JOHN ROBERTS: Stop Focusing On Who Won Or Lost, Trust The Process

[Bn2f]

Don't like the Supreme Court's recent opinions? Chief Justice John Roberts has thoughts

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dont-supreme-courts-recent-opinions-172035445.html

“You’d like it to be informed criticism, but it’s usually not,” he said. “They’re naturally focusing on the bottom line: who won and who lost. You need to appreciate that that’s just the nature of what you do.”

 

[Bn2f]

Sure, I once claimed to want to only call balls and strikes, but now I know that everyone should just relax and appreciate the beauty of the game and not worry about anything the umpires may do.

 

[jomar]

It was a very narrow ruling that didn’t address what the court underlying issue they’ll ultimately have to. That is, what does the constitution have to say about it.

 

[icanhelp1]

It was a very narrow ruling that didn’t address what the court underlying issue they’ll ultimately have to. That is, what does the constitution have to say about it.

an "imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary". Brilliantly stated!

 

[jomar]

an "imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary". Brilliantly stated!

In trumpworld, yes.

But in the real democreatic world no, just judges doing their jobs to uphold the constitution and rule of law.

 

[icanhelp1]

In trumpworld, yes.

But in the real democreatic world no, just judges doing their jobs to uphold the constitution and rule of law.

Violating the constitution to uphold the constitution is an oxymoron.

 

[73Seahawks]

Don't like the Supreme Court's recent opinions? Chief Justice John Roberts has thoughts

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dont-supreme-courts-recent-opinions-172035445.html

“You’d like it to be informed criticism, but it’s usually not,” he said. “They’re naturally focusing on the bottom line: who won and who lost. You need to appreciate that that’s just the nature of what you do.”

Roberts better hope the next Democratic President and Democratic-controlled United States Senate doesn't replace him or any of the Conservative Justices down the road.

 

[heathrowinneo]

Don't like the Supreme Court's recent opinions? Chief Justice John Roberts has thoughts

https://www.yahoo.com/news/dont-supreme-courts-recent-opinions-172035445.html

“You’d like it to be informed criticism, but it’s usually not,” he said. “They’re naturally focusing on the bottom line: who won and who lost. You need to appreciate that that’s just the nature of what you do.”

congress is checked out and the supreme court is trying to unravel 100+ years of decided legal cases. they are doing more (damage) than congresses inactions.

 

[jomar]

Violating the constitution to uphold the constitution is an oxymoron.

How were the judges violating the constitution?

 

[Mrtenant]

Next up, appeal to SCOTUS....

 

[icanhelp1]

How were the judges violating the constitution?

Congress has never granted federal courts the authority to issue universal injunctions.

 

[ll74]

Another great statement by Roberts.

He's been a great chief justice.

 

[ll74]

Congress has never granted federal courts the authority to issue universal injunctions.

Injunctions are inherent powers. i haven't found any case where Congress has limited this power, as they are able to

SCOTUS has.

 

[jomar]

Congress has never granted federal courts the authority to issue universal injunctions.

Thats not a constitutional issue.

Birthright citizenship is. And that’s the underlying issue that trump is trying to undo.

 

[icanhelp1]

Injunctions are inherent powers. i haven't found any case where Congress has limited this power, as they are able to

SCOTUS has.

Congress has not exercised its authority, that’s why federal judges are out of control. Over time federal judges went unchallenged establishing precedent based on zero constitutional authority.

Injunctions limited to within their districts.

 

[icanhelp1]

Thats not a constitutional issue.

I replied to your comment. an "imperial Executive while embracing an imperial Judiciary". Brilliantly stated!

Birthright citizenship is. And that’s the underlying issue that trump is trying to undo.

Was never taken up by SCOTUS. Universal injunctions were. The judiciary was put back in their lane.

 

[ll74]

Congress has not exercised its authority, that’s why federal judges are out of control. Over time federal judges went unchallenged establishing precedent based on zero constitutional authority.

Injunctions are within judicial authority
SCOTUS gave them guardrails.
Congress is impotent.

Nothing about that was out of control.

Injunctions limited to within their districts.

SCOTUS can still rule an injunction is worthy as they will regarding the EO on birthright citizenship. (A permanent one)

 

[icanhelp1]

Injunctions are within judicial authority
SCOTUS gave them guardrails.
Congress is impotent.

Nothing about that was out of control.


SCOTUS can still rule an injunction is worthy as they will regarding the EO on birthright citizenship. (A permanent one)

I have been writing about universal injunctions. Of course judges have the authority to issue injunctions within their districts.

 

[dmallord]

Violating the constitution to uphold the constitution is an oxymoron.

Give that man a cigar! Indeed, this is an oxymoron.

