• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

John Roberts Decries Attacks on Supreme Court’s ‘Legitimacy’

coyote505 said:
It IS over, having been changed by CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT, not liberal pissing and moaning.
Click to expand...
A constitutional amendment that was pushed and passed by "liberals" - ergo "Something has to be done about it.".
 
j brown's body said:
The authors of the Constitution themselves didn't agree on its meaning. That's why it is vague and open to interpretation. I suggest they had an expectation that people would shape it to the needs of the time and might be horrified to learn that over 200 years later, people still think they are the last word.
Click to expand...
While the authors of the US constitution might very well not have been in total agreement as to its meaning, they were unanimous in their agreement that only "The Right People" should control the composition of "The Executive Branch" and "The Judicial Branch" as well as being in control of half of "The Legislative Branch" (the Senate half) and they were also in complete agreement that "The Right People" meant themselves and those White Christian Males of their own socioeconomic cadre.
 
Dayton3 said:
If you wanted to go by experience, nominee Robert Bork was one of the most qualified nominees ever. Did you support Bork's confirmation?
Click to expand...
You guys REALLY hate that your constitional policies were so unpopular that you had to LIE in front of Congress to implement them in the judiciary.

You soiled yourselves and are stomping your feet like toddlers.
 
highroller said:
You guys REALLY hate that your constitional policies were so unpopular that you had to LIE in front of Congress to implement them in the judiciary.
Click to expand...

Liberals have done that for decaives des. You don't think gay marriage would've ever been voted in by popular vote do you?

Don't whine about it when conservatives do the same to you when they have a court majority.
 
Dayton3 said:
Liberals have done that for decaives des. You don't think gay marriage would've ever been voted in by popular vote do you?

Don't whine about it when conservatives do the same to you when they have a court majority.
Click to expand...
I guess we have to wreck some more of the shit you like.
 
NWRatCon said:

John Roberts Decries Attacks on Supreme Court’s ‘Legitimacy’ (Bloomberg)​

The attacks are coming from within the institution, Justice Roberts....

Roberts defends Supreme Court's legitimacy and says last year has been 'difficult in many respects' (CNN)​

Acknowledging that the last year had been "difficult in many respects," Roberts said he and his colleagues are working to move beyond it.
"I think just moving forward from things that were unfortunate is the best way to respond," he said.

It's going to be hard to "move beyond" the complete rape of the Constitution being perpetrated by his own colleagues. One cannot just "wish it away".

Roberts finds himself in an unusual spot, complicated by the fact that there are now five justices to his right who have shown an inclination to reject incrementalism in favor of sweeping opinions that at times overturn precedent. It may be called the "Roberts Court," but the chief justice only gets one vote and he has at times cast it with a particular sensitivity to institutional concerns.

"This term will again test the chief's influence over the conservative wing of the court, in particular," Gregory G. Garre, a lawyer at Latham & Watkins who served as solicitor general during the George W. Bush administration, said in an interview.
Click to expand...
Roe v Wade overturning was good for the court because it disengages the court from leftist partisan politics
 
Hamish Howl said:
Don't mind if we do.

You might notice that since that court decision, nothing at all has gone right for you guys. Nothing at all.
Click to expand...
your side is the one blubbering about another civil war
 
Dayton3 said:
Liberals have done that for decaives des. You don't think gay marriage would've ever been voted in by popular vote do you?

Don't whine about it when conservatives do the same to you when they have a court majority.
Click to expand...
Those weren't activist rulings. It was a conservative court. The court hasn't been "Liberal" since the 1950s. Don't whine to me about "Liberal courts"

They don't exist.
 
highroller said:
Those weren't activist rulings. It was a conservative court. The court hasn't been "Liberal" since the 1950s. Don't whine to me about "Liberal courts"

They don't exist.
Click to expand...
Roe v. Wade was "not" a liberal decision?

Come on.
 
jpevans said:
It was original intent that abortion was unlawful? I don't think that the white Protestants writing the document, held the papist belief in forced birth.
Click to expand...
They didn't.



"[The book] starts to prescribe basically all of the best-known herbal abortifacients and contraceptives that were circulating at the time," Farrell said. "It's just sort of a greatest hits of what 18th-century herbalists would have given a woman who wanted to end a pregnancy early."

"It's very explicit, very detailed, [and] also very accurate for the time in terms of what was known ... for how to end a pregnancy pretty early on."

Including this information in a widely circulated guide for everyday life bears a significance to today's heated debate over access to abortion and contraception in the United States. In particular, the leaked Supreme Court opinion that would overturn Roe v. Wade and states that "a right to abortion is not deeply rooted in the nation's histories and traditions."

Farrell said the book was immensely popular, and she did not find any evidence of objections to the inclusion of the section.
 
Dayton3 said:
That wasn't what you intended
Click to expand...
It's what I asked for.

You're the one who went on a weird tangent about PMs.

Either post the link or wallow in your shame.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom