Archive for chief justice roberts

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

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.


Americans who care about democracy


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?


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

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


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




Anti-Chief Justice Roberts GOP quote o' the day



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.


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


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


"I've got news for [Chief Justice] Roberts: The United States is a democracy, not a monarchy."


Today's L.A. Times letters to the editor, Part 2 of 3, because our voices matter:

Thomas doubter

Re "The recusal question," Editorial, Jan. 3

In discussing rules on recusal, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said that his fellow Supreme Court justices are "jurists of exceptional integrity and experience.... I know that they each give careful consideration to any recusal questions that arise in the course of their judicial duties."

Justice Clarence Thomas neglected to disclose the hundreds of thousands of dollars his wife was paid by a far-right organization.

Roberts doesn't think Congress should dictate ethics rules for the Supreme Court. I've got news for Roberts: The United States is a democracy, not a monarchy.

Steven Asimow


Quickie- Rep. Peter DeFazio: "I'm investigating articles of impeachment against Justice Roberts"


Today's Quickie:

Standing O:

"I mean, the Supreme Court has done a tremendous disservice to the United States of America," Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) told The Huffington Post on Tuesday. "They have done more to undermine our democracy with their Citizens United decision than all of the Republican operatives in the world in this campaign. They've opened the floodgates, and personally, I'm investigating articles of impeachment against Justice Roberts for perjuring during his Senate hearings, where he said he wouldn't be a judicial activist, and he wouldn't overturn precedents."

Here comes the inevitable However:

"This is neither well-advised nor plausible," said Geoffrey R. Stone, a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. "Nominees may not perjure themselves, of course, but nothing in Roberts' testimony along these lines can fairly be characterized as perjury.

I think DeFazio should go for a twofer. How about throwing in ol' Clarence "Loves Me the Porn" Thomas for good measure? Because I could have sworn he perjured himself at the Anita Hill hearings.

That was today's Quickie. Was it good for you?

H/t: 42bkdodgr