Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: ding_dong_daddy_from_dumas
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

Well, I guess we knew it. Roberts is part of the consensus driven swamp dwelling crowd that supports the collective over individual rights and liberties.

Gorsuch is a justice and no one can tell him he cannot write his own opinion on any matter that comes before the court. No one. Not even our ever esteemed, beloved font of reason and wisdom - it's a tax - Roberts, may god never let him live down the indignity.

5 posted on 07/07/2017 7:17:01 PM PDT by AndyJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: AndyJackson
Scientific "consensus" brought us the global warming hoax. Why should we bow to judicial "consensus?"

A legal decision is either right or wrong as judged by the constitution. If consensus ruled, a lot more decisions should be 9-0, rather than 5-4, because the differences would have been ironed out before the justices "voted". Our modern supreme court is about politics, not the law.

74 posted on 07/07/2017 9:29:04 PM PDT by AZLiberty (A is now A once again.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

To: AndyJackson

Does it matter?
I mean, does a concurring opinion carry any weight that a majority opinion does not carry? Is this just an ego thing, or are there actual legal ramifications?

Would that we still had Congressman Billybob!


77 posted on 07/07/2017 9:38:33 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson