And let’s not forget Roberts bold … and highly hypocritical … statement the “Justice is colorblind” while stripping said color of most advances allowed by the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.
Yep, colorblind to all the bigotry in the world that is produced by countless 'choices' people make. It is amazing, to this day, how many of the rich people, people on the boards of directors of nearly every company or foundation, politicians at all levels are white men despite women being half the population, and non-whites being about 40% of the population. Don't have to be a math genius to figure out that white men are over represented in the 'privileged' class. Does not take people long to realize a degree from the 'right' college is a ticket to success. Not because their students are smarter or better in any real way, but because they are 'connected', they now belong to the 'club'. These rulings declaring "Justice is colorblind" pretend that people are not bigoted, that equality has no history or that past bigotry has no consequences on how things are now. They also pretend that a certain political party does not have a major faction within it that is still very bigoted.
You could add in the frequent use of the shadow docket by the Roberts court, which allows the majority to hide behind their partisan decisions without providing an explanation.
Undoubtedly the worst. Like Trump he enshrouds his racism within a cloak of legalish sounds … but unlike Trump, he presents a kindly, patronizing demeanor.
Once again, I'll point out the idiocy of SCOTUS's intense determination to make itself completely irrelevant. The obsolescence of the judiciary (and yes, the legislative as well) branch is fast approaching with every decision advancing and consolidating total and unconstitutional power in the executive branch.
We are but a hair's breadth away from the declaration of a nationwide state of emergency with the resultant suspension of all elections. Just look at the countrys that have devolved into dictatorships after a coup. Suspension of elections (professedly necessary for national security), supposedly "temporary," is key.
And now that the court has a dedicated conservative majority, they are rushing headlong into the breach.
But why? Why did they not choose a roundabout approach that would have conferred more power to the judiciary? Maybe a bit more complicated, but doable. And I won't even start on the possibility, now near impossible, of the legislature doing something similar.
But no, both the judicial and legislative branches have chosen to sh**t themselves in the foot. Over and over.
The framers of the Constitution did their level best to create a system of checks and balances among the three branches. But I highly doubt that it ever occurred to them that two of those branches would voluntarily cede all their power to the third. And the third that in many ways was more symbolic of the country, rather than the true "feet on the ground."
This is your legacy, Roberts, the last chief justice with any real power. You will forever be celebrated...as a cautionary tale.
I agree with every word of this. Justice Jackson's dissent in Trump v. CASA says that the Republican appointees are ceding their Constitutional power to the executive branch. In other cases, the fash-friendly majority reduces the power of the legislature, which was already handing it's power to Trump. Trump is creating his own heavily armed police force of ICE thugs.
Thanks, Lisa, for the great historical run down on the history of the supreme court (not capitalized on purpose). The arrogance of this court is astounding.
I wonder what color skin Clarence Thomas sees why he looks in the mirror.
The 2013 elimination of the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act stands as a landmark betrayal of the rights of all people to have a voice in the future of the nation.
Bravissima! To those who want to believe that all the awful started with Trump/McConnell's SCOTUS appointments during Trump I, I like to point out that Roberts and Alito were both appointed by Bush/Cheney (or Cheney/Bush, as some have it), in 2006 and 2007, respectively, and Thomas was appointed in 1991. Thomas was sort of a bump on the SCOTUS log before his cohorts started to arrive in the next decade, but by the end of the first decade of the 21st century, the far right was in full cry with, e.g., D.C. v. Heller (2008) and of course Citizens United (2010). Six of the nine "justices," all appointed by Republican presidents, are all overtly anti-democratic. I hope we're finally catching on.
Waiting for the decision supporting GOP Auschwitz. I am certain it will be based on word salad reasoning like all the robert’s kangaroo kkkourt decisions. The GOP kkkatholic “justices” hate most Amendments focusing on numbers 9 and 14 for starters.
Just wondering, the pope is catholic, isn’t he? Why doesn’t he talk to these good catholics on the court? Is the church really that weak? Or is it a hollowed out rotten tree?
I knew about Roberts' career-long dedication to destroying voting rights. but it wasn't until he presided over the first Trump impeachment with a smirk that read as patronizing amusement at the entire affair—like "yeah this is dumb but I gotta be here"—that really killed his unearned rep as dedicated institutionalist and affable chief justice. he was just a sneering Trumpist was the look, and he's done nothing since to challenge the impression.
Yup. Roberts’s court “legacy” is not going to be the adulation he expects, instead it will be the burnt toast smell of anti-democratic savaging of fairness and decency. He is in for a surprise if he expects to pass through the pearly gates.
So glad you brought in the Fuller Court. That's the one I think most closely resembles the Roberts Court in its decisions. Cases like Pollock and E.C. Knight are justly infamous.and Roberts himself seems to miss the Lochner era. I also sometimes wonder if he has affinities for the Constitution in Exile school of thought, so popular with the Federalist Society and its fellow travelers.
"We need a presidential candidate who vows to hold the Supreme Court as currently constituted to have invalidated itself through its open corruption and fraternization with anti-constitutional insurrectionist domestic enemies of the United State, to treat all its rulings as void, and to replace it."
