Chief Justice John Roberts is 62 57 years-old. If he serves as long as his former colleague John Paul Stevens, he will retire in 2043 2048. I don’t expect Roberts to become a reliable vote for the liberal point of view on the Court, but anything that pushes him in that direction has to be considered a good thing. It doesn’t seem like he is currently welcome in the conservatives’ camp. I hope that continues. I’m sure the liberals will be happy to lunch with him today, tomorrow, and for the next few decades. Chief Justice Roberts is a human being, and he will seek positive rewards where he can find them. He may try to repair his damaged reputation with conservatives by overcompensating in future cases. Or, he may feel badly alienated and mistreated, and decide that his positive reinforcement comes from some other source. In either case, I encourage all Republicans to pile on Roberts with all the vituperative hatred and disrespect they can muster. Make life miserable for this man, please.
Like David Souter? It’s not gonna happen lol. But we can hope.
Off topic a bit but……..
The sourcing of the CBS story came from the conservative side of the court. Demonstrating once again, minimal if any respect for tradition from the right in the advancement of their political agenda.
We see this is the Senate with the unprecedented filibuster obstruction and abuse of other Senate rules to gum up the works.
Is there any doubt the filibuster will finally disappear as an arrow in the quiver of the minority once Mitch McConnell becomes majority leader again?
The CBS report was at first questioned and then last night on Lawrence O’Donnell’s show both Paul Campos and Glenn Greenwald fired the meaningful shot to sink it and give credence to the account that Roberts wrote both sides and was ‘wobbly’ as far back as 26 days before the release of the decision.
They thought that the strange comment about the Ginsberg dissent was actually left in as a message. Regardless of that conjecture, Roberts made a singularly non partisan stand. He chose the Court not ideology but he is a man accustomed to respect and I doubt he realized that that coat of armor would melt so quickly and surely.
Will the Conservative bench even give him the respect of leadership or are all these unprecidented leaks an omen of another Joe ‘you lie’ Wilson moments?
While, at first, it seemed impossible for there to be leakers it doesn’t seem so after more thought. We know that Clarence and Fat Tony don’t give a damn about anyone but themselves and their Teahadist/fascist agenda. We know that Clarence’s wife has no moral scruples. We know that Clarence Thomas is on super friendly terms with the CBS reporter that “leaked.” I’ll keep telling people one thing. Roberts is a Chamber of Commerce justice. He does whatever is best for them. If Roberts did indeed switch, it means that the Chamber was unsure what to do(remember .. this was the one case they didn’t take a position on .. and they “pitched a perfect game” this court session).
It’s one thing that Roberts chose this position.
It’s another when you see the leaks in what has traditionally been a SCOTUS that prided itself in secrecy of their own brand of sausage making. There’s always been a pride in not letting anyone ever see anything but the polished version of their results.
In the immediate, the leaks are a sign of disrespect for Roberts, but in the long view they are a sign of lack of respect for the institution itself.
Wasn’t it Roberts’ wife who cried during the hearings because people were being so mean to her husband? I saw where Jonathan Krohn is taking his Conservative friends’ backlash in stride but his mom is getting some nasties from her longtime friends who don’t like his switch from Conservative goldenboy to Obama supporter. Mrs. Roberts is gonna take a hit in this and that is certainly gonna piss her husband off.
I believe that was Alito’s wife, not Roberts’s. Hence, the term, “Crylito,” which I remember seeing across blogs.
yes, that was Alito’s wife. Obviously rehearsed beforehand. How naive that dems fell for it.
Ahhh, me bad. Yet I’m still thinkin the Roberts are going to see their social calendar a wee bit curtailed. Hope they weren’t counting on cocktail parties with the Thomas’s
looks like the Romney campaign is taking a page frm that playbook
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/ann-romney-obama-campaign-strategy-is-lets-kill
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/06/on-roberts-majority-opinion-becoming-the-joint-dissent
Campos suggested that Roberts wrote most of the dissent – i.e. it was initially his [then changed his mind if I understand correctly; correct me if I’m wrong on this]
He followed precedent instead of judicial activism, and did his job. Four other Supremes decided to go the activist route and were willing to throw out over 100 years of precedent. Maybe he wanted to be on the right side of history, it certainly won’t be kind to the other four. It’s rather sad that it’s come to this level of partisanship in the supreme law of the land.
That’s what I believe, he was concerned about his legacy and being on the right side of history.
yes, could also have a genuine interest in the law [?]
Ha! Novel idea, that.
yes, I know, my bad. Also,how about the concept that a person can grow intellectually?
Perhaps in time that question will be answered. All we have to do is continue to observe;-)
Citizens United makes me doubt that.
Indianadem is correct, we can only observe right now; we cannot know (even Roberts probably doesn’t know) whether the context of his thought is shifting/ expanding. On the plus side, Kagan was selected, iirc, partly because of her gifts as a dialog partner. We really don’t know anything at this point.
Good point. Perhaps what is being missed is the power of Kagan’s debate persuasion within the Court.
I don’t believe that Roberts wrote the strikedown dissent intending for it to be the majority position.
I’m not sure that I believe that he even voted on the side of strike down.
I think he didn’t take a side. I think he waited, waited and waited to see what the arguments were going to be and how they were being made. That said, I think after he read the reasoning he made the decision that the strikedown position was not law, it was politics. And as such, should not be countenanced.
I’m becoming less cynical about the courts, yet again. Some people never learn.
I suppose it’s possible that John Roberts’ fee-fees could be hurt. But the real hope in the conservatives piling on is that it might just dawn on Roberts that if the Teahadists are this unhinged, then maybe, just maybe, their legal “theories” are totally unhinged, too.
Not that it disproves your point, but CJ John Roberts is in fact 57 years old, not 62. He’s a year younger than I, so he’s going to be around for a lot longer than you think.
he’s younger than Alito
Remember that the ideas at stake were originally Romney’s and the Heritage Foundations. I think Roberts was being apolitical but very Conservative, not Liberal.
It’s not just Roberts. This hatefest intensifies the fractures within the whole Republican Party. It is not going away, and there will be more fracturing episodes — guaranteed.