In this time of presidential demagoguery, the Chief Justice's insistence on separation of powers is more important than ever.
If Roe v Wade is ever overturned, it ought to be done--in a legally steadfast way-- by the same Court that established that judgement back in 1973--the Supreme Court. The abortion law should not be D&C'd to death by a thousand cuts from small-time politicians.
Such legislative nit-picking slicing and dicing only intensifies our presently escalating cultural wars between left and right.
The Supreme Court can, in the long run, be a unifying influence on our destructively polarizing politics. But to retain that unifying influence, it must function internally according to its own precedental (not presidential) rule of Law, and certainly not according to the petty infighting of state legislators.
John Roberts is doing his job as any American should do his/her job--correctly and thoroughly.
If, at some future time, the Supreme Court, does overturn Roe v. Wade, then God bless John Roberts.
He does not like Trump. Period. Nothing more. He sided with Obamacare there might be something deeper to dig and get it out.
The Supreme Court judges are supposed to uphold the law so where does voting based on party lines comes in? They cannot force the senate or the congress to dance to to their tune. Roberts is acting like dictator.
The way to get the supreme court out of politics is to quit deciding cases on the basis of politics - to paraphrase, uh, John Roberts (although avoiding extreme political moves like attempts to pack the court is important enough to justify a certain amount of politicized judging)
Shouldn't Roberts message to the Republicans be that his court will issue rulings based on the Constitution? Isn't that what conservatives believe the rule of law requires? His Obamacare ruling was certainly not based on the rule of the law. His rulings on the census and DACA were also constitutional travesties. His latest ruling against a Louisiana abortion law that he essentially voted against in a previous case is once again antithetical to the rule of the law.
Roberts is entitled to his opinion about what the legislature should do regarding passing laws. But the bottom line is that is not Robert's Constitutional role as established by about 200 years of tradition. Rather Robert's role is to issue rulings that evaluate current laws in regard to whether they violate the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that states that Roberts is to restrain Trump or any President.
Roberts' ruling is just an artifact of the Never Trump movement that applies a different set of rules to Trump than any other President. Judges are not supposed to side with either the right or the left, but to issue rulings based on the law. A prime argument for reelecting Trump is not but-Gorsuch, but rather not-Democratic-judges, not-another-Roberts, not another-Kennedy, not another-Souter, not another O-Connor.
When Eisenhower was asked if he made any mistakes as President, he replied, "“Yes, And they are both sitting on the Supreme Court," referring to his appointment of Earl Warren and William Brennen. Never Trump advocates may want to continue down the path of having far-left court justices legislate from the bench, considering that to be a small loss to avoid another 4 years of Trump. But that suggests to me that their support of conservative principles is far more questionable than Trump's conservatism, who has appointed a set of the most Constitutional-supporting justices ever.
After reading this article, is Roberts just trying to make sure that whomever is in power, Democrats or Republicans, all must bow to HIM? Sounds like Roberts wants to be Lord of all in America and is doing whatever he can to make sure no one can topple him from being King of the Hill! I thought judges were suppose to determine if something was constitutional or not? Roberts doesn't seem to care about law but about power just like the others in the swamp.
In this time of presidential demagoguery, the Chief Justice's insistence on separation of powers is more important than ever.
If Roe v Wade is ever overturned, it ought to be done--in a legally steadfast way-- by the same Court that established that judgement back in 1973--the Supreme Court. The abortion law should not be D&C'd to death by a thousand cuts from small-time politicians.
Such legislative nit-picking slicing and dicing only intensifies our presently escalating cultural wars between left and right.
The Supreme Court can, in the long run, be a unifying influence on our destructively polarizing politics. But to retain that unifying influence, it must function internally according to its own precedental (not presidential) rule of Law, and certainly not according to the petty infighting of state legislators.
John Roberts is doing his job as any American should do his/her job--correctly and thoroughly.
If, at some future time, the Supreme Court, does overturn Roe v. Wade, then God bless John Roberts.
And God bless America.
I think the following more bluntly shows the dire situation not just of Roberts, but the entire court. And why they are no longer due any deference. https://www.conservativereview.com/news/horowitz-todays-scotus-opinion-reveals-theres-1-vote-roe-v-wade/?fbclid=IwAR2KMdNLi8T6eyPiRZsNYfk21D9RpGkEcxaeSQbzwjWzqoaB8CRQMPEjtKU
He does not like Trump. Period. Nothing more. He sided with Obamacare there might be something deeper to dig and get it out.
The Supreme Court judges are supposed to uphold the law so where does voting based on party lines comes in? They cannot force the senate or the congress to dance to to their tune. Roberts is acting like dictator.
The way to get the supreme court out of politics is to quit deciding cases on the basis of politics - to paraphrase, uh, John Roberts (although avoiding extreme political moves like attempts to pack the court is important enough to justify a certain amount of politicized judging)
Shouldn't Roberts message to the Republicans be that his court will issue rulings based on the Constitution? Isn't that what conservatives believe the rule of law requires? His Obamacare ruling was certainly not based on the rule of the law. His rulings on the census and DACA were also constitutional travesties. His latest ruling against a Louisiana abortion law that he essentially voted against in a previous case is once again antithetical to the rule of the law.
Roberts is entitled to his opinion about what the legislature should do regarding passing laws. But the bottom line is that is not Robert's Constitutional role as established by about 200 years of tradition. Rather Robert's role is to issue rulings that evaluate current laws in regard to whether they violate the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that states that Roberts is to restrain Trump or any President.
Roberts' ruling is just an artifact of the Never Trump movement that applies a different set of rules to Trump than any other President. Judges are not supposed to side with either the right or the left, but to issue rulings based on the law. A prime argument for reelecting Trump is not but-Gorsuch, but rather not-Democratic-judges, not-another-Roberts, not another-Kennedy, not another-Souter, not another O-Connor.
When Eisenhower was asked if he made any mistakes as President, he replied, "“Yes, And they are both sitting on the Supreme Court," referring to his appointment of Earl Warren and William Brennen. Never Trump advocates may want to continue down the path of having far-left court justices legislate from the bench, considering that to be a small loss to avoid another 4 years of Trump. But that suggests to me that their support of conservative principles is far more questionable than Trump's conservatism, who has appointed a set of the most Constitutional-supporting justices ever.
Or, he just really, really believes in stare decisis. Sometimes people tell you what they really believe.
After reading this article, is Roberts just trying to make sure that whomever is in power, Democrats or Republicans, all must bow to HIM? Sounds like Roberts wants to be Lord of all in America and is doing whatever he can to make sure no one can topple him from being King of the Hill! I thought judges were suppose to determine if something was constitutional or not? Roberts doesn't seem to care about law but about power just like the others in the swamp.
Roberts wants the other branches to keep the Court out of their squabbling, but the effect is to try to wrest more power away from them to the Court.
Perfect explanation. Thank you sir.