Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Week)   The Supreme Court is preparing for the Biden presidency, what you just saw with the recent rulings was chief Justice John Roberts playing the long game   (theweek.com) divider line
    More: Interesting, Supreme Court of the United States, President of the United States, Supreme Court, George W. Bush, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, United States, Roe v. Wade, John G. Roberts  
•       •       •

2793 clicks; posted to Politics » on 10 Jul 2020 at 8:29 PM (15 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



54 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2020-07-10 10:06:23 AM  
I really don't think Roberts and the Illuminati have put that much thought into the long term consequences of these decisions.
 
2020-07-10 10:28:58 AM  

edmo: I really don't think Roberts and the Illuminati have put that much thought into the long term consequences of these decisions.


The United States is the master of the Kick the Can strategy of governing. Look at the so-called COVID strategy. At this point everyone with half a brain cell in the country is just waiting for Trump to leave office and restore normalcy to the institution, including Roberts and the court. None of them want to deal with the real pain that would result from Trump's rampant destruction of the executive. The court conservatives in particular do not want to deal with the internal party backlash that would result from them basically opening up Trump to criminal indictments 4 months from an election because reasons. They'd rather the indictments came after he leaves office. There's a small chance that Roberts, who I doubt is a major fan of Trump, would like to see him actually federally prosecuted for his crimes and knows Barr doesn't have the balls or inclination to do it.
 
2020-07-10 4:20:00 PM  
It's not about Biden.  The is the same John Roberts Shuffle he's been playing for years.  Gut voting rights and protect corporations but offer up the occasional victory to Democrats that gets good headlines while dumping the problem off on lower courts.
 
2020-07-10 8:31:05 PM  
That's a surprisingly Beyers and Kagan way of thinking, for Roberts.
 
2020-07-10 8:34:43 PM  
1. do anything to avoid being the first scotus member to be successfully removed
2. refer to 1.

/no not roberts. he oft sucks nuts but he's never gonna get impeached. ever. dems would be stupid to even try.
//beerbro otoh... and even gorsuch... dems would be stupid to not seriously look into trying.
///and i don't mean standard fare dem 'trying'. 'trying' like the rest of us actually have to try irl.
 
2020-07-10 8:35:00 PM  
And I always thought that the rationale behind lifetime appointments was so that justices wouldn't be beholden to any given administration.
 
2020-07-10 8:39:58 PM  
The last thing he wants is to spend his remaining years teaming up on dissents with Kavanaugh and Gorsuch as part of a conservative minority on an expanded, 11-person Court.

Yes please
 
2020-07-10 8:41:09 PM  
Roberts is always playing the long game.
 
2020-07-10 8:41:53 PM  
Any day now...
 
2020-07-10 8:46:21 PM  
What long game? Roberts said he was retiring today. I read it on Fark.
 
2020-07-10 8:46:33 PM  
Roberts is by all accounts a canny operator. He plays strategically, not tactically. Makes wins where he can, losses if he has to. But every decision he's made has been in service to entrenching the status quo, i.e. white male power.
 
2020-07-10 8:47:17 PM  
Hard to imagine in this day and age, but when Roberts was nominated he was seen as a far-right extremist. The Overton window took a pretty big leap to the right in the last 20 years, didn't it?

The Court doesn't make decisions based upon the whims of the president. They're in for life and DGAF, at least after the president who put them into power is out of office. During the term, they need to make sure their grift game and blackmail are all accounted for.
 
2020-07-10 8:50:55 PM  
fark him, he doesn't view voting rights as core in our country.

Ain't that some shiat, how in the fark is the right to vote note the core value of a Democracy?

It's how we participate.
 
2020-07-10 8:52:09 PM  

edmo: I really don't think Roberts and the Illuminati have put that much thought into the long term consequences of these decisions.


You don't? I do.
 
2020-07-10 8:52:15 PM  
haha, good luck hiding Trump's tax returns NOW, Biden

EAT IT LIBS!
 
2020-07-10 8:57:24 PM  
I'll feel better when RBG passes the wand to Obama. Hang in there girlfriend!
 
