SCOTUS Facts: Warren, Burger, Rhenquist v. Roberts

Huh? I mean assuming the cases that went up were of identical difficulty, identical import given the context, identical procedurally, processed identically, required exactly the same level of work by law clerks and justices, and were also on average equally as meritorious on the facts, I guess this factoid here might be inconvenient to something or someone somewhere.

 

A. Where's your supporting fact?

B. How many laws are getting passed during Robert's term? We're talking the era of gridlock in congress.

 

No. For the reasons stated above.

 

Don't know nothing about that, but I do know Scalia must resign. He wants to be a politician, not a justice.

Justice Scalia must resign

So often, Scalia has chosen to ignore the obligation of a Supreme Court justice to be, and appear to be, impartial. He’s turned “judicial restraint” into an oxymoronic phrase. But what he did this week, when the court announced its decision on the Arizona immigration law, should be the end of the line.

Not content with issuing a fiery written dissent, Scalia offered a bench statement questioning President Obama’s decision to allow some immigrants who were brought to the United States illegally as children to stay. Obama’s move had nothing to do with the case in question. Scalia just wanted you to know where he stood.

 

The funny thing is most conservatives would argue the Warren court was a mad activist rampage---so it's comparing apples with apples even if you disregard the context of landmark cases (quality over quantity) and how many cases were passed through to the Supreme Court and etc.

But if we're going to compare these apples, one should note the Warren court was all about granting people an equal chance, whether it be schooling without the burden of race, or defending oneself without the burden of excessive legal costs. Can the same be said of the Roberts court that protects "corporate free speech", and does not even allow people to grow medical mar1juana for themselves, with that Armageddon Commerce clause of Federal skynet power?

 

he's simply applying the same time machine logic that underlies most bassclownnorrhea - a case that was fully briefed and submitted months ago must turn on unrelated facts from a few days ago. Blah blah evil brown folx blah.

 

Justice Roberts doesn't see things like I do, and I'm clearly a constitutional scholar!

MUST BE CORRUPTION!

 

Alex Trebek: No, sorry, the answer is "What was the only audible sound in the room this morning at 10:10 EST when basso realized he had to ditch a whole days worth of pre-typed, pre-plagiarized Health-Care related posts after a gut-punching defeat."

 

Me likey this post.

I can begrudgingly admit that Scalia is a very intelligent man, but he has no business being a Supreme Court judge. We can probably say that about more than a few of them, on the left or right. But he makes FOX News actually look fair and balanced. (To mask my liberal tendencies, let me add that MSNBC is left-wing FOX; but I digress.)

Scalia: A captain of industry? Head of a corporation? Fine. He'd still pull scummy things but he wouldn't have the false halo of his current occupation to hide the red horns protruding from his forehead.

 

Doubtful, people generally don't tolerate giant-assclownish ness until you're already rich and powerful. That's why he went to law firms (being a jackass helps here..) academia & then the cushy lifetime appointment to the Circuit court prior to hitting the jackpot.

 

Inconvenient? Considering I didn't want the law struck down, I think it is extremely convenient!