That is a rather informed comment. Justice Roberts served on the D.C. Circuit. Additionally, he argued an amount of cases before the Court that most attorneys can't even comprehend AND clerked for the now deceased Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Having the ability to see both sides of a case is a valuable asset to any attorney. This sometimes involves being in some uncomfortable positions. Yet, it is the only path an attorney can take to server his or her clients.
when he says "ummmm" he becomes chief justice. when i say it unintentionally, i get a D- in my college speech class and told that I will never succeed in social life.
...correction, the texas housing case was one he sided with the right when he knew they would not win. i made the mistaje and used it in defense of the other point. it is valed in this point at his sideing with either side to make a ideological and historical point.
I think his advice would be well applied to the lawyer in the recent Obamacare case who, instead of saying that Wicker does not apply to the case, should have acknowledged that it did, but should have said that Wicker was erroneously decided and the government's actions both then and now were unconstitutional, as they did not fall under the powers given to the government by the Commerce Clause. The same goes for all the conservative clowns who try to make fool of Breyer for bringing up Wicker.
@cmares58 --- i think you are missing something, if you think the issue is as simple as "free speech". and it's not a partisan issue (or at least it shouldn't be). this type of policy means that inevitably all our officials and elections will be entirely bought & owned by the wealthiest among us (and maybe foreign interests, too); if this is ok with you, then why bother defend the constitution? why not just push for an american monarchy?
this maybe a pattern, someone let me know, but in the same sex marriage decision, i notice that chef justice roberts sides with the right when he thinks the right will not win the argument in a case, and when he knows the left will prevail, he sides with them. the case with the housing in texas and the case with heath care law, he sided with the left for the majority, and in the same sex case he sided with the minority. i do not know if he is playing both sides or not. one looks like he wanted to defend the conservative base, and then it looks like he wanted to be on the right side of history in support of health care. i once thought he was a moderate who sided with historical movement for the times, and then i see this and think he vacillates at whim. i can't get a read on him.
Yannick Bongo i get that, my point is trying to understand his reasons he supports one thing over the other, when it goes against his ideological lean. and trust me, he has a lean.
bduhe219 Justices don't have the privilege of supporting what they personally agree with. He's a conservative judge, that's true. But that only means he can look at and interpret the law through a conservative lens, not do things like (for example) say Obamacare is illegal because he dislikes it.
He was originally going to repeal Obama's health care law, then switched when he realize it truly would have destroyed the Supreme Court as an institution.
The U.S. supreme court is not a body of ultimate legal authority in the U.S. court system. Its work in theory is to maintain that any law used in court meets a U.S. constitutional standard. The old constitution fails to apply to an evolving U.S. society. And historically the U.S Supreme court follows the politics of the day. It also follows the economics of the day. Many argue that the US supreme court is as outdated as the U.S Constitution itself. The US supreme court currently hears only about 7% of the writs submitted to it properly and with current valid law. That is no guarantee that a citizens civil and legal rights by law in the U.S. will be upheld. It is a lottery system. Ultimately ‘law’ is what ‘we the people’ say it is. As we see the U.S. fed courts bow to popular sentiment. As with ‘’same sex marriage’’ and a ‘’second language in the U.S.’’ popular does not mean the majority who are mostly silent. It means the stand up and protest people. Make it happen.
Saint Boudreau 1) If the justices are supposed to make decisions about what is Constitutional, like you said, why is it wrong for them to say that the laws prohibiting things like gay marriage unconstitutional? They have solid arguments supporting their position. 2) If the law is what the people say it is, like you argue, then why do you later go back and say that the court can't just do what's popular? That's very contradictory.
the US SUE CRT historically follows current politics legal slaves not legal fr woman to vote. so the law becomes what protestors say. US SUE CRT has always been irrelevant follow US fed crts judges fail current law dally judges follow economics. avg US ppl cannot get at law. judges will not let them. as to same sex marriage its legal ? I do not understand yr point?
"The U.S. supreme court is not a body of ultimate legal authority in the U.S. court system" Actually, yes it is. There is no other court that can overturn their decisions. "The old constitution fails to apply to an evolving U.S. society." There is no "old constitution." The US Constitution is still the same document that was ratified in 1789, with the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791. Additionally Amendments have been added, but the document is still the same as the original. Is the Constitution a "living" document, a legal document, or both. This is easily the most important question in law today. Recently, the SCOTUS has more often taken the approach that all words in the Constitution are ambiguous and need to be redefined. Personally, I feel that's a mistake. Listen to interviews with Scalia and Breyer, then decide what you think it should be.
False humility, he hasn’t fooled me one bit, he loves the power, he loves attention and believes he is something special with his conversation and smiles but his heart knows truth, be seen and heard as humble when he knows he is full of pride and arrogance.
