Justice Johnny "Rocket" Roberts: Umpire or Operative?

[Asithappens 974]

Didn't see where this was posted (and searched for it), so, oh well.

Chuck Schumer came out and said that Kavanaugh and Gorsuch would "pay" if they upheld a recent anti-abortion case that's going to SCOTUS, which prompted a response from Roberts. 

While I'm not really a fan of Schumer (or of Roberts), I thought that Schumer (or his staff) played this brilliantly from a political perspective. 

Here iit is in case you haven't seen it:

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., who only very rarely responds to criticism of federal judges, issued a statement on Wednesday denouncing remarks made by Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, at a rally outside the Supreme Court.

Mr. Schumer, speaking while the court heard arguments in a major abortion case, attacked President Trump’s two Supreme Court appointees, Justices Neil M. Gorsuch and Brett M. Kavanaugh. “You have released the whirlwind, and you will pay the price,” Mr. Schumer said. “You will not know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions.”

Chief Justice Roberts condemned Mr. Schumer’s remarks.

“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous,” he said in a statement. “All members of the court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”

 

Here's the brilliant part:

A spokesman for Mr. Schumer said the chief justice had engaged in a willful misrepresentation.

“Senator Schumer’s comments were a reference to the political price Senate Republicans will pay for putting these justices on the court, and a warning that the justices will unleash a major grass-roots movement on the issue of reproductive rights,” the spokesman, Justin Goodman, said in a statement.

“For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Senator Schumer said, while remaining silent when President Trump attacked Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg last week, shows Justice Roberts does not just call balls and strikes,” he said.

That was a reference to a famous analogy proposed by Chief Justice Roberts at his confirmation hearings, comparing judges with umpires.

Last week, the chief justice declined to comment when the president called on Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, two liberal members of the court, to recuse themselves from all cases involving Mr. Trump.

 

Mr. Schumer’s remarks suggested that Democrats see a political advantage in criticizing the court, which they expect to issue consistently conservative decisions after the departure in 2018 of Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. Chief Justice Roberts, for his part, insists that the court is not a political body.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/04/us/roberts-schumer-supreme-court.html?searchResultPosition=1

Edited March 5, 2020 by Asithappens
quotes

[sidis 9749]

it is all in the kavanaugh thread and it is...glorious.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

Without commenting on any other aspect of it, this is some remarkable, Trump-era disingenuousness:

Quote

For Justice Roberts to follow the right wing’s deliberate misinterpretation of what Senator Schumer said,

Whatever else you say about it. Schumer's remarks were clearly directed at the justices, not the senate, and not the GOP broadly.  **

Beam me up, Scotty.

** It's fascinating that most media outlets now are quoting the remarks without the specific reference to Kavanaugh and Gorsuch.  I had to go to SCOTUSblog to get the full quote.

Spoiler

I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh. You have released the whirlwind. And you will pay the price. You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions

 

Edited March 5, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

So a sitting Senator is playing politics with sitting members of the Supreme Court ?  That's a big negatory move ghost rider. 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

2 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

So a sitting Senator is playing politics with sitting members of the Supreme Court ?  That's a big negatory move ghost rider. 

So is a sitting President.

To borrow a phrase from another poster, Trump has just turned everything into an asshole-palooza.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

So is a sitting President.

To borrow a phrase from another poster, Trump has just turned everything into an asshole-palooza.

I'm responding to what Schumer did.  Did Trump make a similar comment ? If so fuck him too.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

3 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

I'm responding to what Schumer did.  Did Trump make a similar comment ? If so fuck him too.

Here's a tip. If you find someone's behavior worth condemning, and you have to ask if Trump has also engaged in the same act, the answer is almost always yes.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 minutes ago, Grade of D as in David said:

Here's a tip. If you find someone's behavior worth condemning, and you have to ask if Trump has also engaged in the same act, the answer is almost always yes.

Have ya heard any condemnation of Schumers comments from the cabal ?  You won't probably.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

Trump has made dozens of ignorant and vile comments about the judiciary, including specific Supreme Court justices.  Roberts called him on the carpet once.

