Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

EffieBlack

(14,249 posts)
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:39 PM Nov 2019

So far, my friend's been right: The judiciary IS holding!


"The Judiciary branch is strong and WE. WILL. HOLD"

A few weeks ago, a dear old friend, a Republican-appointed federal judge, trying to console me during a moment of despair about the future of our country, said to me “The Judiciary branch is strong and will hold.” When I expressed skepticism, he leaned toward me, looked me dead in the eye, and said as firmly as he could without shouting: “We are strong and WE. WILL. HOLD.”

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212113242

80 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
So far, my friend's been right: The judiciary IS holding! (Original Post) EffieBlack Nov 2019 OP
SCOTUS is different tho. Thanks to #MoscowMitch Roland99 Nov 2019 #1
Maybe not? I think it depends on how Robert's wants historian's to describe the "Robert's" Court. usaf-vet Nov 2019 #66
Roberts has already surprised me a time or two soldierant Nov 2019 #67
Just read your "shameless self promotion". Right on. I think we are on the same page. usaf-vet Nov 2019 #73
Thank you. Sorry it took me so long to acknowledge. soldierant Nov 2019 #74
It's a hell of a thing to have to rely on this guy. NCLefty Nov 2019 #71
Thanks, I agree! Iliyah Nov 2019 #2
It's hard to believe that considering how many OliverQ Nov 2019 #3
How many cases has Trump won EffieBlack Nov 2019 #4
Both actions filed by legal genius Michael Avenatti jberryhill Nov 2019 #5
About 50 appellate judges. McConnell brags about it. It's his legacy. JudyM Nov 2019 #60
It means nothing when SCOTUS is the final word budkin Nov 2019 #6
We don't know that jberryhill Nov 2019 #7
Gorsuch and Kavanaugh owe him everything budkin Nov 2019 #8
So what jberryhill Nov 2019 #10
is Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver a selfish dickhead? Hermit-The-Prog Nov 2019 #16
As awful as Kavanaugh is ... DonaldsRump Nov 2019 #53
Yes, but I can't imagine he is any less disdainful toward liberals, Dark n Stormy Knight Nov 2019 #69
JusticeBeer Bong Weinie Waver....it can not be posted enough. Farmer-Rick Nov 2019 #55
Agreed. kag Nov 2019 #64
A perfect post Farmer-Rick Nov 2019 #68
I prefer Justice Suds McDudeBro myself, but this name fits as well The Genealogist Dec 2019 #76
You know capitalism has won when creepy, dishonest, corrupt and incompetent fools are assigned Farmer-Rick Dec 2019 #77
That's a good point budkin Nov 2019 #54
They owe Trump nothing Kaleva Nov 2019 #20
But now that they're there, they don't have to do what he wants them to do. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #31
the cons and now putin use linmbaugh and sons to intimidate judges. that another thing certainot Nov 2019 #63
Kavanaugh and Anthony Kennedy have seriously compromised amywalk Nov 2019 #52
"...and whoever paid his debts off." kag Nov 2019 #65
And of course DENVERPOPS Nov 2019 #56
One of the first things that needs to be done after we win in November 2020 is to amywalk Dec 2019 #78
Every DENVERPOPS Dec 2019 #79
And they have a legacy that will live for hundreds of years SCantiGOP Nov 2019 #9
agree. but they have the same world view as trump. Kurt V. Nov 2019 #13
Do they? Kavananaugh tends to vote the same as Roberts whom Trump supporters hate. Kaleva Nov 2019 #18
"Kavanaugh shares Roberts' concerns about the importance of the court's reputation" lagomorph777 Nov 2019 #61
Here's the thing about that jberryhill Nov 2019 #23
