Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: The political wars damage public perception of SCOTUS, Chief Justice Roberts says

  1. #1
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272

    The political wars damage public perception of SCOTUS, Chief Justice Roberts says

    The court issues “a lot of opinions where if I were in the legislature I certainly wouldn’t have voted for the program that was under review,” Roberts said. “I don’t necessarily agree with the substance of the every piece of legislation simply because I determine it’s within the Constitution for Congress” to enact it.

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...2c9_story.html
    Hmm...

    Poor pitiful me perhaps?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,152

    The rest of the story.

    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said late Wednesday that partisan extremism is damaging the public’s perception of the role of the Supreme Court, recasting the justices as players in the political process rather than its referees.

    Divisive battles over confirmations and mischaracterization of the merits of the court’s decisions worry him, ...
    Id.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  3. #3
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,726
    Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said late Wednesday that partisan extremism is damaging the public’s perception of the role of the Supreme Court, recasting the justices as players in the political process rather than its referees.

    Divisive battles over confirmations and mischaracterization of the merits of the court’s decisions worry him, ...
    If the shoe fits, wear it. You boys and girls have been legislating from the bench for years. And you Mr. Roberts, Obama Care is a tax, give me a break.

  4. #4
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by color of law View Post
    If the shoe fits, wear it. You boys and girls have been legislating from the bench for years. And you Mr. Roberts, Obama Care is a tax, give me a break.
    That was the first thought that jumped into my head.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  5. #5
    Regular Member DeSchaine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Kalamazoo, MI
    Posts
    604
    My first words to him would be "Yes, that's right. So stop being political and do your damn job properly."
    Guard with jealous attention the public liberty.
    Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel.
    Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force.
    Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.
    -Patrick Henry, Virginia Ratification Convention, June 5, 1788

  6. #6
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Great comment, Your Honor. Speak it into the mirror.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  7. #7
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    "Not interested in opinions, just facts ma'ma." Sgt. Joe Friday

  8. #8
    Accomplished Advocate user's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Northern Piedmont of Virginia
    Posts
    2,373
    I'd say there are some decisions the Court's made that have already done that. Starting with Marbury v. Madison, and there's Wickard v. Filburn, Oh, and we mustn't forget Castleman...
    Daniel L. Hawes - 540 347 2430 - HTTP://www.VirginiaLegalDefense.com

    By the way, nothing I say on this website as "user" should be taken as either advertising for attorney services or legal advice, merely personal opinion. Everyone having a question regarding the application of law to the facts of their situation should seek the advice of an attorney competent in the subject matter of the issues presented and licensed to practice in the relevant state.

  9. #9
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    4,792
    Yes, the highly political confirmation process is hurting the image of the court. But what caused the highly political confirmation process except the highly political decisions the court has been issuing?

    Most of these have resulted in a left-wing remaking of our society, and most of them should not have even been decided by federal courts. Those that are not left wing tend to result in growth of government power.

    This probably got a serious start when FDR threatened to stack the court and suddenly his New Deal programs started getting ruled constitutional rather than over-turned.

    The court has been allowed to become overly political because neither of the other branches, nor the States, have been willing to stand up and exercise their co-equal power when decisions go too far. The Supreme Court is supposed to be supreme only relative to all other courts. It is supposed to be co-equal to congress and the executive. And that doesn't mean that ConAmds are the only constitutional way to correct obviously bad decisions.

    The most straightforward thing we could do to fix the court would be to remove the lifetime tenure and instead appoint for a fixed time period, long enough to insulate from short term trends, but short enough that nobody gets to act a king. Maybe 10 years or so, staggered so that ever term a president is going to appoint a couple of justices. That would also help eliminate the trend of appointing young, unproven candidates with no record who will then carry on a legacy for many decades.

    Really, though, congress, the president, and the States need to stand up and limit judicial power from time to time. The court doesn't actually have any enforcement mechanism and just as FDR did with German spies during WWII, the other branches should sometimes make clear that some decisions simply will not be respected nor obeyed.

    Charles
    All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. Thank heaven we do not permit a few to impose anarchy.

    "With Anarchy as an aim and as a means, Communism becomes possible."
    --Marxist.org

    "Communism and Anarchy [are], a necessary complement to one another. "
    --PETER KROPOTKIN, "Anarchism: its philosophy and ideal." 1898.

  10. #10
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,272
    Citing common law to substantiate the court's decisions, ignoring common law when common law clearly disagrees with the court's decision. Terry v. Ohio, Heien, Kelo, SCOTUSCare...the court is solely responsible for its public perception.

    http://www.justiceatstake.org/federa...nd-our-courts/

    Stare decisis...pfft.

    Wickard v. Filburn should have been overturned long long ago.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  11. #11
    Regular Member Freedom1Man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Greater Eastside Washington
    Posts
    4,690
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Citing common law to substantiate the court's decisions, ignoring common law when common law clearly disagrees with the court's decision. Terry v. Ohio, Heien, Kelo, SCOTUSCare...the court is solely responsible for its public perception.

    http://www.justiceatstake.org/federa...nd-our-courts/

    Stare decisis...pfft.

    Wickard v. Filburn should have been overturned long long ago.
    Thank you,

    Sent from my SM-G386T using Tapatalk
    Provision for free medical attendance and nursing, for clothing, for food, for housing, for the education of children, and a hundred other matters, might with equal propriety be proposed as tending to relieve the employee of mental strain and worry. --- These matters obviously lie outside the orbit of congressional power. (Railroad Retirement Board v Alton Railroad)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •