General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWill John Roberts make decisions that save the honor of HIS supreme court, HIS legacy, . . . . .
. . . . . and yes, for basic fairness and impartial justice?
It would be not the least bit unusual to see a justice put there by a conservative president take a turn to the left. Could it happen again?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,714 posts)William Rehnquist voted to uphold the Miranda decision after initially opposing it because it had become part of the cultural fabric of the nation.
OnDoutside
(19,974 posts)legacy.
tymorial
(3,433 posts)I dont see this happening again though to be honest. The Republicans biggest mistake with him was his lack of paper and record. He had some choice accusations thrown his way though by Democrats. It's interesting he became an invaluable liberal on the court.
Ace Rothstein
(3,184 posts)He'll now be able to advance conservative causes and block any progressive legislation.
exboyfil
(17,865 posts)libtodeath
(2,888 posts)crazytown
(7,277 posts)Once in a Blue Moon he may side with the progressive Justices. Dont hold your breath.
empedocles
(15,751 posts)Kennedy probably corrupted. Robert's unlikely to be connected to Putin money. ACA suggests Roberts may be haunted by the ghost of Justice Taney - resisted the Scalia, etc. crush. Significant point.
Don't hold your breath, but don't give up hope.
sl8
(13,901 posts)Roberts agreed with the decision in full and wrote a separate concurrence.
Here is Jeffrey Toobin's take on it:
From https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/21/money-unlimited
By Jeffrey Toobin
https://media.newyorker.com/photos/590967351c7a8e33fb38d74d/master/w_1454,c_limit/120521_r22203_g2048.jpg
By having the case reargued, Roberts put the liberals in a box and transformed the decisions impact on political campaigns.
Illustration by Barry Blitt
When Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was first argued before the Supreme Court, on March 24, 2009, it seemed like a case of modest importance. The issue before the Justices was a narrow one. The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law prohibited corporations from running television commercials for or against Presidential candidates for thirty days before primaries. During that period, Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, had wanted to run a documentary, as a cable video on demand, called Hillary: The Movie, which was critical of Hillary Clinton. The F.E.C. had prohibited the broadcast under McCain-Feingold, and Citizens United had challenged the decision. There did not seem to be a lot riding on the outcome. After all, how many nonprofits wanted to run documentaries about Presidential candidates, using relatively obscure technologies, just before elections?
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., summoned Theodore B. Olson, the lawyer for Citizens United, to the podium. Robertss voice bears a flat-vowelled trace of his origins, in Indiana. Unlike his predecessor, William Rehnquist, Roberts rarely shows irritation or frustration on the bench. A well-mannered Midwesterner, he invariably lets one of his colleagues ask the first questions.
That day, it was David Souter, who was just a few weeks away from announcing his departure from the Court. In keeping with his distaste for Washington, Souter seemed almost to cultivate his New Hampshire accent during his two decades on the Court. In response to Souters questions, Olson made a key point about how he thought the case should be resolved. In his view, the prohibitions in McCain-Feingold applied only to television commercials, not to ninety-minute documentaries. This sort of communication was not something that Congress intended to prohibit, Olson said. This view made the case even more straightforward. Olsons argument indicated that there was no need for the Court to declare any part of the law unconstitutional, or even to address the First Amendment implications of the case. Olson simply sought a judgment that McCain-Feingold did not apply to documentaries shown through video on demand.
The Justices settled into their usual positions. The diminutive Ruth Bader Ginsburg was barely visible above the bench. Stephen Breyer was twitchy, his expressions changing based on whether or not he agreed with the lawyers answers. As ever, Clarence Thomas was silent. (He was in year three of his now six-year streak of not asking questions.)
.
...
More at link.
Maeve
(42,288 posts)And I think it would be one of our better chances of restoring sanity to the SC. But...
Freddie
(9,275 posts)So he might throw us a bone on it occasion. Not counting on it.
WePurrsevere
(24,259 posts)lark
(23,158 posts)He's been saving 4 cases for Kavanaugh to push through the rw verdict. He might occasionally save us, but he is doctrinaire repug. He' the one who went looking for a Citizens United case so he could blow up campaign finance rules. Will he side with drumpf and his party to block orange assface from being indicted, that is the most relevant question. We really don't know what he will do on that critically important question.
Buckeyeblue
(5,502 posts)But he will be fickle. Anything having to do with money, he will side with the repugs. He will be open to allowing states to humiliate women before they can get an abortion. But he will probably stop short of overturning Roe. I also don't think he overturnes Obergefell even thought he descented in the original case. It's too culturally ingrained now, too many people have gotten married, overturning it would be a mess. And I just took a quick look at his descent, and it seems to me he gives himself wiggle room. His main argument is that the court has never changed marriage before, so why now. He can't really make that argument now. Also. He didn't join any of the other descenting opinions that were a little more extreme in their argument.
eleny
(46,166 posts)the right wing has finally achieved owning all three branches. it's in leagues with putin. i don't believe he's worried about his legacy with us.
his legacy won't be determined by us if we aren't the side writing the history