imo its much more simple than that. the view that some ppl , by pedigree and genetics are to lead Kurt V. Nov 2019 #29
You think that either of them thinks Trump is their "superior"? jberryhill Nov 2019 #30
no way. lol. but he is a billionaire with judge sister and an MIT uncle. all to be considered by Kurt V. Nov 2019 #33
Judges tend to be very protective of their constitutional importance The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #35
That is only ONE cute trick they pull DENVERPOPS Nov 2019 #57
Actually, they don't. They are traditional conservatives and Constitutional originalists. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #32
see 29. it isn't about that. Kurt V. Nov 2019 #36
Nope. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #38
I don't think so NewJeffCT Nov 2019 #28
Not necessarily. Remember that John Roberts was the swing vote that saved the ACA. catbyte Nov 2019 #41
Here. ACA was his one true swing vote, out of the total of 5 liberal votes in his 800 ruling record. ancianita Nov 2019 #44
Oops. Sorry I forgot to post the link to my comment above. ancianita Nov 2019 #50
The institutions are holding malaise Nov 2019 #11
While I can't stand Roberts, I know that he knows he will have to stand with the appeals courts ancianita Nov 2019 #12
The arguments are remarkable stupid jberryhill Nov 2019 #24
Right on. SCOTUS will HAVE to walk back its own stupid arguments in Gore v Bush in 2000. ancianita Nov 2019 #26
I've held onto that post for months now! TalenaGor Nov 2019 #14
My mind went to your very post on this when I heard the news. I hope the judiciary branch stays in2herbs Nov 2019 #15
Nope, they will break eventually, a Democracy will not stand under the weight of fascist capitalism yaesu Nov 2019 #17
Whomp Whomp StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #19
I gotta say, anyone who knows what happened in SCOTUS in 2000 will always have to keep ancianita Nov 2019 #22
William Rehnquist was actually worse than anyone on the Supreme Court now, The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #37
Perhaps. I don't know his record. He was totally against corporate personhood, however. ancianita Nov 2019 #42
Not exactly. The Velveteen Ocelot Nov 2019 #45
True. He at least had some understanding of who the Constitution was written for. ancianita Nov 2019 #48
Hope so. warmfeet Nov 2019 #21
It will come down to the Supreme Court.....sadly. AJT Nov 2019 #25
Don't sadly believe it. That's not how rulings are working right now. It won't end up in SCOTUS. ancianita Nov 2019 #27
Welcome back, Effie. sheshe2 Nov 2019 #34
Thanks! EffieBlack Dec 2019 #75
I think your friend is correct. Caliman73 Nov 2019 #39
Recommended. H2O Man Nov 2019 #40
until SCOTUS barbtries Nov 2019 #43
Subpoenas have been a staple of jurisprudence since the late middle ages bucolic_frolic Nov 2019 #46
Yes! And my feelings on reading this last May are still the same. Hortensis Nov 2019 #47
Hope so much it is true. Throughout all this Laura PourMeADrink Nov 2019 #49
I remember when you posted that before. It was, and is now, very comforting. Especially Amaryllis Nov 2019 #51
This message was self-deleted by its author MFGsunny Nov 2019 #58
The Supreme Court stayed Trump's tax release case OliverQ Nov 2019 #59
The Court has "legal basis to hear the case" because IT decides what is established law StarfishSaver Nov 2019 #62
Thanks for repeating this post again, and it is nice to have at least one solid tier still on ... SWBTATTReg Nov 2019 #70
This... FeelingBlue Nov 2019 #72
I remember your first post, and I hold this one as dear. crickets Dec 2019 #80

