John Roberts Begs the Liberal Justices to Stop Criticizing the Court
The chief justice doesn’t like his conservative Supreme Court colleagues getting called out for judicial overreach.
The chief justice doesn’t like his conservative Supreme Court colleagues getting called out for judicial overreach.
Well if the court didn't engage in clearly partisan politics, maybe the liberal justices wouldn't have anything to criticize.
Does he realize how bad it looks when he voices that his problem is criticism and not like, I don't know, taking money from political interests? Or refusing to recuse in cases where there's a relative directly involved?
It is really incredible how far down the drain the SCOTUS has gone in such a short period of time. Not saying it was great before Justice Kennedy retired either, but at least back then it was generally respected.
"Why won't they just let us make wildly unpopular decisions that jeopardize the livelihoods of Americans without having to make us feel bad about it?!"
Roberts, 2023
"Why can't we be blatantly corrupt without getting called on it? "
Let me know when Roberts begs the others to stop taking massive gifts that look like bribes.
Tsk, they only look like bribes if you're looking. You should stop doing that as well.
None of these people deserve their positions.
I don't know, I like Sotomayor. And Brown-Jackson seems alright. And I really don't have much opinion on Kagan aside from the fact that I usually agree with her rulings. As for Conservatives, I disagree with all of them almost always, but Gorsuch at least seems to care about consistency, and I think his views on Native affairs is admirable.
If it's not clear, I mean all the conservatives that clearly were put there for nefarious reasons. And none of them deserves a life time position on the supreme court regardless, and by them here I mean everyone, not just conservatives.
Snowflake behavior
Holy crap this is endgame. The head of the judicial body is too concerned about the feelings of the body?
So, just logically. I have a personal commitment and value to something. And somebody gets mad at me about it. My values and commitment should be able to withstand that? Yes? As soon as someone has a different opinion it's like "I can't bear to hear a different opinion (clutches pearls) and I can't stand to have my opinion critiqued"
For you and me and the lady in the checkout line (and I say that as a lady who is often in checkout lines), that's great. But this is the head of the judicial body of one of the most powerful nations - most powerful democracies - on earth. These are opinions that shape the lives of 300 million people at least. And he's gonna be there for another quarter of a century.
Like how many steps is Roberts from a kind of de facto chilling effect, and I'm not trying to be funny
Thank God for the generations who hear a public figure try to corral or control a situation and then begin to act in doing the exact opposite. Definitely need to remind the conservative justices that there are people out here
End rant (for now)
I don’t think he is anywhere near a chilling effect on the liberal justices.
They main problem we have with SCOTUS is that they don’t have to GAF what anybody says.
That is good if the person has principles, but has problems if they are grifting trash.
The thing he should be complaining about is the bribes - I’m sorry, speech - that the justices are taking. But since he gets 8 figures of speech by consulting gigs for his wife, there is no chance the Chief Grifter will tackle the real problem.
People should be silent while we destroy their future - Roberts, 2023
The supreme court even as a concept is one of the most asinine yet accepted institutions in the world. On par with the Catholic church, but so much worse because it actually has enormous and direct power over 330+ million people. I am dreaming and pining for the day that someone in power, most likely a president, just legitimately tells them to fuck off. They have no enforcement power and they fucking know it. I'm yearning for someone to have the courage, but it's as clear as it possibly can be that it certainly won't be a Democrat.
The thing is that the court only has so much power right now because Congress is so fucking broken. If Congress where in working order it could just legislate all the shit that the court is blocking the executive on.
Can you elaborate on the comparison to the church? You don't like a panel having authority so you want to consolidate it to a president unilaterally ignoring the third branch? Would term limits on judges change how you see the court?
The Catholic church is an unjustifiable and ridiculous institution in the same way the supreme court is. The Catholic church also had a lot of control over the lives of many people for a very long time, although that influence has obviously waned in recent centuries and decades (although it's clearly still not completely gone). Now, as far as the president having control, I will also say fuck the presidency, but it would always be my hope that a person in that position would do anything in their power as a president and a person to stand up to unjustifiable institutions like the supreme court. Obviously a president couldn't abolish the supreme court single-handedly, nor do I think that would necessarily, inherently be a good thing, but I do think that a president could and should call out the obvious reasons for which the institution needs to be abolished, because it absolutely does. The fact that nine human beings can directly control the lives of millions and millions and millions of people is an absolute travesty. I don't even feel dissimilarly about congress, but obviously it's a bit better because they are actually elected. In general, though, I am a very strong proponent of direct democracy. Term limits are a starting point, but it would be akin to applying a bandaid to a gaping, oozing wound.
The thing is, I can see the logic behind why the Supreme Court is designed the way it is. If they don’t have to worry about reelection, they shouldn’t have a vested interest in making calls that make a specific voting group happy. In theory, this means they should be free to provide unbiased decisions that help society to better function.
The problem though is that there isn’t a way for the public to easily remove a justice that obviously is just trying to rule from the bench. This increases the chance of them abusing their position of power.
