Archive for chief justice roberts

Justice Alito said what again? "New, unwise turn" in law relies on "private professional associations"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

justice alito shakes head at SOTU smallerJustice Alito Shakes Head When Obama Criticizes Campaign Finance Decision

Wait, what? Isn't this the Supreme Court that has a corporation fetish? Isn't Justice Alito one of the conservative members who believes in privatization, corporate personhood, and equating money with free speech? As in Citizens United and McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission?

Think Progress: And he’s a strong supporter of “forced arbitration,” a practice which allows employers to shunt discrimination lawsuits into a secretive and privatized arbitration system rather than allowing those cases to be heard by a real court.

Respriv.org: For Alito, and the rest of the Court’s right-wing majority, the severity of Bartlett’s injury proved inconsequential when measured against Big Pharma’s bottom line and their interest in selling generic drugs, which account for 75% of the prescription drugs sold in the U.S.

StopTheCap.com: Justice Samuel Alito was forced to recuse himself from nearly six dozen cases brought to the Supreme Court in the last 10 months because the Alito family owns stock in many of the corporations involved in litigation.

In light of the above examples, I found the following passages ironically amusing. Via the Los Angeles Times article, Supreme Court says IQ cannot determine mental fitness in capital cases:

In dissent, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. faulted the majority for a "new and unwise turn" in the law by relying on "private professional associations" to establish constitutional values.

In the past, he said, the court had looked to states and to public opinion to judge American values. "Now the court strikes down a state law based on the evolving standards of professional societies, most notably the American Psychiatric Assn.," he said. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas agreed with him.

Whatsa matter, Judge A. and company, don't you love "private professional associations" as much as you used to? Should they feel jilted? Doesn't the NRA "unwisely" influence (read: pressure) the "constitutional values" of Congress members so heavily that they shun common sense gun laws that public opinion supports by a landslide? What do you have to say now?

crickets

Oh, but I kid Justice Alito.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Do Cliven Bundy, Bill Kristol and Donald Sterling Speak For Chief Justice Roberts?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

KKKCrossRallyw259h204

Racism is a thing of the past. Just look at the Chief Justice Roberts's Court and his beliefs that racism no longer exists in the United States. Blacks and other minorities no longer need protections to their right to vote nor affirmative action.

How trippy is this guy? What bubble does he live in? Let's just look at the recent racist news.

The Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice John Roberts strikes down affirmative action in Michigan, claiming it would be racist to take race into consideration where inequality is the question.

Cliven Bundy, becomes an instant hero to conservatives. They gush over the man who's a scofflaw for refusing to pay court-mandated grazing fees for his cattle. The "Right" couldn't get enough of him until he took again to the pulpit to lecture America about the "lazy Negro" and how the Black race would be better off as slaves. (His words, not mine).

Then when this draws outrage, some of the right wingnuts and spokespeople tone down their love of the crusty old cowboy outlaw. Not all, but some. And I'll even credit Sean Hannity from distancing himself, not totally, but partially, over Bundy's race remarks.

Notice I said some right wingnuts. That's because there's always the reliable Bill Kristol.

Within hours of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling's racist comments to his Black/Hispanic girlfriend (whom he's openly seeing despite his being married), the ever 'balanced' Kristol stuck up for Sterling, urging caution. Remember, like the Chief Justice, Kristol isn't sure that racism really does still exist.

The Raw Story:

Conservative pundit Bill Kristol on Sunday urged people to judge NBA team owner Don Sterling by his “deeds,” and not to “go hysterical over two or three sentences” where he tells his girlfriend to stay away from black men.

Okay, Bill, let's not get hysterical over a few insensitive if not outright racist sentences. Judge the man by his deeds you say. How's this set of deeds float your boat?

The Los Angeles Times:

The racist comments purportedly made by Donald Sterling in the audio recording that surfaced Saturday via TMZ.com are the latest in a years-long string of racially-charged incidents linked to the real estate mogul.

In 2009, Sterling agreed to a $2.765-million settlement in a case that alleged discrimination against African-Americans, Latinos and others at apartment buildings he owned in Los Angeles County.

Are these the deeds you were asking us to use as judgment?

