Is Chief Justice Roberts a Player?

[Deno]

I am sure you are an idiot and you are wrong...

It's you that doesn't know your history.

James Maddison wrote the orginal draft...

It was modified by 55 delegates and Washington was involved....

You Tards prove your ignorance over and over.

James Madison died 30 years before the 14th was ratified, I am sure he did not write the original draft of the amendment.

James Madison wrote the initial draft called the Virginia Plan. Modifications were made to it at the Constitutional Convention by 55 delegates, presided by George Washington.

References:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

 

[Claudette]

It is one thing to have been a wishy-washy, middle of the road crowd-pleaser like like Justice Kennedy, but Chief Justice Roberts seems to be playing his own Game of Thrones without any discernible judicial philosophy. First, he plays word games to uphold the ACA in order to preserve a campaign issue against President Obama, then he denies President Trump a perfectly legitimate question about Citizenship for the 2020 Census.

Where is he coming from? The answer that comes to mind is that he wants to be a political player, playing both sides against each other (a la James Comey). In a way, this may be more disturbing than an unyielding adherence to one's personal judicial philosophy.

Comments?

Roberts made a legally sound decision. There was no compelling reason by the current Admin given for adding the question at this late date.

No compelling reason? Do you know what the census is used for? It's how they decide how many Congressional seats the different States receive...the more people counted in the census in your State...the more Congressional seats you get. Why do you think California has so many seats in Congress? That's the reason Democrats don't want that question too be on the census! They don't want those illegals to be excluded from the counts because that will almost certainly cost them seats in Congress!

I agree. I don't think the FF even considered illegals when the constitution was signed. Illegals weren't on anyone's radar.

As for the ACA you can bet your ass that if Rehnquist had still been alive and Chief Justice the ACA would have been kicked to the curb as Roberts should have done. He wouldn't have rewritten that POS as a tax and then foisted it on the tax payers of America.

No way should anyone be forced to buy a commercial product which is what the ACA was before Roberts rewrote it into a tax. What a POS.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It is one thing to have been a wishy-washy, middle of the road crowd-pleaser like like Justice Kennedy, but Chief Justice Roberts seems to be playing his own Game of Thrones without any discernible judicial philosophy. First, he plays word games to uphold the ACA in order to preserve a campaign issue against President Obama, then he denies President Trump a perfectly legitimate question about Citizenship for the 2020 Census.

Where is he coming from? The answer that comes to mind is that he wants to be a political player, playing both sides against each other (a la James Comey). In a way, this may be more disturbing than an unyielding adherence to one's personal judicial philosophy.

Comments?

Roberts made a legally sound decision. There was no compelling reason by the current Admin given for adding the question at this late date.

No compelling reason? Do you know what the census is used for? It's how they decide how many Congressional seats the different States receive...the more people counted in the census in your State...the more Congressional seats you get. Why do you think California has so many seats in Congress? That's the reason Democrats don't want that question too be on the census! They don't want those illegals to be excluded from the counts because that will almost certainly cost them seats in Congress!

Yes, and Congressional seats are based upon total population, not just citizens.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

I am sure you are an idiot and you are wrong...

It's you that doesn't know your history.

James Maddison wrote the orginal draft...

It was modified by 55 delegates and Washington was involved....

You Tards prove your ignorance over and over.

James Madison died 30 years before the 14th was ratified, I am sure he did not write the original draft of the amendment.

James Madison wrote the initial draft called the Virginia Plan. Modifications were made to it at the Constitutional Convention by 55 delegates, presided by George Washington.

References:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_Convention_(United_States)en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

And how does that make him responsible for an amendment that came 30 years after his death?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

James Madison died 30 years before the 14th was ratified, I am sure he did not write the original draft of the amendment.

What does the 14th Amendment have to do with the census?

The major complaint of many of these people is that non-citizens are being used for the apportionment of Congressional seats. The 14th states that WHOLE number (minus Indians not paying taxes) are to be included. This then would include non-citizens.

 

[jwoodie]

It is one thing to have been a wishy-washy, middle of the road crowd-pleaser like like Justice Kennedy, but Chief Justice Roberts seems to be playing his own Game of Thrones without any discernible judicial philosophy. First, he plays word games to uphold the ACA in order to preserve a campaign issue against President Obama, then he denies President Trump a perfectly legitimate question about Citizenship for the 2020 Census.

Where is he coming from? The answer that comes to mind is that he wants to be a political player, playing both sides against each other (a la James Comey). In a way, this may be more disturbing than an unyielding adherence to one's personal judicial philosophy.

Comments?

Roberts made a legally sound decision. There was no compelling reason by the current Admin given for adding the question at this late date.

