Pence: Chief Justice Roberts 'has been a disappointment to conservatives'

[txradioguy]

WHERE do you get all this?

@skeeter

Here's his source:

[libertybele]

What's sad about this is I remember during his nomination process none other than the late Fred Thompson was one of the ones sheperding him through the process.

Fred talked to Mark Levin about this on his radio program and was impressed by his "Conservative mind".  I remember the ugliness by the left aimed at Roberts about his adopted kids.

To see where he's sunk to now is disappointing to say the least.

He's been bought and paid for several times.

[txradioguy]

He's been bought and paid for several times.

That became obvious on his first ruling on Obamacare.

[sneakypete]

@skeeter

Here's his source:

@txradioguy

It's ok with me if you wish to remain ignorant.

[txradioguy]

@txradioguy

It's ok with me if you wish to remain ignorant.

If I was going to be ignorant Pete... I’d wrap my head in tinfoil and buy into your CT lunacy.

[sneakypete]

If I was going to be ignorant Pete... I’d wrap my head in tinfoil and buy into your CT lunacy.

@txradioguy

HOW is it lunacy? Did or did not Roberts marry the first woman he ever dated? Did they,or did they NOT adopt blonde,blue-eyed Children from Argentina,despite it being both cheaper and easier for a wealthy couple like to the adopt blue-eyed white children in the US?

Was he or was he not nominated by another deep-state/deep closeted homosexual and promoted as a conservative?

Has he,or has he not proven to be a tool of the left after he was seated?

[Applewood]

@txradioguy

HOW is it lunacy? Did or did not Roberts marry the first woman he ever dated? Did they,or did they NOT adopt blonde,blue-eyed Children from Argentina,despite it being both cheaper and easier for a wealthy couple like to the adopt blue-eyed white children in the US?

Was he or was he not nominated by another deep-state/deep closeted homosexual and promoted as a conservative?

Has he,or has he not proven to be a tool of the left after he was seated?

@sneakypete

More horse manure you can't prove.

In an interview with Time, Roberts said his adopted children came from Ireland,.  The story that the children came from Latin America came from an article in the Associated Press,  but when I tried to open the link to the AP article, it said "Page Not Found."  I searched in vain for another link and did not find it.
 Maybe the story was scrubbed?  Who knows?  My former boss and his wife adopted their twin daughters from Israel.  Many people adopt internationally for a variety of reasons.  There is nothing scandalous about it.

And as for marrying the first woman he dated -- again, no proof. You do know that Roberts was born in the 1950s and married his wife in the 1990s, which means he was in his 40s when he married.  It's quite possible he dated others before he married.  Bur even if he didn't, so what?  People get busy with their lives and often don't settle down till late in life.  Nothing wrong with that.  My brother did not marry till he was in his late 40s and I know he had other girlfriends before he met and married his wife.   And no,  my brother is not a pervert.  So there is nothing unusual or scandalous about the Roberts' marriage that I can see.

The "closeted homosexual" who nominated Roberts to SCOTUS:  If you mean President Bush -- again, show me the proof. 

Is Roberts a "tool of the left?"  As in, he was bribed or blackmailed?  Again, no proof.  But i do know he has not shown himself to be a constitutional conservative in his SCOTUS opinions.  What I should look more closely at are his rulings when he served in the DC Circuit.  Wikipedia has a few.  They also have some of his cases he argued before SCOTUS when he was in private practice.  I would like to see if he was a conservative before, bur changed when he got to SCOTUS, or maybe he never was a real conservative in the first place.

I believe most of your allegations come from an idle brain with nothing better to do than invent stories about people you don't like.    I know you have accused me of quite a few things you can't prove -- because they aren't true. When you can show us proof of anything you put out in this forum, maybe I'll believe you.  Until then, you will always be called on whatever you post.

@txradioguy

[txradioguy]

@sneakypete

More horse manure you can't prove.

In an interview with Time, Roberts said his adopted children came from Ireland,.  The story that the children came from Latin America came from an article in the Associated Press,  but when I tried to open the link to the AP article, it said "Page Not Found."  I searched in vain for another link and did not find it.
 Maybe the story was scrubbed?  Who knows?  My former boss and his wife adopted their twin daughters from Israel.  Many people adopt internationally for a variety of reasons.  There is nothing scandalous about it.

