Washington Insider Reports Shouting, Conflict in Supreme Court Over Refusal to Hear Texas Lawsuit

Charisma News ^ | Staff

[LastDayz]

“Might have threatened his family. You start doing that to a man and he reconsiders a lot of things.”

Depends on the man.... one may acquiescence while another may hunt you to the ends of the earth.

[laplata]

I tend to agree. It is probably made up by someone trying to rub it in our faces.

[BillyBoy]

I dunno, a lot of it sounds like bad fan fiction to me. I've read "The Brethen", by Bob Woodward, which purports to be a "tell all" book of what the conversations were like between the SCOTUS judges from 1969-1976 (Warren Burger era, ending with John Paul Stephen's appointment). It's highly embellished but probably has more truth than this, if you take into account that Woodward got a lot of his information from retired SCOTUS judges who remained anonymous (supposedly Potter Stewart), and disgruntled law clerks who were no longer working for SCOTUS.

Bush's biggest failure on SCOTUS was not so much appointing Roberts (originally he was to have replaced Sandra Day O'Connor, which probably wouldn't have changed things much), but deciding to make him CJ to replace Rehnquist, which turned out to be a flippin' disaster. He is definitely much more of a "Warren Burger" type CJ, though is nowhere near as bad as a flat out liberal crusader like Earl Warren, no matter how many FReepers pretend he is.

I never liked Kav, he probably IS a sleazy guy in real-life (though highly unlikely he is a serial rapist who hates women as the RATS alleged), but I do think he differs little from Anthony Kennedy and he will let awful "landmark" liberal victories stand. "Smiling", eh, if it gives FReepers an excuse to hate his guts, go for it. Too bad they won't learn their lesson from this, and will still keep drinking the "any R judge who claims to be an originalist will magically be awesome" kool-aid. If they haven't figured out that theory is wrong after 50 years of failures, they never will. Of course, that assumes we EVER get an "R" president again after Biden is allowed to steal an election.

I could see Clarence Thomas trying to reason with Roberts by saying its the end of democracy if Biden gets away scot free with stealing this election though, and Roberts brushing it off. Perhaps they may have essentially had that conversation with different words.

[Rightwing Conspiratr1]

Because he took a ride on the Lolita Express.

How do you know it wasn't this John Roberts?

[GOPJ]

It would seem to indicate that BLM and Antifa have a stranglehold over the Supreme Court, and by extension, the Republic.

It's hard to believe any lawyer would decide a case based on fear of violence... especially a lawyer who's made it all the way to the Supreme Court.

If and that's a big "IF" this is true our side should start burning down cities and looting... it would be an incentive from hell if true, but the one that works.

[Dr. Franklin]

WTF was that a-hole Roberts ever made Chief Justice? It seems odd that a chief would not be one with seniority of the majority of the court but I guess that is to simple minded.

By tradition, the Chief Justice is nominated specifically to that job by POTUS. The argument could be made that SCOTUS should determine who the CJ is as an internal matter. The powers of the CJ relative to the other justices aren't great, and are determined mostly by the court itself, i.e., assigning opinions when in the majority in a way not even contemplated by the founders. The practice of majority and minority opinions came from John Marshall and was not the British practice. The one power of the CJ listed in the Constitution is to preside over presidential impeachments. Certain statutes also refer to the CJ, with regard to assigning senior judges or promulgating rules of procedure. That's about all I can think of without researching it further.

[Amendment10]

From related thread...

Regarding the Supreme Court’s politically correct (institutionally indoctrinated?, deep state?) imo argument of “no standing” for Texas challenging the integrity of another state’s electoral votes, Justice Joseph Story had made it clear that there are no restrictions (my words) on what the states can appeal to the Supremes for under Article III, Section 2, Clause 1.

