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

John Roberts Sides with Liberal Justices – Allows Pennsylvania to Count Non-Postmarked Ballots Three Days After Election Day

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

pepperonikkid

John Roberts Sides with Liberal Justices – Allows Pennsylvania to Count Non-Postmarked Ballots Three Days After Election Day

 

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/

By Jim Hoft
Published October 19, 2020

 

Article:

 

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joined with the three liberal justices on the court to allow Pennsylvania to count non-postmarked ballots three days after Election Day.

This is an invitation to election fraud.

America is the only country in the world with such lax election laws. Democrats want it that way. Republicans are too afraid to speak out about it.

Legal Insurrection reported:

The 4-4 SCOTUS split leaves PA Supreme Court alteration of election law in place. Another example of how important Amy Coney Barret confirmation is.

 

 

Full Story

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weaseljd

He is such a politician.  He joined the liberals because he is afraid to have the court being seen as taking a side, so not reversing the state supreme court keeps the court "above the fray".

Roberts is a chicken

  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LeansToTheRight

From my laymen’s view, the Courts are basically rewriting Pennsylvania law no?  How am I wrong?

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JerryL
14 minutes ago, Weaseljd said:

He is such a politician.  He joined the liberals because he is afraid to have the court being seen as taking a side, so not reversing the state supreme court keeps the court "above the fray".

Roberts is a chicken

Which is exactly what he is NOT supposed to be.  

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin

Of course he does

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howsithangin
33 minutes ago, LeansToTheRight said:

From my laymen’s view, the Courts are basically rewriting Pennsylvania law no?  How am I wrong?

you're not

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ticked@TinselTown

Seems it's time for Roberts to be removed from the bench.

  • Best Post (+1) 1
  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


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

Those ballots are spoiled, not legit.

Roberts is a willful idiot who ignores/disregards the laws on the books. 

Share this post


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

Seems it's time for Roberts to be removed from the bench.

That would be nice, but it won’t happen.  Judges are now political tools and political operatives.  Instead if being independent and impartial when weighing the law, they are aligned.  Roberts is too useful to remove.

Edited by JerryL
  • Agree (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
spt

With the way Roberts has been ruling on the SCOTUS. I keep wondering what the Democrats have on him that they are using as blackmail for him to rule this way..  

  • Agree (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThePatriot

Roberts has been a major disappointment.

I really miss Scalia. :( 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hieronymous
44 minutes ago, spt said:

With the way Roberts has been ruling on the SCOTUS. I keep wondering what the Democrats have on him that they are using as blackmail for him to rule this way..  

Epstein?

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
12 hours ago, Weaseljd said:

He is such a politician.  He joined the liberals because he is afraid to have the court being seen as taking a side, so not reversing the state supreme court keeps the court "above the fray".

Roberts is a chicken

Or maybe he just thinks it's the right thing to do.

Your theory that a seated-for-life judge cares too much about the politics is kinda spurious on it's face.

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo
5 hours ago, Ticked@TinselTown said:

Seems it's time for Roberts to be removed from the bench.

Oh goody, lets get into the judge removal-for-judgements-we-don't-like phase in American politics. What could go wrong?

Edited by AntonToo
  • Disagree (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
2 hours ago, spt said:

With the way Roberts has been ruling on the SCOTUS. I keep wondering what the Democrats have on him that they are using as blackmail for him to rule this way..  

I’ve been thinking that for a long time but I then realized that he’s a GWB appointment, and this part of the deep state. He’s shown it time and again. He’s not being coerced - I believe it’s entirely voluntary, like with ACA, he cast the most expensive ballot in the history of mankind. 

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
4 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

Or maybe he just thinks it's right thing to do.

The deep state thinks it’s the right thing to do for them, that’s true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
AntonToo

Aaaand we are back to regularly scheduled conspiracy theories to deal with reality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MTP Reggie
2 minutes ago, AntonToo said:

Aaaand we are back to regularly scheduled conspiracy theories to deal with reality.

