Oberster Richter John Roberts sagt, die amerikanische Öffentlichkeit betrachte die Richter fälschlicherweise als „politische Akteure“
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/chief-justice-john-roberts-says-justices-are-not-political-actors-rcna343958
34 Kommentare
The evidence says otherwise…
You are.
As evident on you reversing your own precedent on VRA. His court is a joke and his dream of killing VRA since the 80s now succeeded.
Fuck him.
If he doesn’t want the SCOTUS to be seen as political actors, they should not be political actors.
If the chief justice of the us supreme court has to publicly state they are not political actors, then they’re probably acting politically
Wolf says that sheep wrongly view wolves as predators.
Guilty man says he is innocent. Film at 11
Gee, I wonder why we think the conservative Supreme Justices aren’t acting within the bounds of the Constitution. Maybe it’s because *they’re openly fascist by this point*.
So says, the chief politcal actor on our Supreme court.
Something something George Orwell…
Now watch this drive
I was told years ago by someone way smarter than me, „Don’t listen to what they say, watch what they do“
Well, your Honor, your actions speak otherwise.
“No, it’s the children who are wrong…”
He says as he gives a political speech covered by the news.
> Those rulings, he added, are “based on our best effort to figure out what the Constitution means and how it applies.”
It’s funny how often „Constitution means“ what conservatives want it to mean, and „applies“ how they want it to apply.
And that’s leaving to one side the number of times that the conservative majority simply makes up their own ‚facts‘ to support their decisions.
He’s resided over the dismantling of the institution he claimed to revere. His life story is already written.
Not too many people can claim responsibility for the destruction of 1/3 of the branches of government.
It it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck….
Is this satire?
The distinction he makes here is that they are in fact at a higher level than being just merely ‚actors‘.
They are, in fact, well paid political professionals, easily bought or sold for the right amount.
To compare them to mere ‚mummers‘ is an insult to the grift.
John Roberts is playing politics. His statement is plainly false. He has taken sides with the fascists, and has made a number of rulings that are based on fascist ideology, and NOT on truth or constitution.
I prefer the term partisan hacks, myself.
Republican Justice is almost a contradiction in terms; Republicans believe in injustice.
They’re really trying to gaslight everyone
Roberts and that billionaire pedoligarch who says “tax the rich” is hate speech must be competing for the most out of touch douchenozzle of the year award.
Supreme court justices wrongly view their actions as „non-political“ when they hand pick cases on a shadow docket to do the bidding of the political organization that bought their seats.
Not “wrongly” Chief Justice, correctly.
„The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.“ ~ 1984
Fuck that piece of shit. Traitor. Eat shit you geriatric fucking loser. God damn treasonous mother fucking piece of human garbage. Belongs in solitary confinement for the rest of his days for selling out our entire fucking nation.
One of the top 3 worst Supreme Court chief justices of all fucking time. The name “Robert’s” is going to be written in the history books next to the names of the chief justices that tied themselves in knots trying to find ways to justify continued slavery, segregation, the concentration camps we shipped Japanese Americans off to during WWII, and all the other Supreme Court Chief Justices that failed to answer the call when America needed them to be strong in the face of evil. May he never know peace for what he’s done.
…explain why Roe vs Wade was struck down…even after all sitting Supreme Court members including yourself testified before Congress that it was ‚precedent‘ and therefore not a debatable subject…🤑
They pretend to be impartial, but isn’t it odd how they always seem to carve out a provision that goes in Trump’s (or Republicans) favor for the *really key issues* that will help them cement power for decades to come?
„Everyone is acting like our decision are based of political ideology, this is false. Our decisions are simply for sale, and it’s not our fault the highest biders are conservatives.
Liberals are free to offer better RVs to Thomas, or offer my wife bigger commissions for legal positions. The court remains impartial in it’s subservience to the dollar.“
– John Roberts
He actually believes what he’s saying , but in a very specific sense. The same way some people think there are two genders, male and „political“, or two races, white and „political,“ Roberts thinks there are two approaches to law, one that’s just self evidently correct (and benefits Republicans) and everything else is just „political.“
What? He’s being perfectly neutral. Everyone *else* is biased!
I realize Roberts didn’t write it, but this sentiment really conflicts with the Callais decision. That entire opinion was sassy as hell and basically took delight in saying the court has gotten it wrong for 40 years and the current (brand new) interpretation was obviously correct.
Alito very clearly articulates his delight with overturning precedent and acting as a political actor. So yeah, what the fuck is he talking about.
How about all the conservatives who lied through their teeth to America when they said Roe was settled law? As soon as they had the votes they got political with the very first case that presented the issue.
The courts public perception is its own self created problem. Maybe try looking in a mirror Johnny boy.
The public views their actions. Those actions show the public that the court is not an independent entity. It is an arm of the trump presidency. Overturning presidents, and writing new ones from the their imaginations. They are not upholding the rights of Americans. They are answer to trump.
Fuck you, you partisan hack. When the history textbooks are written about the decline of the United States decades from now, your photo will be one of the biggest in that chapter.
I know I am not a lawyer, I know I need to Google the Latin terms, but what I can do is follow a logical train of thought and separate that from my political beliefs.
I can confidently say the conservative majority is capable of forming this logical chain of thought, such as in Chiles v Salazar, but that it also commonly ignores it, as in US v Skrmetti. These two in particular I think have a good chance of being contrasted against each other by historians. They both deal with a state passing a law centered around an LGBT issue within a year of each other, in Chiles it was about a law banning gay to straight conversation therapy in all forms while encouraging straight to gay talk therapy, in Skrmetti it was about a law banning minors using puberty blockers or hormone therapy for the purposes of transitioning while allowing them for non-transitioning purposes.
What makes these interesting is how the conservative majority looks at the same questions and reaches the opposite conclusion. For example, in Chiles the court says for many pages that freedom of speech cannot be compromised so verbal conversion therapy must be allowed, while for Skrmetti freedom of expression wasn’t even brought up. In Chiles the court calls out playing word games to get around the first amendment, while in Skrmetti the court fully accepts the word games used by the state to reach the ridiculous conclusion that the law doesn’t treat trans people differently from cis people. In Chiles the state has no business of saying they know how to practice medicine better than doctors, while in Skrmetti a dozen pages were written by Roberts saying he knew better than the medical professionals. The slippery slope argument is important in Chiles for not banning conversion therapy, but it’s not an issue for Skrmetti. The exaggerated dangers of children transitioning are central to Skrmetti, but the danger to children from conversion therapy are not mentioned for Chiles. It is possible for a rational person to reach the same conclusion as the conservative majority in Chiles, and while this isn’t true for Skrmetti I accept that the conservative majority interpreted the law that way. What I can’t understand is how a justice can rule with the majority in both cases while claiming they aren’t making political decisions.
These are just two cases. In reading the controversial rulings from the last 5 years, they aren’t unique. Roberts is just flat wrong when it comes to this article. There are times when people get upset based purely on the Supreme Court making a ruling they fly like politically, but Roberts is using this as a shield to claim that all criticism is like this. Just admit you’re playing Calvinball already, if anything it will just make MAGA like you more.