§ 1674. "Under the confederation, authority was given to the national government, to hear and determine, (in the manner pointed out in the article,) in the last resort, on appeal, all disputes and differences between two or more states concerning boundary, jurisdiction, or any other cause whatsoever [!!! emphases added]. Before the adoption of this instrument, as well as afterwards, very irritating and vexatious controveries existed between several of the states, in respect to soil, jurisdiction, and boundary; and threatened the most serious public mischiefs. Some of these controversies were heard and determined by the court of commissioners, appointed by congress. But, notwithstanding these adjudications, the conflict was maintained in some cases, until after the establishment of the present constitution." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3, 1833, The University of Chicago Press

§ 1675. "Before the revolution, controversies between the colonies, concerning the extent of their rights of soil, territory, jurisdiction, and boundary, under their respective charters, were heard and determined before the king in council, who exercised original jurisdiction therein, upon the principles of feudal sovereignty. This jurisdiction was often practically asserted, as in the case of the dispute between Massachusetts and New Hampshire, decided by the privy council, in 1679; and in the case of the dispute between New Hampshire and New York, in 1764. Lord Hardwicke recognised this appellate jurisdiction in the most deliberate manner, in the great case of Penn v. Lord Baltimore. The same necessity, which gave rise to it in our colonial state, must continue to operate through all future time [!!! emphasis added]. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government. That it ought to be established under the national, rather than under the state, government; or, to speak more properly, that it can be safely established under the former only, would seem to be a position self-evident, and requiring no reasoning to support it. It may justly be presumed, that under the national government in all controversies of this sort, the decision will be impartially made according to the principles of justice; and all the usual and most effectual precautions are taken to secure this impartiality, by confiding it to the highest judicial tribunal." —Justice Joseph Story, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 1, Commentaries on the Constitution 3,1833, The University of Chicago Press.

The only standing that conflicted states need to argue their case before the Supremes is that they’re states imo.

Corrections, insights welcome.

[SPDSHDW]

Hang em right outside his house. Time to stop playing nice.

[kelly4c]

After how the Dems treated him and after Trump was the one who nominated and defended him why the heck is Kavanaugh siding with the dem faction against Trump? I don’t get people.

[BEJ]

I don’t believe these stories anymore than I believe the FBI found 800,000 fraudulent votes story.

[Dr. Franklin]

The only standing that conflicted states need to argue their case before the Supremes is that they’re states imo. Corrections, insights welcome.

Well, the modern "originalists" aren't really traditionalists. Story was the next great Federalist Justice after Marshall. The thing to remember, is that originally the states appointed the electors directly. So, nothing in the constitution makes reference to popular election of the presidential electors. Because that right isn't in the plain text of the Constitution, textualism fails us.

Repeating what I wrote above:
It wasn't briefed, but with its original meaning from the Roman Republic, POTUS is a consul, and the appointment of presidential electors certainly affects POTUS. They plainly didn't want to hear this case, as Prof. Dershowitz has noted. When Roberts refused to vote to hear the PA case before the election, he telegraphed to the rest of the judiciary that he didn't care about doing justice in this election. Roberts should be impeached, but they would need to overturn a few Congressional election results before that can happen.

[HKMk23]

This story’s too perfect; it caters to popular perceptions of several personalities on the Court, tells us what the author expects we’d expect to hear.

I’m calling B.S.

It’s disinformation to sully the Court.

[cableguymn]

in minnesota it was also to clear land (burn down existing buildings) to build a new somali mall..

yes, it is happening at a walgreens site that burned down.

[hinckley buzzard]

As a member of the judiciary Roberts is subject to impeachment and removal from office. It is rarely done but it is possible.

[Sequoyah101]

I’ll never live to see it but roberts can’t die soon enough for me.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Seriously? Roberts telling the others to STFU and do like he says? That is ridiculous on its face. But I’m sure he and others are probably scared to death to take these cases. They don’t want their house burned down. I would take this story with a grain of salt.

[RasterMaster]

It's not rioting John Roberts fears...

[pacificus]

This can’t be true.

If so...scotus is dead.

Rioting....?

You haven’t seen rioting yet Johnny boy.

The other justices wouldn’t stand for crap like this.

Roberts has only one vote... could never compell others to vote his way.

All three Trump justices are cowards!!

That’s what happened!

Pure and simple.

Trump went to war to get them seated...

And they murdered him just like brutus, with their final act.

Now they will hide behind their interpretation of the law, as the country is systematically dismantled.

Bye bye America!

[Impy]

If there is a next time, nothing but fire-breathers.

[Prole]

That fag Roberts should be throat-punched until he stops breathing.

Good grief, our laws and Constitution are being burned by these psychopaths.