General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsRoberts thinks the criticism of his court has gone too far.
The justices had “employed the traditional tools of judicial decisionmaking” [to tear up decades of precedent]
“It has become a disturbing feature of some recent opinions to criticize the decisions with which they disagree as going beyond the proper role of the judiciary,” Roberts wrote, declaring that the justices had “employed the traditional tools of judicial decisionmaking” in making their rulings. “It is important that the public not be misled either,” the chief justice continued. "Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country.”
But as they say in scary movies, the call was coming from inside the house.
“From the first page to the last, today’s opinion departs from the demands of judicial restraint,” Kagan wrote in her dissent to Roberts’s opinion. She added: "Justices throughout history have raised the alarm when the Court has overreached … It would have been ‘disturbing,’ and indeed damaging, if they had not.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2023/07/01/supreme-court-term-conservative-wins/
Here is the first reply on WaPo
This guy (he is no "justice"
doesn't want to hear it!
He doesn't want to hear that it is wrong, if not also illegal, to take on a phony case in which the woman had no standing, so the he could rule that LGBTQ+ are second class or worse citizens! That signs will be going up in stores "we don't serve 'N' " !
John doesn't want to hear it that his "Supreme" Court is likely one of the most corrupt in US history.
John doesn't want to hear that his buddies, as has he, have been bought and paid for.
John doesn't want to hear it. Oh, okay John.
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
PJMcK
(25,045 posts)
COL Mustard
(8,188 posts)Each is established in a different Article of the Constitution. The other two certainly are eligible to be criticized for what they do, or for what they don’t do. There’s nothing in the Constitution, as far as I can tell, that insulates the Judiciary from criticism. We the people, under the First Amendment, certainly have the right to speak our minds on what they do. And they can suck it if they don’t like it.
PJMcK
(25,045 posts)The lifetime appointments is another “mistake” of the Founding Fathers.
Roberts et al. need to face the real world results of their futile attempts at social engineering. It would also be nice if more people voted as if their lives depended upon it because they do.
If he’s too much of a snowflake to weather the criticisms his Court, then perhaps he’s not the right person for the job. After all, the judgments that have come from his Court have changed American society. One can only wonder at the disasters they could achieve in the next decade.
cstanleytech
(28,454 posts)from a pool if the current Federal judges and they can serve up to 8 years and after that they can never serve on it nor can they remain a Federal judge.
Mr.Bill
(24,906 posts)but I worry Trump not only stacked the SC, he also stacked the pool that would be drawn from.
xocetaceans
(4,431 posts)...in which the Constitution was written had lower average lifespans - so, lifetime appointments for the Supreme Court might have been effectively been "intended" to be less lengthy - say in line with the following data from the below-cited paper; (20 + 40.4) years, (20 + 36.2) years, and (20 + 31.7). Thomas (75), Alito (73), and Roberts (68) would have likely been considered "expired" by the standards that "Originalists" so love to endorse. Thus, the effect of the lengthening of lifespans has made the Supreme Court into a over-powered branch of government - one that is bound to skew out of touch with the country over time and in spite of any progress. (If one were to subscribe to some sort of pendulum swing of progress, it might be interesting to investigate what sort of period of oscillation of beliefs occurs at the level of the Supreme Court as a whole.)
J. David Hacker, Associate Professor
...
Adult life expectancy estimates based on genealogical sources tend to be much higher than estimates based on other types of sources, suggesting that selection bias dominates. Between 1785 and 1814, graduates of Yale College—an elite New England population with nearly complete, high quality demographic data—had a life expectancy at age 20 of 40.4 years; Kunze and Pope’s genealogical estimates for the same period are much higher, in the mid to upper forties (Hacker 1996, 121). Adult life expectancies of other elite colonial populations were even lower than that enjoyed by Yale graduates and were especially low in the colonial South. Life expectancy at age 20 was 36.2 years for men graduating from Princeton College between 1709 and 1819; 34.7 years for Maryland legislators born between 1750 and 1764; and 31.7 years for South Carolina legislators born 1750–1764 (Levy 1996; Hacker 1996).
