- 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 Roberts doesn't understand reality
Posted on 11/21/18 at 3:39 pm to Turbeauxdog
Posted on 11/21/18 at 3:39 pm to Turbeauxdog
I think he clearly knows the American public is projecting more and more of politics onto the Court, and I think he understands how dangerous that is.
The first time the Executive follows through with Jackson's threat and disregards a ruling of the Court because he/she disagrees with it politically is the moment we have the biggest constitutional crisis in a few generations.
I think whatever moves us further from that possibility is a good thing.
The first time the Executive follows through with Jackson's threat and disregards a ruling of the Court because he/she disagrees with it politically is the moment we have the biggest constitutional crisis in a few generations.
I think whatever moves us further from that possibility is a good thing.
3
Posted on 11/21/18 at 3:41 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Is it really his place to jump into the political realm?
If he does, someone may ask him how he had a billion dollars show up in his name in the Vatican bank scandal.
Posted on 11/21/18 at 3:43 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Sure, he has the right. I didn’t imply that he didn’t. I’m just saying I don’t respect what he did. He has no reason, politely or impolitely, to attack the president of the United States. He’s not elected to his seat and will never have to run a political campaign. As far as I’m concerned him entering into the political fray calls into question any rulings he makes going forward.
If Trump criticizes a member of Roberts’ branch, Roberts has every right to (politely) tell Trump to get fricked.
Posted on 11/21/18 at 3:48 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
think he clearly knows the American public is projecting more and more of politics onto the Court, and I think he understands how dangerous that is.
I agree it's dangerous for the court to be political.
It's just dishonest to say it isnt.
It sounds like you want the court to be less political, so the American people respect the court, so that a president wouldn't have the political capital to reject a ruling of the court.
quote:
I think whatever moves us further from that possibility is a good thing
I think we agree there.
Where we disagree is that you seem to take the stance (apparently so does justice Roberts ) that if we stick our heads in the ground and deny reality, things will get better.
No one is going to buy that story anymore.
I think you know that, but as a lawyer you don't want to say it.
Posted on 11/21/18 at 3:50 pm to boosiebadazz
the left is projecting more and more of politics onto the Court, fact
Posted on 11/21/18 at 3:55 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:The American public is projecting politics onto the judiciary branch or presidentially appointed radically political judges feel it’s their duty to make every ruling based upon their political leanings instead of the actual law? Nearly all of whom are leftists.
I think he clearly knows the American public is projecting more and more of politics onto the Court, and I think he understands how dangerous that is
Posted on 11/21/18 at 4:04 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
I think you know that, but as a lawyer you don't want to say it
I think the only thing being a lawyer offers me here that maybe a non-lawyer doesn’t realize is how many shades of gray of law there are and how difficult it is to fit the complexities of society and human interaction into the black and white letters on the paper.
Do I think certain judges have certain worldviews and differences in how they view the law? Sure.
Can reasonable minds look at the same law and same set of facts and disagree on the application? Sure.
But there are appellate courts for a reason, and the structure of the federal judiciary generally holds and works to get the “right” result.
I think our judicial system is largely the most fair and equitable ever created, and I think the fact that we’re the investment capital of the world due in large part to the stability and impartiality of our legal system (certainly relative to other markets) is proof of that.
This post was edited on 11/21/18 at 4:18 pm
Posted on 11/21/18 at 4:04 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
I’m familiar with your work here, and you’re not smart enough or well-read enough for me to give your simpleton opinion any weight
If a fool calls you a fool, should you take it as a compliment?
Posted on 11/21/18 at 4:06 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
The American public is projecting politics onto the judiciary branch or presidentially appointed radically political judges feel it’s their duty to make every ruling based upon their political leanings instead of the actual law? Nearly all of whom are leftists.
Fair point.
The court could conduct itself in a manner that is close enough to beyond reproach that it could be effectively convincing that it is beyond reproach. Instead the members of the court defends the partisan members.
Posted on 11/21/18 at 4:11 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:When people can judge shop to find a judge that will use that grey area(which was never intended to be used that way) to rule against a certain president nearly everytime simply because they don't like him politically does that not constitute as much a constitutional crises as President simply telling the court to frick off?
I think the only thing being a lawyer offers me here that maybe a non-lawyer doesn’t realize is how many shades of gray of law there are and how difficult it is to fit the complexities of society and human interaction into the black and white letters on the paper.