The current Supreme Court has made several decisions recently that are beyond a rational understanding of the law that only serve to the benefit of themselves and to their wealthy benefactors. The decisions are harming people with little genuine benefit for our collective society. As such, we should be able to remove them in such extenuating circumstances. But we can’t, and they are there for life. It is extremely frustrating.
Undoing decades of precedent to make political agenda-based rulings that will drastically change the lives of people in this country forever... That's fine, just don't criticize the court, or expect them to adhere to any ethical guidelines...
The fact that these republicans took nearly a million dollars in loan forgiveness for covid themselves then complain about helping kids out is hypocrisy of the highest order.
Roberts complains about his extreme right wing judges being singled out then takes away rights for LGBTQ people on a hypothetical not actual laws. The person never existed and was all thought up by the extreme right billionaire friends to put in front of the court.
Absolutely disgusting. So John roberts deserves all the criticism coming at him.
Just accept your lot peasants and obey
The beauty of this fediverse thing is, that... if you don't like it you can make your own instance and do the thing you want there instead. Bye.
You know, if you want to be a pain in the ass we can also kick you out of this place.
Is this really the content that we want for @news ?
There is an up/down vote button for you to express that POV on the post itself. I get what you're attempting to do, but as someone mentioned, this isn't Reddit you have open the ability to create your own @news. Hell, I encourage you to. A nonhomogeneous mix is actually healthier in the long run. And, at least for my part, now you have the answer to why someone down voted you.
Also, no one likes the explicitly @-ing folks who down voted you. Yes, you can see who down votes you but I feel, you should perhaps use the saying of "with great power comes great responsibility." Maybe ask "openly" why you're being down voted. @-ing the folks, and remember this is solely my subjective opinion, that's not cool.
Also, no one owes you an explanation of jack crap. And that applies "in general." Yes, it's better when someone explains their position to you and what not. But no one OWES you an explanation. I think that's what rubs me with the @-ing folks wrong here. None of those people HAVE TO explain themselves, it'd be great if they did, but you are not owed it and that is a very important distinction.
There is an up/down vote button for you to express that POV on the post itself.
NO.
There is a reason why we have different magazines with different names. Got to @USpolitics or @politicus. How many more political subs do you need? When we register for @news it's not to get yet another american political shenanigans. You really think that someone from Italy registered to @news to hear about what your governor or potus or whatever wizard said to his king? Use your magazines! What is wrong with you? We are not your audience.
Let's invite some people from lemmy.ml and see if you agree to follow their votes. They have news too, do you want to hear from them? Of course not! So change your tone.
Also, no one owes you an explanation of jack crap. And that applies "in general."
I don't care, I will keep callout you out on your bullshit. block me if you want. After all, you said yourself that there is an upvote/downvote button, well there is also a block button, please use it, but I will keep calling you out anyway. Post your political soap opera to your political magazine, end of the story.
SCOTUS is not held to any ethical standards and have appointments that last for life. The conservative court has gone off the rails on their latest rulings, arguably making discrimination legal, even on protected groups. This upends decades of protections for vulnerable groups that were targeted by fascist groups.
While Roberts is whining about criticism on what his court has done, the main topic of criticism is newsworthy in that it has real consequences.
The same groups that lean toward authoritarianism, also lean toward Putin being allowed to take Ukraine. This fight spills over to the rest of the world.
To the three of you who downvoted me without a word of explanation: we can see who downvotes who on kbin.
So I ask you, why did you downvote me and why do you think that this guy talking to his fellow politicians is news worthy? We are not on an american website anymore, the rest of the world doesn't care about the american constant struggle and crying about politicians saying stuff.
I'm downvoting you because you're being incredibly immature right now. People can disagree with you
Saying "how dare you downvote me, I can SEE IT!" and calling them out makes you look like a giant child. You need to take some time to consider your own response and whether or not that's something WE want on the fediverse. You can just as easily be blocked too, you know.
why do you think that this guy talking to his fellow politicians is news worthy?
I'm one one of the downvoters, so I'll try giving you an answer. As an American, it's newsworthy to me when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is publicly calling out the other justices for behavior he deems unbecoming a justice. I had not realized that @news was specifically for European news? And I think perhaps YOU had not realized that in America, the supreme court is theoretically above politics. A justice is not a politician. Again, in theory. Lately our supreme court has been behaving very much like bought-and-paid-for politicians, and that should be concerning to all Americans.
I am sympathetic to Kagan's argument on standing and similarly I understand why Roberts is trying to lower the pressure. In any case this seems to come back to Congress no longer passing legislation and instead relying on executive powers for all political requirements. Not really seeing a solution until primary rules change. Centrists are left unserved presently.
Centrists can go suck a fat one. The primary reason we're in this fascistic mess globally is the centrists' aversion to being inconvenienced for the rights of their fellow people and for the future of the planet.
That's what creates dictatorships, that's what starts world wars, in summary, that's what enables fascists.
Can you give me an example? Some purple states have protected reproductive health in response to the court overturning Roe. My perception is that the primary races are selecting increasingly polarizing candidates who's goal is just notoriety/fundraising over governing. MTG is a prime demonstration of this effect.
similarly I understand why Roberts is trying to lower the pressure
Allow me to cite a passage from Kagan on WV v. EPA.
