Posted on 12/14/2020 6:38:37 PM PST by Til I am the last man standing
A Supreme Court clerk reports that shouting and conflict between the justices of the nation's highest court occurred on Friday, Dec. 11, as the court was deciding to reject a Texas lawsuit challenging presidential election results in four key swing states.
(Excerpt) Read more at charismanews.com ...
Whether the account is true or not, I suspect this was the thinking. The problem though, is that are things far worse than rioting in already useless cities.
But to the younger ones there, they don’t see our side as a credible threat to the country, but they (wrongly) think the other side is.
This case, thrown out on Dec. 11, will likely be the spark that ends the country we all grew up in and loved. What comes out the other end is unknown...except for the fact that China will now inherit our role in controlling the world.
>>And modern weak-kneed Americans don't have the stomach for it.<<
Yes, they do. At this point, folks still have too much to lose. When the economy collapses, people lose their homes, savings, jobs and so forth..they will step up to the plate.
I wouldn’t trust him as far as I can throw him.
If he’s the source, then I consider it very suspect.
Well said and I agree.
Lets connect some dots:
Dem cities & states have a summer of riots, and Dem Governors & Mayors do NOTHING to quell the rioters & the damages to private citizens. Dems support the lies & foment the stories about George Floyd being deliberately murdered by 4 cops.
Then damages continue up to & thru Election Day.
Then the CHIEF JUSTICE of the USSC cries that ‘Rioting will continue if we rule against all the election fraud”.
Apparently the DELIBERATE destruction of cities by Democrat Governors & Mayors scared Roberts enough to spit in the faces of 73 + MILLION voters for Trump.
What is Roberts going to do when the rioting doesn’t stop????
Why does this seem like a VERY WELL organized set of events to steal the election & Roberts failed the half of the country that voted for Trump & that same half of the country that are the EMPLOYERS...??????
What does life hold for Roberts into his future???
Imagine rising to CHIEF JUSTICE of the United States Supreme Court and being that willingly gutless....
WHO would have thought???
Roberts doesn’t deserve to be an umpire at a T-Ball game.
You know, it’s interesting, I’m looking back on GOP presidents track record in appointing solid constitutional conservatives to SCOTUS over the last 100 years, and the results overall are dismal.
I remember Fieldmarshaldj was singing Warren G. Harding’s praises a while back, saying historians rate him as a “failure” but he was actually an excellent conservative President. In any case, his SCOTUS nominees certainly were. He got to appoint four of them during his brief time in the White House, and by all accounts, ALL FOUR turned out to be good reliable conservatives (one of the four was even a conservative RAT judge so Harding could claim it was a gesture of “bipartisanship”). No GOP president since then (and likely, no GOP president before him either) has come close. As an added bonus, Harding tended to AVOID naming career federal judges to SCOTUS, instead going with ex-President Taft and sharp legal minds from the private sector.
Coolidge and Ford’s nominees were ostensibly “worse” than Trump’s, (Coolidge’s judge turned out to be a New Deal fanboy who impressed FDR so much with his treason that FDR elevated him to CJ, and Ford’s guy John Paul Stevens ended up moving so far left he’d make Darth Bader Ginsburg blush), but each of those GOP presidents got only ONE shot at naming a SCOTUS judge, so their track record certainly could have been vastly better if they had 2-3 more shots at it like other GOP presidents.
I can excuse Reagan and Nixon’s failures more because they at least TRIED to name conservative “fire-breathers” to SCOTUS at first, only to see the Senate torpedo such a nominee, and ended up settling with a milquetoast alternative (Reagan’s nominees Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg were rejected so we ended up with Anthony Kennedy, Nixon’s nominees Clement Haynsworth and G. Harold Carswell were outspoken conservatives from the deep south that the RATS promptly destroyed, so we ended up with the vile Harry Blackmun instead). But Trump never attempted “fire-breathers”, in the first place, he went with bland deep state establishment picks like Gorsuch and Kavanaugh from the start because they were “confirmable” (and that didn’t stop the RATS from trying to destroy Kav anyway).