While the oftentimes statement “History will not be kind to ….(fill in the blank) sometimes gives me a sense of comfort, that it not the case in regards to both our current Supreme Court- and especially Robert’s role as Chief Justice- and our current GOP dominated Congress and White House. One should not take any comfort from the ever growing harms which they seem to unleash with great glee on us, the people of this country!
Your characterization of John Roberts as the worst chief justice of all time is shared by me wholeheartedly. In my view he's not only the worst chief justice, he's the worst justice. That's saying something, especially in light of the fact that he shares the bench with five others who are on my list of the worst justices ever.
An airtight case can be made that the six in the majority are more than just bad, they are criminals. During their confirmation hearings, all of them expressed fidelity to the rule of law and stare decisis. They also stated under oath that "no man is above the law, not even the president." Those were all lies. That makes them all perjurers. Felons in robes. And they are the most unethical judges I've ever seen.
Lawyers are fond of citing Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson and Lochner v. New York as among the worst decisions in the history of the court, but truth be told, all of them have been reversed by constitutional provisions and subsequent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. How are we possibly going to reverse the dozens and dozens of ridiculously bad decisions by the Roberts court?
They pulled criminal immunity directly out of their asses. They redacted the constitution in the gun cases. Money is speech is ridiculous. Corporations are people is just plain nutty. The constitution does not mean what it says, and it certainly does not say what it means. Not according to these Ivy-league assholes. Standing means nothing unless it serves their purpose. They rewrite history when it serves their purpose. They believe in, adhere to and apply Machiavellian principles to their decision-making process.
I'm sure John Roberts was very proud of himself for conjuring that ridiculous analogy at his confirmation of "judges as umpires." "That's all we do, call balls and strikes." What he didn't mention was that the strike zone varies greatly. If a corporation is pitching to a union worker, a pitch in the dirt will be called a strike by Umpire Roberts. When the roles are reversed and the corporation is at bat, the strike zone gets reduced to the size of a postage stamp.
The United States Supreme Court under John Roberts ceased to be a legitimate governmental institution long ago. The question we are left with now is this: When are we going to get up off our dead asses and do something about it?
And let’s not forget Roberts bold … and highly hypocritical … statement the “Justice is colorblind” while stripping said color of most advances allowed by the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts.
Yep, colorblind to all the bigotry in the world that is produced by countless 'choices' people make. It is amazing, to this day, how many of the rich people, people on the boards of directors of nearly every company or foundation, politicians at all levels are white men despite women being half the population, and non-whites being about 40% of the population. Don't have to be a math genius to figure out that white men are over represented in the 'privileged' class. Does not take people long to realize a degree from the 'right' college is a ticket to success. Not because their students are smarter or better in any real way, but because they are 'connected', they now belong to the 'club'. These rulings declaring "Justice is colorblind" pretend that people are not bigoted, that equality has no history or that past bigotry has no consequences on how things are now. They also pretend that a certain political party does not have a major faction within it that is still very bigoted.
Precisely. And no one is fooled.
You could add in the frequent use of the shadow docket by the Roberts court, which allows the majority to hide behind their partisan decisions without providing an explanation.
Undoubtedly the worst. Like Trump he enshrouds his racism within a cloak of legalish sounds … but unlike Trump, he presents a kindly, patronizing demeanor.
Once again, I'll point out the idiocy of SCOTUS's intense determination to make itself completely irrelevant. The obsolescence of the judiciary (and yes, the legislative as well) branch is fast approaching with every decision advancing and consolidating total and unconstitutional power in the executive branch.
We are but a hair's breadth away from the declaration of a nationwide state of emergency with the resultant suspension of all elections. Just look at the countrys that have devolved into dictatorships after a coup. Suspension of elections (professedly necessary for national security), supposedly "temporary," is key.
And now that the court has a dedicated conservative majority, they are rushing headlong into the breach.
But why? Why did they not choose a roundabout approach that would have conferred more power to the judiciary? Maybe a bit more complicated, but doable. And I won't even start on the possibility, now near impossible, of the legislature doing something similar.
But no, both the judicial and legislative branches have chosen to sh**t themselves in the foot. Over and over.
The framers of the Constitution did their level best to create a system of checks and balances among the three branches. But I highly doubt that it ever occurred to them that two of those branches would voluntarily cede all their power to the third. And the third that in many ways was more symbolic of the country, rather than the true "feet on the ground."
This is your legacy, Roberts, the last chief justice with any real power. You will forever be celebrated...as a cautionary tale.
I agree with every word of this. Justice Jackson's dissent in Trump v. CASA says that the Republican appointees are ceding their Constitutional power to the executive branch. In other cases, the fash-friendly majority reduces the power of the legislature, which was already handing it's power to Trump. Trump is creating his own heavily armed police force of ICE thugs.
But what is to be done?
Thanks, Lisa, for the great historical run down on the history of the supreme court (not capitalized on purpose). The arrogance of this court is astounding.
I wonder what color skin Clarence Thomas sees why he looks in the mirror.