And as for marrying the first woman he dated -- again, no proof. You do know that Roberts was born in the 1950s and married his wife in the 1990s, which means he was in his 40s when he married.  It's quite possible he dated others before he married.  Bur even if he didn't, so what?  People get busy with their lives and often don't settle down till late in life.  Nothing wrong with that.  My brother did not marry till he was in his late 40s and I know he had other girlfriends before he met and married his wife.   And no,  my brother is not a pervert.  So there is nothing unusual or scandalous about the Roberts' marriage that I can see.

The "closeted homosexual" who nominated Roberts to SCOTUS:  If you mean President Bush -- again, show me the proof. 

Is Roberts a "tool of the left?"  As in, he was bribed or blackmailed?  Again, no proof.  But i do know he has not shown himself to be a constitutional conservative in his SCOTUS opinions.  What I should look more closely at are his rulings when he served in the DC Circuit.  Wikipedia has a few.  They also have some of his cases he argued before SCOTUS when he was in private practice.  I would like to see if he was a conservative before, bur changed when he got to SCOTUS, or maybe he never was a real conservative in the first place.

I believe most of your allegations come from an idle brain with nothing better to do than invent stories about people you don't like.    I know you have accused me of quite a few things you can't prove -- because they aren't true. When you can show us proof of anything you put out in this forum, maybe I'll believe you.  Until then, you will always be called on whatever you post.

@txradioguy

I’m all honesty...the only people outside of Pete I’ve ever seen push this lunatic bullsh*t is the primitives at Democratic Underground.

[Applewood]

I’m all honesty...the only people outside of Pete I’ve ever seen push this lunatic bullsh*t is the primitives at Democratic Underground.

Other people here push conspiracy theories.  There is a whole subsection under General Discussion called "Alternate Realities" where you can find some.  And every so often I read posts about the "Deep State" and other stuff that also have not been proven.  Seems to me that most Trump supporters I know, both here and even in real life, subscribe to some crazy stuff.

[LegalAmerican]

Which is to say Roberts doesn't follow the Constitution. We were sold a pig in black damask.

Correct.   

[LegalAmerican]

@txradioguy

HOW is it lunacy? Did or did not Roberts marry the first woman he ever dated? Did they,or did they NOT adopt blonde,blue-eyed Children from Argentina,despite it being both cheaper and easier for a wealthy couple like to the adopt blue-eyed white children in the US?

Was he or was he not nominated by another deep-state/deep closeted homosexual and promoted as a conservative?

Has he,or has he not proven to be a tool of the left after he was seated?

 

[LegalAmerican]

Other people here push conspiracy theories.  There is a whole subsection under General Discussion called "Alternate Realities" where you can find some.  And every so often I read posts about the "Deep State" and other stuff that also have not been proven.  Seems to me that most Trump supporters I know, both here and even in real life, subscribe to some crazy stuff.

YOU, don't believe in DEEP STATE?    Now, I see the problem.  Bilderberg meetings,  Rothschild,  etc. The PRIVATE BANK, of super wealthy 'elites', called FEDERAL  RESERVE.   Where have YOU....been?   

The communists in demon-rat party. All facts.  I can't believe you even wrote that.  Obama, AOC, MAD MAXINE, SHEILA LEE, dead Elijah Cummings.  ALL SUPPORT COMMUNISM and want a dictatorship, run by Obama.   

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

More horse manure you can't prove.

Applewood


The only "proof" you would accept would be a video tape confession by Boy Jorge,with home movies.

I consider being a male cheerleader in college,rooming with a homosexual in college he later made a US Ambassador who went to his new post with his male "wife",and kissing every man in sight while in the WH as sufficient proof.

In an interview with Time, Roberts said his adopted children came from Ireland,.  The story that the children came from Latin America came from an article in the Associated Press,  but when I tried to open the link to the AP article, it said "Page Not Found."  I searched in vain for another link and did not find it.

And of course Boy Jorge didn't have the power to hide it.

Maybe the story was scrubbed?  Who knows?

Nobody for sure,which means you have no more basis to say it is untrue than I do,and it WAS a news story "back in the day".

My former boss and his wife adopted their twin daughters from Israel.

 

I am going to go out on a limb here,and guess he was Jewish?

Many people adopt internationally for a variety of reasons.  There is nothing scandaloIus about it.

No,there is nothing scandalous about it,but most people who do foreign adoptions aren't influential millionaire lawyers who would have had no trouble at all adopting American children.

And as for marrying the first woman he dated -- again, no proof.

