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

[mystery-ak]

Pence: Chief Justice Roberts 'has been a disappointment to conservatives'
By Brett Samuels - 08/05/20 10:12 PM EDT

Vice President Pence on Wednesday said Chief Justice John Roberts has been a "disappointment to conservatives," a rare direct rebuke of the top justice after he ruled against the Trump administration in a series of recent cases.

"Look, we have great respect for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States, but Chief Justice John Roberts has been a disappointment to conservatives," Pence told Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody, citing Roberts's role in upholding the Affordable Care Act and his more recent swing vote rejecting a Nevada church's request to overturn a state cap on attendance amid the coronavirus pandemic.

"I think several cases out of the Supreme Court are a reminder of just how important this election is for the future of the Supreme Court," Pence continued. "We remember the issue back in 2016, which I believe loomed large in voters’ decisions between Hillary Clinton and the man who became president of the United States."

more
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/510810-pence-chief-justice-roberts-has-been-a-disappointment-to

[Applewood]

The VP is being Captain Obvious.  Most of us have known for a long time that we were hornswoggled when Roberts was sold to us as a conservative jurist.

[Free Vulcan]

I expect Roberts to follow the Constitution, and I accept that sometimes that may yield results that conservatives don't like, because as Churchill said the law is an ass.

What I don't like about Roberts is that he takes words and concepts and morphs them into what he wants them to be. Such as when he redefined sex in a 60's era law to a modern liberal version of including transgenders. Or making the Obamacare fee legal by calling it a tax.

Inventing new realities via word recreation is pretty much the exact opposite of jurisprudence.

[Absalom]

Consider a moment.
Parliamentary Governance, common across the World, ignores supreme courts. But why?
Because this concentrates the seat of power and responsibly exactly where it belongs, w/the
elected parliamentary representatives and as such, brings governance closer to the people.
Other than their self-labeled descriptive, what is the SC but of gaggle of lawyers who have
opinions and so what???
Paraphrasing Lincoln, it is plain people who truly matter!!!
 

[Bigun]

Consider a moment.
Parliamentary Governance, common across the World, ignores supreme courts. But why?
Because this concentrates the seat of power and responsibly exactly where it belongs, w/the
elected parliamentary representatives and as such, brings governance closer to the people.
Other than their self-labeled descriptive, what is the SC but of gaggle of lawyers who have
opinions and so what???
Paraphrasing Lincoln, it is plain people who truly matter!!!
 

It is abundantly clear to me that the founders of this Republic never had any intention for the courts having anything like the power they have today.

[Bigun]

I expect Roberts to follow the Constitution, and I accept that sometimes that may yield results that conservatives don't like, because as Churchill said the law is an ass.

What I don't like about Roberts is that he takes words and concepts and morphs them into what he wants them to be. Such as when he redefined sex in a 60's era law to a modern liberal version of including transgenders. Or making the Obamacare fee legal by calling it a tax.

Inventing new realities via word recreation is pretty much the exact opposite of jurisprudence.

What I don't like is Roberts rewriting law instead of ruling on what it plainly says and what was argued before the court.

[skeeter]

I expect Roberts to follow the Constitution, and I accept that sometimes that may yield results that conservatives don't like, because as Churchill said the law is an ass.

What I don't like about Roberts is that he takes words and concepts and morphs them into what he wants them to be.

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

[Bigun]

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

Well, The guy who put him there first tried to sell us someone else if you recall. Does the name Harriet Meyers ring a bell?

[skeeter]

Well, The guy who put him there first tried to sell us someone else if you recall. Does the name Harriet Meyers rig a bell?

Yeah, W's personal attorney.

Its all about them - the Bush way.

[Absalom]

It is abundantly clear to me that the founders of this Republic never had any intention for the courts having anything like the power they have today.

----------------
@ Bigun, as you already know, our Southern Founders were strong advocates of
States Rights which was a pillar American Governance during our formative years.
The Northern States were relatively indifferent until the tragedy of the Civil War engulfed us.
Afterward, Northern Republicans became politically ascendant, a position they held till Hoover.
That gave them the power to choose/confirm a Judiciary that was in sync w/their political
attitudes, impulses and sentiments.
And it was the seeds which led to the judicial activism that rages unchecked at this very moment.

