Posted on 06/27/2017 7:03:57 AM PDT by governsleastgovernsbest
Appearing on today’s Morning Joe, law professor Jonathan Turley noted that Chief Justice John Roberts teamed with Justice Anthony Kennedy to devise an exception to the Court’s ruling of yesterday that permitted President Trump’s travel ban to remain in place. Under the exception, the ban does not apply to foreign nationals with a “bona fide” relationship with a person or entity in the United States.
Turley said that as of late, Roberts has been “swimming a lot in the middle of the pool,” has become very Anthony “Kennedy-like,” and would become the new swing vote should Kennedy retire.
View the video here.
(Excerpt) Read more at legalinsurrection.com ...
John Adams to Chief Justice John Rober.... err... I mean Horatio Gates.
You remeber right. There was some concern, because Roberts appeared to have deliberately left no tracks with which to judge his leaning. But that concern was out of the mainstream.
What a disappointment most of the Bush appointments have turned out to be.
Not so sure this was by accident.
and if that is his warped philosophy- then he has no business being on the panel- people should not get what they ‘voted for’ when those they vote for violate our constitutional rights- Never before in our history has the government been able to violate our inalienable right to be free from government tyranny in the form of being forced to purchase something against our will- before the abominationcare- man was free to go through life never paying a thing- He could, in extreme cases, go completely off grid and not be a criminal- He could live off the land- make his own clothes, eat from the wild etc and he was not forced to purchase healthcare or face a fine for not doing so
Now along comes a tyrannical president who thinks we are NOT free to live freely if we so choose- who LIES about what is allowed in the constitution, and along comes a SC ‘conservative judge’ who backs up that lie and does his own deceiving to get it passed- Now man is violating the law if he chooses not to get healthcare and must pay a fine for refusing- our inalienable rights have been violated and a ‘conservative judge’ thinks that’s just peachy? Simply because ‘that/’;s what the people voted for’? Sorry- but no- the people did not vote to have their constitutional rights violated-
Roberts probably supports open borders. He ruled against the Arizona Law.
I think so, yes. SCOTUS is playing along with the simplified and false reality used in press reports and accepted by "the crowd," for political points.
I'd have to refresh my memory on the opinions below, to see the extent to which section 3 of the EO was even allowed to be in play.
I also notice that SCOTUS didn't disparage the rationale used by the courts below, which amount to the EO being unconstitutional because it was issued by Trump. The same EO would have been constitutional if issued by a different president. I notice that SCOTUS avoided remarking on this rationale.
Roberts. The NSA information about his secrets, given to those who have taken over DC, is being used very effectively to _guide_ his decisions on important matters.
What an illegal judger, coward and traitor to his country he has become.
Somebody always is the swing vote.
Let say the senate had confirmed Garland. Then he, Garland, would be the swing vote:
Sotomayor - Ginzburg - Kagan - Breyer - GARLAND - Kennedy - Roberts - Alito - Thomas
But, with Gorsuch, the middle is Kennedy (or maybe Roberts) (the prior court, with Scalia would be restored)
Sotomayor - Ginzburg - Kagan - Breyer - KENNEDY - Roberts - Alito - Gorsuch - Thomas
Image that Trump replaces Ginzburg and Kennedy:
Sotomayor - Kagan - Breyer - Roberts - ALITO - Gorsuch - Trump II - Trump III - Thomas
It is possible Alito becomes the swing vote. With a second term, we could have a court looking like this:
Sotomayor - Kagan - Roberts - Alito - GORSUCH - Trump II - Trump III - Trump IV - Trump V
With Gorsuch, or somebody like him, being the swing vote, and nine members of the court being relatively young.
Right or wrong, Robert's rulings have fairly consistently demonstrated his belief that it is not the Supreme Court's job to save us from ourselves.
-PJ
People like McCain and Graham have always said that Presidents deserve their nominees. That's why Graham tended to vote Yes on Obama nominees.
I would hope that they are consistent in their words and deeds and support the President's right to nominate over preserving a status quo on the Court.
-PJ
Reagan had a couple of doozies too, with Kennedy and O’Connor. The Supreme Court should have been rock solid conservative for decades, if republican presidents had made better appointments.
which is a typical liberal position and why i stated he isw leaning heavily left- He feels the constitution is just a suggestion, not a law or document that protects us from rogue governments who think they have a right to violate our inalienable rights- Our constitution is supposed to be our last line of defense against a rogue government, and roberts apparently doesn’t think it’s his job to protect us from a rogue government? He has no business being on the supreme court if that is his position
Yes. At minimum, we need to know what the blackmail is and neutralize it. He’s damaged goods.
Obviously, we could never know, but this is what "saving us from ourselves" looks like when up against an actual Constitutional protection.
In the case of ObamaCare, Roberts decided 1) that it was a tax even though the government argued that it was NOT a tax so he could keep the individual mandate, and 2) to ignore the origination clause since, as a tax, it originated in the Senate and not the House (unless stripping the entire contents of a House bill and treating it as a simple container for a Senate amendment containing an entirely new bill is constitutional).
That is also what saving us from ourselves looks like to Roberts.
-PJ
That’s why we need 2 more, not one. Replace Kennedy and one of the libs and it’s game over. No more swing vote, so whoever is inclined to be the swing vote will naturally want to be on the majority and all the votes will be 6-3. Some of the libs might even get tired of always losing, and we would get lots of 7-2 votes.
“swimming a lot in the middle of the pool,”
Eventually he’ll find that to be much like being in the middle of the road. Nothing there but dead skunks and a yellow stripe.
Alito has been a good solid Constitutionalist.
My apologies. The “in-transit” is covered by long-established precedent. No ex post facto laws, and all that. I should have been more explicit in that I was thinking of the “close family member” and “accepted student” exemptions. How does the U.S. know that your cousin, recently accepted by the University of What’s Happening Now isn’t a jihadi? The founder of AQ was a student in Colorado when he self-radicalized.
Souter lite, about 3. But we’re still counting on Kennedy to bail, and for God to call Ruth home before 2019 ends.
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.