Stat Monitor Repairman said:

---

Im fairly confident that there is HD video of Roberts with a **** ** *** *** on Epstein's island.

Scalia was murdered.

---

Roberrs 2 very white adoptive children from Mexico..

As in smuggled through there.

Great black mail opp

And hes been toast since

Dude was toast from the git go.

Thanks GDub.

Deep state 4 life.

Roberts is the kind of man who who would have voted to allow American citizens of Japanese ancestry to be sent to concentration camps. He will always defer to the autocrats as long as there is ANY plausible excuse, like the amorphous "public safety". He's an evil globalist.

How liberal a Republican-appointed justice really is is inversely proportional to their intersectionality factor and how difficult liberal senators make their confirmation.

As a straight white male with a relatively easy confirmation? We should have known.

Just thrilled that that self important idiot has been rendered irrelevant. He can vote with libs forever now, and it means nothing.

Screw him idiots like him everywhere.

AggiePops said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree 100%. Roberts is a POS and votes based on desired outcomes and perceptions of the court and not on the basis of law.

---

LOL. No, he IS basing his decisions on the law as opposed to a desired political outcome. Face it, the joy at being able to replace RBG with another Trump appointee on the court was absolutely ensuring conservative political outcomes. I agree that it would be better to recommend restrictions instead of mandating them, but the mandate is NOT a State attempt to control religious beliefs, or the practice thereof, which is what the Constitution protects against. Gathering to worship in a church is a great way to publicly express your faith, but hardly necessary. Pure and simple, people don't like being told what to do. THAT is understandable, but wrong headed as a mandate is, claiming that it's a State attempt to control religion is misplaced.

---

Let's just fight this ****ing war already

AggiePops said:

---

Quote:

---

I agree 100%. Roberts is a POS and votes based on desired outcomes and perceptions of the court and not on the basis of law.

---

LOL. No, he IS basing his decisions on the law as opposed to a desired political outcome. Face it, the joy at being able to replace RBG with another Trump appointee on the court was absolutely ensuring conservative political outcomes. I agree that it would be better to recommend restrictions instead of mandating them, but the mandate is NOT a State attempt to control religious beliefs, or the practice thereof, which is what the Constitution protects against. Gathering to worship in a church is a great way to publicly express your faith, but hardly necessary. Pure and simple, people don't like being told what to do. THAT is understandable, but wrong headed as a mandate is, claiming that it's a State attempt to control religion is misplaced.

---

This is total BS. Obamacare is unquestionably unconstitutional and Roberts knew it. He was prepared to vote that way, then admittedly changed his mind because he didn't want to be known as the justice who struck down the first black president's only accomplishment. THAT is the definition of 'desired political outcome.'

Gap said:

---

The Supreme Court made a firm ruling based on the religious liberty protections in the Constitution so that all Governors and county administrators understand the law of the land. Judge Roberts wanted to withhold that from us saying the case doesn't matter any longer because of "x". This is common practice to avoid taking a L on an issue that has now is Supreme Court precedent that you wanted to avoid.

Roberts is a toad.

---

Totally correct. And NY state would have taken it as another win and with that win made things even more restrictive on houses of worship as punishment. Just like Pa did when he refused to rule on allowing ballots after the election with no sigs.

Quote:

---

No the point is that YOU don't get to decide what is "necessary" for their faith. And neither does Cuomo. It's a constitution thing, not a matter of law.

---

Robert's is the second Souter put on the court by a Bush President. How did they keep making the same mistake? Maybe they weren't considered mistakes by the Bushes. Maybe they were put there by design. Or they were both fooled by the same deep state actors that convince presidents (even Trump) to hire one of their sleeper agents who spring alive to work their woe.

The democRATS and the leftists must have some really nasty and incriminating information on him!

They can lead him around by the nose now!

Worthless appointment by the rino 43!

Hopefully he has hunting trip to a West Texas Ranch scheduled. I hear Scalia went to nice one !