...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the third column on page 8 of this article at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2885717/?report=reader
Hacker JD. Decennial Life Tables for the White Population of the United States, 1790-1900. Hist Methods. 2010;43(2):45-79. doi:10.1080/01615441003720449
Of course, Clarence Thomas is not really an "Originalist": he seems more of a pseudo-patriotically-themed fabulist - constructing any convenient legal fairy tale to paper over his "decisions" however guided by external monies they certainly seem to be. The same seems likely true of both Roberts and Alito.
https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/justice-thomas-originalism-and-the-first-amendment
ExWhoDoesntCare
(4,741 posts)Don't say what you think they do. Yes, the "average" life expectancy was low, but that's because the child mortality rate was so high, as was maternal death from childbirth.
If you could make it past 5 or 6 y/o, and if you were a woman who survived childbirth, you had a good chance of living into at least your 60s.
Really.
My great-grandparents were all born in the 1860s-1870s, and all but one of them lived to be 80+. The one who didn't make it died at 37 of an unfortunate horse riding accident, just like someone today can die young(ish) from a car accident. A gauge of how long he would have lived without the accident? Well, his three brothers lived into their 70s. His sister lived to be 98. His wife, meanwhile, made it to 106. All of his kids (four boys) lived into their 70s and beyond.
They were not unusual, because it was typical for people to live long lives, if they could survive the two biggest factors lowering average age expectancy in their day.
xocetaceans
(4,431 posts)The numbers which I cited had averages in the 50s or 60s. Those numbers were given as years after making it to 20 years old.
(Actually, I am not sure that you looked at the cited paper based on your statements. That author's datasets might be a good place to start a discussion - instead of with anecdotes.)
If you actually do have something to cite, please provide a link to your data - anecdotes are always great, but they really never address any issue other than possibly providing impetus for an actual study.
I am open to any discussion you wish to have, but if you want to put forth any points, please at least provide a paper that shows a distribution for the relevant time period - which is not from the late 1800s to the 1950s.
Otherwise, I applaud the long lives of your family members. Good on them!
xocetaceans
(4,431 posts)...North America in the late 1700s.
sakabatou
(46,095 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)him among other justices, while his wife makes millions hookiing up attorneys and judges with Leonard Leo.
Lovie777
(22,875 posts)
liberalla
(11,076 posts)For whiny weaselly bullies, they sure are sensitive to disagreement and criticism!
They *had* to expect negative feedback... Toughen up Roberts and pals!
DickKessler
(408 posts)They also expect us to shut up or even thank them for ruining our lives and robbing us of our rights and liberties.
They can’t handle anyone “talking back” to them. What cowards!
DickKessler
(408 posts)
Deuxcents
(26,737 posts)But then, I’m not very diplomatic at times.
speak easy
(12,597 posts)Blues Heron
(8,767 posts)EndlessWire
(8,103 posts)DickKessler
(408 posts)
Bluethroughu
(7,215 posts)The wine may go down easy, but they shit sour grapes.
The Supreme Court as a judicial superior institution is nothing but a bad joke full of lawless corruption until those 6 beasts resign.
Roberts ruined the court, he is part of the problem.
He will go down in history as wrecking our judicial system.
Freethinker65
(11,203 posts)What other decades old laws giving personal freedoms to all Americans will Robert's court take away to give an advantage to whites, males, and Christians.
ananda
(35,067 posts)Both you and your rightwing SCOTUS members
are corrupt and obsessed with wealth.
Get over yourselves
.
YOU ARE ALL A DISGRACE!
Marius25
(3,213 posts)milestogo
(23,052 posts)boundaries.
He's totally out of touch with the world most people live in.
Fuck him.
Autumn
(48,949 posts)
I would have said harsher words to/about him and his damn court.
Chainfire
(17,757 posts)republianmushroom
(22,284 posts)brush
(61,033 posts)
Red Mountain
(2,336 posts)they'll be all for this idea.
DownriverDem
(7,010 posts)will be most unkind to Roberts. He can do nothing about that.
EnergizedLib
(3,007 posts)Is upset at how Americans use their constitutional rights.
They brought on all the criticism?
And what’s with these ‘justices’ whining? I’ve never known for them to do so until recently. But these compromised extremists are dictating policy and stripping rights away.