Mod Note: Continued trolling will result in a lengthy vacation.

  • Agree (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
firecoco

When Barrett gets approved then the court will be 5-4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Severian
2 hours ago, Hieronymous said:

Epstein?

Lots of room under those robes for a 12 year old...boy or girl. Just sayin.

41 minutes ago, zurg said:

I’ve been thinking that for a long time but I then realized that he’s a GWB appointment, and this part of the deep state. He’s shown it time and again. He’s not being coerced - I believe it’s entirely voluntary, like with ACA, he cast the most expensive ballot in the history of mankind. 

Most likely true. He has shown himself to be as bad as the leftist justices, the word of law and the Constitution are malleable to him.

28 minutes ago, firecoco said:

When Barrett gets approved then the court will be 5-4

Which is why they're going bugnuts over her confirmation. They want a 4/4 split, which with Roberts means a 5/3 split, on any election challenges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weaseljd
5 hours ago, spt said:

With the way Roberts has been ruling on the SCOTUS. I keep wondering what the Democrats have on him that they are using as blackmail for him to rule this way..  

They don't have anything.  If you read about him and listen to him, he believes his role as Chief Justice is to preserve the role and dignity of the court and keep it out of politics.  Often his decisions will be based more on deciding what is best for the image of the court than in following the law because he wants the court to be viewed as a non-political branch of the government, and thinks as Chief justice his role is ensure this happens.  Being appointed CJ was a mistake as he let the role take over his legal analysis.  I also believe that with ACB being appointed and a solid 5 member conservative majority in place (assuming the Dems do not gain power and pack the court) you will see Roberts slide more the right again as he no longer will have the power of the swing vote to preserve the court's image on issues by siding with the libs.  I am not saying he will suddenly become a conservative icon, but he will be much more a Kennedy than a Souter (while lacking Kennedy's power of the swing vote so long as a conservative Justice does not unexpectedly pass away in the near future) because at the end of the day, the court's image is better preserved with 6-3 opinions than 5-4..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
1 hour ago, Weaseljd said:

They don't have anything.  If you read about him and listen to him, he believes his role as Chief Justice is to preserve the role and dignity of the court and keep it out of politics.  Often his decisions will be based more on deciding what is best for the image of the court than in following the law because he wants the court to be viewed as a non-political branch of the government, and thinks as Chief justice his role is ensure this happens.  Being appointed CJ was a mistake as he let the role take over his legal analysis.  I also believe that with ACB being appointed and a solid 5 member conservative majority in place (assuming the Dems do not gain power and pack the court) you will see Roberts slide more the right again as he no longer will have the power of the swing vote to preserve the court's image on issues by siding with the libs.  I am not saying he will suddenly become a conservative icon, but he will be much more a Kennedy than a Souter (while lacking Kennedy's power of the swing vote so long as a conservative Justice does not unexpectedly pass away in the near future) because at the end of the day, the court's image is better preserved with 6-3 opinions than 5-4..

That may be more the truth but what a disaster of a Justice by GWB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weaseljd
38 minutes ago, zurg said:

That may be more the truth but what a disaster of a Justice by GWB. 

