Roberts is (very politely) fed up with Trump
- Thread starter TheOriginalHappyGoat
- Start date
Tigar is a district court judge; he's not a 9th circuit (appeals court) judge. It's telling that Trump doesn't know the difference.
He just needs to attack some founding fathers and he should have a full house on the bingo or a trifecta in racing parlance.
I disagree with that. He has about an 85 to 90 IQ - falling fast - which makes him slightly smarter only, not twice. vbg
That guy makes me look twice every time.
If we played a drinking game during the Trump presidency every time the word unprecedented was used to describe Trump’s actions, we’d all be alcoholics.
My take is much more cynical. Sure, Roberts doesn't like Trump calling federal courts political. But Republicans have packed the courts with right-wing judges to ensure they'll be political, and every sentient human knows it. Mostly, I think, Roberts is preemptively pushing back at the criticism of the Supreme Court that will erupt when it approves Trump's excesses.
Also, I've scoffed at Roberts' public pronouncements like this one since he claimed during his confirmation hearings that he'd merely serve as a lowly umpire calling balls and strikes. That's an infantile mischaracterization of what the Supreme Court does.
Roberts has already done that. However, I do believe that in a truly existential crisis that Roberts will serve as the deciding 5th vote against Trump. Courts are inherently political imo. Success of cases often boils down to which judge you are randomly assigned. That has nothing to do with the laws on the books.
In effect the conservative court packed itself via Bush v Gore. That court elected Bush that appointed Roberts et al that decimated the Voting Rights Act that was key to electing Trump that is now packing the court for the next generation. I am cynical about Roberts too.
Last edited:
Roberts got caught up in Trump tweets and hastily responded. That was a mistake.
Roberts' best moments were during his confirmation hearings. I think he has been a lackluster jurist. His Snyder v, Phelps opinion is an atrocious application of existing law and the role of a jury. His ACA opinion is blatantly political backed up by feeble analysis of the taxing power (leaving aside the argument that affirmation of the ACA SHOULD be the result). Then this, where he suggests the various judges are not political. Judges have been political since before FDR's administration and FDR tried to make the courts even more political. Of course various jurists carry political beliefs into the courtroom. Some more than others.* The point that Roberts should have made is that we must trust the Judiciary to act in good faith and to ensure they remain totally independent and free of the politics of the moment. Denying that they are sometimes political is ludicrous on its face.
We can hope that Roberts will serve as a check on today's intolerant, reactionary currents, but I'm not holding my breath. He's the judicial equivalent to McCain, Flake, and Collins.
Most significant? I don't think so. Perhaps his most surprising...
Citizens United, where they found a way to give corporations First Amendment rights and solidified the notion that money=speech would be his most significant, IMO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC#Opinions_of_the_Court
You say the court elected Bush despite the fact that we now know that continuing the recount as it was being conducted would have still resulted in Bush winning.
Did you read the article?
The election was decided not on the basis of the votes but on the basis of the court decisions. Yeah, I say the Republicans on the SC elected Bush because that is precisely what happened. It is why Robert's professions ring hollow with me. A partisan court is the key to maintaining Republican power. Trump is just saying out loud what everyone knows...particularly Republicans.
Of course I read it. It says what I said it said. Claiming they elected him is false - he won the recounts and would have won the next one too.
It says if all the ballots were counted gore would have won. The ballots were not counted though so they elected bush.
No it didn’t:
Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.
Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff -- filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties -- Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.
Another thing that people forget is that the networks called FL for Gore before the polls in western FL closed. Western FL is more R and I've read several places that it reduced Bush's votes by 5,000-7,000. The FL supreme court was also a political group and were determined for Gore to win.
The bigger problem was network election night anchors (Rather, Brokaw, Roberts, etc.) repeatedly and erroneously said polls in all of Florida would be closing at 7pm EST when the Panhandle would actually be closing the polls an hour later. Estimated impact of this has ranged from 4 to 21 thousand fewer net votes for Bush. Either way, without this voter suppression we likely would have had the automatic machine recount, but would have likely avoided the divisive manual recount.
Imagine the chaos without the Electoral College. It was a virtual tie nationwide so we would have nationwide recounts. It would have been Florida times 50+ (every stare, DC, Commonwealths and territories).
I read the whole thing. I also read the whole thing when the study was done. It said if they reviewed the over/undervotes Gore might possibly have squeaked out a narrow victory. That wasn’t happening and it wasn’t certain, but that Bush would have won the manual recount in progress that actually was happening is. Your statement remains factually incorrect. Amazing you can’t admit that fact.
Fact: The votes weren't counted because the Supreme Court shut it down. Claims that Bush would have won anyway are both contested and irrelevant to the basic fact. What is utterly clear is that the GOP is focused on putting Republican judges on the courts in order to maintain Republican power. It ain't new.
Of course it’s relevant. Partisan Democrats have often claimed that had the recount continued Gore would have won. That is absolutely bogus (and not contested - you think the NYT and Miami Herald are Republican organizations?) and adds to the divisiveness of our political environment.
The votes weren't counted by order of the Republican judges on the Supreme Court. What you or I think would have happened if they had not done that is really irrelevant. You, mysteriously, like the outcome of their decision even in hindsight. I didn't like the outcome then and think it looks much, much worse in hindsight. Our political environment is divisive because an increasingly smaller minority thinks it is entitled to power and imposes increasingly authoritarian, imbecilic leaders like Trump upon the country in the service of that goal.
It’s not about liking the decision itself, it’s disliking the dishonest talking point that Gore would have won had the recount continued when all evidence shows he would not have won. The outcome, Bush’s election, would have been the same regardless of the decision.
How would you have liked a Florida recount nation wide? That’s how close it was. I thank the genius of the EC for saving us from that national debacle.
It is factually incorrect to say anything other than that the Republican judges on the Supreme Court decided the election. They had no idea what the votes would show if counted, they did not care what the votes would show, they did not care to ensure that all the votes be counted. Your insistence that Bush would have won had the court not intervened depends, as you admit, on the assumption that all votes wouldn't have been counted even then. So, here is the claim: had all the votes been counted Gore would have won. The Republican justices on the Supreme Court ensured that could not happen. They decided the election...not the voters.
All votes were counted.
All votes were recounted according to Florida statutes.
The Count was certified as final according to Florida statutes.
4 of the 7 Florida supremes ordered another recount not contemplated by Florida statutes. (That was its second try) SCOTUS vacated the second Florida Supreme recount order 7-2.
SCOTUS decided 5-4 how to remediate the Florida Supreme's mistake. 5 SCOTUS justices said the existing count was final. Time was running short for the EC to vote. Nobody knows how Florida would have dealt with yet another recount and the time limit if SCOTUS hadn't said the existing lawful count was final. There was no time for another recount. As Aloha noted, if the erroneous Florida Supreme Court opinion would have stood in all counties, Bush would have won anyway.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore
The outcome was lawful only because the Republican justices on the Supreme Court constituted a majority and declared it to be so. Terrific harm was done vis the decision both to the reputation of the courts and to our body politic more broadly. Those harms done by the Republican partisans on the court were then compounded by the further partisan decisions in Citizens United and the Shelby County versus Holder decisions opening the spigot of unlimited dark money and killing the Voting Rights Act. All done in the service of producing further electoral advantages for the GOP...all done 5-4 and all leading us to the Trump era.
Similar threads