BlueIdaho
(13,582 posts)He’s a piece of shit and so are his ChristoFascist cronies. He’s hell bent on supporting the elite at the expense of everyone else. They should all be disappeared from History.
raging moderate
(4,619 posts)ALSO, WE SHOULD SEND A BLINDFOLD TO JOHN ROBERTS.
AND ONE OF THOSE SYMPATHIZING WITH SADNESS CARDS.
And maybe we should also send these things to all of his right-wing Supreme Court colleagues.
niyad
(132,118 posts)LetMyPeopleVote
(179,312 posts)I agree with President Biden that expansion of the court could be too political. It is time to adopt a binding code of ethics for the SCOTUS to control assholes like Thomas and Alito
Link to tweet
https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/samuel-alito-supreme-court-propublica-desperation-rcna90347
Digging into the substance of his argument, Alito claimed he didn’t know Singer was connected to the 2014 case because Singer’s name wasn’t listed in the court documents, and the justice further claimed that, even if he knew of Singer’s involvement, he wouldn’t have had to recuse anyway. But Alito’s claim that he didn’t know Singer was connected to the case is suspect, because even the justice’s beloved Wall Street Journal opinion page noted at the time of the decision the well-known fact that the named entity in the long-running case, NML Capital, was a subsidiary of Singer’s Elliott Management.
And even if Alito somehow didn’t know the connection, his rationale that it would be “utterly impossible for my staff or any other Supreme Court employees” to find such affiliations highlights a problem the Supreme Court needs to fix, rather than being a justification for not recusing......
Finally, the justice’s legal argument for why he didn’t need to disclose the flight is wanting. He strained to characterize the private plane ride as exempt from disclosure because it was personal hospitality that includes hospitality on a person's "facilities." That is, Alito argued that Singer’s jet was a “facility” and therefore exempt because it was personal hospitality.
Link to tweet
Yet, even if Alito were correct that he didn’t have to report the private jet flight because it was personal hospitality, that would cut against his recusal argument, because what he’s really arguing is that he didn’t need to recuse from a case involving someone who extended him personal hospitality.
Javaman
(65,666 posts)
Joinfortmill
(21,063 posts)
DFW
(60,133 posts)"....thinks the criticism of his court has gone too far?"
Want to get back reality, Mr. Chief Injustice? Try this:
"America thinks [the criticism of] his court has gone too far.
His court has gone too far. There you go, and with that you also have the reason for the criticism. Wasn't that easy?
liberalla
(11,076 posts)Excellent editing!
to you.
3825-87867
(1,929 posts)Says the leader of the Supremicist Court of the United States!
Maybe they should change the color of their robes?
calimary
(89,896 posts)To which I’d answer “well that’s just too damn bad. Grow up!”
2naSalit
(102,426 posts)Puff.
Maybe the fairygodmother of bad health will soon pay him a visit and bring her funky brother, the grim reaper, along for the fun.
Meanwile, somebody call that whiner a waahmbulance.
DickKessler
(408 posts)…
2naSalit
(102,426 posts)I want him to GO somewhere else and be his own nasty self at someone else's expense. Preferably on some other planet. The same with the others.
DickKessler
(408 posts)
leftyladyfrommo
(19,986 posts)2naSalit
(102,426 posts)Bluethroughu
(7,215 posts)Corrupt scumbags every single GOP on that court.
Stinky Shitbags!
DickKessler
(408 posts)
Qutzupalotl
(15,808 posts)The criticism can't keep up.
Cha
(318,770 posts)
AverageOldGuy
(3,782 posts)I live in a rural Virginia county that went 70% for Trump in 2016 and 2020 and likely will do the same in 2024.
One of our local businessman rented a 42 passenger luxury coach to take his friends to DC on Jan 6, 2021.
The Second Amendment has replaced the Bible as Holy Writ. A common site on the rear window of a jacked-up pickup truck emblazoned with Trump stickers is a decal in the shape of an AR-15 with a slogan about how the Second Amendment was intended to give "We the People" the right to revolt against tyrants.
The problem, of course, is that none of these braindead assholes is capable of defining "tyrant" or "tyranny."
Given the recent Supreme Court decisions, I think we have now identified the tyrants and their tyranny.
Which raises the question: In light of the tyranny of the Court, has the time come for us left-wingers, liberals, Democrats, and Real Americans to exercise our right under the Second Amendment to engage in armed revolt against the tyrants who are well on their way to turning this nation into a fascist state?
