"The Court sees no problem with turning judges into advice columnists"

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,510
5,734
136
Robert's is the only Republican appointed justice who is not a Federalists Society douchebag or at least not one who is openly supportive of that doctrine.

"For over two centuries, the Correspondence of the Justices has stood as a reminder that federal courts cannot give answers simply because someone asks."


Thursday's opinion turns that constitutional limitation on its head, he said; it instead encourages litigants to "fight over farthings."
 
  • Wow
Reactions: pmv

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,799
6,775
126
OK, so this is the issue your post and the link you posted that I also saw and read previously. It was an 8 to 1 dissent. I can't square that with Federalist Judges and support from the three liberals on the bench. Why did they also vote in the majority. The other thing that bothers me is that I have only read material on the issue that is a summary of Robert's reasoning and I found myself in agreement. How could that be when I have not even heard the argument from the other side. That tells me that I am way way to uninformed to even have any idea of what is going on with this case. And since I am pretty sure I will never have that kind of expertise to know what the correct decision should have been, I am stuck with uncertainty.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,082
136
thats because its illegal for federal judges to take money for doing their job.
But a private lawyer can charge you 500 dollars an hour for "advice".


Remember, its ALWAYS about the money, not about whats right.
 

quikah

Diamond Member
Apr 7, 2003
4,212
754
126
OK, so this is the issue your post and the link you posted that I also saw and read previously. It was an 8 to 1 dissent. I can't square that with Federalist Judges and support from the three liberals on the bench. Why did they also vote in the majority. The other thing that bothers me is that I have only read material on the issue that is a summary of Robert's reasoning and I found myself in agreement. How could that be when I have not even heard the argument from the other side. That tells me that I am way way to uninformed to even have any idea of what is going on with this case. And since I am pretty sure I will never have that kind of expertise to know what the correct decision should have been, I am stuck with uncertainty.

Inform yourself:

19-968 Uzuegbunam v. Preczewski (03/08/2021) (supremecourt.gov)
 

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,510
5,734
136
OK, so this is the issue your post and the link you posted that I also saw and read previously. It was an 8 to 1 dissent. I can't square that with Federalist Judges and support from the three liberals on the bench. Why did they also vote in the majority. The other thing that bothers me is that I have only read material on the issue that is a summary of Robert's reasoning and I found myself in agreement. How could that be when I have not even heard the argument from the other side. That tells me that I am way way to uninformed to even have any idea of what is going on with this case. And since I am pretty sure I will never have that kind of expertise to know what the correct decision should have been, I am stuck with uncertainty.

What stands out for me is how the court is generally viewed as "Conservative vs Liberal" and how the Federalist society has basically been the conservative vetting pool for Judges. Roberts is the only republican nominated judge that has not openly kissed Scalia's pinky toe. He just kinds of says its pretty from a distance.
I believe Roberts would not have been nominated in todays environment.



I guess my dislike of Thomas and Alito really pushes me to find things to like about roberts
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

1prophet

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
5,313
534
126
When real liberals would risk going to jail to protect free speech while conservatives were identified as the cancel culture looking to take away your first amendment rights.



The Berkeley Free Speech Movement refers to a group of college students who, during the 1960s, challenged many campus regulations limiting their free-speech rights.

California universities limited students political activities

In the wake of McCarthyism’s anti-Communist sentiments during the 1950s, public universities in California had enacted numerous regulations limiting students’ political activities. At the University of California, Berkeley, student groups taking part in any on- or off-campus political activities were banned from campus.


But by the 1960s, students were shunning the old-school ideas of paternalistic university supervision. Spurred by the anti–Vietnam War protests and the growing civil rights movement, they began to ignore the prohibitions, and liberal-leaning university administrators ignored the students’ activities. Although students kept political activities just off campus, they were often recruited by outside organizers for public protests. When hundreds of Berkeley students were arrested at these events, the media painted the university as a haven for liberals leaning toward radicalism. Pressured by the state legislature, Berkeley administrators issued orders that students could no longer carry out political activities near the campus.