I kind of gather that Roberts doesn't want to get in a pissing contest with Trump or anyone else, so he's commenting once "per party" not per comment.  And by party, I don't mean political, I mean speaker or commenter.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Trump has made dozens of ignorant and vile comments about the judiciary, including specific Supreme Court justices.  Roberts called him on the carpet once.

I kind of gather that Roberts doesn't want to get in a pissing contest with Trump or anyone else, so he's commenting once "per party" not per comment.  And by party, I don't mean political, I mean speaker or commenter.

 I understood your party reference.

[David Dennison 18656]

Fuck Chuck Schumer for giving in. He sucks.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

1 minute ago, David Dennison said:

Fuck Chuck Schumer for giving in. He sucks.

How's he giving in?  He walked back stupid remarks that are or should be acceptable only in Trumplandia.

He's not saying he's not going to pack the courts or whatever plan he's got to make Kav and Gorsy reap the whirlwhind.

[David Dennison 18656]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

How's he giving in?  He walked back stupid remarks that are or should be acceptable only in Trumplandia.

He's not saying he's not going to pack the courts or whatever plan he's got to make Kav and Gorsy reap the whirlwhind.

He shouldn't have walked them back. 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

He shouldn't have walked them back. 

Why?  To take #bothsides to the fullest?

[David Dennison 18656]

4 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why?  To take #bothsides to the fullest?

Politics is about strength. Chuck Schumer is weak. Mitch McConnell knows that and bullied him into being a pussy.

[hayden_horn 11360]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Why?  To take #bothsides to the fullest?

well, he was trying to be too clever by half, and failed impressively. 

if he was more clever, he would have called kavanaugh out by correctly using his own "reap the whirlwind" moment during his confirmation without using either man's name. further, he could have stated that the president himself criticized justices, and that the republicans were the ones facing an electoral backlash in november if they pursued anti-abortion decisions. 

instead, he merely clumsily bungled it, which is sort of hilariously on brand for schumer these days.

but yeah, he had to walk this back - it was a poorly executed lapse in judgement which he could have framed better. 

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

It didn’t say in the OP and I’ll be damned if I’m going to research it, but did trump or his staff threaten the justices or just say they need to recuse because they can’t be fair and impartial?

because to me, this gotcha move only works if it’s very analogous. 
 

it also isn’t all that clever when the senate is not in Schumer’s comment, so “they” must refer to the justices themselves.  You can’t change the subject after the fact and then blame the “misunderstanding” on the listener/reader. 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

well, he was trying to be too clever by half, and failed impressively. 

if he was more clever, he would have called kavanaugh out by correctly using his own "reap the whirlwind" moment during his confirmation without using either man's name. further, he could have stated that the president himself criticized justices, and that the republicans were the ones facing an electoral backlash in november if they pursued anti-abortion decisions. 

instead, he merely clumsily bungled it, which is sort of hilariously on brand for schumer these days.

but yeah, he had to walk this back - it was a poorly executed lapse in judgement which he could have framed better. 

Agreed on all counts.  Except Schumer has always been a dufus.

[David Dennison 18656]

2 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

well, he was trying to be too clever by half, and failed impressively. 

if he was more clever, he would have called kavanaugh out by correctly using his own "reap the whirlwind" moment during his confirmation without using either man's name. further, he could have stated that the president himself criticized justices, and that the republicans were the ones facing an electoral backlash in november if they pursued anti-abortion decisions. 

instead, he merely clumsily bungled it, which is sort of hilariously on brand for schumer these days.

but yeah, he had to walk this back - it was a poorly executed lapse in judgement which he could have framed better. 

The walk back makes it worse. It's blood in the water and he should know better. Don't apologize.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

6 minutes ago, Pato del Muerto said:

It didn’t say in the OP and I’ll be damned if I’m going to research it, but did trump or his staff threaten the justices or just say they need to recuse because they can’t be fair and impartial?

because to me, this gotcha move only works if it’s very analogous. 
 

it also isn’t all that clever when the senate is not in Schumer’s comment, so “they” must refer to the justices themselves.  You can’t change the subject after the fact and then blame the “misunderstanding” on the listener/reader. 