usaf-vet

(6,092 posts)
66. Maybe not? I think it depends on how Robert's wants historian's to describe the "Robert's" Court.
Tue Nov 26, 2019, 01:20 PM
Nov 2019

IMHO MoscowMitch has already bent the curve toward it coming out to be an extreme right-wing court.

The MoscowMitch effect.
One stolen seat (Merrick Garland's) and one bought seat given to an extreme right-wing judge who might very well be a sexual predator if his accusers were to ever get a fair hearing.

soldierant

(6,647 posts)
67. Roberts has already surprised me a time or two
Tue Nov 26, 2019, 03:34 PM
Nov 2019

and I attribute that directly to his concern about his "legacy" - or the "legacy" of the "Roberts Court." I also think it possible that he can be reached through that concern.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212729000

Excuse the shameless self promotion, please.

usaf-vet

(6,092 posts)
73. Just read your "shameless self promotion". Right on. I think we are on the same page.
Wed Nov 27, 2019, 12:08 AM
Nov 2019

As to approaching Roberts, I agree that it might help. I have no idea if it would be legal or not. But I like the idea.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
5. Both actions filed by legal genius Michael Avenatti
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:53 PM
Nov 2019

While there are, I suppose, various ways to charitably characterize the court granting the Defendants' motion to dismiss in the Daniels contract case, the $300K which Avenatti managed to have awarded to Trump in the defamation was an unqualified legal victory for Trump and a completely predictable own-goal by Avenatti against his own client (whom, it turns out, he was robbing).

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100210560930#post23

Add to that count the previous defamation case of Cheryl Jacobus v. Donald Trump which Trump won, and which was predictive of the outcome in Daniels' case if Avenatti had ever been inclined to, you know, do legal research.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
7. We don't know that
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 07:57 PM
Nov 2019

The Supreme Court Justices owe him nothing. They have lifetime appointments and don't owe him a thing.
 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
10. So what
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:13 PM
Nov 2019

The saving grace of selfish dickheads is that you can count on them to be selfish dickheads.

Sure, he appointed them. But if they don't do anything for him, that's just tough shit for Trump.

DonaldsRump

(7,715 posts)
53. As awful as Kavanaugh is ...
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 10:36 PM
Nov 2019

Last edited Mon Nov 25, 2019, 11:41 PM - Edit history (1)

Remember that he was George W. Bush's lawyer. GWB hates Trump. Kavanaugh now no longers owes anything to the Dumbass-in-Chief.

During Watergate, Nixon also banked on his appointments to SCOTUS voting for him in US v. Nixon (aka the Tapes Case). None of them did.

I was talking to one of my children today about CJ Roberts. I told my child that I cannot imagine that he would allow the Supreme Court to side with Trump on outright stonewalling of Congress by the President. That would result in the immediate destruction of the three co-equal branches of government in the US.

Then again, what do I know!

Dark n Stormy Knight

(9,760 posts)
69. Yes, but I can't imagine he is any less disdainful toward liberals,
Tue Nov 26, 2019, 04:56 PM
Nov 2019

and I wouldn't put it past him to make legal decisions based on that old and honored precedent: owning the libs.

kag

(4,076 posts)
64. Agreed.
Tue Nov 26, 2019, 12:16 PM
Nov 2019

Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
Justice Beer Bong Weenie Waver
ad nauseam

The Genealogist

(4,723 posts)
76. I prefer Justice Suds McDudeBro myself, but this name fits as well
Tue Dec 3, 2019, 05:25 PM
Dec 2019

What a shameful mark on this country to have a person like that on its highest court.

Farmer-Rick

(10,072 posts)
77. You know capitalism has won when creepy, dishonest, corrupt and incompetent fools are assigned
Wed Dec 4, 2019, 09:11 AM
Dec 2019

To indispensable positions in government.

A democracy by its nature must put breaks on capitalism to prevent the abuse of citizens unlucky enough to be born without capital. To keep the filthy rich capitalists from taking away everything from everyone with less capital, a government must put restrictions on the richest. And a democracy is designed to do just that.

But filthy rich capitalist don't want that. So, they try to drown and kill democracy. It's not just our government the filthy rich want to destroy. They want to be rid of democracy all together.

That's why shorty Putin and the GOP fit like hand in glove. The filthy rich, who control the GOP, also want to be rid of democracy. That's why the GOP repeats Shorty Putin's talking points at every turn. They have the same goal...End Democracy.

Each corrupt perv they assign to indispensable positions in government, the closer they get to destroying democracy.

Kaleva

(36,145 posts)
20. They owe Trump nothing
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:33 PM
Nov 2019

They were given the big pay out without having to do anything for Trump. If they go against Trump, there's not a damn thing he can do about it

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,268 posts)
31. But now that they're there, they don't have to do what he wants them to do.
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:59 PM
Nov 2019

"Owing" something means an obligation to return a favor or a benefit. But if you have a lifetime appointment you aren't under an obligation to reward the person who gave you the job by doing something for them. Trump's appointees are traditional conservatives; they are pretty much Scalia clones, and I can just about guarantee that even Scalia wouldn't buy much of Trump's bullshit. Constitutional originalists like Scalia, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, reading the Constitution strictly and literally as they are likely to do, are just as likely to shoot down the DoJ's crazy arguments in favor of complete presidential immunity from everything as Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Kagan, if on different grounds.

