Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

MohRokTah

(15,429 posts)
Thu Jun 25, 2015, 01:19 PM Jun 2015

One thing that keeps the current SCOTUS from going completely over the top with wingnut fervor...

John Roberts is actually concerned about his place in history and how SCOTUS decisions will be taught in future law school classes. Today we found out he is reluctant to have "John Roberts" touted as the CJ who took away healthcare from millions of Americans.

I'm wondering if he is regretting his decision in Citizens United these days? That decision will most certainly be considered ill conceived in future law school classes.

11 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
One thing that keeps the current SCOTUS from going completely over the top with wingnut fervor... (Original Post) MohRokTah Jun 2015 OP
This is very much true. hifiguy Jun 2015 #1
John Roberts helped foist BUSH II in Florida, protected BUSH I during Iran Contra... Octafish Jun 2015 #2
America is such a broken country, we hear people proclaim any day now any year now Rex Jun 2015 #5
John Roberts is primarily driven by big business Gman Jun 2015 #3
How do you think he votes? DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2015 #8
Toldja he wouldn't vote with the majority Gman Jun 2015 #11
Roberts is a corporate lawyer, albeit a clever, intelligent, and adroit one. DemocratSinceBirth Jun 2015 #4
Can't imagine that he will. hifiguy Jun 2015 #9
Roberts is pro-business Prism Jun 2015 #6
So Roberts is concerned about his legacy rock Jun 2015 #7
The legacies of Chief Justices and Presidents hifiguy Jun 2015 #10
 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
1. This is very much true.
Thu Jun 25, 2015, 01:23 PM
Jun 2015

And it is one of the reasons he will be in a majority upholding marriage equality. The tide of history is inevitable in that issue. And no Chief wants to be mentioned in the same breath by posterity as Roger "Dred Scott" Taney.

Octafish

(55,745 posts)
2. John Roberts helped foist BUSH II in Florida, protected BUSH I during Iran Contra...
Thu Jun 25, 2015, 01:40 PM
Jun 2015


The smarmy “Justice” John Roberts wasn’t around for the 5-4 decision that installed pretzeldent Junior George W Bush 43 into the Oval Office. The vote-suppressor supreme “Justice” William Rehnquist was at the top of that legal heap back in 2001.

But, if it wasn’t for young John Roberts workin’ his legal magic ‘n’ all back in 1986, it’s quite possible there never would have been a President Poppy George Herbert Walker Bush 41 in the first place.

The reason: John Roberts helped keep Pruneface Ronald Reagan from being impeached and the secret government arms-for-hostages Boland Amendment runaround ringleader Poppy Bush out of prison during Iran-Contra.



JR lawyered iran contra

The Smoking Gun: John Roberts "Lawyered" the Iran-Contra Scandal

Bob Fertik
Democrats.com
August 25, 2005

EXCERPT...

One file withheld, regarding the Iran-contra affair, was a draft memo from Roberts to his bosses with the heading "re: establishment of NHAO" -- referring to the Nicaraguan Humanitarian Assistance Office.

The office was one of the ways the Reagan administration got around what were known as the Boland amendments, which prohibited U.S. intelligence agencies from spending money to overthrow the Sandinistas. The office was a way the administration could get funds to the contras for nonmilitary purposes, but once there the money was used for all sorts of things.

In other words, John Roberts "lawyered" the Iran-Contra Scandal - one of the worst scandals in American history.

Now we know why Karl Rove is scrubbing Roberts' files!!!

CONTINUED…

http://www.democrats.com/roberts-iran-contra



Why does that matter? Well, Iran-Contra was treason of the highest order. Not only did the Executive circumvent Congress in carrying out its various warmongering treasons in the name of fighting godless communism, they were trading arms with the terrorists who had killed 240 United States Marines, 18 Navy and 3 Army personnel at the Beirut airport in 1983.



Firewall: Inside the Iran-Contra Cover-up

By Robert Parry
1995

EXCERPT…

Those combined interests likely will lead to very few favorable reviews of a new book by a man who put himself in the way of that cover-up -- Iran-contra independent counsel Lawrence Walsh. In a remarkable new book, Firewall: The Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Cover-up, Walsh details his six-year battle to break through the "firewall" that White House officials built around President Reagan and Vice President Bush after the Iran-contra scandal exploded in November 1986.

For Walsh, a lifelong Republican who shared the foreign policy views of the Reagan administration, the Iran-contra experience was a life-changing one, as his investigation penetrated one wall of lies only to be confronted with another and another -- and not just lies from Oliver North and his cohorts but lies from nearly every senior administration official who spoke with investigators.

According to Firewall, the cover-up conspiracy took formal shape at a meeting of Reagan and his top advisers in the Situation Room at the White House on Nov. 24, 1986. The meeting's principal point of concern was how to handle the troublesome fact that Reagan had approved illegal arms sales to Iran in fall 1985, before any covert-action finding had been signed. The act was a clear felony -- a violation of the Arms Export Control Act -- and possibly an impeachable offense.