DC79er said:

---

Hopefully he has hunting trip to a West Texas Ranch scheduled. I hear Scalia went to nice one !

---

would want to know that he has a reliable republican at the helm to nominate his replacement first.

WestAustinAg said:

---

Quote:

---

No the point is that YOU don't get to decide what is "necessary" for their faith. And neither does Cuomo. It's a constitution thing, not a matter of law.

---

Robert's is the second Souter put on the court by a Bush President. How did they keep making the same mistake? Maybe they weren't considered mistakes by the Bushes. Maybe they were put there by design. Or they were both fooled by the same deep state actors that convince presidents (even Trump) to hire one of their sleeper agents who spring alive to work their woe.

---

Think of how `well' the WoT was fought and how inexpensively...

Shagga said:

---

Roberts is the kind of man who who would have voted to allow American citizens of Japanese ancestry to be sent to concentration camps. He will always defer to the autocrats as long as there is ANY plausible excuse, like the amorphous "public safety". He's an evil globalist.

---

I don't know about him being an evil globalist, but if you read a lot of his writings, even writings outside of his court opinions, he seems concerned with the politicization of the court. He's written about it a lot in the end of year federal court reviews. He defers to elected officials almost as a default.

Reading his opinion in this case, had Cuomo kept the regulations in place instead of adjusting them I think he would've gone with the majority. But since the regulations were adjusted, he chose to call the issue moot instead of making a strong statement.

And thank God for Gorsuch. He may be the best justice on the court. Writes very easy to understand opinions and uses a lot of common sense. Disagreed with his logic on the discrimination case, but otherwise he's been fantastic.

Roberts is not a Constitutionalist. He is a communist just like the other 3 democratic judges.

FbgTxAg said:

---

You heard it from me the minute RBG died and it became clear ACB would be appointed and confirmed. John Roberts will NEVER side in a 5-4 or 6-3 verdict with the conservatives.

Anyone still saying the Supreme Court is 6-3 Conservative is a lying dog-faced pony soldier.

---

Literally happened a day ago.

https://thehill.com/regulation/530817-supreme-court-tosses-challenge-to-trumps-immigrant-census-plan

Roberts is not as conservative as the other 5 justices on religious liberty issue but he sides with them plenty.

its him

I actually didn't even look at the picture. To lack awareness in all the evidence pointing at Roberts having been on Epsteins island multiple times, you would have to have you head up your ass. Keep acting like all this is fake while the world goes thru transition exposing evil.

redsquirrelAG said:

---

I actually didn't even look at the picture. To lack awareness in all the evidence pointing at Roberts having been on Epsteins island multiple times, you would have to have you head up your ass. Keep acting like all this is fake while the world goes thru transition exposing evil.

---

It is probably the Fox News WH correspondent John Roberts. Because only 2 men in this country have that name.

Or its not and you are wrong. Keep supporting Satanists and Pedophiles. Yuck!!!

redsquirrelAG said:

---

Or its not and you are wrong. Keep supporting Satanists and Pedophiles. Yuck!!!

---

Interesting lies you make.

Can you explain to me why that was Roberts in the deleted picture?

You can dislike his rulings, but saying he is a man that sleeps with teenage girls forced to **** him is just warped hatred.
That man looked nothing like him.

What is it with Republicans that they keep appointing Supreme Court justices who turn out to disappoint the right wing? One might think that when people have to actually think about defending judicial outcomes, they realize that there is a flaw in Scalia's reasoning?

Or perhaps, for all the talk about adherence to the Constitution, the arguments for right wing outcomes tend to 1) want to disrupt society, which is not a conservative outcome, or 2) are ill-thought out (vis. Paxton's offering), and aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

lost my dog said:

---

What is it with Republicans that they keep appointing Supreme Court justices who turn out to disappoint the right wing? One might think that when people have to actually think about defending judicial outcomes, they realize that there is a flaw in Scalia's reasoning?