 

certainot

(9,090 posts)
63. the cons and now putin use linmbaugh and sons to intimidate judges. that another thing
Tue Nov 26, 2019, 11:41 AM
Nov 2019

fox can't do nearly as well. linmbaugh can attack a judge in ways fox hoists can't andd he can do it over and over till they and their relatives get threats

when he was attacking christine blasey ford for 6 weeks (like anita hill - ignored by dems/liberals) he even named the location/town of her parents to help the dittoheads/trump base narrow it down.

he will do that to this recent judge and will do it to the supreme court to help push any fence sitters to the right side

amywalk

(254 posts)
52. Kavanaugh and Anthony Kennedy have seriously compromised
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 10:20 PM
Nov 2019

themselves with their criminal behavior. Justice Kennedy gave up his seat so that his son wouldn’t be in trouble. He works for Deutsche Bank and gave the Trumps and Kushners a billion dollar loan that saved his ass. This was a criminal conspiracy between Trump, Kennedy, Kennedy, Kavanaugh, Kushner and whoever paid his debts off. I feel like this will eventually come out as most things like this do. It doesn’t mean they will be punished, but a girl can dream, right?

kag

(4,076 posts)
65. "...and whoever paid his debts off."
Tue Nov 26, 2019, 12:21 PM
Nov 2019

Starts with "P" ends with "utin"? What're the odds?

"a girl can dream, right?"

Oh, what a dream this girl has...sigh.

DENVERPOPS

(8,677 posts)
56. And of course
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 10:42 PM
Nov 2019

And of course their is the whole Gorsuch owing to was it roberts or kennedy that resigned to open the way for Trump/Gorsuch, to reward him for his son the banker taking care of Trump via the son as his personal banker when no other bank in U.S.would lend Trump money, etc.....

two decades ago I was telling people that the Republicans were intent on appointing all their federalist friends to all the appellate court at an incredible rate. The were slowed down a little bit during Obama, but not much. Now Moscow Mitch is setting records for Senate approval of their Republican Judges across the land........

WASF

amywalk

(254 posts)
78. One of the first things that needs to be done after we win in November 2020 is to
Fri Dec 6, 2019, 08:02 PM
Dec 2019

Get rid of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. They must be impeached. They were illegitimate and installed under false pretences and must be thrown out. Along with a whole other slew of judges.

DENVERPOPS

(8,677 posts)
79. Every
Fri Dec 6, 2019, 08:24 PM
Dec 2019

last single thing should be wiped out without exception or court challenge. Including installing Hillary Clinton as President.....

SCantiGOP

(13,855 posts)
9. And they have a legacy that will live for hundreds of years
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:13 PM
Nov 2019

The history and majesty of the highest court impacts everyone who serves. No one wants to know that their grandchildren may read about how dishonorable they were in acting as a political hack.
Very few here thought Roberts would be the fifth vote to put gay marriage under the protection of the Constitution so people like McConnel and religious zealot county clerks could never interfere with it again.

Kaleva

(36,145 posts)
18. Do they? Kavananaugh tends to vote the same as Roberts whom Trump supporters hate.
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:31 PM
Nov 2019

"Kavanaugh was most closely aligned with Roberts, a conservative who takes more incremental approach to moving the court to the right. Kavanaugh voted with Roberts 94% of the time, the highest level of agreement among any two justices, according to Feldman.

“The fact he stuck so closely to the chief is probably the most notable feature of his jurisprudence,” said Nicole Saharsky, a lawyer who practices before the court.