No compelling reason? Do you know what the census is used for? It's how they decide how many Congressional seats the different States receive...the more people counted in the census in your State...the more Congressional seats you get. Why do you think California has so many seats in Congress? That's the reason Democrats don't want that question too be on the census! They don't want those illegals to be excluded from the counts because that will almost certainly cost them seats in Congress!

The problem with the Constitutional term "persons" is that there were no "citizens" of the United States prior to its ratification. (It was also used to include slaves for the purposes of Congressional representation, but that has been obviated by the 13th and 14th Amendments).

Modernly, there is no reason for this term other than so increase the representation of states with large non-citizen populations. The practical (and political) issue is whether this term can be redefined by Judicial or Legislative determination, or whether it would require a Constitutional Amendment to do so.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

No, I disagreed with that one. But it seems consistent with his judicial philosophy

..which is?

That he puts the view of the law above party politics. He is not soul bound to one party or the other like too many of the Justices are. Though I think as time goes by you all are going to find this is true of the two picks by Trump, which is why I was happy with both of them

 

[jwoodie]

The 14th states that WHOLE number (minus Indians not paying taxes) are to be included. This then would include non-citizens.

I wonder if the "whole number" was intended to mean anything more than repealing the 3/5 counting of slaves in the original Constitution?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The 14th states that WHOLE number (minus Indians not paying taxes) are to be included. This then would include non-citizens.

I wonder if the "whole number" was intended to mean anything more than repealing the 3/5 counting of slaves in the original Constitution?

It might have been, but when you look at the rest of it I think it means more than that. The exclusion for those not paying taxes and then more importantly the 2nd sentence starts with the word "But"..and then goes into the being a citizen.

 

[jwoodie]

The exclusion for those not paying taxes

Now there's an idea!

 

[Harpy Eagle]

The exclusion for those not paying taxes

Now there's an idea!

Yes, but then you have to debate which taxes it is speaking of. Everyone pays some taxes

 

[sartre play]

Roberts makes both good choices & some that really stink. Maybe his goal is to Not have the court become like the government. party over country. we can be unhappy about decisions that they make, if we come to distrust them as party hacks, not defenders of the constitution & the rule of law. one more institution is undermined domed.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Roberts makes both good choices & some that really stink. Maybe his goal is to Not have the court become like the government. party over country. we can be unhappy about decisions that they make, if we come to distrust them as party hacks, not defenders of the constitution & the rule of law. one more institution is undermined domed.

I do think that Robert's thinks it is his place now to keep balance in the court.

 

[sartre play]

Mitch's pick not Trumps. and unless your vote is winning beats what is best for our country as a whole. a poor pick, we could have done better.

 

[bendog]

The 14th states that WHOLE number (minus Indians not paying taxes) are to be included. This then would include non-citizens.

I wonder if the "whole number" was intended to mean anything more than repealing the 3/5 counting of slaves in the original Constitution?

It might have been, but when you look at the rest of it I think it means more than that. The exclusion for those not paying taxes and then more importantly the 2nd sentence starts with the word "But"..and then goes into the being a citizen.

The birthright citizenship and counting everyone for purposes of allocating EV and House seats both work to make it impossible to create another group of laborers who are denied a pollical voice.

IF we import a bunch of illegal aliens for cheap labor, their children are citizens when born here, and their states gain political power

The topic of the thread was the SCOTUS ruling.

No, it was whether Roberts was making decisions based on some judicial philosophy or whether he had ulterior motives. That is why I also referred to his ACA decision. Do you think that was correct, too?

Not being a smartass, but googling "John Roberts judicial philosophy" results in more than one or two scholarly articles on his philosophy. One term that pops up is minimalist. Or selective minimalist. Rehnquist was also a selective minimalist. Minimalist in the notion of not deciding more than the issue at hand, and not forcing the court to decide a political issue. I realize people say Roberts has a political issue, but people say that when his opinions don't validate THEIR political issue … like the ACA.

A minimalist will affirm a law if it can be fairly characterized as being within congress's power to make. Pretty much ANY tax is constitutional if it's rational, so if congress wants a tax to pay for hc benefits, it's legal … even though it might a bad idea. I realize opponents said the ACA forced people to buy a product from another private entity, and it can be seen that way. But it can also be seen as a tax levied on people who don't do something, and not levied on those who do. A minimalist affirms then.

Citizens United was different and a shot across the bows. But it is too large to discuss without hijacking the thread. Roberts is also seen as "strategic" in that he can contradict himself, and he'll abandon precedent one week and tout its virtues another.

 

[bendog]

It is one thing to have been a wishy-washy, middle of the road crowd-pleaser like like Justice Kennedy, but Chief Justice Roberts seems to be playing his own Game of Thrones without any discernible judicial philosophy. First, he plays word games to uphold the ACA in order to preserve a campaign issue against President Obama, then he denies President Trump a perfectly legitimate question about Citizenship for the 2020 Census.