Posted on 11/21/18 at 4:21 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
does that not constitute as much a constitutional crises as President simply telling the court to frick off?
No, I don't think it does. The Executive telling the Judiciary to frick off challenges the structure of our checks and balances itself. Where do we go once that happens?
Judge-shopping and national injunctions certainly take advantage of the system, but the fix for both exists within our current constitutional structure. Either the appellate court can fix the erroneous ruling, or Congress can pass legislation dealing with the subject matter of the ruling (or reigning in nationwide injunctions themselves).
Posted on 11/21/18 at 4:22 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
think the only thing being a lawyer offers me here that maybe a non-lawyer doesn’t realize is how many shades of gray of law there are and how difficult it is to fit the complexities of society and human interaction into the black and white letters on the paper.
I didn't say being a lawyer offered you any improved perspective, I was implying you didn't want to disparage the zenith of the institution in which you are a member because you are a member.
However, I agree with the above sentiment.
quote:
Do I think certain judges have certain worldviews and differences in how they view the law? Sure
It's patently ridiculous to perceive this is what is happening.
quote:
think our judicial system is largely the most fair and equitable ever created, and I think that fact that we’re the investment capital of the world due in large part to the stability and impartiality of our legal system (certainly relative to other markets) is proof of that
The goal of the Supreme Court is not to be fair and equitable (completely subjective evaluations) It's to uphold the constitution irrespective of the fairness or equity within the document.
Each justice striving for their own perception of fairness or equity is how we get ourselves into the situation we are now. Where few respect the high court of our nation.
Posted on 11/21/18 at 4:26 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:Congress can impeach can it not? And what happens if the democrats "stack the court" on the supreme court when the get the chance? Which will almost certainly happen.
No, I don't think it does. The Executive telling the Judiciary to frick off challenges the structure of our checks and balances itself. Where do we go once that happens?
Posted on 11/21/18 at 4:26 pm to Turbeauxdog
Well we're getting close to getting circular in our logic because this:
is inherently complicated by this:
I'd also argue that
Absolutely affects how they view
quote:
It's to uphold the constitution irrespective of the fairness or equity within the document
is inherently complicated by this:
quote:
how many shades of gray of law there are and how difficult it is to fit the complexities of society and human interaction into the black and white letters on the paper
quote:
However, I agree with the above sentiment.
I'd also argue that
quote:
certain judges have certain worldviews and differences in how they view the law?
Absolutely affects how they view
quote:
uphold the constitution irrespective of the fairness or equity within the document.
Posted on 11/21/18 at 4:27 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Congress can impeach can it not?
Sure.
quote:
And what happens if the democrats "stack the court" on the supreme court when the get the chance? Which will almost certainly happen.
Why can't the Republicans do the same?
Posted on 11/21/18 at 4:29 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:Why would they? It's a stupid idea unless all you care about is using the judicial branch as a political weapon. And if that's the case then we can just throw out the entire idea of checks and balances.
Why can't the Republicans do the same?
Posted on 11/21/18 at 4:32 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Why would they? It's a stupid idea unless all you care about is using the judicial branch as a political weapon.
Because there will (and recently was) a time where GOP controlled both branches and the Presidency. To stack the Court, you have to pass a bill in both chambers and have POTUS sign it into law.
Dems didn't do it when they controlled all three, and the Republicans didn't do it when they recently controlled all three.
This court-stacking is used more to rally the base and fear monger the opposite side. It's much more difficult to do in real-life. And assuming it was done, it would likely lead to such a backlash as to put the non-stacking party back into power to where they could undo the stacking or stack with an equal number to dilute it anyway.
Because the pendulum always swings back.
This post was edited on 11/21/18 at 4:34 pm
Posted on 11/21/18 at 4:33 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
Well we're getting close to getting circular in our logic because this:
Nope
Because that presumes all actors are acting in good faith. Again a preposterous position.
Posted on 11/21/18 at 4:34 pm to boosiebadazz
quote:
quote:
Congress can impeach can it not?
Sure.
So there are mechanisms in our system to address a president recklessly disregarding the court.
You seem to be arguing that the court is incapable of acting outside their systemic bounds but the executive is?
Posted on 11/21/18 at 4:35 pm to Turbeauxdog
quote:
Because that presumes all actors are acting in good faith. Again a preposterous position.
Oh, ok. That goes to the political principle of "all my guys act in good faith and all your guys act in bad faith".
That argument is a little outside what we've been discussing and frankly a little too subjective for me to spend much time on.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News