[Fishrrman]

Applewood wrote:
"The VP is being Captain Obvious.  Most of us have known for a long time that we were hornswoggled when Roberts was sold to us as a conservative jurist."

Well... who was "the salesman"?
I sense Mr. Roberts was chosen because he was a brother-in-arms in the ideological sense...

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

I think he wants someone to talk to at the DC cocktail parties? Or someone has found the bag of boy's underwear in his closet.

[Absalom]

It is abundantly clear to me that the founders of this Republic never had any intention for the courts having anything like the power they have today.

-----------------------
An absolute truism which brings to mind the ageless wisdom of our forebears.
A cardinal precept of Conservatism is the Principle of Prudence, articulated by
Edmund Burke, which requires leaders to measure the consequences of decisions
taken in the now against their consequences in the future.
My guess is that had the likes of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, been able to foresee
the consequences of centralized power and judicial activism, they would have walked
away from the Constitution.

[Smokin Joe]

I expect Roberts to follow the Constitution, and I accept that sometimes that may yield results that conservatives don't like, because as Churchill said the law is an ass.

What I don't like about Roberts is that he takes words and concepts and morphs them into what he wants them to be. Such as when he redefined sex in a 60's era law to a modern liberal version of including transgenders. Or making the Obamacare fee legal by calling it a tax.

Inventing new realities via word recreation is pretty much the exact opposite of jurisprudence.

He is, in effect, rewriting legislation, and that is not his job. It is the provenance of Congress, not a jurist. He has taken what is wrong with the legal system and embraced it at the highest levels. He is a failure as a defender of the Constitution, because he so readily defies it when his puppet masters call.

[Smokin Joe]

-----------------------
An absolute truism which brings to mind the ageless wisdom of our forebears.
A cardinal precept of Conservatism is the Principle of Prudence, articulated by
Edmund Burke, which requires leaders to measure the consequences of decisions
taken in the now against their consequences in the future.
My guess is that had the likes of Jefferson, Madison and Monroe, been able to foresee
the consequences of centralized power and judicial activism, they would have walked
away from the Constitution.

If we went by the original intent of the constitution, there would be no centralized power. It is one thing to place a consummate tool in an apprentice's hands. What they do with that tool, however, is beyond one's control. The Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government, assigning it only a few specific duties, and retaining all other power to the States and the People.

 The courts have materially changed the interpretation of those duties and their limitations by redefining the language itself, and where necessary, making subtle but semantically significant changes in interpretation in order to redefine the law, even in instances where that intent was spelled out in supporting documents like the Federalist.

[Smokin Joe]

Applewood wrote:
"The VP is being Captain Obvious.  Most of us have known for a long time that we were hornswoggled when Roberts was sold to us as a conservative jurist."

Well... who was "the salesman"?
I sense Mr. Roberts was chosen because he was a brother-in-arms in the ideological sense...

How many times did he go to Epstein's little island?

[Absalom]

If we went by the original intent of the constitution, there would be no centralized power. It is one thing to place a consummate tool in an apprentice's hands. What they do with that tool, however, is beyond one's control. The Constitution limits the power of the Federal Government, assigning it only a few specific duties, and retaining all other power to the States and the People.
The courts have materially changed the interpretation of those duties and their limitations by redefining the language itself, and where necessary, making subtle but semantically significant changes in interpretation in order to redefine the law, even in instances where that intent was spelled out in supporting documents like the Federalist.

-------------------------
On the mark, as usual.

[sneakypete]

Yeah, W's personal attorney.

Its all about them - the Bush way.

@skeeter

Well,partially. It leads back to the Harriman international banking family that Prescott Bush married into. I am not sure how Babs was injected with Poppy,but she was clearly his handler,and the brains in the family.

Prescott Bush Sr is the one that was arrested and plead guilty of dealing with the enemy during WW-2 when he was caught laundering money for the Nazi's. IIRC,this was the money that allowed so many of the senior Nazi's to escape to and hide in Argentina and other SA countries at the end of the war.

