Dismissive is a good word, but, another word is glib. When I heard his statements today the word 'Glib' entered by mind and there was one other time recently that occurred and it was when the Justices were discussing voting rights.
The Right Wing Justices are taking on a very troubling 'attitude' about their decisions. It goes beyond entertaining the audience of the court, it is condescending and seeks to minimize the importance of the case.
...Roberts has in the past been dismissive (click here) of the need for voting rights protections or affirmative action, viewing the world as without the sort of racism that might require such remedies. "The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race," he offered in one case about school segregation, Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1.
"It's a sordid business, this divvying us up by race," Roberts said in a voting rights case, League of United Latin American Citizens v. Perry.
“Things have changed in the South,” Roberts wrote four years ago in nearly striking down Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act in the Namudno case....
There was also the comment by Mr. Clemente to Justice Kagan. He stated her statements about the House record of DOMA is not her 'usual.' The constitutional attorneys pride themselves on what they understand about the thinking of the Justices, so the idea Justice Kagan surprised him speaks to that, but, to have the gall to state to Justice Kagan this wasn't her usual is extremely condescending. I believe the statement by Clemente was intended to intimidate a female justice as if there is something radically wrong to her thinking.
Rather, there is something wrong in Mr. Clemente's thinking to be so disrespectful.
The glibness of the Robert's Court is more than troubling. I also believe it brings out more assertive postures by the other Justices. We never heard from Justice Clarence on this issue, I take it. But, according to him that is his style. I suppose that means 'silence' is 'the place' where he belongs to be accepted by the court jesters of constitutional lawyers. Forbid any Justice step out his or her suit of armor.
The problem manifesting with Chief Justice Roberts' is the real focus on politics and how that plays out in his decisions. Today he basically told those challenging DOMA that they were making their way through the political jungle to arrive at the Supreme Court and deserve its attention.
So, what? That is suppose to have brevity in a decision regarding the integrity of the USA Constitution?
Justice Roberts is toying with court decisions and whether to make the decision matter or not matter based on political activity in the country. That is not the place of the Supreme Court. It is the place of the Supreme Court to 'decide' based on the law.
Roberts' is seeking to turn the nation into political playgrounds before the law carries brevity. That is malpractice. Why do I find myself stating 'that is malpractice' to these Justices. Could it be they don't care about the brevity of the problems before them and see defeat of the Right Wing rhetoric in the political sphere of the USA?
Roberts likes the circus. He is stating the politics of the day is far more important than the law. That is nonsense. There are always upticks in political discourse surrounding laws to be challenged at the level of the Supreme Court.
See, the Right Wing counts on corruption of the courts in order to insure their rhetorical victories. These rhetorical decisions based in 'so called' strict construction exist and they exist frequently enough. The idea behind putting Justices into the courts and why the Right Wing is desperate to obstruct them when an intelligent President seeks 'real' decisions from his appointees; is to insure the political Right Wing dogma is safe from falling out of favor with their 'base.' Their base invests a lot and they want what they want. Roberts knows at the basis of his nomination to Justice and then Chief Justice was not necessarily 'the best choice' but one put forward with favored status of The Heritage Foundation.
As there are more and more decisions focused on politically delicate topics, The Roberts Court is attempting in the worst way possible to steer around them. Roberts was going to make his point today regardless of its appropriate nature. Why? Because it was a clear sign to the Right Wing this ain't going well. He is attempting to relieve himself of the correct decision and imploring constitutional attorneys to do the same to support his desperate agenda with the court.
Roberts is attempting to circumvent the responsibilities of the Supreme Court to act. He is attempting to throw the decisions back to the politics and if defeated in the political arena then so be it and that is the will of the people.
The Burger Court focused on 'the individual' to recognize the most important aspect of Constitutional Law. Now, if you can imagine a Justice that would be completely the oppose and remove the importance of the individual it would be Justice Roberts.
