Stephen Breyer to retire at the end of this court session.

[Jimmy Higgins]

McConnell was saying left-wing rhetoric led to this. I can't believe how evil that guy is.

Here we have a person that was targeting a SCOTUS justice (would have likely failed due to the marshals on site), and instead of talking about how political rhetoric can be problematic, he attacks the liberals for inciting this action.

Personally, I'd be quite happy if Kavanaugh strolled outside a bar, drunk as a skunk and got broadsided by a bus. But I don't want any of the Justices to have a hair of theirs harmed by another. Jebus, Kavanaugh's family can't exactly be feeling safe at the moment. That level of terror really should be reserved for The Trumps and Murdochs, among others. I find it frightening that this person came so close to firing a shot at one of the most important people in this country.

And McConnell is laying it on the liberals.

Luckily for America, this potential shooter changed his mind. And for that, I'm uncertain why he can be charged with attempt of murder... conspiracy to commit murder yes, but attempt?

 

[prideandfall]

Armed man arrested near Brett Kavanaugh's home charged with attempting to murder a US judge

He told law enforcement he had traveled from California to kill "a specific United States Supreme Court Justice."

www.cnn.com

The guy called 911 on himself. Hero and villain.

It was reported he was suicidal. He figured if he killed Kavenaugh his death would at least have some meaning. I'll chalk this one up to mental health issues.

this is why the country is in the state it's in right now.

the left are pussies.
he chickened out, had a crisis of conscience, and turned himself in. no violence, no conviction... he didn't change the world, except that now republicans will be even more psychotic.

this guy's name will not be remembered, he won't be praised by the "left" media (which doesn't exist btw), he won't be given an internship with democratic leadership.

pathetic.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Armed man arrested near Brett Kavanaugh's home charged with attempting to murder a US judge

He told law enforcement he had traveled from California to kill "a specific United States Supreme Court Justice."

www.cnn.com

The guy called 911 on himself. Hero and villain.

It was reported he was suicidal. He figured if he killed Kavenaugh his death would at least have some meaning. I'll chalk this one up to mental health issues.

this is why the country is in the state it's in right now.

the left are pussies.
he chickened out, had a crisis of conscience, and turned himself in. no violence, no conviction... he didn't change the world, except that now republicans will be even more psychotic.

The place had marshals out there, he probably wouldn't have made it to the front door. Murdering people is not the solution. Do you think for a second the Republicans would have allowed a replacement of Kavanaugh? Hell, McConnell probably just shot Schumer or something.

The problem our nation has is that the radical minority is in charge of one of the parties. And the other party has a level of civility left in it. Our democracy is already dying. It officially started with the Southern Strategy.

 

[prideandfall]

The place had marshals out there, he probably wouldn't have made it to the front door.

correct, that is the left's playbook - it probably won't work, so don't try.

Murdering people is not the solution.

i mean... it kind of is.
well, ok more accurately, murdering people is *a* solution.
i'm not going to put forth the argument it's the best one, or necessarily the correct one, but it is a viable one.

Do you think for a second the Republicans would have allowed a replacement of Kavanaugh? Hell, McConnell probably just shot Schumer or something.

well that's true, because the left are pussies.

The problem our nation has is that the radical minority is in charge of one of the parties. And the other party has a level of civility left in it. Our democracy is already dying. It officially started with the Southern Strategy.

yes, one party are a bunch of pussies that have let a minority steamroll over the country and impede the forward progress of humanity.

 

[ZiprHead]

The place had marshals out there, he probably wouldn't have made it to the front door.

correct, that is the left's playbook - it probably won't work, so don't try.

Murdering people is not the solution.

i mean... it kind of is.
well, ok more accurately, murdering people is *a* solution.
i'm not going to put forth the argument it's the best one, or necessarily the correct one, but it is a viable one.

Do you think for a second the Republicans would have allowed a replacement of Kavanaugh? Hell, McConnell probably just shot Schumer or something.

well that's true, because the left are pussies.

The problem our nation has is that the radical minority is in charge of one of the parties. And the other party has a level of civility left in it. Our democracy is already dying. It officially started with the Southern Strategy.

yes, one party are a bunch of pussies that have let a minority steamroll over the country and impede the forward progress of humanity.

