re: Chief Justice John Roberts warns Supreme Court over Texas abortion law

If you have followed Roberts’ history this is not surprising at all.

Roberts is, at his core, an institutionalist. And he will usually always come in on the side of institutions and protect them (I’m talking the federal government and it’s apparatuses, not the people or the legislatures, which he considers close to mob rule). He believes the people need to be controlled and ruled, even if imperfectly and authoritatively. And to do so, the institutions must be empowered and asserted over the masses. It is the institution over the individual with him. And he will craft his opinions accordingly to accomplish this view in action, which he views as defending the governance of people. It’s less about conservative and liberal with him and more about creating whatever ruling further solidifies control of the permanent federal government over the people.

Chief is a good survey to gain some insight.

For the 100th time, we need to ditch the Federalist Society as the arbiter of who would make a good judge. They’re either obviously incapable of judging that or they are wholly compromised.

quote:

---

What in the... Do I need to explain the common law to a USSC chief justice? Or ask him why Plessy v. Ferguson isn't the law of the land?

---

A justice might say, “you don’t like it, make another law or a better law.”

Roberts seems to say, “you don’t like it, don’t even try to make another law or a better law.”

It’s fully Roberts’ fault. He’s responsible. He sucks. His ideas are terrible. He allowed the federal government to argue both sides of its arse when Obamacare went through on if it was/was not a tax. He was a terrible pick.

quote:

---

I've never been a fan of common-law. Places too much power in the hands of too few people. And in the case of scotus, unelected people.

Civil law makes more sense to me.

---

My mentor (Professor Jim Bowers) just had an aneurysm.

quote:

---

Supreme Court decisions shouldn't make something 'legal', the passing of a law by elected representatives following the Constitutional process, is what makes something 'legal', not the opinion of a bunch of unelected judges. That whole statement is fricked up.

---

Or a law voted in by the people. I lost respect for this SCOTUS when they made gay "marriage" legal by overturning what the people voted on.

And the icing on the cake is the state AG who didn't defend the suit the way an AGs job is, is now the VP of the country. Smfh

Wow. What a piece of shite that guy turned out to be.

He’s more worried about the court listing absolute power than he is of the lives of the unborn.

quote:

---

The opinion was a remarkable plea by the chief justice to his colleagues on the court to resist the efforts by right-wing lawmakers to get around court decisions they dislike, in this case Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal in the United States, within limits. But in this case, his urgent request was largely ignored by the other justices on the court who were appointed by Republicans.

---

Yeah OK.....so the legislative branch isn't allowed to do its job?

Roberts claims he doesn’t want a 5-4 Court. Yet, he trades his soul to make it happen.

He’s definitely ridden on the Lolita Express.

quote:

---

Chief Justice John Roberts

---

What an absolutely pathetic turncoat this loser has turned into.