Chief Justice Burger looked past the POPULOUS aspect of the laws of the USA and realized the impact of the laws sometimes caused diminished rights to individuals. The individual is about the smallest minority one can find. By upholding 'the individual' as the focus of Supreme Court decisions the smallest group of citizens were always served well by the USA Constitution and the laws of the land. Roberts is trying to DECONSTRUCT the individual as a worthy component to Supreme Court decisions.
Now. He is a younger in age Justice. Either we take on the challenge of recognizing malpractice or we don't.
There was also the comment by Mr. Clemente to Justice Kagan. He stated her statements about the House record of DOMA is not her 'usual.' The constitutional attorneys pride themselves on what they understand about the thinking of the Justices, so the idea Justice Kagan surprised him speaks to that, but, to have the gall to state to Justice Kagan this wasn't her usual is extremely condescending. I believe the statement by Clemente was intended to intimidate a female justice as if there is something radically wrong to her thinking.
Rather, there is something wrong in Mr. Clemente's thinking to be so disrespectful.
The glibness of the Robert's Court is more than troubling. I also believe it brings out more assertive postures by the other Justices. We never heard from Justice Clarence on this issue, I take it. But, according to him that is his style. I suppose that means 'silence' is 'the place' where he belongs to be accepted by the court jesters of constitutional lawyers. Forbid any Justice step out his or her suit of armor.
The problem manifesting with Chief Justice Roberts' is the real focus on politics and how that plays out in his decisions. Today he basically told those challenging DOMA that they were making their way through the political jungle to arrive at the Supreme Court and deserve its attention.
So, what? That is suppose to have brevity in a decision regarding the integrity of the USA Constitution?
Justice Roberts is toying with court decisions and whether to make the decision matter or not matter based on political activity in the country. That is not the place of the Supreme Court. It is the place of the Supreme Court to 'decide' based on the law.
Roberts' is seeking to turn the nation into political playgrounds before the law carries brevity. That is malpractice. Why do I find myself stating 'that is malpractice' to these Justices. Could it be they don't care about the brevity of the problems before them and see defeat of the Right Wing rhetoric in the political sphere of the USA?
Roberts likes the circus. He is stating the politics of the day is far more important than the law. That is nonsense. There are always upticks in political discourse surrounding laws to be challenged at the level of the Supreme Court.
See, the Right Wing counts on corruption of the courts in order to insure their rhetorical victories. These rhetorical decisions based in 'so called' strict construction exist and they exist frequently enough. The idea behind putting Justices into the courts and why the Right Wing is desperate to obstruct them when an intelligent President seeks 'real' decisions from his appointees; is to insure the political Right Wing dogma is safe from falling out of favor with their 'base.' Their base invests a lot and they want what they want. Roberts knows at the basis of his nomination to Justice and then Chief Justice was not necessarily 'the best choice' but one put forward with favored status of The Heritage Foundation.
As there are more and more decisions focused on politically delicate topics, The Roberts Court is attempting in the worst way possible to steer around them. Roberts was going to make his point today regardless of its appropriate nature. Why? Because it was a clear sign to the Right Wing this ain't going well. He is attempting to relieve himself of the correct decision and imploring constitutional attorneys to do the same to support his desperate agenda with the court.
Roberts is attempting to circumvent the responsibilities of the Supreme Court to act. He is attempting to throw the decisions back to the politics and if defeated in the political arena then so be it and that is the will of the people.
The Burger Court focused on 'the individual' to recognize the most important aspect of Constitutional Law. Now, if you can imagine a Justice that would be completely the oppose and remove the importance of the individual it would be Justice Roberts.
Chief Justice Burger looked past the POPULOUS aspect of the laws of the USA and realized the impact of the laws sometimes caused diminished rights to individuals. The individual is about the smallest minority one can find. By upholding 'the individual' as the focus of Supreme Court decisions the smallest group of citizens were always served well by the USA Constitution and the laws of the land. Roberts is trying to DECONSTRUCT the individual as a worthy component to Supreme Court decisions.
Now. He is a younger in age Justice. Either we take on the challenge of recognizing malpractice or we don't.
