re: Chief Justice John Roberts...You are now irrelevant

quote:

---

Chief Justice John Roberts

---

quote:

---

You are now irrelevant

---

I partially agree. I would say that he's LESS RELEVANT. But look, Kavanaugh and even Gorsuch have both cast a couple of funky votes the past couple of years. Kavanaugh in particular seems to still act more like the "Bush guy" he always was instead of a true Trump patriot. You'd think Kavanaugh would've learned his lesson based on the way the Swamp treated him AND HIS FAMILY, but he still seems more ESTABLISHMENT than anything else.

AND, let's give ACB some time to show us how she's going to trend, too. I feel GREAT about her, but sometimes justices will surprise you a little bit. As an example, I assumed Kagan and Sotomayor would basically be twin robots, but Kagan has shown to be a much better Justice than the wise Latina.

The cause of upholding and saving the Constitution took a big step forward yesterday. But, I can't wait for Trump to nominate one more. If we get 6 solid justices (not counting Roberts, of course), then the great document created by our Founding Fathers should absolutely be safe.

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.

quote:

---

You're wasting your time. Aggiehank is a Democrat .

---

I really don't think he is. But he does view himself as some sort of Thurston Howell/Buckley clone and therefore way too intelligent for this forum, so he's loathe to ever publicly agree with any sort of consensus view here. Even when there's one he agrees with he'll find some small aspect of it to argue with and ignore the main point. It's weird, but whatever.

quote:

---

quote:
How many articles on Roberts' inconsistency would you like to peruse? ("NOQ Report")
Something from an outlet that is not teetering on the precipice of falling completely OFF the right edge of the political spectrum would be nice.

---

Are you seriously waiting for CNN to report this?

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.

quote:

---

And besides your personal bloviating you've provided

---

How about something from the same source you used, written by a reporter who is ALSO and attorney and understands the rulings. WaPo

quote:

---

It’s worth noting that Roberts’s episodic deviations from conservative orthodoxy have tended to involve laws and regulations — cases where Congress or the executive branch can fix anything they think the court got wrong — more often than constitutional interpretation, where the court gets the last say.

---

quote:

---

Hank has been searching for a credible article that proves he's "consistent", and he's probably pounding his fist on his desk because he can't find it.

Meanwhile, you provide 2 articles proving his "inconsistency", and all he can do is post some retarded pic and disappear in the ether, still patting himself on the back for his meager effort points he scored by simply arguing against his foes.

---

Hank was working on another task.

From your perspective, we have an opinion piece from a Far Right publication and another opinion piece from the pet "Conservative" of a mainstream publication. I have provided an opinion piece from that same publication.

The difference? One of the three authors is an attorney and actually understands the issues.

quote:

---

Uhhh Hank..shouldn't there be 3 orange justices with several more to come?

---

Not even sure what this is supposed to mean, but I am certain you thought it was clever.

Trump seems to be appointing solid Strict Constructionists. Good for him. Barrett is a bit too SoCon for my taste and I would have preferred Lagoa, but you won't see me claiming that she is anything other than a solid pick.

quote:

---

How about something from the same source you used,

---

Ok, so now we're at the not-surprising-at-all conclusion that reasonable people disagree on this and their political persuasion may influence that. Which is a long way from your cartoonish

"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."

Personally, I don't think the "strict constructionist" label belongs within 100 yards of Roberts after his clownish Nevada decision, but that's just me being Grishamesque, I suppose.