1. Welcome! Please take a few seconds to create your free account to post threads, make some friends, remove a few ads while surfing and much more. ClutchFans has been bringing fans together to talk Houston Sports since 1996. Join us!

USSC decisions

Discussion in 'BBS Hangout: Debate & Discussion' started by NewRoxFan, Jun 15, 2020.

  1. subtomic

    subtomic Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2000
    Messages:
    3,271
    Likes Received:
    785
    From my perspective (and many others), compromise and consensus is impossible when one party isn't acting in good faith. There was always a certain amount of partisanship in DC, but since the Gingrich era, the GOP has refused to work with Democrats - at all. And it's not because the Democrats have gone hard left (which they really haven't - most of the most progressive ideas being championed today are well in line with those of the New Deal / Roosevelt Democrats) - instead, under the pressure of moneyed interests and the right-wing media (which shouldn't have even existed if it weren't for the elimination of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987), they're turned into a rabidly regressive party bent on undermining the very institutions they are in charge of funding and legislating.

    A lot has been made of the important social policy decisions made by the Court, and there's no doubt decisions like Obergefell have made America a much better place. However, the real reason conservatives are packing the court is to continue the degradation of our government's regulatory rights over business and (toward the former's end) to limit the access of voting to populations who would be antagonistic toward such degradation. These efforts to create a world where corporations have no accountability are a direct attack on our democracy and requires drastic action.

    I would love to see a complete capture of the government by the Democrats, but given the issues with voter repression and misinformation by right wing media makes this close to impossible. To some extent, I'm of the opinion that America needs to split up but I also know this would create a tremendous amount of pain (collectively and on an individual level).
     
  2. jiggyfly

    jiggyfly Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    13,544
    Likes Received:
    11,449
    Why does this vote mean he has shifted to the left?

    Why can't he just have voted on what he interpreted the law to be and precedent?

    This left team, right team needs to stop, especially concerning the SC, "the left" is not always right when it concerns interpreting the law.

    Give me a Roberts anyday than somebody always voting for the party line.
     
    rocketsjudoka and RayRay10 like this.
  3. jiggyfly

    jiggyfly Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    13,544
    Likes Received:
    11,449
    That's exactly what The Republicans did when Obama was elected.

    They even went against things they had been for just so Obama would not get anything accomplished.

    If McConnell had let Obama pick his justice we would not be having this convo.
     
    mdrowe00 and RayRay10 like this.
  4. dmoneybangbang

    Joined:
    May 5, 2012
    Messages:
    14,353
    Likes Received:
    6,406
    You're not wrong, it just sucks this is what it has come to. The Dems lost a key war between 2008-2010 where they pretty much lost at every level due to the shrewd and Machiavellian campaigning of the Koch backed Tea Party. Since then, they've been trying to claw their way back.

    I can agree that the Dems have consistently lost the narrative battle, but it's not a good thing that wedge issues like guns and god keep obfuscating the Dems message.
     
    jiggyfly and RayRay10 like this.
  5. geeimsobored

    geeimsobored Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,194
    Likes Received:
    1,846
    Yes we are somewhat lucky in that Roberts recognizes that the court needs to maintain its reputation as a neutral institution (or at least maintain the image of being less partisan than the rest of government).

    But lets not pretend that Roberts always votes the way that he does because of some sincere belief. As I mentioned earlier, it was widely reported that Roberts shifted his vote at the last second on the ACA individual mandate case in 2012 because he was scared that striking down the law would irrevocably break the reputation of the court. That's why he came up with that silly argument that the individual mandate was a tax. It was a last minute justification because he didn't agree with the Liberals that the Commerce Clause. But since he didn't really believe that the individual mandate was constitutional, he had to come up with a different reason to uphold the law. The taxing power argument wasn't even raised during the actual trial. He (and his clerks) came up with that last minute when he changed his vote.

    He's in a similar situation today. The Kavanaugh hearings did more damage to the court as an institution and Trump isn't helping things either. So every now and then Roberts will strategically vote. The abortion ruling was a classic example. He voted with the majority simply because he doesn't want to overturn a precedent. He even admitted that he doesn't believe that the Louisiana law is unconstitutional. Roberts is aware that allowing the Louisiana ruling would once again cause a lot of anger towards the court in a time where Democrats are increasingly talking about reforming the courts.

    You can praise or criticize this behavior but call it out for what it is. Roberts strategically votes all the time (especially during election years). If anything he's the most political member of the court because he cares far more about public opinion than any other justice (rather than strictly ruling on the facts). It just so happens that during election years, that tends to work out to benefit Democrats.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  6. jiggyfly

    jiggyfly Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    13,544
    Likes Received:
    11,449
    You have no idea why he ruled on those cases, you are just going off of what people who have an agenda said his motivations where.