(footnote) It is MY SUSPISCION that this is where the Bush/Argentina connection was made that somehow hooked SC Chief Justice Roberts up with the blonde-haired,blue-eyed European orphans he and his beard/wife adopted. Not sure of the details,but I see he and Boy Jorge having a homo connection and double lives.  I am sure someone more knowledgeable about this issue can fill in the details,but that's not me.

Anyhow,Prescott Sr plead guilty and resigned to draw heat away from the bank,and his punishment was a fine paid by the bank,and being elected to the US Senate in 1954.

It was Prescott Bush Jr that opened the Chinese-America Chamber of Commerce in China after President Poppy normalized relations with China,and became business partners with the Chi-com Politburo. Baby Brudder Neil was being groomed to take his place after Prescott Jr died,but he was an idiot that got caught in a "Honey Trap" in Thailand,most likely set up by the Taiwanese. "Caught" as in both audio and video in living color.  This effectively ended the power trip of the Bush Klan. JEB was and is a useless wuss,Baby Brudder Neil is borderline retarded,and Boy Jorge has nowhere to go after being President.

They keep trying to get "The Brown Bush" elected in Texas to kick off "Round 3",but so far no luck at all. Not even after buying him a trophy blonde wife and getting pals to hire him as an "investment counselor" at their banks. He would have probably still had a shot if Babs were running the family,but when she died it left the family with no balls.

[sneakypete]

Applewood wrote:
"The VP is being Captain Obvious.  Most of us have known for a long time that we were hornswoggled when Roberts was sold to us as a conservative jurist."

Well... who was "the salesman"?
I sense Mr. Roberts was chosen because he was a brother-in-arms in the ideological sense...

@Fishrrman

He was picked because he was a homosexual still in the closet,and there is something "hinky" about the adoption of the blonde/blue eyed "orphans" from Argentina.  IOW,the people hiding behind the curtain and pulling his strings OWN him.

[Applewood]

@Fishrrman

He was picked because he was a homosexual still in the closet,and there is something "hinky" about the adoption of the blonde/blue eyed "orphans" from Argentina.  IOW,the people hiding behind the curtain and pulling his strings OWN him.

@sneakypete

Goodness!  You do have a vast library of conspiracy theories you can't prove, don't ya?  LOL

By the way, I did a little reading about Harriet Miers, mostly to refresh my failing memory.  At the time President Bush nominated her for SCOTUS, he sold her as a conservative also.  But I guess we will never know if she was or not.  She had never been a judge and when asked for briefs and other documents she had written to gauge how she might rule in legal matters, there was resistance from the White House on national security grounds.  So rather than provide the requested documents, Miers' nomination was withdrawn.

But in the end, after that disastrous nomination was withdrawn, President Bush ultimately nominated a real conservative, Justice Alito.  Finally got it right.

[Smokin Joe]

@Fishrrman

He was picked because he was a homosexual still in the closet,and there is something "hinky" about the adoption of the blonde/blue eyed "orphans" from Argentina.  IOW,the people hiding behind the curtain and pulling his strings OWN him.

This crap is all "Skull and Bones" writ large. They all have significant dirt on one another, they aren't useful to each other without some leverage to keep them in line. There's a carrot in front of that stick: wealth. But to get it, they have to sign away their allegiance to anyone other than the cabal. No perfidy or crime to anyone or anything outside the group is too great. No perfidy or crime against anyone inside the group is tolerated.

[skeeter]

@skeeter

Well,partially. It leads back to the Harriman international banking family that Prescott Bush married into. I am not sure how Babs was injected with Poppy,but she was clearly his handler,and the brains in the family...

WHERE do you get all this?

[sneakypete]

WHERE do you get all this?

@skeeter

History. Old newspaper stories.

Sorry you can't deal with uncomfortable truths.

[skeeter]

@skeeter

History. Old newspaper stories.

Sorry you can't deal with uncomfortable truths.

How do you know what I can deal with?

To quote Lunchbox Joe 'c'mon man'. I'm no lover of the Bush family.

[txradioguy]

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.

[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.