SNIP…

&quot White House chief of staff Don) Regan, who had heard McFarlane inform the president and who had heard the president admit to Shultz that he knew of the shipment of Hawk (anti-aircraft) missiles, said nothing. Shultz and (Defense Secretary Caspar) Weinberger, who had protested the shipment before it took place, said nothing. (Vice President George) Bush, who had been told of the shipment in advance by McFarlane, said nothing. Casey, who (had) requested that the president sign the retroactive finding to authorize the CIA-facilitated delivery, said nothing. (NSC adviser John) Poindexter, who had torn up the finding, said nothing. Meese asked whether anyone knew anything else that hadn't been revealed. No one spoke."

CONTINUED…

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story34.html



These are no mere gangsters. They are mass murderers dealing with mass murderers to advance their aims. And John Roberts let them get away with their corruptions and treasons.



Roberts & the 'Apex of Presidential Power'

By Nat Parry
September 6, 2005

EXCERPT...

In the 1980s, Roberts also provided legal advice to the Reagan administration on how to pick its way around the legal obstacles erected by Congress to limit military and other assistance to the Nicaraguan contra rebels who were fighting to overthrow Nicaragua’s leftist Sandinista government.

SNIP…

Conflict of Interest

Regarding the Hamdan case, Roberts also saw no impropriety in his simultaneous interviewing with senior administration officials for a life-time job on the Supreme Court and his judging of a case in which Bush was a defendant.

On April 1, Roberts was interviewed by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, who had formulated many of the arguments for the “apex of presidential power,” including Bush’s right to override anti-torture laws.

Other interviews with Roberts were conducted by Vice President Dick Cheney; White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card; White House legal counsel Harriet Miers; Bush’s chief political strategist Karl Rove; and Cheney’s chief of staff Lewis Libby.

CONTINUED…

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2005/090605.html



Oh yeah. "No Poppy" means no one to appoint Associate Just-Us Tony the Fixer Scalia to the court in 1986. And everybody knows, Fangu Tony was da brains behind the 5-4 fiasco...uh ah uh, assisted by the lawyerly John Roberts, of course.



Roberts Gave GOP Advice in 2000 Recount

John G. Roberts, President Bush's nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court, played a role in the chaotic, 36-day period following the disputed 2000 presidential election.

by Gary Fineout and Mary Ellen Klas
Published on Thursday, July 21, 2005 by the Miami Herald

TALLAHASSEE -- U.S. Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts provided legal advice to Gov. Jeb Bush in the weeks following the November 2000 election as part of the effort to make sure the governor's brother won the disputed presidential vote.

Roberts, at the time a private attorney in Washington, D.C., came to Tallahassee to advise the state's Republican administration as it was trying to prevent a Democratic end-run that the GOP feared might give the election to Al Gore, sources told The Herald.

SNIP...

U.S. Rep. Robert Wexler, a Boca Raton Democrat, seized on Roberts' participation in the 2000 recount and suggested it should be grounds for rejecting his nomination. Wexler suggested the nomination ``threw salt on the wounds of the thousands of Floridians whose voting rights were disenfranchised during the 2000 election.

''Judge Roberts worked to ensure that George Bush would become president -- regardless of what the courts might decide,'' Wexler said, relying on news accounts that suggested Roberts gave the governor advice on how the state Legislature could name Bush the winner. ``And now he is being rewarded for that partisan service by being appointed to the nation's highest court.''

CONTINUED...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0721-07.htm



Small world. And very, very bad.



The Lost Opportunity of Iran-Contra

Special Report: A quarter century ago with the breaking of the Iran-Contra scandal, the United States had a chance to step back from its march toward Empire and to demand accountability for White House crimes. But instead a powerful cover-up prevailed, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry
ConsortiumNews
December 1, 2011

EXCERPT...

Walsh finally relented and agreed to shut down his investigation, meaning that one of the key lessons derived from Iran-Contra was that a determined cover-up of a national security scandal, backed by a powerful media apparatus and aggressive political allies, can work.

In the early 1990s when I interviewed the House Foreign Affairs Committee’s longtime Democratic chief counsel Spencer Oliver, he put Iran-Contra in exactly that historical place, as the polar opposite of Watergate when Richard Nixon’s abuses of power had real consequences, including Nixon’s forced resignation and prison terms for many of his subordinates.

“What [the Republicans] learned from Watergate,” Oliver said, “was not ‘don’t do it,’ but ‘cover it up more effectively.’ They have learned that they have to frustrate congressional oversight and press scrutiny in a way that will avoid another major scandal.”