Seems to me it is worthy of a couple of examples:

A notable one is Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election results. He pressured state officials to “find votes,” pushed false electors, and encouraged Congress and the Vice President to ignore certified results—all in the name of "protecting democracy." But these efforts directly violated constitutional processes for elections and the peaceful transfer of power.

Just as he used emergency powers to redirect military funds for the border wall after Congress had already denied the funding, undermining the constitutional separation of powers.

 

[icanhelp1]

Give that man a cigar! Indeed, this is an oxymoron.

Seems to me it is worthy of a couple of examples:

A notable one is Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election results. He pressured state officials to “find votes,” pushed false electors, and encouraged Congress and the Vice President to ignore certified results—all in the name of "protecting democracy." But these efforts directly violated constitutional processes for elections and the peaceful transfer of power.

Just as he used emergency powers to redirect military funds for the border wall after Congress had already denied the funding, undermining the constitutional separation of powers.

Oh fuck off with your anti-Trump rhetoric. Trump is not the subject matter.

As far as the emergency proclamation and redirecting military funding for border security the Supreme Court saw it differently. Whether it was a violation of separation of powers I’m not sure, but what it was was a vengeance battle between Pelosi and Trump. The only body that had standing to file suit against redirecting military assets for the wall was congress and I don’t remember if they did or not, I don’t believe they did. I only remember ACLU and the sierra club filing suit. As we see in today’s situation Trump was spot on to declare an emergency as far back as 2020. IMHO

 

[ll74]

I have been writing about universal injunctions. Of course judges have the authority to issue injunctions within their districts.

I was speaking about a nationwide injunction, which is still going to happen even after your SCOTUS ruling.for birthright citizenship as well as other cases in which they are needed.

It just takes a different path.

 

[LLCox]

Fuck Roberts

 

[dmallord]

Oh fuck off with your anti-Trump rhetoric. Trump is not the subject matter.

As far as the emergency proclamation and redirecting military funding for border security the Supreme Court saw it differently. Whether it was a violation of separation of powers I’m not sure, but what it was was a vengeance battle between Pelosi and Trump. The only body that had standing to file suit against redirecting military assets for the wall was congress and I don’t remember if they did or not, I don’t believe they did. I only remember ACLU and the sierra club filing suit. As we see in today’s situation Trump was spot on to declare an emergency as far back as 2020. IMHO

Ah, the ever-reliable “fuck off” response—usually a sign someone ran out of arguments but still wants to swing.

You claim Trump isn't the subject, then spend the rest of your reply defending his actions. That’s not just weak—it’s textbook deflection.

Yes, the Supreme Court allowed the emergency reallocation to proceed. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a constitutional overreach—it just means five justices said, “fine for now.” Congress holds the purse strings. If a president can bypass them just by declaring an “emergency,” the separation of powers is a joke—and the Constitution’s a suggestion, not law.

As for 2020, Trump didn’t see an emergency—he saw a campaign issue. And now you’re trying to reframe a self-serving move as visionary leadership. It wasn’t. It was politics dressed up as crisis.

So no, I won’t fuck off. I brought receipts. You brought excuses, revisionism, and a cigar.

Light it. You’ll need it to distract from how badly that argument just burned down around you.

 

[icanhelp1]

I was speaking about a nationwide injunction, which is still going to happen even after your SCOTUS ruling.for birthright citizenship as well as other cases in which they are needed.

It just takes a different path.

Ah, the ever-reliable “fuck off” response—usually a sign someone ran out of arguments but still wants to swing.

You claim Trump isn't the subject, then spend the rest of your reply defending his actions. That’s not just weak—it’s textbook deflection.

Yes, the Supreme Court allowed the emergency reallocation to proceed. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a constitutional overreach—it just means five justices said, “fine for now.” Congress holds the purse strings. If a president can bypass them just by declaring an “emergency,” the separation of powers is a joke—and the Constitution’s a suggestion, not law.

As for 2020, Trump didn’t see an emergency—he saw a campaign issue. And now you’re trying to reframe a self-serving move as visionary leadership. It wasn’t. It was politics dressed up as crisis.

So no, I won’t fuck off. I brought receipts. You brought excuses, revisionism, and a cigar.

Light it. You’ll need it to distract from how badly that argument just burned down around you.

If it wasn’t visionary then why did Trump insist on building a border wall. Judging from our present day immigration crisis he was indeed a visionary you’re just to blind with TDS to see it.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

Roberts is obviously correct. His statement is unarguable.

“It would be good if people appreciated it’s not the judges’ fault that a correct interpretation of the law meant that, no, you don’t get to do this,” Roberts said at a judicial conference, the day after the Supreme Court handed down some of its biggest – and most divisive – opinions of the term.