Comments on: Memo to the Chief Justice: contempt for your fellow Justices is a Bad Thing(TM)

By: MarkH

MarkH — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:16:38 +0000

I listened to the C-SPAN audio coverage of the court and the primary thing I got was that there had to be a mechanism, at some point in the process, where a judge could declare the charges against an ‘enemy combatant’ to be insufficient and to release that prisoner. But, the so-called conservatives on the court don’t seem to think the judicial branch should have that authority.

What political system do they think we have where the Executive branch gets to decide everything?

By: Rick

Rick — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:43:53 +0000

Roberts is a “bad man.” I tried to tell everyone before he was confirmed that he was so. He bought his children, little blond hair, blue eyed kids in Ireland. When questioned about the purchase he claimed he got the kids in south America. A lie of course. If he would purchase little kids to use as ornaments, then what kind of judge did everyone think they were getting?

By: Political Waves » Honor and Country — and a shocker!

Political Waves » Honor and Country — and a shocker! — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 21:19:55 +0000

[...] Memo to the Chief Justice: contempt for your fellow Justices is a Bad Thing(TM) Brian Angliss, ScholarsAndRogues June 12, 2008 Weekend Reads [...]

By: NoOneYouKnow

NoOneYouKnow — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:29:54 +0000

Lawyerluke, you might want to check the spelling of habeus corpus and the date of the Magna Carta.
I’ve got to say, Roberts’s statement about “unelected, politically unaccountable judges” sounds pretty disrespectful to me, especially in light of some of his recent decisions that have overturned long-established precedent. Scalia, as far as I can tell, doesn’t see the need to apply reason to his arguments. He apparently doesn’t think of torture as a punishment, I suppose because it’s inflicted not as a sentence but in the “investigation.” It doesn’t take a genius, however, to recognize that torture is punishment to do or say what the torturer wants. Their poor thinking is almost more contemptible than their disrespect for their fellow humans.

By: Russ Wellen

Russ Wellen — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:28:04 +0000

Thanks for going after Roberts instead of the easy target, Scalia. Earth to Justice Roberts: Bush will be gone soon — you can stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

By: The Rule of Law Overrules Bush « Home of the Brave

The Rule of Law Overrules Bush « Home of the Brave — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:17:11 +0000

[...] Angliss, Scholars & Rogues Memo To The Chief Justice: Contempt For Your Fellow Justices Is A Bad Thing Any time you hear someone say something like â€œwith all due respectâ€ or â€œrespectfully,â€¦â€, [...]

By: Lawyerluke

Lawyerluke — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 19:04:20 +0000

MAn were we ever sold a bill goods when Roberts was confirmed to the court. He was sold as a strict constructionist, who firmly believed in the constitution and the protects it affords. What a SHAM! Habeous Corpus (firsst written into the MAga Carter in the 1500s is a bedrock principle of a free and democratic society. This has been recognized by free and thinking men for hundreds of years and was pined for 1000’s of years before that. Writ of HC is the only thing that truly quintifies the powers the Judicial and Executive branchs hold. W/O the Writ of HC, the Judicial branch becomes sublimated to the whims of the executive and individuals are no longer free from the oppression of Authoritarian Executive. It doesn’t surprise me that Alito, Scalia, and Thomas would sell out on this issue (they are butt scabs on the arse of the president anyway) but Ir eally expected more from Roberts. The fact that he not only sells his soul on this issue, but does so with such contempt and didain for his peers and the rest of the court shows that he is the boil on the president’s arse. Just lance him and he;ll ooze for days. WE WUZ ROBBED!

By: Legal Beagle

Legal Beagle — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:58:48 +0000

I agree that almost any decision whereby Moe, Larry, Curly and Shemp are in the majority is almost always authoritarian in nature, and a step back for individual rights and the Constitution, I do not beleive Robert’s opinion shows the contempt suggested in the piece.

By: Ricardo

Ricardo — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 16:47:15 +0000

I was more disturbed with Scalia suspending the constitution because of the “we are at war” excuse. Constitutionally speaking, we are not “at war”, just saying so by Bush does not make it so. And if it was an acceptable reason, then being “at war” could be an excuse for anything, just what this SCOTUS ruling was about. The US occupying another country, the reality of our situation, is not an excuse to suspend the constitution, nor is it being “at war”.

Scalia is just spreading neocon manure, he should know better.

