Congrats to you Justice Barrett. You official now.

[Axxe55]

Let me attempt some psychological analysis. Fair warning I'll probably screw it up.

Roberts desire to not have the judiciary be the arbiter of legislative disagreements has over ridden his constitutional beholdings. IMHO

He understands the left banks on the judiciary to do what they are too cowardly to do and back up the rare times they act and overreach and he knows this isnt the job of judicial review.

The judicial branch was meant to be the weakest of the three not the activists they have become. They were supposed to simply decide Constitutionality peroid without agenda. I think he fails cause he has this agenda. He is infuriating, I think he try's so hard not to legislate that makes stupid decisions like create a tax just so he doesn't have to completely kill a law congress passed.

Hows that for an attempt at mental gymnastics? The man is an enigma at times and most definitely not the strict originalist we thought he was to be.

Thanks for you stating those impressions and thoughts CC. Appreciate that viewpoint.

 

[oldag]

@etmo , I think, wrote up a pretty good statement on it. BL is that originalism prefers to look at common meaning of the language at the time, not current vernacular.

Also, there are flavors of originalism that range the spectrum as far and wide as Texas itself.

And it is that look at common meaning of the language at that time, rather than current vernacular, that makes the 2A still meaningful today.

I will take originalism any day of the week. Thomas, Scalia, Alito...

 

[oldag]

If Roberts “flips”, he’ll vote conservative, because every vote I’ve seen him cast has been to support the liberals!

He’s a POS and I’d like to see him gone !

You have seen very few votes then. That statement is simply not true.

Yes he has flipped on some votes. But by no means a majority of the time. The problem is, the flips have come on very meaningful cases.

I am disgusted that he is more concerned with the political perception of the court than with the Constitution. But I will not say he supports liberals most of the time, much less all the time.

 

[oldag]

Let me attempt some psychological analysis. Fair warning I'll probably screw it up.

Roberts desire to not have the judiciary be the arbiter of legislative disagreements has over ridden his constitutional beholdings. IMHO

He understands the left banks on the judiciary to do what they are too cowardly to do and back up the rare times they act and overreach and he knows this isnt the job of judicial review.

The judicial branch was meant to be the weakest of the three not the activists they have become. They were supposed to simply decide Constitutionality peroid without agenda. I think he fails cause he has this agenda. He is infuriating, I think he try's so hard not to legislate that makes stupid decisions like create a tax just so he doesn't have to completely kill a law congress passed.

Hows that for an attempt at mental gymnastics? The man is an enigma at times and most definitely not the strict originalist we thought he was to be.

Some very good analysis there.

 

[BuzzinSATX]

If I'm not mistaken, Roberts use to be a lot more conservative in his opinions and rulings.

Not 100% sure but I believe he was more conservative in lower courts, although he was nominated by GWB who I voted for twice but now more than ever regard as a RINO.

But ever since his BS during the ACA/“Obama Care” vote, he seems to much more consistently side with the liberal judges.

 

[BuzzinSATX]

You have seen very few votes then. That statement is simply not true.

Yes he has flipped on some votes. But by no means a majority of the time. The problem is, the flips have come on very meaningful cases.

I am disgusted that he is more concerned with the political perception of the court than with the Constitution. But I will not say he supports liberals most of the time, much less all the time.

I will not argue this point. I am not a SCOTUS follower on everything, but the things that most affect me, he has sided with the liberals. Things like 2A, ACA, and a few others he has been a disappointment to the conservative side IMO.

 

[Sasquatch]

Not 100% sure but I believe he was more conservative in lower courts, although he was nominated by GWB who I voted for twice but now more than ever regard as a RINO.

But ever since his BS during the ACA/“Obama Care” vote, he seems to much more consistently side with the liberal judges.

If the pictures and flight log from Epstein's plane are accurate, he could be voting liberal because they had dirt that he diddles kids.

 

[Axxe55]

If the pictures and flight log from Epstein's plane are accurate, he could be voting liberal because they had dirt that he diddles kids.

I know that the name "John Roberts" came up on those plane logs, but both "John" and "Roberts" are very common names and it hasn't been confirmed that they are one and the same person yet to my knowledge. Until there is conclusive evidence that the person named in those logs are the one and same as the Justice John Roberts, I think he should have, and deserves the benefit of doubt for that situation. IF he is the same person, there will surface some proof and evidence that says so at some point.

 

[oldag]

Things like 2A, ACA, and a few others he has been a disappointment to the conservative side IMO.

Agree completely.

 

[BuzzinSATX]

Let me attempt some psychological analysis. Fair warning I'll probably screw it up.

1. Roberts desire to not have the judiciary be the arbiter of legislative disagreements has over ridden his constitutional beholdings. IMHO

He understands the left banks on the judiciary to do what they are too cowardly to do and back up the rare times they act and overreach and he knows this isnt the job of judicial review.

2. The judicial branch was meant to be the weakest of the three not the activists they have become. They were supposed to simply decide Constitutionality peroid without agenda.

3. I think he fails cause he has this agenda. He is infuriating, I think he try's so hard not to legislate that makes stupid decisions like create a tax just so he doesn't have to completely kill a law congress passed.

Hows that for an attempt at mental gymnastics? The man is an enigma at times and most definitely not the strict originalist we thought he was to be.