Asking for a friend.
Farmer-Rick
(12,625 posts)His court is just letting any old Nazi submit cases for anything that their putrid minds think up. Even if those cases have no bearing in reality.
So, now we have imaginary rulings on laws. Because when you spit out rulings about the US Constitution based on fantasy and unconfirmed information, you really have no rulings at all. It's just the fevered idiocy of Roberts' Nazi Sugar Daddy's mind. It exist not in this reality.
It doesn't exist here at all. The cases they ruled on never happened therefore they don't exist. If something like this would ever happen in the future then maybe these imaginary case rulings would then exist. Until these cases actually materialize, we should continue criticizing the imaginary rulings of Roberts' imaginary court.
YDogg
(6,683 posts)That is this court's legacy.
NNadir
(37,947 posts)Model35mech
(2,047 posts)to remake America into a harsher less tolerant society.
Hekate
(100,133 posts)
also consider this, Mr. Justice
RANDYWILDMAN
(3,162 posts)and they all believed that Roe was settled law.
They all LIED !!!!! FU ROBERTS U phunkin liar
usaf-vet
(7,798 posts)From recent reports, at least three of you have questionable behavior in accepting money from millionaires and billionaires; some, if not all, have or will have cases before the court. The term recuse isn't in your vocabulary or the other two offenders.
Kid Berwyn
(24,262 posts)
’They come to me’: Jane Roberts’ legal recruiting work involved officials whose agencies had cases before the Supreme Court
In newly revealed testimony, the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts said she worked for “U.S. attorneys, cabinet officials, former senators” and more.
By HAILEY FUCHS and JOSH GERSTEIN
Politico, 01/31/2023
Jane Roberts, the wife of Chief Justice John Roberts, acknowledges having represented a wide variety of public officials — including senior Justice Department officials and Cabinet members — as they transitioned to jobs in the private sector, according to testimony in an arbitration hearing to resolve a lawsuit filed by an ex-colleague against her former legal recruiting business.
A partial transcript of that testimony was included in a complaint submitted to the House, Senate and Justice Department filed in December on behalf of the former colleague.
Snip…
Jane Roberts’ placements included at least one firm with a prominent Supreme Court practice, according to the complaint, which also includes sworn testimony from Roberts herself, in which she notes the powerful officials — whose agencies have had frequent cases before her husband — for whom she has worked.
“A significant portion of my practice on the partner side is with senior government lawyers, ranging from U.S. attorneys, cabinet officials, former senators, chairmen of federal commissions, general counsel of federal commissions, and then senior political appointees within the ranks of various agencies, and I -- they come to me looking to transition to the private sector,” Roberts said, according to a transcript of a 2015 arbitration hearing related to her former colleague’s termination.
In her testimony, Roberts also noted the benefit of working with senior government officials: “Successful people have successful friends.”
Continues…
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/01/31/jane-roberts-legal-recruiting-work-agencies-cases-supreme-court-00080515
Perhaps that's why CIABCNNBCBSFoxNoiseNutworks doesn't seem to cover SCROTUS corruption.
MOMFUDSKI
(7,080 posts)We are just getting warmed up.
NowISeetheLight
(4,002 posts)If he hopes to ever recover any kind of reputation for the court a few things need to happen.
1. Democrats take over Congress.
2. Robert's initiates ethics reform and some kind of court "trial" or something finds Alito and Thomas guilty of corruption.
3. Congress impeaches and removes them from the court.
Only when Thomas and Alito are gone will there be any chance. Honestly Barrett and Kavanaugh need to go too. Not because they're conservative, but because of the way they got on the court in the first place.
We need a court of Moderates. Who look at both sides and objectively reach decisions without worrying about right and left. I'm imaging what a court with two liberals, two conservatives, and five moderates would be like.
bahboo
(16,953 posts)ya feckless fuck....
usedtobedemgurl
(2,034 posts)The “Alitist” Supreme Court. Ruled by the many rich friends they have and to “honor” Alito.
The Unmitigated Gall
(4,710 posts)Like all fascists, John Roberts is a snowflake as well.