The 2013 elimination of the preclearance provision of the Voting Rights Act stands as a landmark betrayal of the rights of all people to have a voice in the future of the nation.
And since it followed Citizens United by only three years, the handwriting on the wall should have been in blazing neon.
Bravissima! To those who want to believe that all the awful started with Trump/McConnell's SCOTUS appointments during Trump I, I like to point out that Roberts and Alito were both appointed by Bush/Cheney (or Cheney/Bush, as some have it), in 2006 and 2007, respectively, and Thomas was appointed in 1991. Thomas was sort of a bump on the SCOTUS log before his cohorts started to arrive in the next decade, but by the end of the first decade of the 21st century, the far right was in full cry with, e.g., D.C. v. Heller (2008) and of course Citizens United (2010). Six of the nine "justices," all appointed by Republican presidents, are all overtly anti-democratic. I hope we're finally catching on.
Waiting for the decision supporting GOP Auschwitz. I am certain it will be based on word salad reasoning like all the robert’s kangaroo kkkourt decisions. The GOP kkkatholic “justices” hate most Amendments focusing on numbers 9 and 14 for starters.
Just wondering, the pope is catholic, isn’t he? Why doesn’t he talk to these good catholics on the court? Is the church really that weak? Or is it a hollowed out rotten tree?
I am leaning toward hollow tree.
I knew about Roberts' career-long dedication to destroying voting rights. but it wasn't until he presided over the first Trump impeachment with a smirk that read as patronizing amusement at the entire affair—like "yeah this is dumb but I gotta be here"—that really killed his unearned rep as dedicated institutionalist and affable chief justice. he was just a sneering Trumpist was the look, and he's done nothing since to challenge the impression.
Yup. Roberts’s court “legacy” is not going to be the adulation he expects, instead it will be the burnt toast smell of anti-democratic savaging of fairness and decency. He is in for a surprise if he expects to pass through the pearly gates.
More like the burnt hair smell, but you make a good point.
So glad you brought in the Fuller Court. That's the one I think most closely resembles the Roberts Court in its decisions. Cases like Pollock and E.C. Knight are justly infamous.and Roberts himself seems to miss the Lochner era. I also sometimes wonder if he has affinities for the Constitution in Exile school of thought, so popular with the Federalist Society and its fellow travelers.
A.R. Moxon FTW:
"We need a presidential candidate who vows to hold the Supreme Court as currently constituted to have invalidated itself through its open corruption and fraternization with anti-constitutional insurrectionist domestic enemies of the United State, to treat all its rulings as void, and to replace it."
While the oftentimes statement “History will not be kind to ….(fill in the blank) sometimes gives me a sense of comfort, that it not the case in regards to both our current Supreme Court- and especially Robert’s role as Chief Justice- and our current GOP dominated Congress and White House. One should not take any comfort from the ever growing harms which they seem to unleash with great glee on us, the people of this country!
Thank you. People who say this need to reread Orwell's 1984, or maybe just pay attention to how Ron DeSantis is rewriting U.S. history in Florida.
Your characterization of John Roberts as the worst chief justice of all time is shared by me wholeheartedly. In my view he's not only the worst chief justice, he's the worst justice. That's saying something, especially in light of the fact that he shares the bench with five others who are on my list of the worst justices ever.
An airtight case can be made that the six in the majority are more than just bad, they are criminals. During their confirmation hearings, all of them expressed fidelity to the rule of law and stare decisis. They also stated under oath that "no man is above the law, not even the president." Those were all lies. That makes them all perjurers. Felons in robes. And they are the most unethical judges I've ever seen.
Lawyers are fond of citing Dred Scott v. Sandford, Plessy v. Ferguson and Lochner v. New York as among the worst decisions in the history of the court, but truth be told, all of them have been reversed by constitutional provisions and subsequent decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court. How are we possibly going to reverse the dozens and dozens of ridiculously bad decisions by the Roberts court?
They pulled criminal immunity directly out of their asses. They redacted the constitution in the gun cases. Money is speech is ridiculous. Corporations are people is just plain nutty. The constitution does not mean what it says, and it certainly does not say what it means. Not according to these Ivy-league assholes. Standing means nothing unless it serves their purpose. They rewrite history when it serves their purpose. They believe in, adhere to and apply Machiavellian principles to their decision-making process.
I'm sure John Roberts was very proud of himself for conjuring that ridiculous analogy at his confirmation of "judges as umpires." "That's all we do, call balls and strikes." What he didn't mention was that the strike zone varies greatly. If a corporation is pitching to a union worker, a pitch in the dirt will be called a strike by Umpire Roberts. When the roles are reversed and the corporation is at bat, the strike zone gets reduced to the size of a postage stamp.
The United States Supreme Court under John Roberts ceased to be a legitimate governmental institution long ago. The question we are left with now is this: When are we going to get up off our dead asses and do something about it?
Don't forget Roberts and "Citizens United" in 2010. As my Dad said, "There goes our democracy."
You, sir, are an embarrassment to the United States of America
To whom do you refer?