It only takes one and it is done.........forever.......

TheCurl84 said:

---

Gap said:

---

Americans owe President Donald Trump an enormous thank you for giving back to us the founding principles of our nation and government via his appointments to the Supreme Court.

---

And it's time to flame W for making a horrible selection. At least the liberal justices are consistent with their principles. Robert's seems to have no principles. His record makes no logical sense whatsoever.

---

W has turned out to be a Globalist. He needs to join the Democratic Party.

TheCurl84 said:

---

Gap said:

---

Americans owe President Donald Trump an enormous thank you for giving back to us the founding principles of our nation and government via his appointments to the Supreme Court.

---

He is a scourge on justice..... he will meet his maker

And it's time to flame W for making a horrible selection. At least the liberal justices are consistent with their principles. Robert's seems to have no principles. His record makes no logical sense whatsoever.

---

He is compromised

AgShaun00 said:

---

He is compromised

---

Yes...in many ways

FCBlitz said:

---

TheCurl84 said:

---

Gap said:

---

Americans owe President Donald Trump an enormous thank you for giving back to us the founding principles of our nation and government via his appointments to the Supreme Court.

---

And it's time to flame W for making a horrible selection. At least the liberal justices are consistent with their principles. Robert's seems to have no principles. His record makes no logical sense whatsoever.

---

W has turned out to be a Globalist. He needs to join the Democratic Party.

---

He has in the last two national elections.

Lets hope that the John Roberts on epsteins flight logs is chief justice roberts.

lcraggie said:

---

AgShaun00 said:

---

He is compromised

---

Yes...in many ways

---

Like what?

EDIT ... inadvertent blue parachute.

Cactus Jack said:

---

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf

That's the actual ruling. It was a motion to grant an injunction while awaiting appellate review which was granted. The reason Roberts voted against it was because New York amended the policy and he felt there was no need for an injunction as the harm had been essentially eliminated.

Here's what he wrote:

Quote:

---

Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive. And it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause. It is not necessary, however, for us to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time. The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not. And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is neces- sary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic. If the Governor does reinstate the numerical restrictions the applicants can return to this Court, and we could act quickly on their renewed applications.

---

---

How about make a ruling now so it doesn't have to be reviewed a second time?
A prime example of how inneficient our court system is.

Leather Tuscadero said:

---

I think Robert is hellbent in trying to push the appearance of the court being non-political. What he doesn't seem to get is that in doing so he's make the court political. Rule based on law and how you perceive it. Let the chips fall where they may.

---

This was true at one time and I think he even said as much about being non-political. And is still probably somewhat true.

At this point, I have no doubt that in the thousands of illegal unmaskings done in the obama admin that they have dirt on Roberts. He will always vote left on big cases going forward.

You are correct

Captain Pablo said:

---

lcraggie said:

---

AgShaun00 said:

---

He is compromised

---

Yes...in many ways

---

Like what?

EDIT ... inadvertent blue parachute.

---

are you serious?

I hate the expectation that conservative and progressive judges on the Supreme Court are supposed to vote a certain way on certain issues. Judges should be apolitical and we shouldn't see one "side" always vote one way while the other "side" votes the other way. That's partisanship. The Constitution doesn't change just because we want to disagree with it.

tFast said:

---

I hate the expectation that conservative and progressive judges on the Supreme Court are supposed to vote a certain way on certain issues. Judges should be apolitical and we shouldn't see one "side" always vote one way while the other "side" votes the other way. That's partisanship. The Constitution doesn't change just because we want to disagree with it.

---

The last part about the constitution not changing.......
Well exactly that believe is what makes you a conservative judge. Liberal judges do not believe that.

Will the dem propaganda media ever stop calling him a conservative. At some point he is just one of the liberals.

Kozmozag said:

---

Will the dem propaganda media ever stop calling him a conservative. At some point he is just one of the liberals.

---

"Bush appointment" would be fine too

Leather Tuscadero said:

---

Most have wanted civil war well before this and it was because of the left's ever increasing run to communism.

---

I agree with this. He's commented more than once about the sanctity and appearance of a non-political SC. He seems deathly afraid of the SC being perceived as a group that rules based on right and left positions. Thus, he sides with the left where he can to try and prevent this perception. As the Chief Justice, I assume he's thinking it will carry weight when he does that and achieve some positive impact.

He IS W's legacy.

tFast said:

---

I hate the expectation that conservative and progressive judges on the Supreme Court are supposed to vote a certain way on certain issues. Judges should be apolitical and we shouldn't see one "side" always vote one way while the other "side" votes the other way. That's partisanship. The Constitution doesn't change just because we want to disagree with it.

---

Most of us agree. The problem is that progressives believe the constitution is a living document meant to be changed whenever it suits their position.

