Comments on: John Roberts has failed to uphold pre-confirmation pledge.

By: Kira

Kira — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:59:49 +0000

tanqueray says: there aren’t enough of you to accomplish anything

We have been in the majority all along. Theft of 2 elections and media blackout just makes you “think” otherwise.

[I use the term "think," in your case, very loosely.]

By: Marie

Marie — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:07:50 +0000

I don’t believe an Obama presidency will bring us any more of the ilk we have in Roberts, Alito, Scalia and Thomas.

By: Marie

Marie — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:06:32 +0000

And you are pleased with the repugnican party, Tanqueray?

By: Laser

Laser — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 17:25:43 +0000

At least John Roberts is awake during court sessions, unlike that waste of space Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Google it.

By: kirkaracha

kirkaracha — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:05:53 +0000

Roberts’s Rules:

In Roberts’s view, the most successful chief justices help their colleagues speak with one voice. Unanimous, or nearly unanimous, decisions are hard to overturn and contribute to the stability of the law and the continuity of the Court; by contrast, closely divided, 5–4 decisions make it harder for the public to respect the Court as an impartial institution that transcends partisan politics.

By: Chocolate Jesus

Chocolate Jesus — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:49:03 +0000

>He was very unhappy with the answer, “It can hire fit and >competent people.”

Yeah that reply actually got some laughter in the court..Zing!

Poor little corporations, they have to hire non-drunkards to pilot thier weapons of mass desctruction. boohoo

By: po

po — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:29:02 +0000

Whatever, what did you idiots expect? you couldn’t see this coming a mile away? And now that the Dems realize the errors of their ways what have they done – agreed to confirm most of his blocked nominees for various other posts. The idea that the Dems oppose the GOP is a fairy tale along the lines of Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny.

By: Georgette Orwell

Georgette Orwell — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:07:52 +0000

I’m shocked, I tell you, just shocked. Who could have predicted something like this?

Oh….wait….

By: tokin librul

tokin librul — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 13:04:22 +0000

@#47, Marie says the Dims gotta lock up a filibuster-proof majority.

which is a pipe-dream.
does ANYONE really believe the CorpoRats will so easily foresake their lock on the Senate?
Wanna buy a bridge? Got a nice one, over the Mississippi, in Wisconsin…

By: Marie

Marie — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:59:03 +0000

tokin,
The Dems must get a filibuster proof majority in Congress and override all efforts to sabotage the Obama administration.

By: tokin librul

tokin librul — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:56:08 +0000

if mccain wins, we have more justices like this to look forward to…….

I don’t think it’ll matter a whit who the next Preznint is. The Pukes will filibuster any nominee who isn’t ideologically compliant…

By: Comrade Rutherford

Comrade Rutherford — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:55:21 +0000

Vincennes said:
“Do you actually think people are impartial? They can be fair, but not impartial.”

And Roberts is not even being fair. Roberts knowingly lied to Congress when he said he would be impartial and once confirmed he looked at every case in a pro-corporate / anti-human being prejudice.

Are you aware that during the hearing for Exxon’s case to reduce their appropriate fine, Roberts asked the Exxon lawyer, “So what can a corporation do to protect itself against punitive-damages awards such as this?” He was very unhappy with the answer, “It can hire fit and competent people.”

You are aware that the fine Exxon was contesting was LESS than it’s profits for one single quarter of a year, right? Exxon could EASILY afford it without even writing a check, they could have paid that fine in cash!

Roberts had already decided the case before he even heard the arguments! He’s not even trying to conceal his impartiality, he feels comfortable enough with his prejudice to openly say so in court.

Every member of the Federalist Society has a clear agenda that they bring to the court – side with the extremely wealthy and with corporate interests. Precedent and common sense and the law be damned.

If Roberts had been truthful before Congress, he would not have been sitting in court looking for an excuse to overturn the fine that was intended to reimburse small businesses for their devastation at the hands of Exxon. Now those small businesses will get almost nothing, thanks to Roberts disdain for the Rule of Law.

By: tokin librul

tokin librul — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:53:36 +0000

Roberts Lied? No shit? Really? no, i mean REALLY REALLY? He lied to the Senate?
Nahhhhh, that couldn’t happen, could it?

By: RAM

RAM — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:46:26 +0000

The right wing simply does not believe they have to tell the truth to anyone not of their group. In fact, they believe it is their duty to lie in order to advance their aims and that truthfulness is a weakness.

When I read this story in Sunday’s Chicago Trib, I was incredulous that anyone in the media could possibly be surprised that any right wing public figure would not be truthful, even under oath, especially after the past nearly eight years. What would have been surprising is if Roberts had told the truth. These are evil people and simply cannot be trusted with any government power whatsoever.

By: Marie

Marie — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:38:12 +0000

#28 The Shadow,
I have come to the conclusion that when it comes to politics, Repugnicans are ideological reactionaries; they do not have a conscience, no moral compass, and no ability to see issues beyond their own narrow views.
I resisted such generalization, but it has been proven so time after time from the trolls to the SCOTUS and the POTUS – when it comes to politics, they are unprincipled.

By: shoeless

shoeless — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:34:18 +0000

I know it’s difficult for a Republican to understand, since lying is the natural state of existance for you.

The problem, you see, is that he claimed to be impartial. In other words, HE LIED!

By: Vincennes

Vincennes — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:05:46 +0000

This is a silly and useless post. No one is completely impartial. Everyone brings their own leanings and prejudices to every issue. If he had conservative views before there’s no reason to believe he wouldn’t maintain them. Do you actually think people are impartial? They can be fair, but not impartial.

By: Cats r Flyfishn

Cats r Flyfishn — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 11:58:02 +0000

Zooey Says:

Chief Justice Roberts is a liar.

He perjured himself in front of Congress.

That’s against the law.

Chief Justice Roberts is a criminal.

Chief Justice Roberts should be impeached for lying to Congress. After all, lying to Congress was considered an impeachable offense for a president so it should also apply to a member of the Supreme Court.

By: tojo2000

tojo2000 — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 10:03:38 +0000

This might be news if anyone with more than two neurons to rub together didn’t know it already.

By: klide

klide — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:50:30 +0000

Now there’s a shocker.