when a 6-3 majority gave Trump complete immunity. That ruling goes against everything our country stands for. He's just mad that the public can see the truth. The SC needs massive reform.
Shorter: Lifelong Political Operative Bemoans Political Label
they entered prominance throwing an election in 2000, and have been doing it ever since
Roberts doesn’t like to admit he’s a political shill for Republicans. His particular form of butthurt is nothing compared with losing your congressional representation because of his false belief that racism is over in the US.
Roberts is on track to be the worst Chief Justice since Roger Taney, and history may treat him just as harshly. Taney gave America Dred Scott. Roberts gives us cowardice by committee: shadow-docket mischief, selective restraint, institutional preening, and rulings that bend whichever way protects the Court’s image or the regime’s pressure points.
https://luthmann.substack.com/p/guest-opinion-stephen-e-herbits-on
I cannot stand Roberts because he sells weakness as statesmanship. He lectures America about “politicizing” the Court while presiding over decisions that shape the political battlefield. Spare me the civics sermon. If Roberts wants political power, he can take political heat. MAGA sees him clearly.
Judge Sotomayor in a panel discussion once noted, adding it's something that many rather not admit, that appellate courts are where policy is made. She noted in her confirmation hearing:
<i>An appellate court’s decision sets a “precedent [that] has policy ramifications, because it binds not just the litigants in that case, it binds all litigants in similar cases,” Sotomayor said at her confirmation hearing today.</i>
https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/46085-sotomayor-explains-where-policy-is-made-remark/
The term "political" has a certain baggage that Chief Justice Roberts doesn't like as seen by his infamous balls and strikes reference. The statement that some institution, it wasn't always the courts, was an "umpire" goes back to the Founding. It doesn't mean it lacks "political" context.
(Congress, for instance, was cited as an umpire by some people.)
The Supreme Court, from the first days, had a "political" aspect. Honesty is the first step to the possibility of congressional reform.
Sotomayor is a left-wing political hack. Of couse she would say the appellate courts are where policy is made. Look at her own 2nd Circuit in New York. It's as close to a communist left-wing court as there is. Even the 9th Circuit in California has lately made common sense rulings.