Top Ad

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS - 5 liberal, 4 conservative?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SCOTUS - 5 liberal, 4 conservative?

    Chief Justice John Roberts has pretty much given up on his "centrist" positioning and is becoming a full fledged, capital "L" liberal!
    No wonder SCOTUS doesn't want to address 2A issues!
    I don't wish RGB any undue ills, but it's time for her to step down.

    https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/202...cant-end-daca/

  • #2
    It is important to Trump that the Democrats be seen as enemies of this country.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by FirstBubba View Post
      Chief Justice John Roberts has pretty much given up on his "centrist" positioning and is becoming a full fledged, capital "L" liberal!
      No wonder SCOTUS doesn't want to address 2A issues!
      I don't wish RGB any undue ills, but it's time for her to step down.

      https://www.redstate.com/bonchie/202...cant-end-daca/
      So they couldn't find a 2A right for the citizens of New Jersey but they found this to be a violation.

      A Republic if we can keep it🙁

      Comment


      • #4
        Chief Justice Roberts was a Bush appointee, but as an honest judge, he does not owe the Republican party any gratitude to be paid in the way of favorable decisions.
        Personally, I think he enjoys being the swing vote and the power it holds.

        Comment


        • #5
          This is pretty funny to me, because usually it's the Left complaining about Roberts. But, he has been pivoting more to the left in the last couple of years.
          https://fivethirtyeight.com/features...-only-5-times/

          Tracking his record empirically with votes and trends taking into account the make up and voting of the rest of the court.
          https://www.scotusblog.com/2019/03/e...-roberts-left/

          I put this in another thread recently, but since we're talking specifically about Roberts, the recent refusal to hear 2A cases tells us a lot.

          With regards to 2A, the conservative block must believe that Roberts would side with the Liberal justices. It takes 4 justices to agree to hear a case to have it brought before the court. There are 4 conservative justices all have voiced dissatisfaction with lower courts ignoring their rulings or precedents with 2A
          With the 4 conservative justices willing to hear, and in favor, it'd mean that the issue would be decided by Roberts (cause the 4 liberals vote along political lines much more consistently than the conservative justices). So I think we can infer that the Liberal block of the court is circling the wagons and is refusing carte blanc to hear it, and the conservative justices are waiting to see if more favorable conditions present themselves.

          Comment


          • #6
            Ted Cruz has a great response to the scotus decisions that seem unlawful. PJMedia elections has video. Real Constitutional words, and words in laws, no longer seem to exist. This a real reason to vote Trump. More Leftists on the court and we are sunk.

            Comment


            • #7
              I sure would like to see another Conservative/Constitutionalists on the Bench to negate Roberts vote.

              Comment


              • #8
                I'd hesitate to call Roberts a liberal vote on the court. Roberts is more a pro Constitution type judge. I'd look more to each individual case. I'd much rather have an unpredictable judge than one who bases decisions on ideology. I take Roberts at his word, his constituents are not the American people, nor congress, it is the Constitution. Liberal lawyers who have tried cases in front of Gorsuch tell me the same, they like him, he was a very good judge, yes he's a conservative, so what, above all else he's a good judge and in the long run that is what's most important. These decisions are not balls and strikes, they are interpretations of the Constitution, with matters so weighty, it's important to have good judges at the SCOTUS.

                Comment


                • #9
                  I believe I was proven correct:
                  https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-c...163000813.html

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    "Thomas (joined by Alito and Gorsuch): Chief's opinion is "mystifying." DACA was unlawful from its inception. "The decision to countermand an unlawful agency action is clearly reasonable." Chief tries to "avoid a politically controversial but legally correct decision."

                    roberts is a "never trumper", and on record as being so. Either he is so rabidly anti Trump that he makes these decisions out of spite, or, he is bought off, or, he is being blackmailed.
                    I fail to believe that a lifelong practitioner of the law, no matter his personal feelings for an elected President, would go that far out of spite, but then, there is the example of ginsburg, kagan, bryer and sotomayor. They rarely vote for the law, and usually take a partisan position.

                    Could roberts be bought off? There is a lot, and I mean a whole lot of soros and other money floating around, influencing elections, financing terror groups such as antifa and blm, and going into who knows who's pockets?

                    Could his decisions be influenced by some shady deal in his past, therefor making him susceptible to blackmail? Possible. There is a john roberts on the epstein "Lolita Express" flight logs to epstein's island, and conspiracy theorists are going wild with the possibility, especially in light of the chief justice's recent rulings, which, by any standard, are just a wee bit questionable.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      CRM -
                      You seem to be doing your best to undermine public confidence in our institutions.
                      Yeah, maybe Soros slipped him a couple of bucks...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Hanlon's razor is an adage, most commonly attributed to one Robert J. Hanlon, which is generally stated as:
                        “”Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
                        Sometimes "incompetence" is used instead of "stupidity".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          From whiny nine: "CRM -
                          You seem to be doing your best to undermine public confidence in our institutions.
                          Yeah, maybe Soros slipped him a couple of bucks...


                          Well, whiny rino, if even you admit there is a possibility, then there is faint hope for the ignorant and uninformed among us. I am not doing my best to undermine public confidence in our institutions, I have lost all confidence in any of our "public institutions." Until I see hitlery, obummer, comey, lynch, holder, mccabe, and a whole lot to others arrested and tried, I will continue to believe that we have a two-tiered justice system in this country, and deep state operators are above the law. I see nothing to indicate that those responsible for numerous crimes, misdemeanors and acts of sedition and treason will ever be brought to justice, and the ongoing acts of terrorism here in our major cities only confirm this.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Buckshott00 View Post
                            Hanlon's razor is an adage, most commonly attributed to one Robert J. Hanlon, which is generally stated as:
                            “”Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity.
                            Sometimes "incompetence" is used instead of "stupidity".
                            Bucky -
                            I'll have to bear that in mind next time Trump launches an attack on Fox News:-))

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Yeah but by malice he generally meant "conspiracy".

                              Comment

                              Welcome!

                              Collapse

                              Welcome to Field and Streams's Answers section. Here you will find hunting, fishing, and survival tips from the editors of Field and Stream, as well as recommendations from readers like yourself.

                              If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ for information on posting and navigating the forums.

                              And don't forget to check out the latest reviews on guns and outdoor gear on fieldandstream.com.

                              Right Rail 1

                              Collapse

                              Top Active Users

                              Collapse

                              There are no top active users.

                              Right Rail 2

                              Collapse

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Right Rail 3

                              Collapse

                              Footer Ad

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X