Discussion for article #247629
“…the “sharply political, divisive hearing process” may signal to the public that the court operates on partisan lines.”
Well…duh!
19 Likes
Second, Roberts said, the “sharply political, divisive hearing process” may signal to the public that the court operates on partisan lines.
The court may operate on partisan lines!?
Thanks, Roberts! Something had been bothering me all these years about Bush V. Gore, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on it.
42 Likes
That’s right, John. It’s both parties to blame for this.
One party announces, before anything has been discussed or the autopsy has happened, that not even if the President nominated Ronald Reagan’s ghost himself would they engage in the confirmation process.
The other party says, the president has 11 months left to serve as president, and he will do his job and make the nomination as the Constitution says. Then the president nominates a moderate, reasonable jurist who has had significant Republican support in the past.
And the first party then says, “We won’t even meet with the nominee because … Joe Biden said something 12 years ago!”
That’s right, John. Both sides are the same.
27 Likes
If the Democrats and Republicans have been fighting so fiercely
Republicans: We will not confirm anyone nominated by Obama.
Roberts: Democrats are fighting for the nomination.
Roberts is clearly not partisan.
11 Likes
It must be uncomfortable knowing history will condemn you and your Court as a political hacks…
20 Likes
Says man who smugly smiled while lying through his teeth carrying on about stare decisis as a way to make people think he wouldn’t move toward over turning Roe V Wade while winking at those who brought him to the dance knowing full well he would.
8 Likes
To be fair he said this before Scalia died so it’s not like it’s a commentary on what’s happening now, though it was oddly prescient.
9 Likes
As if he couldn’t see for himself that Scalia was not well.
3 Likes
you don’t even have to speculate about Roe v Wade… see Citizens United…
9 Likes
Yeah that too and a few other things.
And where was John Roberts on the night of February 13, 2016, hmm?
1 Like
the nominating process was “being used for something other than ensuring the qualifications of the nominees.”
Roberts should publicly say that Merrick Garland is eminently qualified by any measure, that he is not divisive by any standard, that having only eight justices is stopping the Supreme Court from fulfilling their constitutionally mandated role as one-third of the federal government, and that Congress should do their constitutional duty of “advise and consent”.
All of the justices should be furious at this situation and they should speak out loudly with one voice that what the Senate is doing is un-american, un-patriotic and un-constitutional.
17 Likes
Justice Roberts owes his seat on the Court to that “sharply divided political process”. But the Senate is the proper place for politics. The Court is not. If he wants to bitch about politics he’d be best off cleaning his own back yard first.
7 Likes
Yes, also my first reaction, DUH!..
I know that people are tempted to pile on Roberts for the false equivalency that he laid out, but he is right here. I don’t always like his rulings, but Roberts hasn’t turned out to be near the disaster I thought he would be. Alito has been far far more damaging to the court than Roberts. The court has run rather smoothly under Roberts, and he has occasionally lined up against the politics of the moment when he felt the legal issues dictated it. I know a stopped clock is right twice a day, but I think he is right more like four or five times a day. I respect the man even as I disagree with him. Something I could never say for Alito, Scalia, Thomas, or Yertle the Senate Majority Leader.
14 Likes
Roberts thinks Alito is qualified to be on the court? Case closed.
4 Likes
“…a sharply political, divisive hearing process, …If the Democrats and Republicans have been fighting so fiercely about whether you’re going to be confirmed, it’s natural for some member of the public to think, well, you must be identified in a particular way as a result of that process," Roberts said.
Duh! These irrational words from the Chief Justice contributes to the public skepticism and distrust of the court.
It’s your bias, Justice Roberts!
4 Likes
I don’t think he knew Scalia was going to randomly keel over in a week from a heart attack. The funny thing with those is they strike often without warning.
He ruled twice against Scalia on the side that upheld the ACA.
6 Likes