Iggo
(49,909 posts)
tornado34jh
(1,527 posts)Granted, it wasn't my favorite subject, but I have learned enough to know what it is supposed to be. But now with this mess in the Supreme Court and at least part of the legislature, what they teach you in school isn't really what it is supposed to be. But honestly, the Supreme Court just needs to shut up, especially Roberts and all the far-right people in there. We can't criticize them? I mean, that is the most stupid thing I have ever heard. If we can't criticize them, by their logic, then if the Supreme Court turns the other way (i.e. more liberal), then everyone else should not be allowed to criticize them and should shut up. Works both ways, right? And look, while we are at it, perhaps we need to look and see where they got their money from.
This may seem off-topic, but it is something to think about. I recently was reading the Russian mafia and how certain gangs influence politicians and Vladimir Putin. One of the gangs, the Tambov Gang of Saint Petersburg, is led by Nikolai Aulov and Aleksandr Bastrykin. The former is the head of the Federal Drug Control Service, the latter is the head of the Investigative Commitee. Putin's bodyguard, Viktor Zolotov is also closely connected to this group, all of which came with the political rise of Putin. So with that in mind, what potential criminal groups are these Supreme Court justices (the 6 right-wing judges, not the others) and some of these politicians part of in the United States? In other words, I'm questioning where they got the money and influence from. I have to question if Opus Dei and the Federalist are part of some known or unknown criminal syndicate. I would not be surprised if groups like this are influencing these far-right groups. The fact that these justices are complaining about them being criticized and going to newspapers such as the WSJ make me really suspicious that are more stuff going on underground (i.e. behind the scenes/in the shadows) than what we know.
peggysue2
(12,528 posts)That the vast majority of Americans believe the Court itself has gone too far, over-reached in a profound and dangerous way to the security of our democracy.
The Federalist Society has a majority in the current SCOTUS but not across the country. Roberts should take a gander at the poll numbers regarding the Court's current legitimacy and ethics problem, rather than scolding Americans for their valid viewpoints.
Wounded Bear
(64,266 posts)
Permanut
(8,358 posts)The right wingers will be storming the court building to get him outta there.
Or maybe I missed something
drmeow
(5,989 posts)You treasonous, undemocratic, racist, sexist, homophobic, America destroying F**K. I hope you die alone and in pain.
MagickMuffin
(18,315 posts)You’re too cruel to notice. But your court deserves the same treatment you are dishing out.
Also as of now you cannot restrict what we say about you, your merry gang of thieves to democracy. But I’m betting your court would love to abolish the 1st amendment. Perhaps Erin Hawley can present you with another fraudulent case to consider.
Can’t wait for the day Karma comes riding into town to punish you and your merry gang of 5.
roamer65
(37,942 posts)
Skittles
(171,537 posts)
Marcuse
(8,985 posts)
Torchlight
(6,759 posts)Lot of them floundering about this case the past couple days. Weird watching the passive defenses of the case assuming different identities for better deniability.
pazzyanne
(6,759 posts)For me it was the "canary in the coal mine" and I started to pay closer attention to Supreme Court decisions after that. It is alarming how SC decisions since then are taking away rights granted throughout history. This not the United States I grew up living in! Distressing!!!
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(135,379 posts)
Rebl2
(17,686 posts)then ya snowflake and take alito and Thomas with ya.
NotVeryImportant
(578 posts)Because they're used to the system giving them unwarranted goodies, giveaways and guarantees.
The main guarantee is not being punished for crimes, much less being held accountable for anything.
PatrickforB
(15,420 posts)investigation, with subsequent changes to tenure and rotation of justices throughout the appellate system, and changes to the number of justices serving on the Supreme Court.
Ray Bruns
(6,315 posts)RVN VET71
(3,189 posts) LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!
A joke, right? Like Jeffrey Epstein complaining about criticism of his sexual ethics.
(Oh wait, neither showed signs of ethics. But I don't think Epstein whined about it when he was exposed.)
Hugin
(37,835 posts)He'd better hang on tightly.
inthewind21
(4,616 posts)“It is important that the public not be misled either,” the chief justice continued. "Any such misperception would be harmful to this institution and our country.”
From the man who decided money was speech. NOW he's worried about misinformation and it's harm. 
Mad_Machine76
(24,948 posts)Nobody elected him King/Emperor/Dictator