Jump to content
To change color scheme, click on themes at bottom of page ×
RightNation.US
Sign in to follow this  
Liz

John Roberts Proves He's Nothing More Than An Empty Robe

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Liz

by Washington Examiner

 June 30, 2020 12:00 AM

Excerpt:

Of all the cop-outs in Supreme Court jurisprudence, Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence in June Medical Services v. Russo has to be one of the worst.

The case was brought by abortion providers in Louisiana who bristled at having health and safety rules imposed upon them that made it harder to do business. They arguably lacked standing to represent the class supposedly aggrieved in this case — the very patients those rules were designed to protect from quack abortionists.

Yet, they succeeded both in establishing their standing and in upholding the controversial standard that such requirements cannot stand, being overly burdensome to women who might seek abortions — that is, parties not even represented before the court. And they did it in a 5-4 decision in which Roberts was the tiebreaker.

As disappointing as the outcome of this case is, the reasoning that led Roberts to write the decisive concurrence is even more infuriating for its utter lack of substance and spine.

Right off the bat, Roberts points out that in a recent case involving a “nearly identical” Texas law in 2016 — Whole Women’s Health — he joined the dissenting opinion in favor of upholding that law.

But then Roberts embraces the nihilism of blindly upholding a wrong decision just because...well, it was decided. It is because it is because it is.

*snip*

Full Editorial

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

Whoever has hold of his short hairs is really holding tight...

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
22 minutes ago, Ticked@TinselTown said:

Whoever has hold of his short hairs is really holding tight...

He may just be another of the rectal/cranial inversion crowd who oppose Trump simply because they can.  If Trump is for it, they are against it.  No reason behind it.  He can rule however he wants to whenever he wants to and the only recourse we have is impeachment, which isn't likely.  He is pretty much unaccountable at this point.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
moocow
15 minutes ago, JerryL said:

He may just be another of the rectal/cranial inversion crowd who oppose Trump simply because they can.  If Trump is for it, they are against it.  No reason behind it.  He can rule however he wants to whenever he wants to and the only recourse we have is impeachment, which isn't likely.  He is pretty much unaccountable at this point.

Meh.  I don't know if it's because of Trump. He was making bad decisions even before then (look at the Obamacare decision).

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
59 minutes ago, moocow said:

Meh.  I don't know if it's because of Trump. He was making bad decisions even before then (look at the Obamacare decision).

True.  But I do think it is because he is pretty much unaccountable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup

Judas Roberts, disappoints again. 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Rock N' Roll Right Winger

He's the deep state's puppet. Straight up.

  • Disagree (-1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
42 minutes ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

He's the deep state's puppet. Straight up.

:yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
4 hours ago, JerryL said:

He may just be another of the rectal/cranial inversion crowd who oppose Trump simply because they can.  If Trump is for it, they are against it.  No reason behind it.  He can rule however he wants to whenever he wants to and the only recourse we have is impeachment, which isn't likely.  He is pretty much unaccountable at this point.

A McCain 2.0

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weaseljd
1 hour ago, Rock N' Roll Right Winger said:

He's the deep state's puppet. Straight up.

Deep State has nothing to do with it - and frankly is a poor analogy.  The courts are not art of the Deep State since they are a different branch of the government and not career in the same way that they work in a hidden way.

Roberts has proven however he is a gutless coward.  He is so afraid of appearing partisan or allowing the court to appear "political" that he will come up with any rational to not rock the boat or allow the court to make any decisions that  change status quo.  In one respect it is very conservative (basically giving tons of deference to the government and relying on precedent to uphold the laws) - though his immigration decision shows the truth - he is afraid and lacks the courage of his beliefs.  

What will be amazing however is this - I bet anyone here a hundred bucks (safe bet as I now think he is going to lose unfortunately), that if Trump is re-elected and the republicans hold the senate, if Ginsberg gets replaced by a conservative suddenly Roberts would find his manhood again and vote with the conservatives because there would be a 5 member majority without him and suddenly he would have cover for voting with the conservative block on these issues since they would have control with or without his vote.  This makes him a piss poor judge.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That_Guy
Posted (edited)

Maybe now the quixotic conservative quest to "overturn Roe" can finally end, and American women can rest assured that the power of the state will not be used to compel them to carry to term against their will.

Edited by That_Guy
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
  • Disagree (-1) 2
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Moderator T
27 minutes ago, That_Guy said:

Maybe now the quixotic conservative quest to "overturn Roe" can finally end, and American women can rest assured that the power of the state will not be used to compel them to carry to term against their will.

Nah, one poorly decided decision over a side issue to abortion isn't going to stop conservatives trying to stop the deaths of millions of innocents, no matter how badly you seem to want it.  

  • Agree (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
USMCforever60
8 hours ago, Liz said:

by Washington Examiner

 June 30, 2020 12:00 AM

Excerpt:

Of all the cop-outs in Supreme Court jurisprudence, Chief Justice John Roberts’s concurrence in June Medical Services v. Russo has to be one of the worst.