It's not rocket surgery, Oral arguments should be meaningless. Any reasonable person should be able to look at the law or statute in question, then look at the bill of rights and determine weather or not it infringes on our rights. A good argument should never win just because it's so eloquent. It take two things to get a case before the supreme court, High-powered law firm and a lot of media attention. Average Joe has no access.
@BLACKGODYSRAEL You need to file of writ of cert. before the clerk of the supreme court detailing why the question involved in the case warrants the attention of the supreme court. There are several factors that will increase your chances of admission 1. A state court of last resort (state supreme court) has made a decision on the same issue that is different then the one that the 7th circuit and your district court made (I am assuming you wet though district court, and not military of tax court). Alternatively, the same rule applies to differences between two circuit courts. 2. The decision conflicts with a supreme court decision that is applicable, this almost always results in a grant (but is very rare in general). 3. The question is "of imminent public importance such that immidete appeal is required", only 3 cases to my knowledge have been considered in this exception since 1995 Most supreme court cases, if granted, are decided by an unsigned order, with no oral argument. Unless you are suing the federal government, or have an important constitutional law question, this is probably what will happen to you.
At this time December 2020, we find this man to have become extremely tainted, that is to say we find out that he hates President Trump and has ruled against him specifically for that reason ! He must resign from the bench.
This man represents American civility, humility and intellectual ability at the highest level. Justice Roberts you are legendary.
Thank his for John Roberts bringing true balance to our highest court.
That is a rather informed comment. Justice Roberts served on the D.C. Circuit. Additionally, he argued an amount of cases before the Court that most attorneys can't even comprehend AND clerked for the now deceased Chief Justice Rehnquist.
Great judge and from Indiana too!
Having the ability to see both sides of a case is a valuable asset to any attorney. This sometimes involves being in some uncomfortable positions. Yet, it is the only path an attorney can take to server his or her clients.
Its great personality of America and huge conversant in legal field
Thank you. Chief Justice Roberts . Surprise Arizona,
Thank you for your favor.
when he says "ummmm" he becomes chief justice. when i say it unintentionally, i get a D- in my college speech class and told that I will never succeed in social life.
This is awesome advise... Suckers.. He is helping aspiring lawyers.. Not for arm chair critics
thanks
Brilliant mind.
Coward
justice with a conscience is ability to sense if one being set around bad cercumistance and judge with just law to solve
JOHN WILL BE MY LAWYER !!!!
hi how are you the u.s immigration law is passed or just they give the hope .
...correction, the texas housing case was one he sided with the right when he knew they would not win. i made the mistaje and used it in defense of the other point. it is valed in this point at his sideing with either side to make a ideological and historical point.
no one forgets their first
me to!
Painting a pretty picture of SCOTUS Roberts HMMMM 🤔‼️
I was enslaved by the juvenile system in St. Louis, Missouri and my name is Deonne Jacobs
Its a dead robbery report for a public eñemy.
I think his advice would be well applied to the lawyer in the recent Obamacare case who, instead of saying that Wicker does not apply to the case, should have acknowledged that it did, but should have said that Wicker was erroneously decided and the government's actions both then and now were unconstitutional, as they did not fall under the powers given to the government by the Commerce Clause.
The same goes for all the conservative clowns who try to make fool of Breyer for bringing up Wicker.
Thank you John Roberts for upholding this law. B.O's law will help health care for ALL Americans!
Voter fruad is wrong .
@YHWHisSovereign
WOW, that was ignorant.
@cmares58 --- i think you are missing something, if you think the issue is as simple as "free speech". and it's not a partisan issue (or at least it shouldn't be). this type of policy means that inevitably all our officials and elections will be entirely bought & owned by the wealthiest among us (and maybe foreign interests, too); if this is ok with you, then why bother defend the constitution? why not just push for an american monarchy?
@SoINeedAName48 Someone isn't educated.
He should be president
America couldn't enforce and justify enough to please the son of god as a messah.
Did you even read the Sebelius opinion
I don't recall the Constitution beginning with the phrase: "We the People (including Corporations) ..."
Organizations made by the people, of the people implicitly seem to be the people. That doesn't seem to be that controversial an inference.
this maybe a pattern, someone let me know, but in the same sex marriage decision, i notice that chef justice roberts sides with the right when he thinks the right will not win the argument in a case, and when he knows the left will prevail, he sides with them. the case with the housing in texas and the case with heath care law, he sided with the left for the majority, and in the same sex case he sided with the minority. i do not know if he is playing both sides or not. one looks like he wanted to defend the conservative base, and then it looks like he wanted to be on the right side of history in support of health care. i once thought he was a moderate who sided with historical movement for the times, and then i see this and think he vacillates at whim. i can't get a read on him.
its called being a swing vote.