The sort of threats are a bit of a new rhetorical low.  But Trump's remarks are inexcusable, which makes them a poor excuse for these remarks. Trump just made idiotic remarks about RBG and Sotomayor and how they should recuse themselves from anything involving Trump or Trump-related cases (LOL).

I spoilered the actual quote.  There's no mistaking the object of the threats.

Edited March 5, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[Longhornfan1024 1707]

Trump, Shumer, and Roberts can all be wrong here.  Trump is wrong about just about everything he does and says, including his attacks on judges.  Shumer shouldn't have threatened K and G.  Roberts needs to understand that when he selectively shows outrage, he's hurting the legitimacy of the court as an apolitical body.  

[wildcat09 29243]

Schumer bungled it, but he's absolutely right to attack the conservative justices as political actors.

[David Dennison 18656]

1 minute ago, wildcat09 said:

Schumer bungled it, but he's absolutely right to attack the conservative justices as political actors.

Democrats should do it more often.

[wildcat09 29243]

Just now, David Dennison said:

Democrats should do it more often.

Absolutely. We've got to lay the groundwork we'll need to justify packing the courts if the opportunity to do so arises. Republicans spent literally decades attacking "activist judges," so by the time they got around to enacting their own court packing scheme centrists and the media accepted it.

[Pato del Muerto 52342]

2 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

Schumer bungled it, but he's absolutely right to attack the conservative justices as political actors.

Being nominated by a political boob and confirmed on partisan principle does not make the justices themselves political actors. I hope you mean it’s ok to attack them as such for an opinion they issue. 

[wildcat09 29243]

Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

Being nominated by a political boob and confirmed on partisan principle does not make the justices themselves political actors. I hope you mean it’s ok to attack them as such for an opinion they issue. 

They're absolutely political actors and more people need to recognize them as such. There's no value in pretending otherwise now.

[David Dennison 18656]

Just now, Pato del Muerto said:

Being nominated by a political boob and confirmed on partisan principle does not make the justices themselves political actors. I hope you mean it’s ok to attack them as such for an opinion they issue. 

Their comments and rulings make them political actors. Their opinions are political in nature and it's foolish to believe otherwise.

[Bateshorn 9899]

The moment that Roberts elected to defend the GOP nominated members of the court from comments by the Senate Minority leader but not the Democrat members from the President he chose to become a partisan actor.   

He could have mentioned both and called for a cooling of rhetoric.  He did not. John Roberts doesn't walk out of that building without considering the appearance and ramifications of that decision.  This was a conscious decision.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Bateshorn

[hobbes2702 12825]

22 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The moment that Roberts elected to defend the GOP nominated members of the court from comments by the Senate Minority leader but not the Democrat members from the President he chose to become a partisan actor.   

He could have mentioned both and called for a cooling of rhetoric.  He did not. John Roberts doesn't walk out of that building without considering the appearance and ramifications of that decision.  This was a conscious decision.

As I said in the other thread, gutting voting rights showed that he was not an impartial justice but a party hack.

[Chad Fuck 17565]

36 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

The moment that Roberts elected to defend the GOP nominated members of the court from comments by the Senate Minority leader but not the Democrat members from the President he chose to become a partisan actor.   

He could have mentioned both and called for a cooling of rhetoric.  He did not. John Roberts doesn't walk out of that building without considering the appearance and ramifications of that decision.  This was a conscious decision.

This.  He has fully entered the political arena.  Whatever he is, he is not blind to perception.  This was a calculated maneuver.  

[TwiceHorn 31272]

1 hour ago, Bateshorn said:

The moment that Roberts elected to defend the GOP nominated members of the court from comments by the Senate Minority leader but not the Democrat members from the President he chose to become a partisan actor.   

He could have mentioned both and called for a cooling of rhetoric.  He did not. John Roberts doesn't walk out of that building without considering the appearance and ramifications of that decision.  This was a conscious decision.

Given that he's already defended "Obama judges" from attacks by Trump, I think he feels he has said his piece.

[sidis 9749]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

Given that he's already defended "Obama judges" from attacks by Trump, I think he feels he has said his piece.

"there are no obama judges, there are no trump judges."

compared to

"Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter”

comparable?  please.