Are you actuallly advocating that liberals shoot SC Justices???

Be careful with your answer. Advocating unlawful violence, especially towards political figures is a violation on the TOS.

 

[prideandfall]

Are you actuallly advocating that liberals shoot SC Justices???

Be careful with your answer. Advocating violence, especially towards political figures is a violation on the TOS.

i'm saying that violence happens in this world whether you like it or not.
further, those who perpetuate violence are historically the people who get their way in terms of politics.
the US is at least partly in the state its currently in because the right will use violence to achieve their ends, and have been successful in this strategy, and the left's strategy of standing back and meekly taking anything the right throws at them has not been successful.

pointing out reality isn't "advocating" anything, it's simply noting observable facts.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are you actuallly advocating that liberals shoot SC Justices???

Be careful with your answer. Advocating violence, especially towards political figures is a violation on the TOS.

i'm saying that violence happens in this world whether you like it or not.
further, those who perpetuate violence are historically the people who get their way in terms of politics.
the US is at least partly in the state its currently in because the right will use violence to achieve their ends, and have been successful in this strategy, and the left's strategy of standing back and meekly taking anything the right throws at them has not been successful.

Was the violence by leftists in the 60s and 70s successful in changing anything?

pointing out reality isn't "advocating" anything, it's simply noting observable facts.

The fascists used violence to get into power and it worked real well in Italy and Germany, until the leaders were killed or committed suicide.

 

[prideandfall]

Are you actuallly advocating that liberals shoot SC Justices???

Be careful with your answer. Advocating violence, especially towards political figures is a violation on the TOS.

i'm saying that violence happens in this world whether you like it or not.
further, those who perpetuate violence are historically the people who get their way in terms of politics.
the US is at least partly in the state its currently in because the right will use violence to achieve their ends, and have been successful in this strategy, and the left's strategy of standing back and meekly taking anything the right throws at them has not been successful.

Was the violence by leftists in the 60s and 70s successful in changing anything?

no but they also sucked at it, as leftists are wont to do with political violence.

pointing out reality isn't "advocating" anything, it's simply noting observable facts.

The fascists used violence to get into power and it worked real well in Italy and Germany, until the leaders were killed or committed suicide.

well sure, because violence sometimes isn't a sustainable business model long term, but human history shows it can be highly effective over the course of at least decades.

keep in mind here i'm not playing envoy for political violence, i specifically said i'd not try to argue it's the best option or the right option, but i will disagree with an attempt to propose that isn't an option.

 

[lpetrich]

Opinion | Chief Justice John Roberts is at a crossroads. How will he handle this term? - The Washington Post
"Opinion | The tragedy of John Roberts"

On the final day of oral arguments last term, the chief justice’s voice cracked with emotion as he bade farewell to the retiring Justice Stephen G. Breyer. It was a striking moment for the normally buttoned-up John G. Roberts Jr., and one that seemed to signify more than sorrow at the departure of a longtime colleague. It is not far-fetched to imagine that Roberts was mourning the decisive end of his vision of presiding over an institution seen as operating above the partisan fray.

“I’ve lost my only friend on the court,” Roberts told someone afterward.

Justice Breyer is about 84 years old, so it's very understandable that he would want to retire.

As Roberts, 67, begins his 18th term, he is an at times isolated and even tragic figure. Roberts wanted to be at the helm of a court that was more often unanimous than splintered; now it is cleaved, 6-3, along hardened ideological lines. Roberts wanted to help shore up the court’s institutional standing; instead, he has watched it plunge in public esteem, helpless to prevent the fall.

He has been outflanked and marginalized by five conservative justices to his right, even as he has been subjected to unsparing criticism by those to his left.

...
And with trust in the court at a record low — down 20 points in two years to just 47 percent of Americans saying they had a “great deal” or “fair amount” of faith in the institution — Roberts felt compelled to speak out in its defense, engaging in an extraordinary public back-and-forth with Justice Elena Kagan about the court’s legitimacy.

In short, with the death of liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the arrival of Justice Amy Coney Barrett to shore up the conservative wing, this is the Roberts court in name only. The chief now finds himself in the unexpected position of being — or at least voting — to the left of the new swing justice, Brett M. Kavanaugh.

...
Tellingly, conservatives and liberals use the same stark adjective — relevant — when they describe Roberts’s current predicament.

