Chief Justice John Roberts seems to forget that justice delayed is justice denied

In his dissent from the Supreme Court’s majority opinion that legalizes gay marriage in all 50 states, Chief Justice John Roberts suggests that minority rights in this country should be withheld until most people find them acceptable. One shudders to think how long landmark court rulings in cases involving blacks, women and other minorities would have been delayed if Roberts’ attitude had prevailed all along. Roberts said this: Indeed, however heartened the proponents of same-sex marriage might be on this day, it is worth acknowledging what they have lost, and lost forever: the opportunity to win the true acceptance that comes from persuading their fellow citizens of the justice of their cause. And they lose this just when the winds of change were freshening at their backs… Supporters of same-sex marriage have achieved considerable success persuading their fellow citizens—through the democratic process—to adopt their view. That ends today. Five lawyers have closed the debate and enacted their own vision of marriage as a matter of constitutional law. Stealing this issue from the people will for many cast a cloud over same-sex marriage, making a dramatic social change that much more difficult to accept. Puh-leeze! Polls show that most Americans already support legalization of gay marriage. But Roberts thinks that the majority should be even larger before the rights of gay people are guaranteed. After all, we musn’t rile the die-hard bigots among us. When the people of Roberts’ generation have all died off, most Americans who come across his dissent in this case will wonder at how anyone who thought that way ever became chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court....

read more

This guy predicts that Chief Justice Roberts will be impeached — by history

The I-word — impeachment — is thrown around with reckless abandon these days, especially by right-wing types who have been bent on politically, if not literally, lynching Barack Obama from the day he moved into the White House. But historical impeachment, as opposed to the technical kind that falls within the jurisdiction of the U.S. House of Representatives, is another matter. It happens all the time. History is a hard-nosed  judge. It can even posthumously condemn a chief justice of the United States. Roger Taney of Dred Scott fame comes to mind. Our current chief justice, John Roberts, is perhaps not as bad as Taney, but neither is he one of my favorite jurists. In fact, I think he’s awful. But my opinion of Roberts is almost kind compared to what Brent Budowsky SAYS about him: Roberts and his four conservative Republican brethren will ultimately be impeached by historians who will condemn, and future courts that will reverse, politically illegitimate and constitutionally deformed rulings that would turn America into a constitutional oligarchy. No court should rule that America can be purchased as property by those with the money to buy it, as black slaves were once purchased by white masters, with judicial sanction from an earlier Supreme Court that was ultimately discredited and condemned. The founders never intended the democracy of our entire nation to be held hostage by five men who are contemptuous of legal precedent, separation of powers, the cardinal value of one person, one vote, and the timeless truth that all men and women are created...

read more

Die-hard birthers: Impeach Chief Justice Roberts if he swears in Obama for a second term

Just when you thought these people had crawled back beneath their rock, they come up with something like THIS: The birther movement is now targeting Chief Justice John Roberts for impeachment if he swears in President Barack Obama for a second term later this month. Craige McMillan, a columnist for the conservative publication WND.com, wrote a piece last week asking Roberts to not swear Obama in, because, according to McMillan, Obama does not meet the Constitution’s definition of a natural born citizen. In the piece, McMillan claims that Obama is not a citizen because his father was a citizen of Kenya and the United Kingdom, and that Obama cannot be “a natural born citizen” because his father was not an American citizen. Obama’s mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, was born and raised in Kansas by parents who were born in...

read more

Drudge Report smears Chief Justice Roberts for taking medicine to control epileptic seizures

The Drudge Report, which sets the agenda for much of the right-wing noise machine, stooped to a new low today with THIS: In response to the Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of health care reform, the Drudge Report is smearing Chief Justice John Roberts over the possibility that he might use epilepsy medication and suggesting that it affected his judgment. Drudge linked to a Real Clear Politics post that contains a clip of right-wing radio host Michael Savage claiming that “if you look at Roberts’ writings you can see the cognitive disassociation in what he is saying.” Roberts had a seizure in 2007, after suffering one 14 years earlier. The Washington Post reported this month that Roberts has not publicly addressed whether he has epilepsy. Drudge also linked to a 2007 New York Times report that discussed Roberts’ medical options. The article described the side effects of epilepsy drugs, but it has never been reported that Roberts actually takes such...

read more

When Chief Justice Roberts was a young lawyer, he favored radical court-stripping measures

In a post HERE yesterday, I criticized President Obama for his intemperate remarks about the “unelected” U.S. Supreme Court. My knock on the president made me uncomfortable in several respects, not the least of which is that it placed me in the company of conservatives whose umbrage at Obama’s remarks was as hypocritical as it was boundless.  Many of these same right-wingers have frequently been heard to whine about the “judicial activism” of “unelected” federal jurists. Ah, but here’s my chance to jump back to more comfortable liberal turf. Here’s my chance to note that Obama’s so-called attack on the high court was mild compared to the rhetoric employed by one William French Smith, the first attorney general in the presidential administration of Ronald Reagan. Steve M. over at No More Mister Nice Blog offers THIS ACCOUNT of those days of three decades ago — and also mentions that a certain young lawyer in the Reagan administration actually advocated a number of radical legislative proposals that would strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to hear cases concerning such issues as school prayer, school busing, and abortion. That young lawyer was John Roberts, who is now chief justice of the Supreme Court....

read more