Yannick Bongo i get that, my point is trying to understand his reasons he supports one thing over the other, when it goes against his ideological lean. and trust me, he has a lean.
bduhe219 Justices don't have the privilege of supporting what they personally agree with. He's a conservative judge, that's true. But that only means he can look at and interpret the law through a conservative lens, not do things like (for example) say Obamacare is illegal because he dislikes it.
He was originally going to repeal Obama's health care law, then switched when he realize it truly would have destroyed the Supreme Court as an institution.
He's supposed to be a judge, not a right wing ideologue.
as a obama voter i dislike this guy but he seem like a good judge moderate and fair
Evil guy.
rofl, Oral argument.
This guy had no judging experience and he was nominated to be the Chief Justice in the land?
He was on the DC court of appeals
He was on dc court of Appeals from 2001 to 2005
The U.S. supreme court is not a body of ultimate legal authority in the U.S. court system. Its work in theory is to maintain that any law used in court meets a U.S. constitutional standard. The old constitution fails to apply to an evolving U.S. society. And historically the U.S Supreme court follows the politics of the day. It also follows the economics of the day.
Many argue that the US supreme court is as outdated as the U.S Constitution itself.
The US supreme court currently hears only about 7% of the writs submitted to it properly and with current valid law. That is no guarantee that a citizens civil and legal rights by law in the U.S. will be upheld.
It is a lottery system.
Ultimately ‘law’ is what ‘we the people’ say it is.
As we see the U.S. fed courts bow to popular sentiment. As with ‘’same sex marriage’’ and a ‘’second language in the U.S.’’ popular does not mean the majority who are mostly silent.
It means the stand up and protest people. Make it happen.
Saint Boudreau 1) If the justices are supposed to make decisions about what is Constitutional, like you said, why is it wrong for them to say that the laws prohibiting things like gay marriage unconstitutional? They have solid arguments supporting their position.
2) If the law is what the people say it is, like you argue, then why do you later go back and say that the court can't just do what's popular? That's very contradictory.
the US SUE CRT historically follows current politics legal slaves not legal fr woman to vote. so the law becomes what protestors say. US SUE CRT has always been irrelevant follow US fed crts judges fail current law dally judges follow economics. avg US ppl cannot get at law. judges will not let them. as to same sex marriage its legal ? I do not understand yr point?
"The U.S. supreme court is not a body of ultimate legal authority in the U.S. court system"
Actually, yes it is. There is no other court that can overturn their decisions.
"The old constitution fails to apply to an evolving U.S. society."
There is no "old constitution." The US Constitution is still the same document that was ratified in 1789, with the Bill of Rights ratified in 1791. Additionally Amendments have been added, but the document is still the same as the original.
Is the Constitution a "living" document, a legal document, or both. This is easily the most important question in law today. Recently, the SCOTUS has more often taken the approach that all words in the Constitution are ambiguous and need to be redefined. Personally, I feel that's a mistake.
Listen to interviews with Scalia and Breyer, then decide what you think it should be.
False humility, he hasn’t fooled me one bit, he loves the power, he loves attention and believes he is something special with his conversation and smiles but his heart knows truth, be seen and heard as humble when he knows he is full of pride and arrogance.
He is a betrayer.. A two faces judge
Chief Justice Roberts, you have only one ☝️ day to repent. March 6 is tomorrow.
Chief Injustice.
It's not rocket surgery, Oral arguments should be meaningless. Any reasonable person should be able to look at the law or statute in question, then look at the bill of rights and determine weather or not it infringes on our rights. A good argument should never win just because it's so eloquent. It take two things to get a case before the supreme court, High-powered law firm and a lot of media attention. Average Joe has no access.
lmao, you clearly know nothing about constitutional law.. stick to topics you comprehend, you burger flippin' ignoramus..
@BLACKGODYSRAEL You need to file of writ of cert. before the clerk of the supreme court detailing why the question involved in the case warrants the attention of the supreme court.
There are several factors that will increase your chances of admission
1. A state court of last resort (state supreme court) has made a decision on the same issue that is different then the one that the 7th circuit and your district court made (I am assuming you wet though district court, and not military of tax court). Alternatively, the same rule applies to differences between two circuit courts.
2. The decision conflicts with a supreme court decision that is applicable, this almost always results in a grant (but is very rare in general).
3. The question is "of imminent public importance such that immidete appeal is required", only 3 cases to my knowledge have been considered in this exception since 1995
Most supreme court cases, if granted, are decided by an unsigned order, with no oral argument. Unless you are suing the federal government, or have an important constitutional law question, this is probably what will happen to you.
thank you for the two things that makes a case, I'd say in this day and time, you can indite a salad.
At this time December 2020, we find this man to have become extremely tainted, that is to say we find out that he hates President Trump and has ruled against him specifically for that reason ! He must resign from the bench.