Roberts--and Alito--simply lied. Balls & strikes. Right. They are politicians in robes-nothing more.

[kpete]

Roberts--and Alito--simply lied. Balls and strikes. Right. They are politicians in robes, nothing more.

John Roberts Is Just a Liar
by Michael Tomasky Jun 18, 2012 1:25 PM EDT
Print
Email
Comments (121)

Count this if you must as my attempt to "intimidate" John Roberts, but I was reading back through his statements about stare decisis at his hearings. What a liar.

....................

John Roberts assured the Senate Judiciary Committee that judges must "be bound down by rules and precedents." Invoking Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, he affirmed that "the founders appreciated the role of precedent in promoting evenhandedness, predictability, stability," and "integrity in the judicial process." Although acknowledging that it is sometimes necessary for judges to reconsider precedents, he stressed that this should be reserved for exceptional circumstances, where a decision has proved clearly "unworkable" over time. But in general, "a sound judicial philosophy should reflect recognition of the fact that the judge operates within a system of rules developed over the years by other judges equally striving to live up to the judicial oath."

Similarly, Samuel Alito testified to the Senate that the doctrine of stare decisis is "a fundamental part of our legal system." This principle, he explained, "limits the power of the judiciary" and "reflects the view that courts should respect the judgments and the wisdom that are embodied in prior judicial decisions." Stare decisis, he added, it is "not an inexorable command," but there must be a strong "presumption that courts are going to follow prior precedents."

It is hardly surprising that Roberts and Alito would pay such obeisance to the doctrine of stare decisis in order to get themselves confirmed. Stare decisis is, after all, the bedrock principle of the rule of law. Not only does it promote stability and encourage judges to decide cases based on principle rather than on a preference for one or another of the parties before them, but it also serves importantly to reduce the politicization of the Court. It moderates ideological swings and preserves both the appearance and the reality that the Supreme Court is truly a legal rather than a political institution.

Now, they of course left themselves wiggle room in that "inexorable command" part. And I know conservatives are already thinking, well, Tomasky, were you such a fan of precedent when the question was civil rights or abortion? It's a fair question, but there are differences. One is that those big Supreme Court decisions of the Warren era weren't about legislation. I can't think of a case when the Warren Court overturned a prominent federal law, clearly preventing the will of Congress (and therefore, in our governmental theory, of the people) from being implemented, especially a law just two years old.

more:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/18/john-roberts-is-just-a-liar.html

[DefenseLawyer]

1. I'm shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!

Lied to by Roberts? Really? Anyone that didn't know exactly what that guy was all about from the beginning was either stupid or delusional or both. If I'm choosing a jury and there is a guy on the panel who happens to be the brother of the chief of police and the alleged victim's best friend am I going to choose him for my jury just because he says "but I will be fair" during jury selection? Well gee whiz, everything about who Roberts is and what he's done says he's an authoritarian tool, but he seems so nice! And when we asked him he told us to forget all that and trust him cause he's going to be super fair and reasonable at all times. Good enough for me! I'm sure it will all work out.

[Octafish]

2. Rewarded for helping America move on from Iran-Contra treason.

For the good of his Superiors, of course.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002281926

He was just following orders.

[mmonk]

3. Lying to Congress is an impeachable offense but impeachment

is only reserved for members of the Democratic Party nowadays.

[ananda]

4. One law for Dems, no law for Reeps.

nt

[brentspeak]

5. The Court's RW majority epitomizes the "activist judges" the RW flacks yack about

[ellenfl]

7. silly boy! 'activist judges' only applies to the left. you haven't figured that out yet? eom

[spanone]

6. late in life i'm learning that the republican party will do/say anything to gain prominence....

then enact their idealists rules regardless of their promises

[annabanana]

8. In a functioning Republic, the would both be IMPEACHED

and removed from office.

[myrna minx]

9. K&R