WFB: Supreme Court nominee has a history of criticizing the chief justice’s approach to precedent.
Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation may elevate a critic of Chief Justice John Roberts to the High Court.
Democrats are concentrating on Barrett’s apparent criticisms of Roberts’s Affordable Care Act opinions ahead of her confirmation hearings, which begin Monday. Yet Barrett’s scholarly writings hint at a much deeper disagreement with the chief justice’s stewardship of the Court. In a pair of law review articles, she questioned whether judges can effectively protect the legitimacy of the courts by deciding cases with an eye toward public confidence.
Though Roberts is never mentioned by name, her critiques straightforwardly apply to the man whose career on the Court is most defined by reputation-burnishing.
The articles portend the challenges awaiting the chief justice should Barrett join the Court. Anthony Kennedy’s retirement momentarily made Roberts the most powerful chief justice of modern times. He holds together the fifth vote in divisive cases, the right to assign majority opinions, and the power to set the terms of practically every consequential decision. In Barrett, he may soon have a colleague whose written record seeds doubts about the equilibrium he has carefully curated for years. read more
He will tremble, get nervous, when SHE enters the chamber for the first time.
She will HOPEFULLY be with Alito and Thomas and ‘out catholic’ Roberts.
Nothing worse than a wolf in sheep’s clothing.
So sick of John Roberts.
Just think of the billions of dollars and the wreckage wrought by Roberts’ stupid, political decision on Obamacare. He’s about to become a neutered nincompoop.
Any photos of blood gushing SUPREME (Get it?) from Roberts’ face recently when he went all gran mal and gouged his head?
She sounds like a Justice Scalia constitutionally understanding judge. Roberts should be upset but only because she has identified him as the culprit. That’s what we need. Good.
may he cower in fear
first off, I don’t see “the equilibrium he [Roberts] has carefully curated for years.” he sold out, & has ruled Anti-Trump for the last few years …. hardly ‘Constitutional’, but partisan … deliberately, imo
the best quote in the article comes from her writings “… the measure of a court is its fair-minded application of the rule of law, which means going where the law leads. By this measure, it is illegitimate for the Court to distort either the Constitution or a statute to achieve what it deems a preferable result.”
(italics mine)
That cuck Roberts might want to think of retiring, now that he’s no longer any use to the commiecrats, now we’ll hear about all his trips to Epstine’s place.
He beclowned himself. Once the SCOTUS is back on an even keel it will become evident what an ass he has made of himself. The arrogant prick deserves what he has coming to him.
That is a huge asset for confirmation in Barrett’s favor, imo.
Oh dear! She might disagree with Roberts!!! Well, that certainly disqualifies her to serve on SCOTUS!! It’s a constitutional crisis, I tell ya!
Do the Senate dems realize how idiotic they look?
DON’T FORGET
Stephen Breyer is 82. Trump has a chance to make the court a 7-2 majority.
The pendulum will swing hard right exactly BECAUSE the democrats swung it so far left, and for so long.
If they get their panties all in a bunch just because of that pendulum swinging back, oh well, too bad, that’s a shame, but get over it!
WHAT? “reputation-burnishing.” WITH WHOM?
As I said 15 years ago the judge was a life long liberal. As Chief he has continued to be “progressive”.
To me his reputation for 23 years has been that of an America hating leftist. TARNISHED is how I would describe his 16 years as Chief!
The wheel always goes around, It’s not a matter of the court going hard right, but of it returning to the bedrock of the Constitution and the closest interpretation to its original meaning. It’s not always as hard as lawyers make it sound, the authors also wrote The Federalist as a sort of footnote. The Federalist was their own explanation of what the Constitution was. Too many judges focus on the Bill of Rights and not the Constitution. The Founders were deeply concerned that would happen.
The Chief Justice is the democrats ace-in-the-hole.
You can just think of him as a A-hole.
Good, because bad ‘precedent’ has been made before by twisting the Constitution into shapes it was never meant to be in.
The Constitution – every issue, every time, is how SCOTUS is SUPPOSED to work.