re: Is ACB the single most impressive justice on the SCOTUS now?

Trump should come out tomorrow and ask her to sponsor a bill adding 100 justices to the court

I think so.

quote:

---

My personal views don’t have anything to do with the way I would decide cases

---

I believe her when she says this.

Roberts was also part of the Republican legal team in the Bush v Gore Florida recount trials.

True she obviously doesn't have as much experience. Intellect, I think she is up there with Thomas and hopefully she will be a similar originality that Thomas. I cant believe Thomas is not mentioned in this discussion. That dude is a rock like Scania was.

quote:

---

Unfortunately that goes to John Roberts.

Was considered the best appellate lawyer in America.

Argued 39 cases before the Supreme Court. Represented 19 states in the biggest Antitrust lawsuit of all time in United States vs. Microsoft Corp.

---

In terms of pure credentials and raw intellectual power Roberts easily is top dog. Borderline genius if you have ever read any of his dissertations or opinion pieces of judgements.

You’re getting downvotes because of the the folks who didn’t follow politics until 2016 but you are 100% right here.

Mr Fizzle, he is too intellectual for his own good, that he forgets that he is supposed to interpret the constitution and not wordsmith a ruling that actually modifies a law that Congress passed. This was done either by not having the balls to stand on the principals of being a SCOTUS and not turning over the apple cart of Obamacare or he caved to some political pressure. IDK. But the wordsmithing and pretzel twisting he has done is relying on his intellect for a certain intended/desired outcome and foregoing his constitutional duty.

Scalia was the real intellectual on the court that knew his constitutional duty. In the same vane Thomas is very similar and is steady in his pursuits of maintaining the boundaries of the constitution.

Something Barret said last night that was great to hear, and I'm paraphrasing, but that it is the senator's purpose to issue policy and have these opinions base on the desires of their constituents who vote for them. But as a justice, you are not to have a policy or ideology that guides you like voters may guide senators. A justice is to free of those and there to interpret the law and constitution.

quote:

---

LOL 3 years on a federal appeals court

---

She has never tried a case. Never argued in front of a jury. Never argued at any appellate level. Three years on the appellate bench is not impressive.