Posted on 09/20/2014 11:52:06 AM PDT by Olog-hai
While political partisanship flourishes in the halls of Congress, it has no place in the chambers of the U.S. Supreme Court, the chief justice said Friday in remarks to Nebraska law students.
Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. said he worries that the partisan rancor of the age has skewed the public understanding of the court’s role in government. During a 55-minute talk at the University of Nebraska College of Law, he stressed that the rule of law, rather than politics, drives the court’s decisions.
“We are not Democrats and Republicans in how we go about it,” he told an audience of 500, as estimated by university officials. “In nine years, I’ve never seen any sort of political issue like that arise between us.”
But Roberts said he understands how “an intelligent layperson” might think otherwise when they see the almost strict partisan confirmation votes on “eminently qualified” nominees such as Justice Elena Kagan, the newest member of the court.
He also said justices such as Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Antonin Scalia, approved with unanimous or near-unanimous votes by the U.S. Senate, wouldn’t stand a chance today. …
(Excerpt) Read more at omaha.com ...
No. Reasonable people can and will disagree on the meaning of laws and how to interpret them, even people of the same political bent.
In fact, if the meaning of every law, including the constitution was obvious, we wouldn't need judges at all. We wouldn't have even needed the constitution to provide for separation of powers or even a judiciary. We could just trust the police/executive branch to enforce them fairly.
I don’t see how repealing the income tax (Sixteenth Amendment) would make the USA’s economy collapse, at least faster than all the borrowing. That’s certainly what the libs want us to think. So far, we’ve had record tax receipts in this country, but the borrowing outweighs it by far.
And nowhere in the Constitution is the phrase “separation of church and state” written. There was something like it in the USSR’s constitution though: “In the USSR, the church is separated from the state and the school from the church.”
John Roberts illegally adopted two children from Ireland.
He was threatened with exposure, and consequently flip-flopped at the last moment on Obamacare.
He was spotted as an ambitious weirdo by many Washington insiders long before his nomination to the Court.
John Roberts illegally adopted two children from Ireland.
He was threatened with exposure, and consequently flip-flopped at the last moment on Obamacare.
He was spotted as an ambitious weirdo by many Washington insiders long before his nomination to the Court.
Marks him as a liberal from the get-go.
Unfortunately Roberts has a skeleton or two in his closet. His two children were (apparently) obtained not in accordance with the law in Ireland.
Yeah, that why he virtually rewrote ObamaCare from the bench so he could hold it Constitutional.
That happens in other cases too. A law (or law enforcement practice) is found unconstitutional, followed by instructions how to make it pass judicial muster the next time around.
The nominal function of the SCOTUS is to expand the scope of the beast that it is a part of, the federal government. All three branches work in a sort of tag team "good cop / bad cop" routine, with the occasional temporary setback thrown in for appearance. Glorified "Professional Wrestling."
Doesn’t seem to be the driver of his character here. He could have acknowledged what he did and moved on from the USSC, but his continued behavior bespeaks an ego out of control.
If he acknowledged what he had done he probably would have lost custody of his chldren.
this is the problem, when Republicans put judges on the bench they for the most part think they are going by the law, but when Dems put judges on the bench they are driven by their politics
I know that "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. That's my point. The Establishment Clause prohibits Congress from creating and enforcing a state religion, but the First Amendment also protects the FREE EXERCISE of religion. Liberals have expanded the former, and nearly forgotten the latter.
or deluded.
or deluded.
Kagen was not put on the bench because she has a whole life of experience on the bench
Please...if anyone in here thinks we aren’t being played by both sides working together top to bottom then we are naive at worst and ignorant at best.
Is that why you sided with the Bolsheviks who now force us to buy state mandated "insurance" which is really just another cash siphon into the pockets of their supporters and themselves?
Where in the enumerated powers of the Federal government did you find that, Mr. Not-Political?
Both sides of what?
I see liberals working against us; they just happen to be in two different political parties, but they are most definitely on one side.
Roberts calling the rule of man “the rule of law” is what is making many sick and angry here, indeed.
How it should be but not how it is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.