Or perhaps, for all the talk about adherence to the Constitution, the arguments for right wing outcomes tend to 1) want to disrupt society, which is not a conservative outcome, or 2) are ill-thought out (vis. Paxton's offering), and aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

---

Defending the Constitution as written doesn't "disrupt society". Fabricating new meanings that were never intended does. SCOTUS has gone well beyond their role of interpreting laws. ObamaCare is now a tax? The 1964 Civil Rights act suddenly applies to gays, when it was never written as such? They are usurping Congress' function, which is not conservative.

Edit: And there was nothing "ill-thought out" about Paxton's suit. Texas has standing, even if SCOTUS was too cowardly to take it up. Of course Texans are harmed by malfeasance in other states impacting national elections. It's stupid to suggest otherwise.

96AgGrad said:

---

lost my dog said:

---

What is it with Republicans that they keep appointing Supreme Court justices who turn out to disappoint the right wing? One might think that when people have to actually think about defending judicial outcomes, they realize that there is a flaw in Scalia's reasoning?

Or perhaps, for all the talk about adherence to the Constitution, the arguments for right wing outcomes tend to 1) want to disrupt society, which is not a conservative outcome, or 2) are ill-thought out (vis. Paxton's offering), and aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

---

Defending the Constitution as written doesn't "disrupt society". Fabricating new meanings that were never intended does. SCOTUS has gone well beyond their role of interpreting laws. ObamaCare is now a tax? The 1964 Civil Rights act suddenly has applies to gays, when it was never written as such? They are usurping Congress' function, which is not conservative.

Edit: And there was nothing "ill-thought out" about Paxton's suit. Texas has standing, even if SCOTUS was too cowardly to take it up. Of course Texans are harmed by malfeasance in other states impacting national elections. It's stupid to suggest otherwise.

---

There is an inherent contradiction between Scalia's originalism and his adherence to precedent. Either you go one way or the other. How does Brown vs Board of education fit into your framework of interpreting laws?

If Texas has standing, does California have standing to sue Texas because Abbot restricted counties to only one ballot drop off site? Do you really want to let states sue each other over how they handle elections? I thought the conservative view of state sovereignty held states could run their own business.

lost my dog said:

---

96AgGrad said:

---

lost my dog said:

---

What is it with Republicans that they keep appointing Supreme Court justices who turn out to disappoint the right wing? One might think that when people have to actually think about defending judicial outcomes, they realize that there is a flaw in Scalia's reasoning?

Or perhaps, for all the talk about adherence to the Constitution, the arguments for right wing outcomes tend to 1) want to disrupt society, which is not a conservative outcome, or 2) are ill-thought out (vis. Paxton's offering), and aren't worth the paper they are printed on.

---

Defending the Constitution as written doesn't "disrupt society". Fabricating new meanings that were never intended does. SCOTUS has gone well beyond their role of interpreting laws. ObamaCare is now a tax? The 1964 Civil Rights act suddenly has applies to gays, when it was never written as such? They are usurping Congress' function, which is not conservative.

Edit: And there was nothing "ill-thought out" about Paxton's suit. Texas has standing, even if SCOTUS was too cowardly to take it up. Of course Texans are harmed by malfeasance in other states impacting national elections. It's stupid to suggest otherwise.

---

There is an inherent contradiction between Scalia's originalism and his adherence to precedent. Either you go one way or the other. How does Brown vs Board of education fit into your framework of interpreting laws?

If Texas has standing, does California have standing to sue Texas because Abbot restricted counties to only one ballot drop off site? Do you really want to let states sue each other over how they handle elections? I thought the conservative view of state sovereignty held states could run their own business.

---

Brown vs Board of education - no problem with it. It didn't change the intent of the 14th Amendment.

All states are free to handle elections as their law provides, so long as they do not contradict the Constitution. What they are not free to do is contradict their own laws and fabricate new election practices and schedules on the fly.

If Texas doesn't act in accordance with its own state election laws, I'm fine with California suing.