- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Chief Justice John Roberts...You are now irrelevant
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:18 am to Tiger985
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:18 am to Tiger985
quote:Good Lord
Whoever has a hold on him doesn't anymore.
If you look at his rulings from a jurisprudential perspective rather than an ideological one, they are almost uniformly-consistent.
You just want him to be ideological, so you create a Grishamesque fantasy/conspiracy to "explain" rulings that you do not like. All the while INSISTING that you do not want an ideological judge, but rather a Strict Constructionist.
Sad.
This post was edited on 10/27/20 at 9:20 am
11
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:25 am to AggieHank86
quote:
If you look at his rulings from a jurisprudential perspective rather than an ideological one, they are almost uniformly-consistent.
https://noqreport.com/2019/07/02/john-roberts-consistently-inconsistent/
How many articles on Roberts' inconsistency would you like to peruse?
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:27 am to AggieHank86
quote:
they are almost uniformly-consistent.
Outside of a few big cases, his voting record is almost completely in line with the conservatives wing of the court. I will never understand his logic in Sebelius however.
For a swing vote, he swings way more conservative than Kennedy did.
Not that I'm a huge fan, but it is a little disingenuous by people to make him out to be some huge hidden liberal when you actually look at a totality of his opinions and not just a select few.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:28 am to AggieHank86
quote:
If you look at his rulings from a jurisprudential perspective rather than an ideological one, they are almost uniformly-consistent.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:28 am to AggieHank86
quote:
If you look at his rulings from a jurisprudential perspective rather than an ideological one, they are almost uniformly-consistent.
he had 2 very big 180s this year on major cases, iirc
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:30 am to AggieHank86
quote:
hey are almost uniformly-consistent
Huh. That's not saying anything at all.
Honey stop.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:34 am to AggieHank86
quote:
If you look at his rulings from a jurisprudential perspective rather than an ideological one, they are almost uniformly-consistent.
Are you serious?
He twisted the argument into their (Democrats) favor on the Obamacare individual mandate vote.
Democrats were calling it a fee, HE CHANGED it to a tax all on his own and then used the argument that the government is allowed to tax.
Did you miss that?
This post was edited on 10/27/20 at 9:36 am
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:37 am to AggieHank86
How can you say his rulings are uniformly-consistent when he flipped on the ACA between argument and the opinion after Obama dressed the Court down at a SOTU.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 9:53 am to AggieHank86
quote:
you create a Grishamesque fantasy/conspiracy to "explain" rulings that you do not like
Art imitates life, and lets not get into the plot line of The Pelican Brief.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 10:21 am to AggieHank86
quote:
If you look at his rulings from a jurisprudential perspective rather than an ideological one, they are almost uniformly-consistent.
And you’re full of shite, as usual. He saddled this country with Obamacare, knowing it was blatantly unconstitutional, letting democrats play the shell game of tax, fee, penalty, depending on who they were talking to. Ideology indeed.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 10:29 am to AggieHank86
quote:
If you look at his rulings from a jurisprudential perspective rather than an ideological one, they are almost uniformly-consistent.
You just want him to be ideological, so you create a Grishamesque fantasy/conspiracy to "explain" rulings that you do not like. All the while INSISTING that you do not want an ideological judge, but rather a Strict Constructionist.
the talking heads on fox told me to be big mad at roberts, though.
Posted on 10/27/20 at 10:58 am to AggieHank86
quote:
jurisprudential perspective rather than an ideological one, they are almost uniformly-consistent.
They most assuredly are not.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News