[Brisketexan 104605]

1 hour ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

he's hurting the legitimacy of the court as an apolitical body.  

He's already done a find job of killing any such legitimacy.  It's flatlined.  And the time of death was on his watch.

[sidis 9749]

2 hours ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Have ya heard any condemnation of Schumers comments from the cabal ?  You won't probably.

you really never get tired of stepping in it, do you?  from the super republican-favoring washington post.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj0iLvrlYToAhVFHM0KHXYOCVEQFjAMegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fopinions%2F2020%2F03%2F05%2Fjohn-roberts-was-right-castigate-chuck-schumer%2F&usg=AOvVaw3-W08wqyJjX7spnZ7DDowG

 

[TwiceHorn 31272]

7 minutes ago, sidis said:

"there are no obama judges, there are no trump judges."

compared to

"Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous. All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter”

comparable?  please.

Given the context of the "attack," yes.

"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said in a statement. "What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them."

"That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Nor did he sur-reply to Trump's remarks to his.  He realizes that arguing this with Trump is like punching a tar baby.

Edited March 5, 2020 by TwiceHorn

[sidis 9749]

disagreed.  that was the most benign possible response to trump directly challenging the judiciary's role.

on top of that, after he made that comment, trump responded directly to him, told him he was dead wrong and that the 9th circuit was obama judges that were putting our country in danger.

roberts' response to this direct challenge by the president?  or interfering in the sentencing of a defendant convicted by a jury?  or specifically calling out the judge presiding over it?

zip.

kavanaugh created the reaping the whirlwind language in a partisan tirade to senators.  seems to me that was far more disturbing.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

5 minutes ago, sidis said:

you really never get tired of stepping in it, do you?  from the super republican-favoring washington post.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=13&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwj0iLvrlYToAhVFHM0KHXYOCVEQFjAMegQIAxAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fopinions%2F2020%2F03%2F05%2Fjohn-roberts-was-right-castigate-chuck-schumer%2F&usg=AOvVaw3-W08wqyJjX7spnZ7DDowG

 

The cabal = the circle jerk here on Surly that condemns anything that doesn't fit their definition of the right answer to any topic.  

Go clean your hand where you wiped your shoe to find out what you stepped in.

[TwiceHorn 31272]

As I said, he's going to make one response to each party making an outrageous remark, not engage in an ongoing verbal battle.

[hobbes2702 12825]

4 minutes ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

The cabal = the circle jerk here on Surly that condemns anything that doesn't fit their definition of the right answer to any topic.  

Go clean your hand where you wiped your shoe to find out what you stepped in.

You really are rocko level stupid.

[sidis 9749]

1 minute ago, TwiceHorn said:

As I said, he's going to make one response to each party making an outrageous remark, not engage in an ongoing verbal battle.

well, his words carried so much weight with trump as it relates to respecting the judiciary that he has taken to calling out specific judges repeatedly, including about ongoing trials.  so nice job, john.  profound.  now get back to protecting the elites and powerful's ability to rent seek this country into serfdom.

[hobbes2702 12825]

3 minutes ago, TwiceHorn said:

As I said, he's going to make one response to each party making an outrageous remark, not engage in an ongoing verbal battle.

I get this point. And this isn’t a challenge just a question. If say Trump has a thousand tweets criticizing the Supreme Court and Schumer makes one comment should Roberts respond to them equally? I don’t think he should. He should treat them as different because they are inherently different. Trump has criticized the federal judiciary on many occasions. Responding equally to Trump and Schumer is akin to giving shoplifting the same punishment as armed robbery.

[Brisketexan 104605]

1 minute ago, hobbes2702 said:

I get this point. And this isn’t a challenge just a question. If say Trump has a thousand tweets criticizing the Supreme Court and Schumer makes one comment should Roberts respond to them equally? I don’t think he should. He should treat them as different because they are inherently different. Trump has criticized the federal judiciary on many occasions. Responding equally to Trump and Schumer is akin to giving shoplifting the same punishment as armed robbery.