Well, don't forget different times.  When Bush nominated Roberts the Democrats had not yet blown up the filibuster rule, so to get a nominee confirmed he still needed Democrats to vote in favor of the nominee for confirmation.  He could not just pick whomever he wanted and get them confirmed like Trump can do right now. Also do not forget, Bush tried to get Harriet Miers on at one time and could not, and then Alberto Gonzales, to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, and neither could muster enough support for even a formal nomination, showing that he could nto just pick whomever.  As a result we got Alito as Associate and Roberts as CJ.  Bush batted 50% on that one, and only because he was replacing two generally conservative justices with other Conservatives and went moderate with Roberts to also get an Alito.  Frankly, Roberts, if you look at the overall picture of his votes, has just as or more conservative than O'Connor (who definitely moved left as she aged on many issues), and Alito has been better than Rehnquist I believe, so overall it was at worst a wash in terms of court movement.  But while Roberts has been a disappointment (because of his desire to build consensus and avoid the appearance of politics), in the world of conservative Justice appointments that have not gone well for the right, Roberts is far from the worst.  His problem is he continues to fail the right on the important big cases so it stands out more.  But Bush probably could not have got a more conservative justice confirmed at the time given he was picking two.  Again - think about the disaster Souter was for his father as a justice.  And Reagan gave us O'Connor and Kennedy who were hardly rock solid conservatives (though Kennedy did get Obamacare correct).  But go back further and you can see what real disasters look like.  Ford gave us John Paul Stevens, Nixon stuck us with Burger, Powell and Blackmun,  and Eisenhower gave us Warren and Brennan.  Talk about total misses.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zurg
9 minutes ago, Weaseljd said:

Well, don't forget different times.  When Bush nominated Roberts the Democrats had not yet blown up the filibuster rule, so to get a nominee confirmed he still needed Democrats to vote in favor of the nominee for confirmation.  He could not just pick whomever he wanted and get them confirmed like Trump can do right now. Also do not forget, Bush tried to get Harriet Miers on at one time and could not, and then Alberto Gonzales, to replace Sandra Day O'Connor, and neither could muster enough support for even a formal nomination, showing that he could nto just pick whomever.  As a result we got Alito as Associate and Roberts as CJ.  Bush batted 50% on that one, and only because he was replacing two generally conservative justices with other Conservatives and went moderate with Roberts to also get an Alito.  Frankly, Roberts, if you look at the overall picture of his votes, has just as or more conservative than O'Connor (who definitely moved left as she aged on many issues), and Alito has been better than Rehnquist I believe, so overall it was at worst a wash in terms of court movement.  But while Roberts has been a disappointment (because of his desire to build consensus and avoid the appearance of politics), in the world of conservative Justice appointments that have not gone well for the right, Roberts is far from the worst.  His problem is he continues to fail the right on the important big cases so it stands out more.  But Bush probably could not have got a more conservative justice confirmed at the time given he was picking two.  Again - think about the disaster Souter was for his father as a justice.  And Reagan gave us O'Connor and Kennedy who were hardly rock solid conservatives (though Kennedy did get Obamacare correct).  But go back further and you can see what real disasters look like.  Ford gave us John Paul Stevens, Nixon stuck us with Burger, Powell and Blackmun,  and Eisenhower gave us Warren and Brennan.  Talk about total misses.  

Well, that’s a good history reminder. So yeah it could have been worse.

I just can’t shake the bad feeling about the Bush-Roberts combo, and what other dealings there may exist. It doesn’t look clean; I’m sure THEY believe it’s for our best. But that’s what happens when transparency and honesty aren’t the main principles. 

But that’s too idealistic so might as well try to ram through as many conservative justices as possible. Trump is certainly doing the best he can, as well. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Weaseljd
11 minutes ago, zurg said:

Well, that’s a good history reminder. So yeah it could have been worse.

I just can’t shake the bad feeling about the Bush-Roberts combo, and what other dealings there may exist. It doesn’t look clean; I’m sure THEY believe it’s for our best. But that’s what happens when transparency and honesty aren’t the main principles. 

But that’s too idealistic so might as well try to ram through as many conservative justices as possible. Trump is certainly doing the best he can, as well. 

Don't get me wrong, I am not fan of Roberts.  I defended him on the ACA, but no more as his don't rock the boat idea of of jurisprudence drives me nuts.  I'm just not sure how much better we could have got in 2006.  Thank god Harry Reid screwed the Dems and made it possible for Trump to name 3 pretty solid conservatives to the court.  Under the pre-Reid nuke the filibuster rules we don't get any one of these three. 

  • 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...