Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


1 posted on 12/02/2018 6:17:22 AM PST by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies ]


To: Kaslin

Remember way back?

Those days when we actually trusted and respected the judiciary?

When we actually thought that a law degree indicated a modicum of intelligence rather than memory?

Then came Bubba.

And the Hillabeast.

And Dorkbama the Muslim eunuch quota baby and wife.

And the liberal jokes on the Supreme Court.

Sorry, but we don’t respect the courts and very soon we’ll tell the same thing to the courts that they’ve been telling us.

And there are more of us than them.


2 posted on 12/02/2018 6:22:40 AM PST by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Mr. Roberts is rightfully upset that President Trump accused his judges of acting in a partisan manner. Trump’s statements are true though and everyone knows they are

I read of the Papuan New Guinea word, "Mokita," which means:

"The truth we all know but agree not to talk about."

It applies here. The courts have become political; Roberts wishes to pretend it is not so and pretend they adhere to their original but long gone ideal.

3 posted on 12/02/2018 6:23:28 AM PST by Pearls Before Swine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Roberts is a partisan justice, even though he rails against partisanship. I still wonder what they ‘have’ on him that he would vote for that abomination of Obamacare. I keep going back to the argument, in front of SCOTUS that the ‘fee’ is not a ‘tax’, but Roberts ruled it is a TAX and that is why it passed? The mind boggles. Why is it that so many Republican nominated Justices turn to the dark side?? I suspect they get drunk with power and want their ‘new friends’ on the Left to ‘like them’. Pathetic. RULE BY THE LAW PLEASE!


4 posted on 12/02/2018 6:27:22 AM PST by originalbuckeye ('In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act'- George Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Plus the forum shopping is only possible because each answer every federal judge is believed to have geographical jurisdiction over the entire United States. How can anyone live in a scenario where thousands of others each have 100% binding jurisdiction over him with very little hierarchy among the thousands? Five levels, maybe? That’s just an invitation to chaos and caprice, yet we’re all required to sit around and pretend it’s legitimate.


5 posted on 12/02/2018 6:32:52 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

All speech is political. Anyone who does not understand that precept is either a child or, if an adult, a moron.

The idea of an “independent judiciary” basically means a judge could apply whatever filter or foundation he wishes, chooses or is so influenced ( so much of independence) towards.

The only thing that should influence a judge is the written law of the US and the founding documents starting with the Declaration of Independence. International law, public opinion and political conniving be damned.

If a judge cannot stand to that criteria, he ought to , out of duty and honor, resign.


6 posted on 12/02/2018 6:41:30 AM PST by Manly Warrior (US ARMY (Ret), "No Free Lunches for the Dogs of War")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Yep - Roberts was speaking in an ideal he doesn’t believe in....ideally his statement would be true but reality says Trump is right.


9 posted on 12/02/2018 7:04:42 AM PST by trebb (Those who don't donate anything tend to be empty gasbags...no-value-added types)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

So the author believes Roberts is “rightfully” upset that Trump is telling the truth. He blows his argument at the end of the article.


10 posted on 12/02/2018 7:11:08 AM PST by subterfuge (RIP T.P.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

I also don’t understand went the administration doesn’t fight fire with fire. Do some forum along of their own, if the only hierarchy among judges at the same level is who rules first on something. Set up someone, supposedly opposed, to sue over a policy in a selected court and have it upheld. Or, do the lib trick and get someone to sue top have a policy mandated.


11 posted on 12/02/2018 7:33:26 AM PST by Still Thinking (Freedom is NOT a loophole!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
I believe we need a three strikes rule:

If a federal judge is over ruled at the appellate or Supreme Court level 3 times they should be removed from office.

The have demonstrated a complete failure to understand and apply the US constitution.

This would quickly put an end to this judicial nonsense.

It all comes down to accountability and right now these is none.

13 posted on 12/02/2018 8:46:20 AM PST by usurper ( version)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

The pot calling the kettle black ...... Justice Roberts hypocritical? Yes. He let himself be bullied Obama and gang into finding a way around the unconstitutional obamacare rather than do the correct and constitutional thing, strike obamacare down.


14 posted on 12/02/2018 8:51:55 AM PST by yoe (Are the eliets playing hard ball with our freedoms and our Constitution?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

The Supreme Court simply needs to rule that District Court rulings only apply in their District, just as appeals court rulings only apply in their circuit (such as the Ninth Circuit).


18 posted on 12/02/2018 10:11:56 AM PST by marktwain (President Trump and his supporters are the Resistance. His opponents are the Reactionaries.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin

Ping


20 posted on 12/02/2018 3:16:43 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

To: Kaslin
Re: “Each party nominates someone fully vetted in their political philosophy.”

LOL!

Eisenhower - Earl Warren

Eisenhower - William Brennan Jr.

Nixon - Harry Blackmun

Ford - John Paul Stevens

GHW Bush - David Souter

To this list, I will also add Potter Stewart (Eisenhower), Warren Burger (Nixon), Anthony Kennedy (Reagan), and Sandra Day O'Connor (Reagan) as centrist or center-left “swing voters.”

George W. Bush tried, and failed, to nominate Harriet Miers, who was almost certainly a centrist, or worse.

I think the jury is still out on John Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh.

The Democrats have made only one Supreme Court mistake in the last 70 years - Kennedy nominated Byron White in 1963. White turned out to be a centrist.

I don't know enough about most of the Truman and Roosevelt nominees to have an informed opinion, although William O. Douglas (Roosevelt) was clearly one of the most Hard Left Supremes in American history.

21 posted on 12/02/2018 8:00:37 PM PST by zeestephen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson