2016 Postmortem
In reply to the discussion: What exactly will not voting for the nominee accomplish? [View all]onenote
(42,702 posts)I guess Scalia (confirmed before Roberts), Alito (confirmed after) got in without being confirmed. Must have missed that.
And apart from the first ACA case, in what high profile case did Roberts provide the deciding vote? You indicated that it was "much" of them so it shouldn't be hard for you to name a few. In fact, I'm curious as to what other high profile cases he awarded Obama a victory by voting with Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg, and Breyer and against Scalia Thomas and Alito?
Do you think the same sex marriage case was not a high profile case?
Here are a couple of other cases where Roberts was on the losing side with Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg and Breyer and on the winning side -- cases in which the appointment by a repub president of a replacement for any of those four would have undoubtedly changed the outcome of the case:
Affirmation of authority of voters to move redistricting from legislature to independent commission.
Affirmation that housing discrimination lawsuits can proceed without proof of intentional bias against minorities.
Invalidation of a law requiring hotels to maintain a guest register subject to police inspection at any time.
Here's a thought: the oldest member of the Court is Ruth Bader Ginsburg (82) and the most likely to leave office next. After that, you have Scalia and Kennedy, both 79. And then Breyer (77).
By the way, just to make sure we're on the same page -- we're talking about what happens if Bernie (who I support) doesn't end up being the nominee and Clinton does.