Recommend
1 
 Thumb up
 Hide
18 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: Chief Justice Roberts rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
On October 3, 2005, after welcoming President George W. Bush to the Court, swearing in Chief Justice Roberts, and speaking in memory of recently deceased Chief Justice Rehnquist, Justice Stevens, on behalf of the Court, welcomed Chief Justice Roberts onto the Court:

Quote:
We now turn to the future. Tomorrow our flags will no longer fly at half-mast. Today we welcome our new Chief Justice, John G. Roberts, Jr., and we express our thanks to President Bush and to the members of the United States Senate for the wisdom and diligence that attended the process of nominating and confirming Chief Justice Roberts in time to enable him to preside over our proceedings today. It is appropriate to note that in his pre-judicial career our new Chief Justice argued 39 times before this Court, a number that exceeds the combined experience of the rest of us. We know him well, and he has already earned our respect and admiration.
The Chief Justice said:
Thank you very much, Justice Stevens.


545 U.S. XII-XIII.

As all Americans do, we can honorably debate the merits of a Supreme Court decision and opinion. Unless we have serious evidence to the contrary, however, I see no honor in attributung improper motives or intent to the Justices.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Can you explain the point the OP is trying to make or the topic theOP is intended to discuss, please? I don't understand what you're trying to say.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 - the US Supreme Court recently issued its ruling in a case that has significant impact on many Americans (and virtually no impact outside the US). The Chief Justice, who authored the principal opinion, has been accused of various improper motives for his ruling.

This topic likely is of little interest to most BGGers from outside the US.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
actuaryesquire wrote:
whac3 - the US Supreme Court recently issued its ruling in a case that has significant impact on many Americans (and virtually no impact outside the US). The Chief Justice, who authored the principal opinion, has been accused of various improper motives for his ruling.

This topic likely is of little interest to most BGGers from outside the US.

OK. Could you link to the case? I do have family and friends in the US and lived there myself for many years.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brian Baird
United States
Pflugerville
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmb
actuaryesquire wrote:

This topic likely is of little interest to most BGGers from outside the US.


You'd be surprised.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc P
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Go Huskies!...oh, well
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
Can you explain the point the OP is trying to make or the topic theOP is intended to discuss, please? I don't understand what you're trying to say.


Not to be a dick, but don't they have Google where you're from?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Moshe Callen
Israel
Jerusalem
flag msg tools
designer
ἄνδρα μοι ἔννεπε, μοῦσα, πολύτροπον, ὃς μάλα πολλὰ/ πλάγχθη, ἐπεὶ Τροίης ἱερὸν πτολίεθρον ἔπερσεν./...
badge
μῆνιν ἄειδε θεὰ Πηληϊάδεω Ἀχιλῆος/ οὐλομένην, ἣ μυρί᾽ Ἀχαιοῖς ἄλγε᾽ ἔθηκε,/...
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slowcorner wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Can you explain the point the OP is trying to make or the topic theOP is intended to discuss, please? I don't understand what you're trying to say.


Not to be a dick, but don't they have Google where you're from?

What exactly would I google?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
OK. Could you link to the case? I do have family and friends in the US and lived there myself for many years.


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Marc P
United States
Seattle
Washington
flag msg tools
badge
Go Huskies!...oh, well
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
whac3 wrote:
slowcorner wrote:
whac3 wrote:
Can you explain the point the OP is trying to make or the topic theOP is intended to discuss, please? I don't understand what you're trying to say.


Not to be a dick, but don't they have Google where you're from?

What exactly would I google?


You're a smart guy, you figure it out. Thus concludes this chain of stupid questions.

edit: ah, never mind. Apparently, I'm cranky today. It is news to me, but there's no denying it.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Jeff
United States
Linden
New Jersey
flag msg tools
designer
badge
Social Justice Wargamer
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
I've been enjoying listening to conservative talk radio hosts propagate ridiculous conspiracy theories about the ruling. I can't help but wonder what nefarious machinations could have swayed a man at the absolute pinnacle of his chosen career.

Anyway, this is one we can blame on Bush, right?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
You should always question someones motioves if they make choices that seem at odds with either thier convictions or the public good (judges are not beyond stupidity or corruption).

I have always found this (seemingly an American idea) that just becaeu someone holds high office they are beyond moral corruption and must be the best that you have to offer.

 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Born To Lose, Live To Win
United States
South Euclid
Ohio
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
To the OP, here's why I think there is some confusion to the purpose of your post: What you posted doesn't seem to be defending someone, it's just rhetoric presented (hubba, hubba!) during an event where you are supposed to say nice things about someone. I knew what you were alluding to as far as the Federal version of Romneycare bill being voted constitutional, but I was left a little bewildered as to your point that Roberts couldn't have improper motives or intent based on a welcome speech. How does this preclude him from being a wolf in sheeps clothing?

