Pathetic and disgusting at the same time. A stupid reason to sell your soul. Ginsburg should have never been a justice on the supreme court. Some of her rulings were based on European and the World Court Laws, not the US Constitution.And then there's this ...
"I am a 40-something attorney and mother who lives in a quiet neighborhood with a yard and a garage full of scooters and soccer balls. I am not the type ...www.huffpost.com
Different situationBad timing, dems wont let any nomination got thru, just like the Republicans did under Obama.
Right. It is not a right leaning court now. Chief Justice Roberts is on the wrong side of right and wrong. And like RBG, he willingly violates the Constitution. At least Gorsich and Kavanah try to apply it. They aren't Scalia and Thomas, but are pretty good. She will be too.Major Change in Supreme Court direction
But those votes were on issues that were/are very direction setting decisions.Roberts isn't as bad as you make him sound. He has been on the wrong side of a few decisions in my opinion but he is right on the majority of them. In fact, out of 800 rulings he has voted in the favor of the more liberal majority only 15 times.
I agree with most of that and I understand that he is not the Chief Justice we hoped for. I am just saying he is not the left leaning justice from hell that some make him out to be. He is much closer to being slightly right of center than he is far left.But those votes were on issues that were/are very direction setting decisions.
When he thought the ACA would pass, he drafted the rebuttal. However when he found out that the decision would go against the ACA, he changed his mind and fashioned that head scratching decision about it being a tax and therefore Constitutional.
Now that the Mandate portion (he defined as a tax) he used to deem the ACA constitutional has been removed, I am curious to see what his opinion on the watered down version will be.
And, lets us not forget his decision on the illegal Executive order that established DACA. I am neither a proponent nor opponent of DACA, but the Executive order was admittedly beyond the scope of the authority of the President. To rule that the (illegal) order could not be summarily rescinded by a successor goes against any logic. To argue that the illegal order must stand because a substitute plan was not provided becomes a form of legislating from the bench.
So when I hear pundits using a 6-3 SCOTUS post Justice Barret confirmation makeup, I discount that makeup and see it as more of a 5-4 makeup on the issues that have a serious impact on the direction our country takes.
I think that Justice Roberts could easily rule in favor of laws that nibble away at the 2nd Amendment if his vote were the deciding vote. With a majority of Constitutionalist Justices, his vote would be mute, so he likely will vote with the majority.
Fill the Seat.