General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsI am now convinced that Roberts will be the swing vote
After all, it was his vote that kept the ACA the law of the land.
And, I think, on other cases - I am not a legal maven - his vote was not of the rabid Scalia-Thomas school.
And I think that now. that he realized how Whiny Donny is the petulant kid who has to have the last word, who says the first thing that comes from that void between his ears, Roberts will conclude that his court will have to stand on guard of this country, of its Constitution, of its reason for existence. Certainly the Senate will not.
I hope.
Mme. Defarge
(8,042 posts)I pray that we are not disappointed.
pwb
(11,288 posts)His court is in ruin.
Salviati
(6,008 posts)then he's going to have to step up and be more proactive in defending its legitimacy.
MountCleaners
(1,148 posts)He clearly has major personality issues. He's so abrasive and arrogant he must be horrible to work with. That might help persuade Roberts.
diva77
(7,656 posts)with Breyer and RBG
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter
SNIP
Initially, from 1990 to 1992, Souter leaned conservative. In his first year, he and Scalia voted alike close to 85% of the time; Souter voted with Kennedy and O'Connor about 97% of the time.[citation needed] The symbolic turning point came in two cases in 1992: Planned Parenthood v. Casey,[14] in which the Court reaffirmed the essential holding in Roe v. Wade; and Lee v. Weisman, in which Souter voted against allowing prayer at a high school graduation ceremony. In Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Kennedy considered overturning Roe and upholding all the restrictions at issue in Casey. Souter considered upholding all the restrictions but still was uneasy about overturning Roe. After consulting with O'Connor, however, the three (who came to be known as the "troika" developed a joint opinion that upheld all the restrictions in Casey except for the mandatory notification of a husband while asserting the essential holding of Roe, that a right to an abortion is protected by the Constitution.
After the appointment of Clarence Thomas, Souter moved to the middle.[12] By the late 1990s, Souter began to align himself more with Stephen Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg, although as of 1995, he sided on more occasions with the more liberal[23] justice, John Paul Stevens, than either Breyer or Ginsburg, both Clinton appointees.[14] O'Connor began to move to the center. On death penalty cases, worker rights cases, criminal rights cases, and other issues, Souter began voting with the liberals in the court. So while appointed by a Republican president and thus expected to be conservative,[24] Souter came to be considered part of the liberal wing of the court. Because of this, many conservatives view the Souter appointment as a major error on Bush's part and have intensely scrutinized future potential Republican appointees to determine whether they will be reliable conservatives.[25] For example, after widespread speculation that President George W. Bush intended to appoint Alberto Gonzaleswhose perceived views on affirmative action and abortion drew criticismto the court, some conservative Senate staffers popularized the slogan that "Gonzales is Spanish for Souter".[26]
An opinion article by The Wall Street Journal some ten years after the Souter nomination called Souter a "liberal jurist" and said that Rudman took "pride in recounting how he sold Mr. Souter to gullible White House Chief of Staff John Sununu as a confirmable conservative. Then they both sold the judge to President Bush, who wanted above all else to avoid a confirmation battle."[27] Rudman wrote in his memoir that he had "suspected all along" that Souter would not "overturn activist liberal precedents."[6] Sununu later said that he had "a lot of disappointment" in Souter's positions on the court and would have preferred him to be more like Justice Scalia.[6]
Notable decisions
SNIP
--------------------
I hope so too
question everything
(47,535 posts)I always thought that at some point he said: I don't need this sh*t
Buckeyeblue
(5,502 posts)It's hard to say what that will motivate him to do. He didn't want the court to overturn ACA. Will he have the same opinion about Roe and marriage Equality.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)question everything
(47,535 posts)I thought that, until the end, he did remain the swing vote. His was the one for same sex marriage.
And we will never know, at least not while still alive, what kind of pressure was put on him.
Garrett78
(10,721 posts)It's a bit depressing to be relying on the likes of Kennedy and Roberts.
question everything
(47,535 posts)and, by the way, I will not be surprised if Gorsuch will move to the center. Not as rabid as Scalia. Will have to watch, and pray for RGB to hold on.
Polybius
(15,476 posts)Gorsuch is Scalia. There's a better chance of Kavanaugh moving to the center, as he's the Bush-Republican.
bitterross
(4,066 posts)Every Chief Justice has a legacy and they are known for the decisions from their time as chief justice. Perhaps he cares about how history will remember him.
catbyte
(34,451 posts)turn out to be the swing vote. For all my disagreements with many of his rulings, he does appear to value the rule of law and the Constitution more than the Republican party or attaching his lips to Il Douche's ass. And he did save Obamacare. Who knows? Hope springs eternal.
GulfCoast66
(11,949 posts)Voted to strip the voting act act. But if we get back in the majority we can fix that by applying it to all states. He even gave us the route to accomplish it, if I remember correctly.
He is a mixed bag. But I am sure he knows history. At this point he has got to be concerned that in 100 years the Roberts and Taney courts will be talked about in the same sentence.
George II
(67,782 posts)...(can I use that word?)
Yes, he could very well be a swing vote, but we need another to be safe.
gordianot
(15,245 posts)Last edited Wed Nov 21, 2018, 11:17 PM - Edit history (2)
Who in their right mind is willing to toleate and support this sick, ignorant, vain, criminal? Trump knows no loyalty even with his most ardent supporters. Trump is an odious beast that will turn on you.
pecosbob
(7,543 posts)I think we'll know pretty soon just how conservative...
tritsofme
(17,399 posts)Unfortunately he is not going to shift his philosophy on other matters, and will be the median justice, just far to Kennedys right. .
Polybius
(15,476 posts)Bush is really hated by the right now, hard to believe.
Progressive Law
(617 posts)So for example, if CJ Roberts retired tomorrow, the Justice who replaces him would be the new Chief Justice....even though all the other Justices have more seniority on the court.
Polybius
(15,476 posts)If he retires tomorrow Trump can name Thomas if he wants to, but then there would be hearings on Thomas' nomination to CJ and Thomas' old seat (which Trump would have to find a replacement for).
This is exactly what happened in 1986 when Reagan nominated Associate Justice William Rehnquist to be CJ. Rehnquist became the CJ and Scalia took his seat. It's highly insulting to the other Justices for a newbie to be nominated CJ like that moron Bush did. They should always come from within.
Progressive Law
(617 posts)eleny
(46,166 posts)Roberts clerked for Chief Justice Rehnquist and knew how he thought highly of the Equal Protection Clause. He counseled Bush's lawyers how to frame their argument before the Court and the rest is history. Making Roberts Chief Justice was Bush's big wet kiss to Roberts.