Posted on 07/07/2017 7:11:06 PM PDT by ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
In remarks given at a judicial conference in Pennsylvania this week, Roberts reiterated his long-held view that the Court should speak with one voice wherever possible — that is to say, he supports a consensus-driven approach to opinion writing in which the justices strive for unanimity and avoid writing their own concurrences or dissents. In doing so, he appeared to rebuke Gorsuch, who has flashed a propensity for writing on his own in his first months as a justice.
(Excerpt) Read more at dailycaller.com ...
WTH is Roberts thinking?
It’s been a long standing SC tradition to have both sides wrote their opinion.
He must have someone blackmailing him.
“Roberts is compromised.
Wonder how much he got for his Obamacare decision?”
He got to keep his quasi-legally adopted son.
Been reading items about the illegal adoptions of the kids by Roberts for years.
Why has the other country or individuals not gone to court on the matter?
Not disagreeing with you; just wondering why no one has filed on Roberts. Big money? ....Seems he’s compromised.
Roberts was a big mistake. He looked great in the beginning, but once they are in they can do what they want.
They had something on roberts and he folded and screwed the American people, f him
Something tells me that 1 of those 3 will be Robert’s replacement.
I wonder if it will be Assange or O’Keefe who will uncover the ‘Deep’ secret that Roberts so desperately wants to keep hidden?
Roberts is soiled laundry and he is jealous of an actual ethical man....
So you go and dis a fellow juror in the name of consensus?
Roberts then needs to fall in line with Gorsuch.
When a tax is not a tax is a tax
Can Trump do that?
If so, a good move indeed. Maybe in his 2nd term.....
Why is this phony speaking? He proved that he is unworthy to be on the court a few years ago.
From a tactical point of view, Roberts may have a point.
That is, the more consensus driven a decision is, the harder it is to overturn by a future court, *and* the harder it is for appellate courts to mess with it, by focusing on the individual consensus or dissent, instead of the rest of the decision.
There are exceptions, of course. What comes to mind is the very large (and brilliant) concurring opinion by justice Thomas in McDonald v. Chicago. While every other justice was focused on the 2nd amendment, Thomas put his focus on the “privileges or immunities” clause of the 14th amendment.
Seriously, this needs its own chapter in the law books it was so dynamic and important. While McDonald was a strong decision, it put a steel shell around it, making it bulletproof.
But, all told, Roberts is correct that most concurring or dissenting opinions are pretty much fluff and curl paper.
consensus-driven approach to opinion writing in which the justices strive for unanimity
How about consensus-driven strict interpretation of the Constitution, rather than the leftist ideologues of the Dimwit appointments?
How about Ginsburg recuse herself from all Trump Administration cases?
How about calling for Ginsburg to resign?
How about calling for Breyer, Kagan and The Wise Latina to resign . . or be impeached . . for failure to uphold the duties and oath of their office?
What about it, Tax?
Maybe someone will offer him an opportunity to go on a hunting trip to Texas. Like the one Scalia went on.
“Roberts is as smart as one can be with no wisdom, no sense of justice and no sense of humility.”
You forgot, “no core principles and no ethics”.
“Gorsuch is a snob too”
From the first time I saw him that was my opinion as well. I expect most of them are to some degree. Except maybe Thomas who parks his RV in Walmar parking lots. That cracks me up.
Great post!
“no core principles and no ethics”.
Roberts is a beltway swamper. No doubt. He’d fit right in in the Senate. SCOTUS is the disastrously wrong spot for him.
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.