That may suggest Kavanaugh shares Roberts’ concerns about the importance of the court’s reputation as an independent branch that can rise above partisan politics, Saharsky added."

https://www.srnnews.com/trump-supreme-court-pick-kavanaugh-delivered-the-goods-for-conservatives-3/

lagomorph777

(30,613 posts)
61. "Kavanaugh shares Roberts' concerns about the importance of the court's reputation"
Tue Nov 26, 2019, 11:24 AM
Nov 2019

If he believes that, he shouldn't be there at all.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
23. Here's the thing about that
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:43 PM
Nov 2019

Depending on what you believe Trump's "world view" to be.

Sure, that could mean a lot of things in cases involving civil liberties, commercial regulation, and a lot of other things.

But cases like this, involving broad assertions of presidential power, even at the expense of the judiciary itself, are not as predictable on the notion of a shared "world view". If that "world view" comprises "I have power and I'm not going to accept limits on it" then you can actually count on the court not to surrender power so easily to another branch of the government.

This, somewhat indirectly in the specific framing here, gets down to a question of how much power the courts would have in similar future circumstances.

That's kind of what I mean by you can count on selfish dickheads to be selfish dickheads. The structure of our system actually relies, to a certain extent, on there being selfish dickheads in it who will, at a minimum, jealously guard their own power.

Kurt V.

(5,624 posts)
29. imo its much more simple than that. the view that some ppl , by pedigree and genetics are to lead
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:55 PM
Nov 2019

the rest of the ignorant masses. so in the case of the scotus majority, it wouldn't be a surrender of power, but affirmation of who has the legitimate right to power.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
30. You think that either of them thinks Trump is their "superior"?
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:56 PM
Nov 2019

They are also, fortunately, arrogant selfish dickheads.

Kurt V.

(5,624 posts)
33. no way. lol. but he is a billionaire with judge sister and an MIT uncle. all to be considered by
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:01 PM
Nov 2019

them.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,268 posts)
35. Judges tend to be very protective of their constitutional importance
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:02 PM
Nov 2019

as one of three equal branches of the government. They'll back away from clearly legislative decisions but they won't permit the executive to piss into their tent.

DENVERPOPS

(8,677 posts)
57. That is only ONE cute trick they pull
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 10:46 PM
Nov 2019

that is until their 5 justice republican vote in 2010 for citizens united or whatever it was called that opened the floodgates of Corporate and Foreign election donations being allowed........If you ask most americans, they wouldn't even know anything about that totally corrupting decision.........

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,268 posts)
32. Actually, they don't. They are traditional conservatives and Constitutional originalists.
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:59 PM
Nov 2019

Trump isn't anything of the kind.

NewJeffCT

(56,827 posts)
28. I don't think so
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:55 PM
Nov 2019

while the court is definitely conservative, I don't see them lying down for an all powerful unitary executive - I would expect that any claims of blanket immunity would lose 7-2 or 8-1, possibly even 9-0 if Roberts pressures the holdouts (Kavanaugh and Thomas?)

catbyte

(34,169 posts)
41. Not necessarily. Remember that John Roberts was the swing vote that saved the ACA.
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:14 PM
Nov 2019

Some of his rulings have indicated that he still values the rule of law and his legacy on the Court. I hope I'm not giving him too much credit.

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
44. Here. ACA was his one true swing vote, out of the total of 5 liberal votes in his 800 ruling record.
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:19 PM
Nov 2019

Don't worry about giving him too much credit. Most people do it. He easily looks nice, but he's as activist a conservative as SCOTUS has had.

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
12. While I can't stand Roberts, I know that he knows he will have to stand with the appeals courts
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:22 PM
Nov 2019

if ANY appeal gets a certoriari by SCOTUS.

As he goes, so the others will, so that the ruling will be unanimous.

But I doubt any appeal case will get a certoriari, because the arguments are stupid, by appeals justices opinions, so far; and because SCOTUS justices (I hope) know that the rest of the well argued and written precedent rulings preclude their listening to any appeals brought forward at all, at this point.

Roberts will just go sit there in the Senate, say and do nothing, hide his pleasure over the Senate exoneration of Trump. And the Repub traitors will know how he feels.

It will be just the way he presided over the prepping of the team that argued Gore v Bush before SCOTUS in the 2000 presidential.