Where is he coming from? The answer that comes to mind is that he wants to be a political player, playing both sides against each other (a la James Comey). In a way, this may be more disturbing than an unyielding adherence to one's personal judicial philosophy.

Comments?

Roberts made a legally sound decision. There was no compelling reason by the current Admin given for adding the question at this late date.

No compelling reason? Do you know what the census is used for? It's how they decide how many Congressional seats the different States receive...the more people counted in the census in your State...the more Congressional seats you get. Why do you think California has so many seats in Congress? That's the reason Democrats don't want that question too be on the census! They don't want those illegals to be excluded from the counts because that will almost certainly cost them seats in Congress!

But excluding "the illegals" to reduce Calif's House Seats violates the 14th amend.

 

[Oldstyle]

It is one thing to have been a wishy-washy, middle of the road crowd-pleaser like like Justice Kennedy, but Chief Justice Roberts seems to be playing his own Game of Thrones without any discernible judicial philosophy. First, he plays word games to uphold the ACA in order to preserve a campaign issue against President Obama, then he denies President Trump a perfectly legitimate question about Citizenship for the 2020 Census.

Where is he coming from? The answer that comes to mind is that he wants to be a political player, playing both sides against each other (a la James Comey). In a way, this may be more disturbing than an unyielding adherence to one's personal judicial philosophy.

Comments?

Roberts made a legally sound decision. There was no compelling reason by the current Admin given for adding the question at this late date.

No compelling reason? Do you know what the census is used for? It's how they decide how many Congressional seats the different States receive...the more people counted in the census in your State...the more Congressional seats you get. Why do you think California has so many seats in Congress? That's the reason Democrats don't want that question too be on the census! They don't want those illegals to be excluded from the counts because that will almost certainly cost them seats in Congress!

But excluding "the illegals" to reduce Calif's House Seats violates the 14th amend.

How does that violate the 14th amendment? If they are illegals then that means they weren't born here or haven't become legalized citizens. They have no right to representation in Congress.

 

[The Original Tree]

The exclusion for those not paying taxes

Now there's an idea!

Yes, but then you have to debate which taxes it is speaking of. Everyone pays some taxes

Unless you are an Illegal Immigrant. You get a pass in Sanctuary Shitties

 

[The Original Tree]

It is one thing to have been a wishy-washy, middle of the road crowd-pleaser like like Justice Kennedy, but Chief Justice Roberts seems to be playing his own Game of Thrones without any discernible judicial philosophy. First, he plays word games to uphold the ACA in order to preserve a campaign issue against President Obama, then he denies President Trump a perfectly legitimate question about Citizenship for the 2020 Census.

Where is he coming from? The answer that comes to mind is that he wants to be a political player, playing both sides against each other (a la James Comey). In a way, this may be more disturbing than an unyielding adherence to one's personal judicial philosophy.

Comments?

Roberts made a legally sound decision. There was no compelling reason by the current Admin given for adding the question at this late date.

No compelling reason? Do you know what the census is used for? It's how they decide how many Congressional seats the different States receive...the more people counted in the census in your State...the more Congressional seats you get. Why do you think California has so many seats in Congress? That's the reason Democrats don't want that question too be on the census! They don't want those illegals to be excluded from the counts because that will almost certainly cost them seats in Congress!

But excluding "the illegals" to reduce Calif's House Seats violates the 14th amend.

Are Native Americans, Citizens of the Various Native American Nations, counted for purposes of representation?

They are considered Citizens of their individual Tribes.

Care to explain that?

 

[22lcidw]

Roberts made a legally sound decision. There was no compelling reason by the current Admin given for adding the question at this late date.

The correct test is "rational basis," not "compelling reason." Otherwise, the Court can second guess every single decision made by the Executive Branch. Roberts seems to have sidestepped this test by finding that the government's explanation was "insufficient."

P.S. "At this late date" is (or should be) an irrelevant factor. The Court is not in charge of the U.S. Printing Office.

There was not rational basis given for it either.

and it is not just about the printing, the printing is the least of the concerns.

Things like the census are planned down to the most precise detail to get maximum response rates and the most accurate responses to the wording of the questions. They have been planning and laying out the next census since the last one ended.

Throwing in an extra question is far more complicated than it might be worth. Even Ross admits that it would decrease response rates and response rates play a huge part in accuracy of the data.

Didn't woody have this same conversation yesterday? And Roberts found the govt's stated reason was a pretext. He was not unclear.

I might have missed that one. Either way, this was the correct ruling based upon the laws and not partisan sheep herd mentality.

Its just that when the Proglodyites pick a justice they are true to their leanings. The three Proglodike broads are what they were picked to do. For some reason, some Repub justices are not as reliable. But then again, you don't have a president declare that men in dresses can molest little girls in public bathrooms by no corruption. And there will be legalization of pedophile relationships by the same party with the help of the pseudo Repubs.