When Chief Justice Roberts was nominated, many "wise people" in DC said that Democrats should be re-assured, because John Roberts was "an institutionalist before he was a partisan." If that ever was true (and I doubt it was), it is not true today. Today's Trump decision is pure partisanship.
Roberts is not the worst member of the court, but he's a bad judge and it's always worth remembering that. He's the guy who wrote Shelby County. On any reasonable court, he'd be the conservative crank writing dissents.
I hope my dad has forgotten that I sort of defended Roberts' confirmation hearing, not on ideological grounds but because I thought he was enough of an institutionalist to put a check on the political hackery.
The current judiciary isn’t robust enough to handle the Chevron reversal. Is there any downside to using that as an excuse to increase the number of districts to 17 and one Supreme Court Justice per district or *insert plan for packing the court here*?
Neal Katyal said similar things about Gorsuch too.
Since Bush v. Gore, I have always gone with the assumption that if it hurts Republicans, they won’t rule for it. If it helps, then maybe.
Now for a plethora of expert opinions on how this isn’t “as bad as Democrats are making it to be.”
I think it is very easy for people to believe that folks who have always been courteous, friendly, and respectful to them and their rights will be that way in general with all people and all issues - and that they won't change over time.
This was the lesson I personally learned in 2015/2016 when I had hundreds of Facebook friends and saw the difference between how they treated me (a while guy) and what total bigoted garbage they posted and shared. Unfriended 2/3rds of my friends.
Yup.
Moderation in tone is consistently and maddeningly confused for moderation in policy.
It is how Liz Cheney and Willard Romney get beatified by a scary number of people in the left.
Not just the decision, but the whole extended charade of refusing to take up the issue, then taking up the issue 30 days later, then taking so long to send out the decision.
Roberts is pulling levers. He's not a victim of the extremists, he's a co-architect of their plans.
It was never true. First and foremost, Roberts cares about private capital. Then maybe his own self-imagined reputation. Third… there is no third. Business profits and himself. That’s it. Every decision he’s signed on to fits this model.
In October 2008, I ran into one of my former law profs who was then at G'town Law. Prof sd there was talk Roberts could leave the court after say ~10 yrs bc $$. Can never stop thinking about this after learning his wife's new profession was founded in '09