The consequences of the failed Iran-Contra investigations have been long-lasting and profound. Not only did George H.W. Bush manage to get elected president in 1988 under the false claim that he had been “out of the loop” on the scandal, but the failure to hold him accountable in 1993 opened the door to the White House eight years later for his son, George W. Bush.

George W. Bush’s imperial presidency (and its costly “war on terror”) would have been virtually unthinkable if the full truth had been known about George H.W. Bush regarding Iran-Contra. Nor would it have been likely that the Republicans could have succeeded in elevating Ronald Reagan to his present iconic status.

CONTINUED...

http://consortiumnews.com/2011/12/01/the-lost-opportunity-of-iran-contra/



For all that, dealing with terrorists and going around the Congressional ban on dealing death on innocent people in Nicaragua, they all belong in the slammer for life. Instead, John Roberts gets to head the nation’s highest court in the land for life and he gets kudos on DU for helping maintain corporate-profiting health insurance. Nice.
 

Rex

(65,616 posts)
5. America is such a broken country, we hear people proclaim any day now any year now
Thu Jun 25, 2015, 02:09 PM
Jun 2015

and the Perfect Congress will come along and save us. NO. Never. Since when?

The fact that the GOP has gotten away with so much crime over the decades, has now caused us to go down this irreversible course in regards to the TPP and corporate hold over nations.

Gman

(24,780 posts)
3. John Roberts is primarily driven by big business
Thu Jun 25, 2015, 02:03 PM
Jun 2015

And what big business wants. Gutting the subsidy would have gutted profits. That was a non-starter. The CA gay marriage case win happened because he did not want to upset the precedents set for consumer lawsuits by ruling favorably on the standing issue. The Hobby Lobby case is a great example of where he can support the right wing on social issues, which is where his heart is.

Robert's legacy will be one of the biggest kiss possible to big business. Today's case only reinforces that.

If gay marriage wins in the SCOTUS and he's with the majority, look in the case for precedents that would be set that would be adverse to business. I don't think he'll rule in favor of gay marriage for social reasons.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,711 posts)
8. How do you think he votes?
Thu Jun 25, 2015, 02:15 PM
Jun 2015

Here's a window into his thinking:


Counsel, I'm not sure it's necessary to get into sexual orientation to resolve the case. I mean, if Sue loves Joe and Tom loves Joe, Sue can marry him and Tom can't. And the difference is based upon their different sex. Why isn’t that a straightforward question of sexual discrimination?



BTW, i have known many plaintiffs and defendants lawyers, the latter didn't seem to give a hoot about social issues, just protecting the interest of the corporations they represent.

Gman

(24,780 posts)
11. Toldja he wouldn't vote with the majority
Fri Jun 26, 2015, 10:43 AM
Jun 2015

To legalize gay marriage. He's very predictable in that respect. If it affects business he will vote with business even if it means voting with the liberals.

DemocratSinceBirth

(99,711 posts)
4. Roberts is a corporate lawyer, albeit a clever, intelligent, and adroit one.
Thu Jun 25, 2015, 02:08 PM
Jun 2015

He is a small c conservative and not an ideologue like Thomas. Alito, and Scalia.

I hope he doesn't disappoint me with on marriage equality vote.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
9. Can't imagine that he will.
Thu Jun 25, 2015, 02:27 PM
Jun 2015

During argument he asked whether it would be possible to uphold equality strictly on the grounds of sex discrimination and was told by counsel that it was entirely possible and would fit with applicable precedent. He may want to rule narrowly, but I cannot see him voting against marriage equality. And the woman who made all that law on sex discrimination in front of the SCOTUS offices just down the hall. Name of Ginsburg, IIRC. Maybe he could have a chat with her.

One, it's not an issue Big $$$ cares much about and to the extent they care at all they are for equality.

Two, he is a Chief Justice. The tide towards marriage equality is a historical inevitability. Chiefs seldom want to be seen standing against something that is inevitable, with the possible exception of Rehnquist. No one wants to be the next Roger Taney of Dred Scott infamy.

 

Prism

(5,815 posts)
6. Roberts is pro-business
Thu Jun 25, 2015, 02:09 PM
Jun 2015

The ACA is actually a windfall for the insurance industry. For profit hospital organizations filed amicus briefs in favor of the ACA.

There's not as much cognitive dissonance here as people may think.

rock

(13,218 posts)
7. So Roberts is concerned about his legacy
Thu Jun 25, 2015, 02:10 PM
Jun 2015

So was w. You think that maybe in both cases they should started being worried way before they actually did? After you left a trail of shit every place you've been is NOT the time to think legacy.

 

hifiguy

(33,688 posts)
10. The legacies of Chief Justices and Presidents
Thu Jun 25, 2015, 02:29 PM
Jun 2015

are very different things. The former are measured in terms of decades. CJs care very much about how posterity will view them with the possible exception of Rehnquist, who gave no shits about anything but his political agenda.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»One thing that keeps the ...