If  this man is anything short of a racist you might need to look in the mirror and take an assessment of yourself. You're a spokesman for ultra right conservatives. Are you speaking for them now? If so, you're just like Cliven Bundy, Donald Sterling and evidently Justice Roberts in having your head in the sand or up your ass. You're not seeing what the rest of the world knows is the truth. We have very little racial tolerance in the world, and the US is no exception. It would be much better for you and all of us if you'd use your platform to ease and ultimately someday erase racial inequality and hatred. Not fuel the fires with your ignorance.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Chief Justice Roberts was wrong. He misconstrued census data in voting rights argument.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare
Photograph: Jason Reed/Reuters

Photograph: Jason Reed/Reuters

Dear Chief Justice Roberts,

If you base your arguments on misconstrued data, then your argument is faulty at best and without merit at worst.

If your final judgment of a case is based on your own worthless arguments, then you are erroneously and egregiously changing and affecting lives and law, not to mention disenfranchising voters and altering election outcomes.

Oh, and your credibility goes down the toidy.

Sincerely,

Americans who care about democracy

NPR:

At the voting rights argument in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts tore into Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, grilling him on his knowledge of voting statistics.

The point the chief justice was trying to make was that Massachusetts, which is not covered by the preclearance section of the Voting Rights Act, has a far worse record in black voter registration and turnout than Mississippi, which is covered by Section 5 of the act.

But a close look at census statistics indicates the chief justice was wrong, or at least that he did not look at the totality of the numbers.

oopsie cat

He also “mangled the wording” of presidential oath in 2009, but who's counting?

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

L.A. Times: Both Pres. Obama AND Chief Justice Roberts "mangled the wording" of presidential oath in 2009. Not quite.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. re-administers the oath of office to President Obama in the Map Room. (By Pete Souza -- White House)

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. re-administers the oath of office to President Obama in the Map Room. (By Pete Souza -- White House)

Here's what I read in my morning L.A. Times today:

Roberts and Obama proceeded carefully through the oath, the third time the duo have gone through it. At Obama's first inaugural in 2009, they mangled the wording, prompting White House lawyers to summon the chief justice to the White House for a do-over.

"They"? "They mangled the wording"?  Really, L.A. Times?

Not so much.

First Read, January 20, 2009:

But Chief Justice John Roberts, using no notes, flubbed his lines, and Obama knew it.

WaPo, January 22, 2009:

After flubbing his one role on Inauguration Day -- administering the oath of office to Obama -- Roberts traveled to the White House to re-administer the oath.

L.A. Times: Your "librul media" at work.

bias liberal media my ass smaller

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Live Streaming Video- President Obama Takes the Oath of Office at the Official Swearing-In Ceremony 11:55a EST

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

over

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Anti-Chief Justice Roberts GOP quote o' the day

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Via vagabondish.com

Via Think Progress, this is hilarious in a mentally  kind of way:

Rep. Phil Gingrey (R-GA): “I don’t want to drink a beer with him today. I’m not calling for his impeachment, I’m just very very disappointed.”

Boy, that's telling him. No beers for you, Chief Justice Roberts!

And of course it goes without saying that the next level of resentment after withholding beer time would be impeachment.

Here's some bonus "activist court" drivel from Michele Bachmann:

It's worth noting that conservatives only think judges are "activists" when they disagree with them.

Republicans are f'ing nuts. There. I said it.

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

"Liars like Newt Gingrich... have long since moved past slurs, innuendo, suggestive inferences, inflammatory comparisons... to lies"

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare

Today's L.A. Times letter to the editor, Part 2, because our voices matter:

Liars among us

Re "Justices look down on lies about valor," Feb. 23

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.asks, "What is the 1st Amendment value of a lie, pure lie?"

This is a rhetorical question. There is no satisfactory answer.

And yet liars like Newt Gingrich and other politicians have long since moved past slurs, innuendo, suggestive inferences, inflammatory comparisons and the like to lies, pure lies, outrageous and demonstrably false statements about President Obama. These are then repeated on Fox News, the voice of the right wing. I ask the chief justice, "What is the 1st Amendment value of those pure lies?"

Laws to punish the outrageous falsehoods promulgated almost daily by the political class are long past due.

Marvin J. Wolf
Mar Vista Heights

FacebookTwitterRedditDiggStumbleUponTumblrLinkedInPinterestEmailShare