Chief Justice Roberts stresses 'independence from the political branches'

[Vern Humphrey]

Chief Justice John Roberts referenced current events in an appearance on Tuesday night, specifically alluding to the bitter and partisan confirmation battle surrounding Brett Kavanaugh's nomination and stressing that the judiciary "requires independence from the political branches."

"I will not criticize the political branches," Roberts said in a speech in Minnesota, but added that the judicial branch "must be very different."

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/chief-justice-roberts-stresses-independence-from-the-political-branches/ar-BBOtIll?li=BBnb7Kz

I wonder if he will have a talk with Ruth Ginsberg?

[dogtag]

How can they be isolated from the political process when
most of the cases that come before them are political ?

[Vern Humphrey]

Well for starters, they should start interpreting the Constitution by the plain words, and not twist them to come up with politically correct decisions.

[Roadkingtrax]

Kavanaugh still whining about Clinton to his new coworkers?

[bruce]

Re: Whining. Probably about as much as RG is complaining about whatever political issue has her feeling increasingly isolated and irrelevant. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[togor]

What Roberts is saying is that regardless of how the court rules he doesn't want it to be seen as a politicized institution. Well this is the big leagues John and sometimes the "umpire" has to make a tough call. But what if the contestants start ignoring the whistle or the out-of-bounds lines in an effort to gain political advantage over the other side? Is there such a thing as taking political advantage too far? These are the cases that the Roberts court very much wants to duck, so long as it is the GOP and its donor class that is seen to be pressing its advantage. However as we saw in Bush v. Gore, when the circumstances are different, the court suddenly overcomes its reticence to intervene. Anyone who has been to a high school basketball game with sh*tty refs slanting the calls to the home team knows how that goes.

[S.A. Boggs]

What Roberts is saying is that regardless of how the court rules he doesn't want it to be seen as a politicized institution. Well this is the big leagues John and sometimes the "umpire" has to make a tough call. But what if the contestants start ignoring the whistle or the out-of-bounds lines in an effort to gain political advantage over the other side? Is there such a thing as taking political advantage too far? These are the cases that the Roberts court very much wants to duck, so long as it is the GOP and its donor class that is seen to be pressing its advantage. However as we saw in Bush v. Gore, when the circumstances are different, the court suddenly overcomes its reticence to intervene. Anyone who has been to a high school basketball game with sh*tty refs slanting the calls to the home team knows how that goes.

Regardless of how one feels at that time, the Supreme Courts decision is the end of the road. What is wrong with returning to the Constitution as written, not being interpreted "what is is?" The rudder has been too far left and the ship of state has been going in a large circle, now the rudder is further in the opposite direction and hopefully on a good course. Leftist want what is good for their particular party at that time. Conservatives want what is good for America AS THE CONSTITUTION IS Written. A Constitutional Republic is what our nation is, not something to be governed by polls...that is democracy.
Sam

[Vern Humphrey]

A long time ago, I -- and many others here -- took an oath to uphold the Constitution. There was no escape clause in that oath, no provision for ignoring the parts we don't like.

Now there is a provision for amending the Constitution, in Article V. The methods allowed do NOT include "reinterpreting" the Constitution. The court should go by the literal meaning, and if they don't LIKE the literal meaning, they can always recommend an amendment. They cannot MAKE one.

[togor]

I'm actually okay with literalism as a basis for interpretation of of the Constitution. And nowhere in there do I see the word "corporation", as a form of person entitled to protection of the bill of rights, even as corporations themselves as private entities are not required to extend those rights to their employees. Neither constitutional literalism or liberal activism got us to this current state of affairs.

[Vern Humphrey]

The defacto standard nowadays is the corporate state -- where people are dealt with as groups, not as individuals. The concept of individual rights is disappearing under a tide of gay rights, women's rights, and so on. This is, of course, classical fascism.

[togor]

I think cause and effect are getting jumbled. Do Adam and Steve want to get married because they're gay? Or do they want to get married for the same reasons as Phillip and Dolores? The latter, largely, yet somehow when P&D seek to tie the knot it's just two people exercising their individual rights, whereas for A&S it suddenly becomes about a group right. Nobody really cares about interracial marriages anymore and so consequently we don't think of interracial couples as part of some larger group trying to foist interracial rights upon an unwilling society. If people get singled out for some level of persecution for an identifiable reason, then it naturally follows that people so affected may coalsce into a larger formation with a common agenda. This is rational behavior. If whites for example ever come to feel marginalized and significantly persecuted then one would expect them to enter into a common union to push back against the forces prevailing upon them. So long story short I don't see facism here, in either a classical or modernist definition.

[blackhawknj]

Many of us would argue that the federal judiciary-any judiciary where judges are appointed, not elected-is TOO independent, especially from popular control.

[Vern Humphrey]

And many major changes in our nation -- abortion, gay marriage, and so on -- come not through the democratic process, but through judicial fiat.

[togor]

Many of us would argue that the federal judiciary-any judiciary where judges are appointed, not elected-is TOO independent, especially from popular control.

Well given that a conservative President elected with a minority of the popular vote is speeding to fill the Federal judiciary with lifetime appointees supplied by an industry of conservative think tanks, you are in effect articulating a viewpoint increasingly popular among liberals.

[blackhawknj]

"A conservative President elected with a minority of the popular vote"-but by well established Constitutional procedures. And if the first woman president found her nominees constantly rejected by an Opposition Congress ?
Hmmm, perhaps it's time for some sort of popular control over the federal judiciary. Will that be a plank in the 2020 Democratic platform ?