- cross-posted to:
- usa@midwest.social
- cross-posted to:
- usa@midwest.social
You must log in or register to comment.
That is really rich coming from the person who wrote the decision making the President unaccountable to the Rule of Law.
Yeah, fuck Roberts entirely. These people don’t get a pass for murdering America whether or not they mourn its death.
And who’s fault is that Mr Roberts?
I read the headline and thought “Oh shit, he’s finally starting to get it” and then I read the article and it’s like “… because people are critical of me.” This muther fucker…
He blamed schools for shortchanging civics education and leaving students with little understanding of the structure of U.S. government or the role of the courts.
He’s not entirely wrong, but he’s passing the buck.
Due in large part to you, Mr. Roberts. You gave Trump carte blanche to break the law. You refused to hold Justice Thomas accountable for his corruption. His interpretation of the rule of law is discordant with the commonly held meaning.
Don’t get to excited yall. If you read the article, dude isn’t worried in the slightest about trumps crimes. He’s worried younger generations won’t have the same reverence for those with power and money. He doesn’t mention trumps disregard for the courts rulings and decides to focus on gays still having gay sex even if the Supreme Court outlaws it. He’s worried young people will continue to say hurtful words about him online even if the Supreme Court outlaws it. He’s worried women will continue to make their own choices about their bodies. He’s worried a black man and a white woman might still fall in love. This isn’t him even remotely having a wake up call.
The full quote should be, “Rule of law is ‘endangered’ due to several of my decisions.”
The opening paragraph:
Chief Justice John Roberts described the rule of law as “endangered” and warned against “trashing the justices,” but speaking in Washington Monday he didn’t point fingers directly at President Donald Trump or his allies for publicly excoriating judges who’ve ruled against aspects of Trump’s agenda.
Politico makes clear about the missing details in the silences of the Chief Justice’s concerns throughout the article, just as in this first paragraph.
The Chief Justice is now left to scavenge for excuses in the wake of his poor decisions that have enabled the endangerment of the law. And these decisions harm us all.
Yeah and that’s all thanks to John Roberts, that asshole judge.
thanks “Chief”
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court isn’t allowed to reverse it’s own decisions.
Congress and the President routinely step back from policies.
Spoiler alert: They won’t, and they’ll double down on new ones.
While that’s true, the other two branches are routinely populated by people of wildly differing ideologies. In law, it’s the law which is supposed to be stronger as time goes on, which is why established precedent is a thing. When they reverse it, it un-does all the decisions made down the line that were based on that. Which is a huge clusterfuck and in general very expensive for everyone such that even those wrongly convicted can’t unfuck themselves without money.
The proper way to handle that is to make good law which this clown shit of a court has been very poor at doing.
All the judges who voted to overturn Roe v. Wade swore that it was ‘established law.’
Yeah. They did. They should be impeached. As soon as Congress stops sniffing its own butt maybe it’ll get around to that.
In a pre-Roberts court, fine. But you are aware I’m sure that this court routinely ignores precedent, and it’s not good enough to just say, well, your judges ignored precedent and made a number of terrible rulings against the spirit of the Constitution, but we’re gonna follow tradition and decorum and keep with those rulings because we’re going to follow the rules.
A successor court (whatever form that takes) must reverse the worst decisions, and then Congress needs to step in and enact laws in support of the new rulings.
True, but that’s the role of the Supreme Court. Until a successor court (presuming there is one) does that, which may not be for another decade, the lower courts will follow these horrible decisions because they are precedent even though wrongly decided.
Of course, Congress could act. But. Y’know. We can’t even elect a President much less a majority of both houses.