2020-07-10 9:07:26 PM  

Shaggy_C: Hard to imagine in this day and age, but when Roberts was nominated he was seen as a far-right extremist.


Anyone nominated by a Republican will always be seen as a far right extremist.

Anyone nominated by a Democrat will always be seen as a far left extremist.

Occasionally this is accurate, but much more often it's pure politics.
 
2020-07-10 9:10:30 PM  

aleister_greynight: And I always thought that the rationale behind lifetime appointments was so that justices wouldn't be beholden to any given administration.


Ok, Ivan
 
2020-07-10 9:12:57 PM  

Shaggy_C: Hard to imagine in this day and age, but when Roberts was nominated he was seen as a far-right extremist. The Overton window took a pretty big leap to the right in the last 20 years, didn't it?



We had 8 years of this

i.imgur.comView Full Size
 
2020-07-10 9:15:44 PM  

TofuTheAlmighty: Roberts is by all accounts a canny operator. He plays strategically, not tactically. Makes wins where he can, losses if he has to. But every decision he's made has been in service to entrenching the status quo, i.e. white male power.


So exactly how the Constitution was designed then.
 
2020-07-10 9:19:45 PM  
Meanwhile... under a dark candlelit room Mitch McConnell is inserting sewing needles into a voodoo doll of Justice Ginsberg
 
2020-07-10 9:19:52 PM  

BMFPitt: Shaggy_C: Hard to imagine in this day and age, but when Roberts was nominated he was seen as a far-right extremist.

Anyone nominated by a Republican will always be seen as a far right extremist.

Anyone nominated by a Democrat will always be seen as a far left extremist.

Occasionally this is accurate, but much more often it's pure politics.


Well, the important thing is that you get to feel smugly superior to both sides 🥴
 
2020-07-10 9:24:46 PM  
If Biden wins and Dems win the Senate, they should just appoint 3,4, or 5 Supremes, regardless of the total number. End of story. That has been the R tactic for the last 8 years. History be damned. Just farking do it. F Roberts and his long game. Soon he will be just one of many.
 
2020-07-10 9:30:08 PM  
Yeah! If Republicans play their cards right, they can have Biden's tas returns as soon as...

July 9?

Of last year?

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n​a​-pol-2020-joe-biden-income-20190709-st​ory.html
 
2020-07-10 9:32:20 PM  

thedingoatemybaby: If Biden wins and Dems win the Senate, they should just appoint 3,4, or 5 Supremes, regardless of the total number. End of story. That has been the R tactic for the last 8 years. History be damned. Just farking do it. F Roberts and his long game. Soon he will be just one of many.


Two more justices along with RBG and Beyers replacement will suffice.

First up, Garland.
 
2020-07-10 9:36:16 PM  
So he's playing politics instead of deciding cases on their merit? When the Supreme Court decides what the law is, he has a job to do and he's not doing it. I'd say that's treason, hang him.

Unless David Farts is wrong about this.
 
2020-07-10 10:17:56 PM  
They tried court packing 80 years ago, it didn't work.  You're gonna need 37 states to sign on.

First, when The Notorious One announces her retirement on the evening of Jan 19th, her replacement will be first on the agenda.

Then, you need to start impeaching them, one-by-one.  First up, Thomas.  Since Scalia died, Thomas has been the biggest shiat stain for 30 years, and should've recused himself from Citizens United.  That's worthy of looking into his financials.

Speaking of financials, Judge Party Boy, you're next.  They should've dig deeper into that instead of his rape accusations, but this happening at the start of the Me Too movement, that got the headlines.

Who to replace those, well, Garland, obviously, who should've had the spot Gorsuch has; Amy Jackson, the judge in Roger Stone's trial, who could rule on the legality of Trump's dick move a few hours ago; and, just to fark with treasonweasels, Hillary.  Because why not?
 
2020-07-10 10:27:34 PM  

drunk_bouncnbaloruber: They tried court packing 80 years ago, it didn't work.  You're gonna need 37 states to sign on.

First, when The Notorious One announces her retirement on the evening of Jan 19th, her replacement will be first on the agenda.

