Replies

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.