Savio started Free Speech Movement to protest Berkeley's political activity restrictions

In 1964, Mario Savio and 500 fellow students marched on Berkeley’s administration building to protest the university’s order. He and other leaders called for an organized student protest to abolish all restrictions on students’ free-speech rights throughout the University of California system. Campus representatives for the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE), Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), and Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) joined the protest. After a stand-off with campus police, a temporary compromise was reached, but by then the Berkeley Free Speech Movement (FSM) had been born.


Students and many faculty, united by the liberalism of the times, began to see the FSM as a moral obligation. Savio continued to insist that the First Amendment was the only valid guideline for student activities, especially political, and he condemned the administration’s rules as “prior restraint.”


Meanwhile, more political activities were being carried out on campus, further antagonizing the administration. But by then the FSM had gained enough liberal-minded supporters on campus that it was able to temporarily prevent severe administrative retaliation. The Board of Regents, however, failed to recognize the FSM’s seriousness and clamped down hard with punitive sanctions.

Berkeley eventually supported the FSM

On Dec. 2, 1964, the 5,000 people gathered outside the administration building listened to Savio invoke the “conscience of the community” for a campus-wide strike to bring down the university “machine.” As the first step, 1,500 of Savio’s audience entered the building for a nonviolent sit-in demonstration. After thousands witnessed an increasingly violent police action to remove the demonstrators, Berkeley faculty voted overwhelmingly to support the FSM.


Although members of the Board of Regents continued to assert their right to control campus activities, within days they hired a new chancellor known to be sympathetic to student activism. His first official act was to grant the demands of the Free Speech Movement.

 

Sonikku

Lifer
Jun 23, 2005
15,908
4,940
136
Before you start singing Roberts' praises, remember that he is the reason that Superpacs are now the law of the land.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
35,902
10,235
136
My head hurts trying to resolve this one.

Questioning whether it is proper for the Court to have a role in such a case. My default position is "yes", but Roberts at least makes an interesting argument.
 

hal2kilo

Lifer
Feb 24, 2009
26,244
12,417
136
Gee, you think Roberts is getting tired of cases being purposely brought to the courts over and over, again? Cough, Arkansas.
 

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,891
31,410
146
OP, could you summarize this for me from the perspective of a well-considered, read, logic-based influence of someone like pauldun170, in contrast to, say, the paint thinner-influenced perspective of someone like compuwiz1 or brandonbullshit?
 
Last edited:

zinfamous

No Lifer
Jul 12, 2006
111,891
31,410
146
Gee, you think Roberts is getting tired of cases being purposely brought to the courts over and over, again? Cough, Arkansas.

From my idiot's understanding, Congress has the power to strip SCOTUS of certain appellate jurisdiction in some cases, such as challenges to some state decisions?

.

It's limited, and I'm not sure that it applies, but this has been tested and confirmed several times in the past. If possible, I see no reason that Congress shouldn't determine that such unlawful legislative acts such as the one passed by Arkansas, can be defeated by District court and let that ruling stand.

*I think* Congress can simply determine that SCOTUS has no jurisdiction to hear such an appeal.

I mean, it should be the case, right? And it would be universally supported by the GOP, which roundly professes to detest "legislating from the bench," right? What else do you call creating illegal, troll legislation, for the specific purpose of endless appealing until you luck into that temporary window in history that it *just might go your way*?

If appropriate, Dems need to stomp on this shit, mercilessly. Then again, one wonders what kind of evil conservative sister-fuckers Mitch crammed into the relevant district court(s) over the last couple of years?
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo

brandonbull

Diamond Member
May 3, 2005
6,365
1,223
126
OP, could you summarize this for me from the perspective of a well-considered, read, logic-based influence of someone like pauldun170, in contrast to, say, the paint thinner-influenced perspective of someone like compuwiz1?
If you are asking for something well-considered, read, and logic-based, you must be asking for a friend because that type of blasphemy has no place in your world.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: zinfamous

pauldun170

Diamond Member
Sep 26, 2011
9,510
5,734
136
Vox did a pretty good write-up on the case here.

With conservatives using the legal system to "make statements", every idiot who demands a $1 for the ouchies now has an oppurtunity to swamp the supreme court.
I took this case as Roberts not wanting to turn the federal court system into free for all of shit that should be hashed out elsewhere.
I think this is going to open up the flood gates
 
  • Like
Reactions: hal2kilo