Then, you need to start impeaching them, one-by-one.  First up, Thomas.  Since Scalia died, Thomas has been the biggest shiat stain for 30 years, and should've recused himself from Citizens United.  That's worthy of looking into his financials.

Speaking of financials, Judge Party Boy, you're next.  They should've dig deeper into that instead of his rape accusations, but this happening at the start of the Me Too movement, that got the headlines.

Who to replace those, well, Garland, obviously, who should've had the spot Gorsuch has; Amy Jackson, the judge in Roger Stone's trial, who could rule on the legality of Trump's dick move a few hours ago; and, just to fark with treasonweasels, Hillary.  Because why not?


Smart ANDFunny, I grant thee.
 
2020-07-10 10:29:26 PM  

Mentat: It's not about Biden.  The is the same John Roberts Shuffle he's been playing for years.  Gut voting rights and protect corporations but offer up the occasional victory to Democrats that gets good headlines while dumping the problem off on lower courts.


it makes sense when you remember that he thinks corporations are people, and that all people are equal, but some corporations are more equal than others.
 
ENS
2020-07-10 10:29:48 PM  
Anthony Kennedy was the real villain. He was the key vote in gutting the civil rights act and was a coward when it came to ruling on gerrymandering. No one man has done as much damage to this country, save Satan in Kentucky.
 
2020-07-10 10:38:25 PM  
It bothers me that 6 out of 9 SCOTUS Justices are Catholics

Not just Christianity but a specific denomination of Christianity.

In the entire history of the Supreme Court there have only been 13 Catholics. If you include Kennedy, over half of the Catholics that have ever sat on the bench are on sitting on it right now.

Doesn't that bother you?
 
2020-07-10 10:45:00 PM  

Ishkur: It bothers me that 6 out of 9 SCOTUS Justices are Catholics

Not just Christianity but a specific denomination of Christianity.

In the entire history of the Supreme Court there have only been 13 Catholics. If you include Kennedy, over half of the Catholics that have ever sat on the bench are on sitting on it right now.

Doesn't that bother you?


That's because old-boy networks begin in private Catholic high schools, not the WASPy boarding schools like they used to.
 
2020-07-10 10:51:19 PM  

edmo: I really don't think Roberts and the Illuminati have put that much thought into the long term consequences of these decisions.


You don't get to be Chief Justice if you're incapable of thinking beyond a single issue in front of you at any given time.
 
2020-07-10 10:58:32 PM  

drunk_bouncnbaloruber: They tried court packing 80 years ago, it didn't work.  You're gonna need 37 states to sign on.


No you don't.
 
2020-07-10 11:24:49 PM  
what a garbage article

"they didn't affirm what i wanted" yeah, well, they also didn't prevent it
 
2020-07-11 12:10:51 AM  

BMFPitt: drunk_bouncnbaloruber: They tried court packing 80 years ago, it didn't work.  You're gonna need 37 states to sign on.

No you don't.


Exactly, the Constitution doesn't specify a maximum number of judges for the Supreme Court. The 1869 Judiciary Act set the total at 9 so that would need to be repealed/amended, which shouldn't be a problem if the Dems take the Senate (and hold the House), which Biden would need anyway to appoint his nominees without problems.
 
2020-07-11 1:56:01 AM  

ukexpat: Exactly, the Constitution doesn't specify a maximum number of judges for the Supreme Court. The 1869 Judiciary Act set the total at 9 so that would need to be repealed/amended, which shouldn't be a problem if the Dems take the Senate (and hold the House), which Biden would need anyway to appoint his nominees without problems.


The real fix would be to amend the law to allow the court's size to fluctuate and allow the president to nominate 1 justice per term regardless of retirements/deaths/ext...

That way, the court would more evenly reflect the will of the people, not allowing one term presidents to have an overwhelming signature on the court
 
2020-07-11 2:12:43 AM  

Ishkur: It bothers me that 6 out of 9 SCOTUS Justices are Catholics

Not just Christianity but a specific denomination of Christianity.

In the entire history of the Supreme Court there have only been 13 Catholics. If you include Kennedy, over half of the Catholics that have ever sat on the bench are on sitting on it right now.

Doesn't that bother you?