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:59:20 +0000

Abraham and Pelkyi, I disagree that this is normal. Normal for Roberts or Scalia, perhaps. But the dissents I’ve read by the other Justices, as well as recent former Justices like O’Connor, Blackmun, Marshall, and Berger have never risen to the level of contempt I read in Roberts’ and Alito’s dissents this time around. At least, not in the dissents I’ve read.

By: Pelkyi Dorje

Pelkyi Dorje — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:48:25 +0000

I agree with abraham. As much as I disagree with Roberts’ dissent, I must say that it is typical legal writing.

By: abraham

abraham — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:24:36 +0000

Roberts is a scumbag, no doubt. But I find your argument uncompelling. Nothing you submitted shows any sort of contempt on the face of it. Nor by reading between the lines.

Your polemic falls flat, I’m afraid.

By: Igor

Igor — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:07:47 +0000

Roberts and Scalia are pigs. End of story. Anytime they vote with the majority, patriotic Americans should immediately break whatever law the two of them are trying to enforce or establish. I have complete comtempt for the Supreme Court and the entire U.S. government. I hope these two are burned out of their homes, and soon. And to the guy who thinks Scalia would make a good “drinking buddy,” I’ve got some news: “drinking buddies” are for losers, you moron. Any time someone tells me that someone would make a “good drinking buddy,” I know immediately that the person in question is a weak, pathetic, standard-issue douchebag. Hey! Let’s get drunk and talk about things! I hate you all.

By: The Oracle

The Oracle — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 07:35:03 +0000

Justice Roberts sounds like he’s actually writing an opinion for the British Royalists over in England during the American Revolution, in which he argues that the American colonists who were up in arms against the Crown, thus making them unlawful enemy combatants overseas, did not share the same rights British citizens had, unlawful enemy combatants having no right to Due Process, nor any claim to Habeas Corpus, thus making it possible for the Crown (George W. Bush) to detain and imprison these unlawful enemy American colonists indefinitely without a hearing of any sort.

Scalia, being cut from the same neo-fascist cloth as Dick Cheney, just sounds really, really demented.

I’ve always wondered, since Habeas Corpus is enshrined in our Constitution, why a Constitutional Amendment wasn’t required first before the Wacky Weepublicans running Congress ripped Habeas Corpus out of our Constitution?

By: jimbo

jimbo — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:47:43 +0000

These four “justices” are cowards. They are so afraid, not of anything concrete or justifiable, but of the spector provided by bush’s propaganda and lies. Buck it up, jerks, the damage you and bush have done is much worse than anything these “terrorists” might do.

By: Bobby McGill

Bobby McGill — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 03:13:28 +0000

Scalia is my Bee Gees, my Justin Timberlake, my guilty pleasure. While I disagree with his assessment that the constitution is a “dead document” and must be interpreted from a “textualist” point of view, the guy has a charm about him and a rough neck approach to life that would make him a good drinking partner.

But seriously, I don’t mind that in a justice as long as there is a counterpart on the bench to balance it out. I hope that the bench heads back in a left-erly direction in the future.

By: Bobby

Bobby — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:35:35 +0000

Sorry to ask, but: have they sworn anything on the Bible?
There must be something in there about treating people like human beings, right?

By: www.buzzflash.net

www.buzzflash.net — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:27:04 +0000

Memo to the Chief Justice: contempt for your fellow Justices is a Bad Thing(TM)…

In his dissent, Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts revealed his contempt for his fellow Justices. Respect is the foundation of every working relationship, so Roberts’ lack thereof cannot be a good thing for the future of the Supreme Court….

By: tictacgo

tictacgo — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 00:09:50 +0000

Roberts, Scalia and Alito have lifetime appointments. That’s good and bad. Good because over time they might realize that they are not beholden to any adminitration and thus might temper their views with reason as opposed to ideology. Bad because if they do turn out to be fanatical ideologoues (as their decisions in cases such as this one and the Ledbetter case hint at) then little can be done to “balance” out their presence by new appointments in any short term.

I wonder if over the course of this election season they will commit any breaches of decency foul enough to invite some form of congressional censure.

To sum up, Bush has made sure that his crimes, misdemeanors and simple incompetence will be covered up by this gang of 4 even after he is long gone. That and I suspect these 4 will in concert with Republicans attempt to sabotage Obama’s policies should he be elected. Hmm … I sense turbulence ahead.