I hold John Roberts as activist as any justice in US history.

Bush and Roberts fucked this country over.

And here we are in this sickening, toxic place with democracy in chains.

 

jberryhill

(62,444 posts)
24. The arguments are remarkable stupid
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:44 PM
Nov 2019

To agree with them would be to accept the permanent legacy of simply surrendering to stupid arguments.

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
26. Right on. SCOTUS will HAVE to walk back its own stupid arguments in Gore v Bush in 2000.
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:48 PM
Nov 2019

That alone will keep them clear of this political process that's being well decided by appeals court judges already.

If they ignore those arguments, the whole judicial branch will go down to fascist corporatism. It can give corporate politics an unfair control of seating at the election table, but it can't allow corporatism to ignore the Constitution.

in2herbs

(2,942 posts)
15. My mind went to your very post on this when I heard the news. I hope the judiciary branch stays
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:28 PM
Nov 2019

strong because we have to rebuild the country, not restore it. It's been too ravaged to restore, IMO.

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
22. I gotta say, anyone who knows what happened in SCOTUS in 2000 will always have to keep
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:39 PM
Nov 2019

an eye on judiciary politics.

It was Republican Sandra Day O'Connor who was INCENSED over the Florida Supreme Court ruling to conduct an entirely new statewide recount. And things got rolling.

I'll never trust the judiciary to have commitment to the Constitution, but they know they will have to at least give the appearance of having consciences to shock.

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,268 posts)
37. William Rehnquist was actually worse than anyone on the Supreme Court now,
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:07 PM
Nov 2019

with the possible exception of Thomas. He was a knee-jerk Nixonian conservative who had worked as Nixon's WH counsel and had never been a judge, and without exception that I can think of, always ruled for a corporation vs. an individual, the police vs. an accused person; and didn't seem to believe in civil rights much at all. He was also an arrogant dick who had a special robe made for himself with gold stripes on the sleeves. IIRC, O'Connor later regretted her decision in Bush v. Gore, which was probably the worst decision since Dred Scott - at least until Citizens United.

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
42. Perhaps. I don't know his record. He was totally against corporate personhood, however.
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:14 PM
Nov 2019

AND finally realized that the alleged ruling by SCOTUS in 1886 never addressed corporate personhood, contrary to what corporate lawyers have been arguing ever since.

538 gives a look at everyone we know of but Rehnquist. Roberts's conservative vote record looks even worse than Alito's.

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/john-roberts-has-cast-a-pivotal-liberal-vote-only-5-times/

The Velveteen Ocelot

(115,268 posts)
45. Not exactly.
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:22 PM
Nov 2019

He criticized the notion of corporate constitutional rights, but on the ground that he thought the application of the 1st Amendment to the states via the 14th were limited, and not on whether corporations qualify as "persons" under the 14th. Eventually he did endorse the right of corporations to spend in elections.

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
48. True. He at least had some understanding of who the Constitution was written for.
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:36 PM
Nov 2019

And he as much as gave in to O'Connor's expecting the court to rule on Gore v Bush, when she made it clear that she wanted to retire, but would not under a Democratic president. With Bush's re-election in 2005, I think she retired then. Rehnquist died and then Bush had two nominees put in.

As Roberts' reward for prepping the Gore v Bush legal team, Bush then appointed Roberts to Chief Justice. Ugh.

ancianita

(35,812 posts)
27. Don't sadly believe it. That's not how rulings are working right now. It won't end up in SCOTUS.
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 08:50 PM
Nov 2019

Caliman73

(11,690 posts)
39. I think your friend is correct.
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:08 PM
Nov 2019

I do think that Trump and McConnell have created a situation for the future, appointing judges that the Bar considers unfit to serve and who are ideologues, but those are not the judges who are holding major positions right this second. I do think that who we have on the bench, be they Reagan and Bush appointees, are conservative, but not completely blinded.

Sure, put a business case in front of them and they'll rule for business, but as far as believing in the Unitary Executive, that was a pipe dream of Nixon and his ilk (Cheney, Rumsfeld, Barr, etc...) and never really caught on with the judiciary.