Conservatives generally believe the opposite (Robert's apparently not withstanding).

Thus, they are at odds from the get go and you see judges nominated by Democrats vote the left stance and vice versa except for the occasional Republican nominated judge that defects to the living document standard.

Reno Hightower said:

---

He IS W's legacy.

---

Roberts is emblematic of W's legacy for sure. Everything W tried to do was with an olive branch in hand to the democratic party. He wanted to be a centrist so badly and still the Dems hated him and called him a war criminal. It should have been a warning to Romney and every Republican going forward.

Cactus Jack said:

---

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf

That's the actual ruling. It was a motion to grant an injunction while awaiting appellate review which was granted. The reason Roberts voted against it was because New York amended the policy and he felt there was no need for an injunction as the harm had been essentially eliminated.

Here's what he wrote:

Quote:

---

Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive. And it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause. It is not necessary, however, for us to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time. The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not. And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is neces- sary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic. If the Governor does reinstate the numerical restrictions the applicants can return to this Court, and we could act quickly on their renewed applications.

---

---

He's wrong. He should rule immediately to lift restrictions that violate the free exercise clause the second he gets the chance. Every time.

Even Soto's comments were more conservative than Robert's!

Freeze Frame said:

---

Cactus Jack said:

---

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/20a87_4g15.pdf

That's the actual ruling. It was a motion to grant an injunction while awaiting appellate review which was granted. The reason Roberts voted against it was because New York amended the policy and he felt there was no need for an injunction as the harm had been essentially eliminated.

Here's what he wrote:

Quote:

---

Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive. And it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause. It is not necessary, however, for us to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time. The Governor might reinstate the restrictions. But he also might not. And it is a significant matter to override determinations made by public health officials concerning what is neces- sary for public safety in the midst of a deadly pandemic. If the Governor does reinstate the numerical restrictions the applicants can return to this Court, and we could act quickly on their renewed applications.

---

---

He's wrong. He should rule immediately to lift restrictions that violate the free exercise clause the second he gets the chance. Every time.

---

"deadly pandemic"...what a poon.

YouBet said:

---

He seems deathly afraid of the SC being perceived as a group that rules based on right and left positions.

---

Then he shouldn't worry because the current set of judges either follow constitutional or left positions.

That_Guy_Moose said:

---

Imagine being this upset over a case conservatives won.

---

Only because Trump got in too good appointees. Bush ****ed up on this one.

Waffledynamics said:

---

Ag87H2O said:

---

Roberts was on the losing side. He better get used to it.

Couldn't happen to a more deserving swamp creature.

---

This. John Roberts needs to have his career in shame.

---

Needs to go to a Ranch

lcraggie said:

---

Captain Pablo said:

---

lcraggie said:

---

AgShaun00 said:

---

He is compromised

---

Yes...in many ways

---

Like what?

EDIT ... inadvertent blue parachute.

---

are you serious?

---

Yes

Like what?

inoffensive username said:

---

Faustus said:

---

Fun fact - Supreme Court justice has no education, age, profession, or citizenship requirement.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/about/faq_general.aspx

If you really want someone that there's no chance will infuriate with intellectual independence after taking the bench - stop nominating Judges.

POTUS would be a hilarious choice you know would never be on the wrong side of a decision.

---

I think The Pirate would be a bad ass Supreme Court judge.

---

and by The Pirate, you are referring to Mike Leach, right? That would absolutely be the most exciting SCOTUS appointee ever. bar none!

he already knows how to "hold court"

The farther away W is in the rear view mirror, the worse his tenure at POTUS looks. Putting this Roberts guy on the SC is just one of those poor choices. I voted for him twice. Not like I would have voted for algore or Kerry instead but the GOP should have given us a better choice. 20/20 hindsight thing. Kinda like Eisenhower putting Earl Warren as the Chief Justice in the 1950's. No one knew how much mischief that was going to lead to then.

At least he doesn't run his mouth off as much as Obama does. Gonna be a fun couple of months.

WBBQ74 said:

---

The farther away W is in the rear view mirror, the worse his tenure at POTUS looks. Putting this Roberts guy on the SC is just one of those poor choices. I voted for him twice. Not like I would have voted for algore or Kerry instead but the GOP should have given us a better choice. 20/20 hindsight thing.

At least he doesn't run his mouth off as much as Obama does. Gonna be a fun couple of months.

---

The best thing he went for was shot down, unfortunately. SS reform.

Gap said:

---

Thomas is only 72 and isn't going anywhere if a D is president.

---

Does he like to hunt?

Gap said:

---

Americans owe President Donald Trump an enormous thank you for giving back to us the founding principles of our nation and government via his appointments to the Supreme Court.

---