'Thin-skinned' John Roberts mocked by columnist for 'dishonest' ruling that ignored a word in the st

[turbinetree]

Full Headline:

'Thin-skinned' John Roberts mocked by columnist for 'dishonest' ruling that ignored a word in the statute

By Sarah K. Burris
Published July 2, 2023, 9:05 PM ET

Chief Justice John Roberts added his name to the concurring decision to bring down President Joe Biden's student loan repayment program. But among the things that were ignored in their decision was a small word that the justices unilaterally decided wasn't in the law because it could make their decision invalid.

This is how the dissenting justices described it in their opinion.

"From the first page to the last, today’s opinion departs from the demands of judicial restraint," Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan wrote.

https://www.rawstory.com/john-roberts-dishonest-thin-skinned/

[Brother Buzz]

1. They 'waved' the student debt. 'Wave' was in the statute.

"It is worth pointing out, in interpreting a statute using a completely made-up new gimmick called the 'major questions doctrine,' that when he read the statute, he ignored the word 'wave," began Rubin. "That is what the president did. They 'waved' the student debt. 'Wave' was in the statute. 'Wave' was not a word that Chief Justice Roberts liked, so 'wave' didn't come up in his opinion. That is how dishonest it is. And sure, he is thin-skinned. He is ornery, and he is very fussy when the three justices and the minority point out the emperor has no clothes. The emperor is becoming an emperor in reality."

[unblock]

3. I'm guessing the word was "waive"....

[Brother Buzz]

4. I believe so, too, but I just copy and paste

[unblock]

10. Yeah, I'm guessing they used some transcription software

[calimary]

7. The "major questions doctrine"?

Huh?

[Grins]

11. It's real. Google it and weep.

[DallasNE]

9. Roberts Ignored The Word "Waive"

Because he didn't think it made any sense because of the consequential impact it would have. That is legislating from the bench. And you can't claim that Congress was unclear in its intent. Here is the definition of waive.

waive [wāv] VERB
refrain from insisting on or using (a right or claim):
"he will waive all rights to the money"

SIMILAR:
relinquish
renounce
give up
abandon
reject
surrender

refrain from applying or enforcing (a rule, restriction, or fee):
"her tuition fees would be waived"

The example is even in the same context as the law. All of the similar words are actually less precise than "waive", so what the hell is John Roberts complaining about.

[Bluethroughu]

13. He's a scumbag along with the other unjustified justices,

That are dictating their political views. They should be removed from the bench for wrecking the highest judicial institution for payment from benefactors that benefit from their their decided legislation.

Ignore the court. It is useless, until they resign.

Fake case, fake damage, fake SCOTUS.

[BOSSHOG]

2. Maybe a wacko idea

Construct a concerted effort (mostly by dem Senators) based on the 6 jurors bought and paid for total inappropriateness, for lack of a better word, relative to their three cases this year and overturning roe last year. An incredibly easy task. Formalize it. And request resignations or a specific request why they won’t. They are no less a threat to democracy then Jefferson Davis. With the brilliant judicial democratic minds in Washington this should be an easy task. Keep the heat on them and Leo and Call and others.

Call me a knucklehead, but I’d rather hope that my thirty years of supporting and defending wasn’t for naught.

[Silent Type]

5. Can't watch the video now, but "wave" makes no sense unless poster

above is right about it being “waive.” In any event, having trouble trusting Rawstory on this. Will try to get to video tomorrow, maybe that’s what I’m missing.

[czarjak]

6. Temerity. Twice. This could be serious. Maybe.

[wnylib]

8. We no longer have a high Court in this country.

We have a pretense of one. They ignore the law instead of upholding it. They are not valid and neither are their rulings. They are a farce.

This is the subject of the fiIm starring Spencer Tracy and several other well known film stars, Judgment at Nuremberg. It is the trial of 4 men who served as judges in Germany during the Nazi era, who ruled in favor of fascist policies instead of legal principles.

It's a must see film that addresses problems similar to those developing in the US today. It is available on several streaming services and at You Tube. I have it on DVD. The DVD is available at Amazon.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judgment_at_Nuremberg

[Bluethroughu]

14. +1

[UTUSN]

12. K&R

[Bluethroughu]

15. The court is full of traitors he'll bent on wrecking our country but perverting

The laws of the land. One of the justices' spouse, Ginny, was rooting on the President that organized and planned an insurrection!

Ignore the court.