I'm not saying he is or anything, I'm just not sold from your argument.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
You should always question someones motioves if they make choices that seem at odds with either thier convictions or the public good (judges are not beyond stupidity or corruption).

I have always found this (seemingly an American idea) that just becaeu someone holds high office they are beyond moral corruption and must be the best that you have to offer.



Steven - a Supreme Court Justice is SUPPOSED to make rulings at odds with his/her convictions.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Steak Fairy
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Games? People still play games??
badge
Specious arguments are not proof of trollish intent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
actuaryesquire wrote:

Steven - a Supreme Court Justice is SUPPOSED to make rulings at odds with his/her convictions.


For example, one such conviction: "The election process in America should not be rigged."

And one such ruling: "George W. Bush beat Al Gore."
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
TheChin! wrote:
To the OP, here's why I think there is some confusion to the purpose of your post: What you posted doesn't seem to be defending someone, it's just rhetoric presented (hubba, hubba!) during an event where you are supposed to say nice things about someone. I knew what you were alluding to as far as the Federal version of Romneycare bill being voted constitutional, but I was left a little bewildered as to your point that Roberts couldn't have improper motives or intent based on a welcome speech. How does this preclude him from being a wolf in sheeps clothing?

I'm not saying he is or anything, I'm just not sold from your argument.


I did not refer to the specific issue in my original post because I was trying to address a much broader issue. Rather, if one finds oneself agreeing with my original thought, but accusing Chief Justice Roberts of dishonesty, it is time for some introspection. (If you disagree with my original thought, feel free to tell me why.)

Good judges (and Justice Stevens was a great Justice) mean the words they say or write. A liberal Justice expresses respect for an incoming conservative Chief Justice. Of course this does not preclude someone from being dishonst, but when the ONLY "evidence" of dishonesty is a ruling one doesn't like on a very close issue (the vote was 3-2-4), there is NO evidence of dishonesty. Justice Stevens' comments are an example of the type of respect that allows people of different convictions to work together for the common good. Many in (or commenting on) politics have forgotten this.

If your first assumption when someone disagrees with you is that they are dishonest, that may be a sign of your lack of exposure to differing views.

I whole-heartedly approve of discussions on the merits of an issue. Ad hominem attacks, not so much.
5 
 Thumb up
0.05
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
actuaryesquire wrote:
slatersteven wrote:
You should always question someones motioves if they make choices that seem at odds with either thier convictions or the public good (judges are not beyond stupidity or corruption).

I have always found this (seemingly an American idea) that just becaeu someone holds high office they are beyond moral corruption and must be the best that you have to offer.



Steven - a Supreme Court Justice is SUPPOSED to make rulings at odds with his/her convictions.


Are they? That would seem to make little sence. Surely they are supposed to make rulings based upon thier understanding of the law (and the consitution)? Are they supposed to vote against what they beleive in?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Christopher Yaure
United States
Plymouth Meeting
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Steven, you seem to understand these concepts to be equivalent:
1 convictions or beliefs
2 understanding (of the Constitution)
A Justice is expected to apply his/her understanding of the Constitution (subject to some extent to prior decisions interpreting the Constitution). A Justice may be expected to apply the convictions or beliefs of others (e.g., in determining whether a bail or fine is excessive or a punishment cruel and excessive under Amendment VIII, a Justice may be expected to interpret "excessive" and/or "cruel" in light of the beliefs and convictions of the drafters of the Constitution, the ratifiers of the Constitution, or the current US citizenry), but not his/her own convictions and beliefs.

So yes,a Supreme Court Justice is expected to affirm or reject the constitutionality of a law without regard to his/her beliefs and convictions on the merits of the law.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
actuaryesquire wrote:
Steven, you seem to understand these concepts to be equivalent:
:d6-1: convictions or beliefs
:d6-2: understanding (of the Constitution)
A Justice is expected to apply his/her understanding of the Constitution (subject to some extent to prior decisions interpreting the Constitution). A Justice may be expected to apply the convictions or beliefs of others (e.g., in determining whether a bail or fine is excessive or a punishment cruel and excessive under Amendment VIII, a Justice may be expected to interpret "excessive" and/or "cruel" in light of the beliefs and convictions of the drafters of the Constitution, the ratifiers of the Constitution, or the current US citizenry), but not his/her own convictions and beliefs.

So yes,a Supreme Court Justice is expected to affirm or reject the constitutionality of a law without regard to his/her beliefs and convictions on the merits of the law.


So then no they are not supposed to vmake judgements that are at odds with beliefs and convictions. What they are supposed to do ius not allow them to affect thier judgements, so if thier beliefs and convictions are in accordance with the Constitution they are supposed to vote with thier beliefs and convictions, not against them.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.