Trump has criticized the federal judiciary on the basis of a jduge's ethnicity, for crying out loud.  Roberts doesn't give a single fuck.  Roberts had a choice: have a legacy of an honest and fair judge who gives a fuck about the country, or go all-in on the cult of Trumpism and the fucking of the people.  Gotta give him credit, he's committed to his choice.

[jimmyjazz 45557]

2 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

Trump has criticized the federal judiciary on the basis of a jduge's ethnicity, for crying out loud.  Roberts doesn't give a single fuck.  Roberts had a choice: have a legacy of an honest and fair judge who gives a fuck about the country, or go all-in on the cult of Trumpism and the fucking of the people.  Gotta give him credit, he's committed to his choice.

Hey, it's not Trump's fault Judge Curiel is a wetback Hoosier.

[JBJ 3649]

1) What @hayden_horn said.  Putting together those sentences the way that he did was not what he meant to do.

2) Criticisms and threats are not the same thing.

Edited March 5, 2020 by JBJ

[JimmyJames 12271]

The “we just call balls and strikes“ theme, no doubt created by the federalist society and to my knowledge first utilized by Roberts during his confirmation hearing, is one of the most annoying piles of crap that the republicans have come up with to justify their radical agenda.

Roberts wasn’t just calling “balls and strikes” when he gutted the voting rights act and he knows it.

Kennedy wasn’t just calling “balls and strikes” when he wrote his very own dred Scott opinion commonly known as Citizens United that allowed unlimited foreign money in our own elections which is why we are currently in the mess we are in. 
 

Those were both radical opinions supported by a radical republican agenda that has very little to do with a sanguine court just calling “balls and strikes.”

Roberts created this fucking mess. Fuck him. 

Edited March 5, 2020 by JimmyJames

[Gil Bang 25898]

4 hours ago, TwiceHorn said:

So is a sitting President.

To borrow a phrase from another poster, Trump has just turned everything into an asshole-palooza.

who said that originally, because I'm gonna pos-rep the shit outta him. 

[bernorange 8348]

lulz...

Quote

GOA to NY Governor: Will You Apply “Red Flag Laws” Equally?

Springfield, VA – Gun Owners of America (GOA) today issued a letter to New York Governor Andrew Cuomo asking whether he will apply New York’s “red flag” law equally to all citizens of the state, including US Senator Charles Schumer, and not just the poor and minority communities.

“GOA opposed the enactment of this [red flag] law, and opposes the enactment of such laws in other states, in part because of our anticipated selective enforcement of this law, applying it to the poor and minorities, while giving a pass to the rich, powerful and politically connected. Your response to this letter will help demonstrate whether our concerns were valid,” GOA’s Senior Vice President Erich Pratt wrote in the letter.

This inquiry is made in light of threats to Supreme Court Justices by Senator Schumer on Supreme Court grounds, which is not only a violation of federal law, but also justification for a red flag order under New York state law.

“If you are serious about the law that you signed, and if you believe that it should apply to the ruling class as well as those ruled, then will the nation soon see reports that you will be directing an appropriate official to seek a red flag order against Senator Schumer?” Pratt asked Gov. Cuomo in the letter.
...

https://gunowners.org/goa-to-ny-governor-will-you-apply-red-flag-laws-equally/

[jimmyjazz 45557]

I'm quite confident Mr. Pratt has sent similar letters to Trump, etc. when they threaten people.

[DDD Dad 14251]

On 3/5/2020 at 2:35 PM, Onboard 2.0 said:

The cabal = the circle jerk here on Surly that condemns anything that doesn't fit their definition of the right answer to any topic.  

Go clean your hand where you wiped your shoe to find out what you stepped in.

Not sure if I qualify for membership in the cabal, but I'm pretty sure I wasn't alone in condemning Schumer.

https://www.surlyhorns.com/board/index.php?/topic/4105-brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-thread/&do=findComment&comment=2095648

[JimmyJames 12271]

https://poseidon01.ssrn.com/delivery.php?ID=839101122089124066112120002121102081023038005086089069018123118119095026119016103075106041116007045039113100126126088069024102106091030041064025081009004013088008070024041035066092111016113027126075119107026125097099112084073122066124111121065116003091&EXT=pdf

Pretty good read on how radical Roberts and his court have been.