He's essentially been sidelined by the other conservatives on the Court.

 

[lpetrich]

Like his greatest predecessor, Chief Justice John Marshall, who served from 1801 to 1835, Roberts wanted to see the court speak as often as possible with a single voice, not a cacophony of concurring and dissenting opinions. That would produce more jurisprudential stability and, consequently, more public respect for the court.

It all sounds quaint now. Last term’s numbers tell the story. According to Epstein’s calculations, just 28 percent of the court’s opinions were unanimous in the last term — far below the 41 percent average since Roberts joined the court. The most common voting pattern wasn’t 9-0, as is the general rule, but 6-3. And the vast majority of those (14 of 19), according to statistics compiled by Scotusblog, reflected the six-justice conservative bloc.

“Chief Justice Roberts tried to avoid the polarization of the court from the beginning,” Rosen told me. “The whole point of his vision was to avoid the court blowing itself up and squandering its legitimacy.”

Then about how JR got into the SC.

 

[lpetrich]

How has he decided on cases that came before the Court?

On race, which for decades has been an animating issue for Roberts, he has written opinions decimating the Voting Rights Act and preventing public schools from using race to achieve diverse classrooms. On gay rights, he dissented bitterly when the court found that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage, warning that “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.”

On campaign finance, he has demonstrated unrelenting hostility toward efforts to reduce the influence of money in politics. On government regulation, he has voted to curtail the power of administrative agencies, most recently using a case limiting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to combat climate change to declare a new “major questions” doctrine that will invite further challenges across the regulatory landscape.

And yet, Roberts — even before conservatives took firm control — sometimes put his foot on the brake. Before he dismantled Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, he gave Congress one last chance to fix it, noting that “the importance of the question does not justify our rushing to decide it.” Most famously, in 2012 he switched his initial vote to strike down the Affordable Care Act and, engaging in some interpretive contortions, saved the statute but infuriated his conservative colleagues. Three years later, he did it again — this time adding insult to conservative injury because his vote wasn’t even needed to save the statute.

 

[lpetrich]

Then discussing how there are three eras of Roberts courts.

In the first of them (2005 - 2018), Justice Anthony Kennedy was the swing vote, usually voting conservative, but sometimes liberal.

In the second of them (2018 - 2020), Justice Roberts was the deciding Justice in many cases.

In the third of them (2020 - present), the court's conservatives don't need Justice Roberts's votes for anything.

Now, the more conservative justices show little inclination to heed him — a phenomenon on painful display in last term’s abortion case. Roberts could summon no justices to support his middle-ground position, to uphold Mississippi’s 15-week abortion ban but stop short of overruling Roe v. Wade. Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.'s majority opinion dismissed Roberts in almost sneering tones. “The concurrence’s most fundamental defect is its failure to offer any principled basis for its approach,” Alito wrote.

It was a dramatic turnabout from Roberts’s ascendant position just a year before. “This,” said one conservative lawyer, “was John’s worst nightmare.”

Brett Kavanaugh tends to vote with him more than the other conservatives, but not always, especially in the more critical cases.

"That leaves Roberts, as he nears the end of his second decade on the court, a chief without a constituency."

Too conservative for the liberals, and not conservative enough for the conservatives.

Many of his fellow conservatives, including some of his own colleagues, view him with suspicion, if not outright disdain. Roberts, as they see it, has subordinated his simple duty to apply the law in the service of somehow protecting the institution — and, perhaps not coincidentally, his own reputation.

Liberals understand that his seeming moderation is only by contrast to his hot-under-the-collar colleagues, and that his ultimate goals are deeply at odds with their own constitutional vision. Roberts might be an occasional accomplice, but he is not their ally.

Finally,

And there is another way for Roberts, who once aspired to be a history professor, to think about his choice: over the long sweep of time. Ineffective now might look heroic decades hence. Roberts can be remembered as the chief justice who went along with the conservative crowd and, in so doing, helped bring disrepute on an activist, radical court. Or he can be the conservative who tried to stop, or at least slow, the tide, lauded for his steadfastness even if it proves unavailing.

History seems certain to remember the Roberts court in a different way than John Roberts once imagined, but he retains the ability to shape history’s verdict on his own performance.