    Widely reported is the equivalent of many people are saying.

    You have no idea what he was thinking you just mad your team did not get a win.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  7. geeimsobored

    geeimsobored Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,194
    Likes Received:
    1,846
    My team? Roberts was appointed by Bush, I never had an issue with his appointment. He was a perfectly reasonable appointment given that there was a Republican president.

    I realize nothing I can say will convince you but here is some reporting from the time. The sources were clerks within the Supreme Court who worked on the case. But again, I doubt I can convince you. But Supreme Court justices are people at the end of the day and Roberts holds the distinction of being the Chief Justice so the court's reputation generally gets tied to his legacy. I'm not even necessarily criticizing him for all of this. The Court has become politicized over time and at some level, these sorts of decisions are almost required or else the court will just become regarded as another partisan institution like Congress or the Presidency.

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...anged-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/#40c7180dd701
    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/
    https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/politics/john-roberts-obamacare-the-chief/index.html
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  8. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    39,086
    Likes Received:
    21,214
    I think I get what you're saying. Is to carve out a separate DC from the current DC.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  9. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    39,086
    Likes Received:
    21,214
    According to conservatives this all started with Bork. I think we're past the era of who started it as both sides have used changed the rules to their own advantage when in power and then complain about it when not.

    It's not too late for the Democrats to recapture the government. Even though I've been arguing to be careful about declaring the Presidential race over there is a very very good chance for Democrats to win both the Presidency and the Senate while holding onto the House. I don't think there is any need to overhaul the rules and the Democrats can win under the present system.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  10. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    44,240
    Likes Received:
    41,004
    No decision on trump tax returns today. The optimists point to precedence and the pessimists worry that the court tossed the left a few morsels saving the disappointment (trump ruling) for last.



     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  11. geeimsobored

    geeimsobored Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2005
    Messages:
    8,194
    Likes Received:
    1,846
    Yeah that's the only way to make it work. The Constitution calls for a federal district (at the time it was because New York and Pennsylvania were fighting over where the capital would be located so the Constitution created the concept of an independent federal district to protect the capital from state control).

    So you need some sort of federal district but the only rule in the Constitution states that the federal district can't be bigger than 10x10 mile square. So you can just make a really tiny district with just the White House and Capital and the rest of DC can become a state. But since the 23rd amendment grants 3 electoral votes to the federal district, Congress needs to pass a law to direct how those electors are assigned so national popular vote is the least controversial means of assigning electors
     
    DVauthrin and RayRay10 like this.
  12. jiggyfly

    jiggyfly Member
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2015
    Messages:
    13,544
    Likes Received:
    11,449

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...anged-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/#40c7180dd701
    A number of my Federalist Society friends are describing Roberts’ opinion as a kind of victory for constitutional conservatives, because Roberts sided with Kennedy et al. on the limits of the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment. But I look at it in the opposite way. It is the Federalist Society that has failed, for the umpteenth time, to help Republican Presidents appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court. It’s time for conservatives to think hard about this problem, and make sure they don't make this mistake again.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/
    It is not known why Roberts changed his view on the mandate and decided to uphold the law. At least one conservative justice tried to get him to explain it, but was unsatisfied with the response, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.

    Some informed observers outside the court flatly reject the idea that Roberts buckled to liberal pressure, or was stared down by the president. They instead believe that Roberts realized the historical consequences of a ruling striking down the landmark health care law. There was no doctrinal background for the Court to fall back on - nothing in prior Supreme Court cases - to say the individual mandate crossed a constitutional line.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/03/21/politics/john-roberts-obamacare-the-chief/index.html
    Roberts did not want the entire law to fall. A pro-business conservative, he understood the importance of the insurance industry to US businesses, and he was genuinely concerned about invalidating an entire law that had been approved through the democratic process to solve the intractable health care problem.
    But his four fellow conservatives believed that if the individual mandate was going down, it should take the whole law with it. They believed all the pieces were interlocked. Roberts thought the individual mandate was entwined with only two other provisions, those known as the "community rating" and "guaranteed issue." The community-rating section prevented insurers from charging some individuals higher premiums than others based on health status. The guaranteed-issue section required insurers to cover people regardless of pre-existing conditions.


    Like I said you are injecting your own bias, these articles do not back you up they all have their own interpretation of his reasoning.

    1 is a straight opinion piece by someone who is very biased.

    Did you even read them?
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  13. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    39,086
    Likes Received:
    21,214
    Except the Dems can do the same thing. If you look at the some of the newest Dem officeholders some these are very moderate to even conservative politicians but they agree with most of the party on issues such as expanding health care and keeping abortion legal. Also the current Admin. hands Democrats an issue almost everyday. Today it is don't ignore the Russians paying bounties to kill US soldiers.