It seems I was wrong. The current Court is textualist only when being so suits it. When that method would frustrate broader goals, special canons like the “major questions doctrine” magically appear as get-out-of-text-free cards.
In short, "weak ass arguments receive rebuttal for being weak ass arguments." The Court is fine to actually start issuing judgement that follows in step with the history of the court. But then you have something like Dobbs and the majority opinion.
The doctrine of stare decisis does not counsel continued acceptance of Roe and Casey. Stare decisis plays an important role and
protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a past decision.
So after indicating that people might plan their lives on court decisions, the majority then begins to explain why "none of that matters" without actually explaining why none of it matters outside of "because unborn babies are important" WITHOUT explaining the "why" of that statement. That's the point of the court to establish the "why" of an argument. It might be plainly obvious to the Justices the why unborn babies are important, it's their job to then hit the letters on the keyboard to spell that out. That's the justice system, you spell it out in insanely ornate detail. That's literally what all lawyers love to do, unload heaps of words onto people. When they do not do that, well then that's how you know they are full of shit.
So no, I dissent here. The Justices must do better and not simply provide weak-ass arguments with nothing but circles for the explanation. The more expansive reading justices are rightly apt to apply heat to bullshit. A weak ass court is only made stronger when it's weak ass arguments and opinions are called out for everyone to read.
That said.
In any case this seems to come back to Congress no longer passing legislation and instead relying on executive powers for all political requirements
That's broad powers. That's how that works. We do not list explicitly every single animal that needs to be on the endangered species list. We do not list in law every single road that will be paved with public works money. We do not itemize in law every single uniform that we will purchase for every member of the military. At some point we just say in law "protect animals that might go extinct", "fix our highways", and "protect our armed forces" and let the Executive dictate how best to achieve those goals. And when the Executive fails on that in a particular way, well they're Congress, they can pass a law that gets more specific.
But even then, when specificity is given, the only thing I hear is "OH NO THIS LAW IS A 1000 PAGES LONG! I CAN NOT READ THIS!" Yeah, who knew complex societies were, IDK, complex?! The Executive powers are JUST THAT, the part of the Government that gets shit done. Congress indicates their broad wishes and the Executive deals out the finer details. How pray tell, is that thinking NOT centrist? How are you left unserved by your supposed current model of governance? Yes, you might be unserved because the political party system is fucked but that is distinctly NOT a function of the balance of power between branches as outlined in our form of government.
Thank you for your reply.
In short, "weak ass arguments receive rebuttal for being weak ass arguments." The Court is fine to actually start issuing judgement that follows in step with the history of the court. But then you have something like Dobbs and the majority opinion.
I completely agree. I think that I gave the impression that everyone needs to sing kumbaya and that is not what I meant to convey. Roberts I think is trying to respond to the increased scrutiny and while I disagree with his approach, I understand his reasoning/goals. The court is in the spotlight way more than it has been and he sees that I suspect correctly as unhealthy for the institution. To the question of if it should be, I think the obvious answer is yes, in light of recent actions there should be more scrutiny. There should be zero concern that there is influence peddling or neglecting precedent because of ideological lean of the justices.
At some point we just say in law "protect animals that might go extinct", "fix our highways", and "protect our armed forces" and let the Executive dictate how best to achieve those goals.
Yes, but with respect to reproductive health rights, that should have been legislated as an amendment long before the court was packed by the Trump administration. Congress is at fault for not enshrining those rights, especially given the long history of speculation regarding the "Legitimacy/Cleanliness" (eye roll I know) of the Roe decision. Instead numerous congresses preferred have campaigned on the very actual threat that those protections under Roe would be taken away and now here we are. I could see your point that there is benefit to a federal vagueness because on occasion because it allows the states to experiment but I think there are some decisions we just need to put to bed and move forward.
How are you left unserved by your supposed current model of governance? Yes, you might be unserved because the political party system is fucked but that is distinctly NOT a function of the balance of power between branches as outlined in our form of government.
If I use this gallup poll data from 5/2/22
Should abortion be legal
If that is where the general public is, why can't congress pass laws? In, this sense I am unserved because every 4 years we are going to roll the dice on how federal laws will be executed. To have something lasting we need amendments and bills speaking to these issues with more specificity. I am arguing that the court while absolutely a problem is a symptom of the larger sickness that is our legislature.
Again I thank you for your reply and any further contribution the discussion. It is nice to talk through the ideas.
Hey look up in the sky! It's Captain Hindsight!
How to destroy your legacy in 8 years.
I read the entire article, could not find any mention of Roberts 'begging' the liberal justices for anything. Is my reading comprehension lacking, or is the headline click bait hyperbole?
It's a column called "Ths Soapbox"
He controls the court and is still mewling about dissent. That's some small penis energy right there. "Stop picking on us for being evil! I'm telling Mom!"
The WSJ tries to play this off as if everyone agreed with him. Yet, its hard to not see the liberal justices and think,, wow they are really mad.
To borrow a phrase from Roberts, the best way to stop criticism that the court is “going beyond the proper role of the judiciary”