Excellent post and I appreciate your analysis. I’d like to respond to three points from your post above:

1. Absolutely agree. I don’t know his motive, but he seems more interested in appeasing his liberal colleagues than interpreting theConstitution as it applies to the decision at hand.

2. I don’t remember any reference in founding documents stating the judicial branch was supposed to be the weaker member of the triad. I thought they were supposed to be passive until an issue came to them. At that point, they simply act to ensure any legislation is, in fact, constitutional. If it is, it stands (As written) or, if severable, unconstitutional clauses are struck down.
3. Completely agree!

I feel like Roberts and the Liberals impose intent and meaning that is NOT in the wording of the Constitution nor in the intent of the document as discussed and argued when ratified.

But I’m pretty much nobody but a semi-informed citizen, so perhaps this is simply random banter on my part.

 

[candcallen]

Excellent post and I appreciate your analysis. I’d like to respond to three points from your post above:

1. Absolutely agree. I don’t know his motive, but he seems more interested in appeasing his liberal colleagues than interpreting theConstitution as it applies to the decision at hand.

2. I don’t remember any reference in founding documents stating the judicial branch was supposed to be the weaker member of the triad. I thought they were supposed to be passive until an issue came to them. At that point, they simply act to ensure any legislation is, in fact, constitutional. If it is, it stands (As written) or, if severable, unconstitutional clauses are struck down.
3. Completely agree!

I feel like Roberts and the Liberals impose intent and meaning that is NOT in the wording of the Constitution nor in the intent of the document as discussed and argued when ratified.

But I’m pretty much nobody but a semi-informed citizen, so perhaps this is simply random banter on my part.

The weaker part comes from the federalist papers. It meant it, the judiciary, didnt make law or policy or control anything in the government but just decided Constitutionality with no beholding to anyone. The foundation of simple judicial review. But libtards ignore the federalist papers all together because an actual explanation of intent of the founders is contrary to their evolving constitution theory.

I'll try to figure out which one if you wish......

Found it, federalist number 78...

78, Hamilton said that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three branches because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ... It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." Federalist No. ... Federalist No 78.

 

[Axxe55]

The weaker part comes from the federalist papers. It meant it, the judiciary, didnt make law or policy or control anything in the government but just decided Constitutionality with no beholding to anyone. The foundation of simple judicial review. But libtards ignore the federalist papers all together because an actual explanation of intent of the founders is contrary to their evolving constitution theory.

I'll try to figure out which one if you wish......

Found it, federalist number 78...

78, Hamilton said that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three branches because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ... It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." Federalist No. ... Federalist No 78.

The Federalist Papers are an excellent source to understand the mindset and intent of what the founding fathers meant when drafting and writing the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

 

[BuzzinSATX]

The weaker part comes from the federalist papers. It meant it, the judiciary, didnt make law or policy or control anything in the government but just decided Constitutionality with no beholding to anyone. The foundation of simple judicial review. But libtards ignore the federalist papers all together because an actual explanation of intent of the founders is contrary to their evolving constitution theory.

I'll try to figure out which one if you wish......

Found it, federalist number 78...

78, Hamilton said that the Judiciary branch of the proposed government would be the weakest of the three branches because it had "no influence over either the sword or the purse, ... It may truly be said to have neither FORCE nor WILL, but merely judgment." Federalist No. ... Federalist No 78.

Thank you. Over the years, I read some of the Federalist Papers but either forgot or missed that.

I’ve always thought the founders wanted three “separate but equal” branches...but “equal” is truly a tough concept when comparing different duties and responsibilities.

I certainly won’t argue what Hamilton wrote or his thoughts and opinions. I agree and see the federal judicial branch/SCOTUS as passive-reactive, and only in place as a final ‘logic check’ in place to mediate and decide on legislative only when it is brought before them. I simply see the fact that SCOTUS has the final say, and can halt legislation as a very powerful ability. But again, my opinion.

Greatly appreciate your insight and taking the time to enlighten me very much!

Take care, Buzz

 

[Axxe55]

Thank you. Over the years, I read some of the Federalist Papers but either forgot or missed that.

I’ve always thought the founders wanted three “separate but equal” branches...but “equal” is truly a tough concept when comparing different duties and responsibilities.

I certainly won’t argue what Hamilton wrote or his thoughts and opinions. I agree and see the federal judicial branch/SCOTUS as passive-reactive, and only in place as a final ‘logic check’ in place to mediate and decide on legislative only when it is brought before them. I simply see the fact that SCOTUS has the final say, and can halt legislation as a very powerful ability. But again, my opinion.

Greatly appreciate your insight and taking the time to enlighten me very much!

Take care, Buzz

I haven't read all of them either, but have read some over the years. they can be quite informative.

 

[candcallen]

The federalist papers can be a tough read. That said they are an invaluable reference for those times a low info types says anything about intent of the founders.

Seperate an equal to me means independent branches with the power to check the power of the other branches at times.

It also had a much different foundation when the federal government was as intended to be and not this liberty crushing monster it has become.

ETA no I havnt read all the Federalist papers either. But thanks to having the sum total of mankind's knowledge at my fingertips I do search them quite a bit.

Stay away from the commentaries on them though. Lawyer speak makes me ill. Except for Clarence Thomas, he explains things quite clearly the few times I've listened to him.