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
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So far, my friend's been right: The judiciary IS holding! [View all]ancianita
(36,184 posts)48. True. He at least had some understanding of who the Constitution was written for.
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.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
80 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Maybe not? I think it depends on how Robert's wants historian's to describe the "Robert's" Court.
usaf-vet
Nov 2019
#66
Just read your "shameless self promotion". Right on. I think we are on the same page.
usaf-vet
Nov 2019
#73
Yes, but I can't imagine he is any less disdainful toward liberals,
Dark n Stormy Knight
Nov 2019
#69
You know capitalism has won when creepy, dishonest, corrupt and incompetent fools are assigned
Farmer-Rick
Dec 2019
#77
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
One of the first things that needs to be done after we win in November 2020 is to
amywalk
Dec 2019
#78
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
imo its much more simple than that. the view that some ppl , by pedigree and genetics are to lead
Kurt V.
Nov 2019
#29
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
Actually, they don't. They are traditional conservatives and Constitutional originalists.
The Velveteen Ocelot
Nov 2019
#32
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
While I can't stand Roberts, I know that he knows he will have to stand with the appeals courts
ancianita
Nov 2019
#12
Right on. SCOTUS will HAVE to walk back its own stupid arguments in Gore v Bush in 2000.
ancianita
Nov 2019
#26
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
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
True. He at least had some understanding of who the Constitution was written for.
ancianita
Nov 2019
#48
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
Subpoenas have been a staple of jurisprudence since the late middle ages
bucolic_frolic
Nov 2019
#46
I remember when you posted that before. It was, and is now, very comforting. Especially
Amaryllis
Nov 2019
#51
The Court has "legal basis to hear the case" because IT decides what is established law
StarfishSaver
Nov 2019
#62