    The demographics favor the Democrats but my own view has always been Democrats / liberals are often more willing to punish people within their tent ideologically just look at the ongoing battles between the Progressive wing and the moderates. Republicans have their own internal battles but they tend to put those behind them to for political leverage. That is how McConnell is able to maintain such discipline in a caucus that contains both Tom Cotton and Susan Collins.

    I'll give you another example. Consider how many Republicans all the way from Senators to denizens of online forums like this one 15 years ago were hard core supporters of GW Bush and the invasion or Iraq. Remember when they were calling people "traitors" for not supporting the war and GW Bush. Now they've pledged their loyalty to a man who made part of his campaign that the Iraq war was stupid and personally insulted GW Bush. These people are now backing Trump as hard as they did GW Bush, even calling people who oppose Trump "traitors", with no sense of irony. On the other hand people on the Left who most opposed the war still do and even question both Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden regarding there votes to authorize force. That should give you a sense of how much Republicans prize winning over ideological consistency.

    The good news though is that Trump might be the one figure to really unite the whole Democratic party while chipping away at the Republican party.
     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  14. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    39,086
    Likes Received:
    21,214
    My own view is that Roberts has done the right thing but for the wrong reasons. I agree that his ACA ruling was odd but I think it was the right call. Whether Roberts really believed his own opinion I doubt we can ever know but protecting the independence of the court and leaving it to the Legislative branch was the right thing to do.
     
    RayRay10 and jiggyfly like this.
  15. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    44,240
    Likes Received:
    41,004
    Two of the five remaining decisions relate to trump's tax returns...

     
    RayRay10 likes this.
  16. Os Trigonum

    Os Trigonum Houston Knicks fan
    Supporting Member

    Joined:
    May 2, 2014
    Messages:
    43,570
    Likes Received:
    61,065
    " 'This Is the Real John Roberts' ":

    https://reason.com/2020/07/07/this-is-the-real-john-roberts/

    excerpt:

    Chief Justice Roberts's voting pattern certainly fails to conform to a predictable ideological pattern. But there is a pattern nonetheless. He is a conservative justice, but more than anything else, he is a judicial minimalist who seeks to avoid sweeping decisions with disruptive effects.
    ***
    I should stress that the aim of this piece is to describe John Roberts' jurisprudence, not to defend it. There are many reasons one might like or dislike his approach, both as a general matter as well as how it cashes out in particular cases.
    more at the link.
     
    jiggyfly, Nook and RayRay10 like this.
  17. Invisible Fan

    Invisible Fan Insider Newsletter™ 2X Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2001
    Messages:
    35,626
    Likes Received:
    16,583
    Still can't forgive Slim Shady for deciding on Citizens Untied.

    Fed is pumping in money 85% of Americans will never directly see and juicing the market to Bain-like proportions all while people are getting kicked out on the streets.

    My hero!!
     
  18. J.R.

    J.R. Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2008
    Messages:
    87,928
    Likes Received:
    98,133
  19. rocketsjudoka

    rocketsjudoka Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2007
    Messages:
    39,086
    Likes Received:
    21,214
    Personally I like to hear that. The nature of our government with separation of powers means we should have a court that acts carefully and with restraint. The Warren, Burger and Rhenquist courts all might've gone too far, in ideologically different directions, and as such might've inserted the court in issues that probably were best left to other branches.

    I'm certainly not going to agree with every ruling that Roberts makes but I'm glad for a chief justice looking to preserve the independence of the court, even if that means that the court backs off from some of the most controversial issues we face.
     
    jiggyfly, RayRay10 and Os Trigonum like this.
  20. NewRoxFan

    NewRoxFan Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2002
    Messages:
    44,240
    Likes Received:
    41,004
    The very day we anticipate the USSC ruling on two cases involving trump's tax returns we find out this... trump flaunts rules to avoid divulging his corruption...

    Trump granted another 45-day extension to file annual financial disclosure
    https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/08/politics/trump-financial-disclosure-extension/index.html
     
    mdrowe00 and RayRay10 like this.

Share This Page

  • About ClutchFans

    Since 1996, ClutchFans has been loud and proud covering the Houston Rockets, helping set an industry standard for team fan sites. The forums have been a home for Houston sports fans as well as basketball fanatics around the globe.

  • Support ClutchFans!

    If you find that ClutchFans is a valuable resource for you, please consider becoming a Supporting Member. Supporting Members can upload photos and attachments directly to their posts, customize their user title and more. Gold Supporters see zero ads!


    Upgrade Now