And once again,you have no proof I am not right,yet you don't hesitate to imply I am a quack.

BTW,are you a Bush Bot? That would go a long way towards explaining it.

You do know that Roberts was born in the 1950s and married his wife in the 1990s, which means he was in his 40s when he married.  It's quite possible he dated others before he married.

Then it should be easy for you to find photos and mentions of them.

Bur even if he didn't, so what?  People get busy with their lives and often don't settle down till late in life.  Nothing wrong with that.

Yeah,what the hell. It just sex,right? What teen or college age male cares anything about sex,right?

I believe most of your allegations come from an idle brain with nothing better to do than invent stories about people you don't like.

   

Of course you do.

 

I know you have accused me of quite a few things you can't prove -- because they aren't true.

Like what?

When you can show us proof of anything you put out in this forum, maybe I'll believe you.

 

How will I ever be able to deal with that kind of pressure??????

Maybe I will just commit suicide?

[sneakypete]

Other people here push conspiracy theories.  There is a whole subsection under General Discussion called "Alternate Realities" where you can find some.  And every so often I read posts about the "Deep State" and other stuff that also have not been proven.  Seems to me that most Trump supporters I know, both here and even in real life, subscribe to some crazy stuff.

@Applewood

It's hilarious to see a Bush Bot accuse someone else of being delusional.

[Applewood]

@sneakypete

I consider being a male cheerleader in college,rooming with a homosexual in college he later made a US Ambassador who went to his new post with his male "wife",and kissing every man in sight while in the WH as sufficient proof.

First of all, did you know that at one time, male cheerleaders were common, not an exception?  I know of an attorney who was a cheerleader in college.  if you called him a homosexual, he would rip you to shreds.

As to the college roommate named by President Bush as ambassador -- to whom are you referring?  I believe President Bush named a couple of college buddies to ambassadorships.  But even if one of them was a homosexual, it doesn't mean George Bush was too. 

"Kissing every man in sight"  -- not sure what that means.  Do you have links to any videos of those occasions?  And how about women -- did he kiss any of them?  Some people will kiss anyone and everyone. My brother's wife and in-laws are like that and I think it's annoying as hell, especially since I don't believe they care about me at all.  But doing so doesn't mean they are gay.

Finally, your accusation that I'm a "Bush bot."  Unlike you and others here who worship Trump as a god, I don't have those feelings about President Bush or anyone else for that matter.  George Bush was a flawed president, no doubt about that, but then again, so was every other president.  Even President Reagan, who I consider the best president of my lifetime, made his share of mistakes. 

President Bush is hardly conservative by any means, but then again, how many real conservatives are there in today's Republican Party?  The party has been moving left for a long time now and I doubt it will ever be conservative again -- which is why I keep hoping for its demise and replacement by a truly conservative party.   

President Bush sucked when it came to domestic policy -- that's for sure.  He was maybe marginally better at foreign policy.  But I can tell you this:   I am damm glad that George Bush was president on 9-11.  Can you imagine if Obama was president then?  He would have been apologizing to our enemies and blaming us.  President Bush took action, while comforting and reassuring a shocked and grieving nation.  Obama likely would have let Al Qaeda in to continue terrorizing us, take over the country and set up a caliphate. 

So no, I'm not a "Bush bot."  He wasn't the best president we ever had, but he was the right guy for the job at the right time.  What I don't get is your hatred for the man is so deep that you spread all sorts of unproven accusations, gossip and rumors about him.  Just what did he do to you personally?

[AL]

Read all of the posts, here's my take as a conservative.  All the judges on that court are a disappointment to me.  First of all, the supreme court is not the legislative branch, SC judges were not elected for that responsibility others were.  From where I sit, a plaintiff must in all cases plead for a case to be heard on a specific law in the US Code.  The court should be unanimous that this first hurtle is met before granting certiorari to proceed.  If this hurtle is not met then the court should forward the case to the legislative branch for review.  If the case does merit a hearing it must be pled against the wording of the codified law, period.  The judges must not allow their political beliefs, religion, or any other opinions to interfere with how they rule based on the codified law.  Roberts has turned the court into a legislative branch.  When they do go outside the wording of a specific rule of law, they don't write a new law with specific wording, they just become rulers from the bench, then every challenge after becomes tangled up based on a legal crutch, a precedent that they made, not a specific law, and when they do this they are usually taking a political view on the case and taking the legislative branch out of the process, not in the scope of their responsibility, we elect others to do this however inept they may be.  The SC should be forwarding these cases to the legislature along with opinions from the court.