You pining for the days when the Papists knew their place?
 
2020-07-11 4:35:27 AM  

soopey: thedingoatemybaby: If Biden wins and Dems win the Senate, they should just appoint 3,4, or 5 Supremes, regardless of the total number. End of story. That has been the R tactic for the last 8 years. History be damned. Just farking do it. F Roberts and his long game. Soon he will be just one of many.

Two more justices along with RBG and Beyers replacement will suffice.

First up, Garland.


Garland was to be a compromise acceptable to the GOP Senate.  If the Dems don't need GOP cooperation to get a justice approved, appoint 5 Dianic Wiccans no older than 30.
 
2020-07-11 5:53:59 AM  
Step 1.  Pack the courts up to 11
Step 2.  Work with Repubs to pass a Constitutional amendment that gives all future SC Justices a 25 year term, prevents appointment of new justices if the current count is above 9, and requires senate to approve/reject appointments within 3 months or the default is approved.
 
2020-07-11 8:02:14 AM  

The Repeated Meme: You pining for the days when the Papists knew their place?


Yes. 303 BCE.
 
2020-07-11 8:04:58 AM  

Ishkur: The Repeated Meme: You pining for the days when the Papists knew their place?

Yes. 303 BCE.


303 CE, that is.

/just woke up
 
2020-07-11 8:23:22 AM  

sleze: Step 1.  Pack the courts up to 11
Step 2.  Work with Repubs to pass a Constitutional amendment that gives all future SC Justices a 25 year term, prevents appointment of new justices if the current count is above 9, and requires senate to approve/reject appointments within 3 months or the default is approved.


1 - defintibdoable

2 - "work with the Republicans on a Constitutional amendment"? Not going to happen.
 
2020-07-11 8:24:06 AM  

ukexpat: sleze: Step 1.  Pack the courts up to 11
Step 2.  Work with Repubs to pass a Constitutional amendment that gives all future SC Justices a 25 year term, prevents appointment of new justices if the current count is above 9, and requires senate to approve/reject appointments within 3 months or the default is approved.

1 - defintibdoable

2 - "work with the Republicans on a Constitutional amendment"? Not going to happen.


1 - definitely doable [gd auto-cock up].
 
2020-07-11 8:39:35 AM  

DocUi: drunk_bouncnbaloruber: They tried court packing 80 years ago, it didn't work.  You're gonna need 37 states to sign on.


No.  All they need to do is amend the Judiciary Act.  No 'state sign on' needed.
 
2020-07-11 8:45:09 AM  

sleze: and requires senate to approve/reject appointments within 3 months or the default is approved.


Repealing advice and consent is a terrible idea.

Just make it so after 30-60 days, they can do no further business without a vote.
 
2020-07-11 9:00:51 AM  

BMFPitt: sleze: and requires senate to approve/reject appointments within 3 months or the default is approved.

Repealing advice and consent is a terrible idea.

Just make it so after 30-60 days, they can do no further business without a vote.


It's not repealing advice and consent, it's defining 90 days of inaction as consent.
 
2020-07-11 11:35:15 AM  

dartben: It's not repealing advice and consent, it's defining 90 days of inaction as consent.


Redefining lack of consent as consent is a repeal.
 
2020-07-11 3:09:34 PM  

BMFPitt: dartben: It's not repealing advice and consent, it's defining 90 days of inaction as consent.

Redefining lack of consent as consent is a repeal.


Absent special circumstances that in modern times only really happen at the flip-over of Congress every 2 years, the U.S. President cannot perform a pocket veto by inaction.  That doesn't mean his power to veto bills has been repealed.
 
2020-07-11 3:21:52 PM  

dartben: Absent special circumstances that in modern times only really happen at the flip-over of Congress every 2 years, the U.S. President cannot perform a pocket veto by inaction.  That doesn't mean his power to veto bills has been repealed.


You think that Congress has to be out of session for a pocket veto to happen, for some reason?

But ignoring that, the President is one person.  Whereas the Senate is 100.  Under your plan, a President who has a bare majority in the Senate could get anyone they want approved without a vote, even if they know the vote would fail.
 
Displayed 50 of 54 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.