Good to see you Effie! Hadn't seen you around much lately.

bucolic_frolic

(42,661 posts)
46. Subpoenas have been a staple of jurisprudence since the late middle ages
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:31 PM
Nov 2019

If judges ruled that some or all Congressional subpoenas could be ignored, every lawyer and crook would look for ways to overturn all subpoenas. It would be bad for business, chaotic, and shake civilization to its foundation.

I think SCOTUS may side with Trump on tax returns, but I don't see much elbow room for the concept of subpoenas.

Subpoenas are why we have the Fifth Amendment. You have to show up, but you can refuse to incriminate yourself.

Hortensis

(58,785 posts)
47. Yes! And my feelings on reading this last May are still the same.
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:35 PM
Nov 2019
"The judiciary is strong and will hold." Deep breath...

I believed that and have been proud of how resilient our government has been. But the corruption is much farther along than I think even the most sophisticated observers realized before this, and our system of checks and balances has failed, even if it turns out to be not completely broken. Who would have believed both Republican congressional caucuses would turn traitor? Unbelievable. And the highest courts are mostly still to be tested.

...and release. Our. Courts. Will. Hold.


Gratitude for that belief.



 

Laura PourMeADrink

(42,770 posts)
49. Hope so much it is true. Throughout all this
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 09:49 PM
Nov 2019

abomination I have thought...JHC are there no sane reps in House..in Senate, in the Military, in the DOJ, in the SD..I worked for the govt in DC...there are so many fine, honest, admirable, intelligent people. Too many to let the monster win.

Amaryllis

(9,523 posts)
51. I remember when you posted that before. It was, and is now, very comforting. Especially
Mon Nov 25, 2019, 10:14 PM
Nov 2019

in light of all the right-wing judges Turtle has been pushing through. Curious if your friend has anything to say about that?

Response to EffieBlack (Original post)

 

OliverQ

(3,363 posts)
59. The Supreme Court stayed Trump's tax release case
Tue Nov 26, 2019, 09:51 AM
Nov 2019

and most lawyers think they're going to hear the case, which is bonkers because there is no legal basis to hear the case. It's established law.

I do not think the Judiciary is going to hold.

 

StarfishSaver

(18,486 posts)
62. The Court has "legal basis to hear the case" because IT decides what is established law
Tue Nov 26, 2019, 11:34 AM
Nov 2019

And, at this point, it ISN'T "established law" since the Supreme Court has never ruled on this specific issue. Another court could come down on the other side since there's no Supreme Court precedent governing the issue. The Court deciding to take the case does not mean that "the Judiciary won't hold." It simply means they think it necessary for them to resolve an issue that it has never addressed in the past in order for all of the courts in the country to have a precedent to apply.

Don't read too much into it if the Court takes the case. If they do, wait and see how they rule. You may be surprised.

SWBTATTReg

(21,856 posts)
70. Thanks for repeating this post again, and it is nice to have at least one solid tier still on ...
Tue Nov 26, 2019, 07:00 PM
Nov 2019

the side of constitutional safeguards against bad laws and idiot lawsuits, even though there are laws clearly stating the president's tax returns and / or papers are subject to congressional review. Emoluments needs to be beefed up, for I feel that most if not all of rump's actions have been severely tainted by his business interests instead of American interests. There were very specific reasons why laws were passed to prevent such abuses, resulting from the Teapot Dome scandals and other scandals.

Keep hammering away in the courts, after all, the Senate is a toxic mess, locked into a republican majority (but under 60) that will never pass anything thank goodness, unless the democratically controlled House of representatives concur. Soon, we'll have it all back, and then the repairs will being, infrastructure needs will be addressed, other major issues will be addressed (since the Senate won't do anything, along w/ rump, who's worthless and hasn't proposed anything but more tax cuts, a joke).

2020 is coming fast...

crickets

(25,896 posts)
80. I remember your first post, and I hold this one as dear.
Sat Dec 7, 2019, 11:39 AM
Dec 2019

It lights another bright candle in the dark. Thank you (and your friend) for that.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»So far, my friend's been ...