That's just my opinion, I'll admit I'm wrong a lot.

[Bigun]

Read all of the posts, here's my take as a conservative.  All the judges on that court are a disappointment to me.  First of all, the supreme court is not the legislative branch, SC judges were not elected for that responsibility others were.  From where I sit, a plaintiff must in all cases plead for a case to be heard on a specific law in the US Code.  The court should be unanimous that this first hurtle is met before granting certiorari to proceed.  If this hurtle is not met then the court should forward the case to the legislative branch for review.  If the case does merit a hearing it must be pled against the wording of the codified law, period.  The judges must not allow their political beliefs, religion, or any other opinions to interfere with how they rule based on the codified law.  Roberts has turned the court into a legislative branch.  When they do go outside the wording of a specific rule of law, they don't write a new law with specific wording, they just become rulers from the bench, then every challenge after becomes tangled up based on a legal crutch, a precedent that they made, not a specific law, and when they do this they are usually taking a political view on the case and taking the legislative branch out of the process, not in the scope of their responsibility, we elect others to do this however inept they may be.  The SC should be forwarding these cases to the legislature along with opinions from the court.

That's just my opinion, I'll admit I'm wrong a lot.

You aren't far wrong here @AL 

Article III

Section 1.
The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Section 2.
The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;--to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;--to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;--to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;--to controversies between two or more states;--between a state and citizens of another state;--between citizens of different states;--between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

The trial of all crimes, except in cases of impeachment, shall be by jury; and such trial shall be held in the state where the said crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any state, the trial shall be at such place or places as the Congress may by law have directed.

Section 3.
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

The highlighted part has largely been forgotten and the court has usurped powers nowhere granted it in the above.

[sneakypete]

@sneakypete

First of all, did you know that at one time, male cheerleaders were common, not an exception?  I know of an attorney who was a cheerleader in college.  if you called him a homosexual, he would rip you to shreds.

As to the college roommate named by President Bush as ambassador -- to whom are you referring?  I believe President Bush named a couple of college buddies to ambassadorships.  But even if one of them was a homosexual, it doesn't mean George Bush was too. 

"Kissing every man in sight"  -- not sure what that means.  Do you have links to any videos of those occasions?  And how about women -- did he kiss any of them?  Some people will kiss anyone and everyone. My brother's wife and in-laws are like that and I think it's annoying as hell, especially since I don't believe they care about me at all.  But doing so doesn't mean they are gay.

Finally, your accusation that I'm a "Bush bot." .......

@Applewood

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Keep drinking the Bush bath water.

[sneakypete]

Read all of the posts, here's my take as a conservative.  All the judges on that court are a disappointment to me. First of all, the supreme court is not the legislative branch, SC judges were not elected for that responsibility others were.

@AL

I sure wish someone would tell THEM that.

 

[skeeter]

@AL

I sure wish someone would tell THEM that.

Yeah, but as bad as Roberts has been it would be an utter disaster to allow many lower level activist courts' rulings to stand. As long as we have robed frauds making law SCOTUS pretty much has to hear these cases if the Constitution is to remain viable at all.

[Applewood]

@Applewood

Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. Keep drinking the Bush bath water.

@sneakypete

LOL

You know I love ya more than my luggage. 

[sneakypete]

Yeah, but as bad as Roberts has been it would be an utter disaster to allow many lower level activist courts' rulings to stand. As long as we have robed frauds making law SCOTUS pretty much has to hear these cases if the Constitution is to remain viable at all.

@skeeter

Good point!

One thing we MUST do is either accept it is ok for homosexuals to publicly hold high positions in government,or make it illegal for ANY politician to nominate one. There is just too damn much evidence that homos have been put in positions of power in government so they could be blackmailed into doing what their masters demanded.

Take away the blackmail,and homosexuals are like everybody else. They have differing opinions and views on many issues.

[Smokin Joe]

Yeah, but as bad as Roberts has been it would be an utter disaster to allow many lower level activist courts' rulings to stand. As long as we have robed frauds making law SCOTUS pretty much has to hear these cases if the Constitution is to remain viable at all.

Unfortunately, Roberts is rewriting laws, by either making material changes (obamacare) or redefining the language. When sex was used to define male v. female, Roberts defined it to include the practices thereof  (meaning "orientation" and not the possession or absence of a Y chromosone.