As I noted early, Trump’s record of “success” on SCOTUS is about as “good” as Eisenhower, with the interesting different than Trump’s self-declared goal was to name “Scalia-like originalists”, whereas Ike’s self-declared goal was to name “common-sense centrists” like himself that would be above petty partisan ideologies. Here is my scorecard for GOP presidents SCOTUS picks over the last 100 years. I doubt anyone will disagree with my ratings at this point, but feel free to do so:
Harding: 4-0
Coolidge: 0
Hoover: 1-2
Ike: 1-4
Nixon 1-3, maybe 2-2 if I’m being generous
Ford: 0
Reagan: 2-2
GHWB: 1-1
GWB: 1-1
Trump: 0-3, perhaps 1-2 if Barrett OTHEWISE ends up being a reliable solid conservative.
It’s interesting that among Reagan scholars, there is considerable question as to how “conservative” Bork was. Look, for example, at Steven Hayward’s book.
MAYBE both of them—at different times.
Come February there will be 15 of them there, with six new hard core Marxist’s on the panel to tell the other 9 what the hell to do. Blubbering Roberts will be their winnie boy.
Well, I guess we’ll never know since he never got to vote on any cases before the Supreme Court.
Before Reagan nominated him, Gerald Ford actually considered Bork for SCOTUS, but took him off his list, concluding (probably unfortunately correctly) that “Bork would be an ideal GOP justice, but is too controversial and unconfirmable)
Bork’s books and essays after his failed SCOTUS nomination certainly fit the category of “conservative fire-breather” though.
How much weight to give this?
I believe it’s possible this happened like this. If it did, then we’re in bigger trouble than I thought.
Then again if one digs a little deeper, one discovers that only once did a John Roberts fly on a plane owned by Epstein and that plane did a short hop between cities and was NOT a flight to "lolita island". However this particular conspiracy theory about the justice will continue to flourish on FR because it fits the "crazies" narrative.
And interesting fact, Bork died in Dec. 2012, so assuming he had been confirmed and assuming he had served a lifetime appointment and not retired from the bench, a newly re-elected President Obama would have named his replacement.
And just for the heck of it, here is my scorecard for RAT presidents getting the ideal kind of justice THEY wanted (usually liberal activists who “find” imaginary new “rights” in the Constitution that never existed before).
Contrary to popular belief, its not all RAT presidents getting perfect commie RAT judges and GOP presidents all getting lemons, though their “success” rate overall has been FAR better than GOP presidents, especially with recent RAT presidents.
Wilson and JFK each “accidentally” appointed 1 conservative. The other RAT presidents never did, though it appears both FDR and Truman ended up with numerous center-left “moderate” RATS and some unpredictable swing justices instead of the hardcore communists they wanted, so I adjusted the scorecard accordingly. (in FDR’s case his less-than-ideal justices didn’t matter because he still got to appoint FIVE yes-man anyway, plus a marxist CJ).
LBJ had a perfect 2-0 score, if he had played his cards right, he would have potentially ended up with a perfect 4-0 score. Clinton and Obama both got their ideal justice 100% of the time as well:
Wilson: 2-1
FDR: 5-3-1 (James F. Byrnes wasn’t on SCOTUS long enough to make an impact)
Truman: 1-3
JFK: 1-1
LBJ: 2-0 (although Fortas elevation to CJ was later rejected, and Homer Thornberry’s nomination was rendered moot)
Carter: N/A
Clinton: 2-0
Obama: 2-0
Thanks for reply.
Based on conflicts between original colonies, the delegates to the Constitution Convention gave conflicted states unrestricted access to the Supremes as a last resort to try to resolve conflicts that could lead to war between the states.
§ 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. Some tribunal, exercising such authority, is essential to prevent an appeal to the sword, and a dissolution of the government [emphasis added]. 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.
So by refusing to consider Texas’s evidence of alleged electoral vote manipulation in another state, the misguided Roberts Court has arguably helped to increase tension between conflicted states imo, as opposed to trying to help calm down the states to promote domestic tranquility insured in the Preamble to the Constitution.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility [emphasis added], provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Don’t care anymore.
They can put me in a death camp if they want.
I view SCOTUS and Congress as utterly failed, intellectually corrupt institutions. They are a net harm to the public, and feathering their own nests while asserting power they have usurped in bad faith.
Roberts rules: Dems win because they will turn to violence.
When do we get to riot?
You should take your leftist doggerel and peddle it elsewhere.
Stop reading Howard Zinn.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.