The case was brought by abortion providers in Louisiana who bristled at having health and safety rules imposed upon them that made it harder to do business. They arguably lacked standing to represent the class supposedly aggrieved in this case — the very patients those rules were designed to protect from quack abortionists.

Yet, they succeeded both in establishing their standing and in upholding the controversial standard that such requirements cannot stand, being overly burdensome to women who might seek abortions — that is, parties not even represented before the court. And they did it in a 5-4 decision in which Roberts was the tiebreaker.

As disappointing as the outcome of this case is, the reasoning that led Roberts to write the decisive concurrence is even more infuriating for its utter lack of substance and spine.

Right off the bat, Roberts points out that in a recent case involving a “nearly identical” Texas law in 2016 — Whole Women’s Health — he joined the dissenting opinion in favor of upholding that law.

But then Roberts embraces the nihilism of blindly upholding a wrong decision just because...well, it was decided. It is because it is because it is.

*snip*

Full Editorial

Roberts was a poor pick fro the beginning. Just another establishment choice in the continuation of the "UNTI-Party".

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RedSoloCup
41 minutes ago, That_Guy said:

Maybe now the quixotic conservative quest to "overturn Roe" can finally end, and American women can rest assured that the power of the state will not be used to compel them to carry to term against their will.

:biglaugh:

No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
USMCforever60
1 minute ago, RedSoloCup said:

:biglaugh:

No.

Ultimately decision to abort resides with each woman. That is their choice, however, if they chose, then they pay for it themselves. NO MORE PUBLIC FUNDED ABORTIONS!  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntiObama

The Libs got their big victory for more death and they looted the stores. Trump will get 4 more years.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
mliff1

Roberts is a tool. Bush appointed him, Trump and Bush hate each other. Bush said he would never comment on the office of the P.O.T.U.S. and he didn't, until Trump got in office. Bush hates Trump, Roberts is Bush's buddy, he too must hate Trump and not allow Trump to have any victories.... Done.

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CHANG

I’ve got a question, why are chief justices appointed to the position? Why are they not promoted from within?  

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
vectorsrule

These laws should be handled by the Legislators.  Courts interpret laws, Legislators make laws.  We now have a system where the judges run the country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
USMCforever60
36 minutes ago, vectorsrule said:

These laws should be handled by the Legislators.  Courts interpret laws, Legislators make laws.  We now have a system where the judges run the country. 

In some instances these Judges are of persons that lack any creativity or imagination. Meaning they follow the jackass in front of them. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
4 hours ago, That_Guy said:

Maybe now the quixotic conservative quest to "overturn Roe" can finally end, and American women can rest assured that the power of the state will not be used to compel them to carry to term against their will.

So you're still supporting the outright murder of literally millions of innocent babies, like the worthless filth you are.

<_< 

 

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
scotsman
7 minutes ago, MontyPython said:

So you're still supporting the outright murder of literally millions of innocent babies, like the worthless filth you are.

<_< 

 

Play the ball Monty, not the man.

BTW, I am pro-choice, so am I worthless filth?. I don't like abortion, but I don't like the alternative.

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CHANG
1 minute ago, scotsman said:

Play the ball Monty, not the man.

BTW, I am pro-choice, so am I worthless filth?. I don't like abortion, but I don't like the alternative.

What is the alternative? Living up to your responsibilities? Or failing that, putting the baby up for adoption?
 

How is murder a more palatable alternative to any solution, especially when there are so many programs and groups that will happily find a loving home for a child? 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Natural Selection
4 hours ago, That_Guy said:

Maybe now the quixotic conservative quest to "overturn Roe" can finally end, and American women can rest assured that the power of the state will not be used to compel them to carry to term against their will.

I'm surprised you support abortion, seeing how blacks have the highest abortion rate which prevents them from becoming a larger percentage of the population.

(source)

  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MontyPython
9 minutes ago, scotsman said:

Play the ball Monty, not the man.

BTW, I am pro-choice, so am I worthless filth?. I don't like abortion, but I don't like the alternative.

Like Chang, above, I'm genuinely curious to know what you mean by "the alternative". Keep in mind I fully support the option to abort in those extremely rare cases of pregnancy resulting from rape & incest & direct threat to the life of the mother.

As for "worthless filth", no, I don't believe for a second that applies to you. Don't misunderstand, if you support abortion in cases outside rape/incest/threat to life of mother then you are definitely wrong and I'll argue with you all day long about it. But that doesn't make you "wrong" about everything, the way T_G presents himself around here. He takes the wrong side of virtually every thread he enters, whether the subject is abortion or racism or rioters or gun control or education or reparations or Trayvon Martin or anything/everything else. He's incredibly dishonest, hypocritical, racist, corrupt and everything else along such lines. He has been proving it for many years. THAT'S what makes him worthless filth, not just because he's wrong on this specific issue.

B)

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...