"..almost as though they're viewing the COVID-19 virus as a weapon they can use to smite their enemies if they're willing to sacrifice enough "believers" as collateral damage." That's exactly what they're doing.
You do realize, of course, that in any district that a Rethug loses by a slim margin, they'll immediately claim voter fraud and tie up the courts as long as possible.
I don’t actually mean that we should judge someone only by their worst act. That can’t be a standardized protocol. But when someone’s worst act is egregious enough to basically undo everything good they did previously, then it takes just that single act. It doesn’t apply to all situations or people, but it’s a thing that can apply to some, especially so for people who’s actions impact everyone. For instance, Hitler.
I think your example regarding Warren better explains my question regarding Roberts. Prioritizing the legitimacy of the court (using the definition I think most people use) is more important than any single person’s wishes over their legacy. If Roberts wants his legacy to be that he defended the legitimacy of the court, I’m already questioning his prioritization of that desire over his actually doing the work. His motivations shouldn’t be self-centered. If they are, the best case scenario is that he does good things (allegedly) for bad reasons.
Hopefully that makes more sense. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t always understand the nuanced differences between common use terms and their legalese counterparts, and I’m not sure when/if I’ve bumped into them. My understanding is that Roberts was the deciding vote in Citizens United, which has had such an all-encompassing negative impact on the country and our democracy. Just one of many decisions. I view it as indication that he’s just as radical as his louder colleagues, but better at hiding behind ‘legitimacy’.
Thanks for the clarification - I think I understand better where you’re coming from.
I’m glad I remembered the Warren example because it does nicely address the issue of the Court’s legitimacy. Warren already had the votes to issue a majority opinion in Brown that separate is inherently not equal. But, he continued to twist arms to make sure it was a unanimous decision, because (1) the case was significant in its own right, and (2) it was a rare example of the Court overturning its own precedent in Plessy.
Roberts is certainly no Warren, although he’s also not the worst CJ ever. And as a conservative, he was never going to rule as I suspect you and I would hope for in every case. He’s particularly bad on voting rights, and I would include Citizens United in that group.
In contrast to what Warren did in Brown, I believe we’re going to see a spectacular failure of Roberts’ legacy AND the Court’s legitimacy when the Mississippi abortion decision is issued. I suspect we’ll see a 5-4 decision* overturning Roe, because Roberts simply doesn’t have the power to convince Thomas, Alito, & the 3 TFG Justices to uphold established precedent. Likewise, he’s not going to convince the other 3 Justices that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overturned. From a lawyer’s perspective, this will be TERRIBLE for the Court’s legitimacy, because it will mean that SCOTUS is willing to overturn precedent simply because it has enough partisan votes at any given time. I’m sure you can see the distinction between overturning Plessy 9-0 because it was wrongly decided, versus overturning Roe 5-4 just because a bunch of partisan hack Justices have enough votes to do so.
*I really hope I’m wrong and at least one of the SCOTUS5 will uphold Roe, but sadly I don’t think that will be the case. There have already been three 5-4 decisions last year allowing SB8 and SB4 to go into effect in Texas, with both laws clearly in violation of Roe’s pre-viability standard, so in my view they’ve already overturned Roe without explicitly stating it.
I’ve now managed to become thoroughly depressed, but thank you for the thought-provoking conversation.
I live in a deep red corner of an otherwise blue state. Vax rate in this county is somewhere in the 30's, and everybody down at the Food Lion is swaggering around maskless. Buncha assholes. Oh yeah, and I'm glad the vaccination "lasts longer than the end of the workday." That's kinda the point.
I wasn't aware that votes were medical equipment.
I'm starting to wonder whether the (R)s simply don't care about legitimacy, or are actively trying to start a civil war.
Indeed!
At this point, I kinda think that's our only hope for not descending into fascism.
She "lost" by obtaining three million more votes than the liar did.
"..almost as though they're viewing the COVID-19 virus as a weapon they can use to smite their enemies if they're willing to sacrifice enough "believers" as collateral damage." That's exactly what they're doing.
You do realize, of course, that in any district that a Rethug loses by a slim margin, they'll immediately claim voter fraud and tie up the courts as long as possible.
Whatever they think will benefit them, they'll do.
Consistency was never their strong suit.
why not both?
Scotus being controlled by the GQP .
Sure. But like Al Franken, we'd fight. And we have more judges now.
Agreed. Con men are preying on people whose mental age is about 13. "I won't do it & you can't make me! Nyah nyah nyah nyah nyah!"
I don’t actually mean that we should judge someone only by their worst act. That can’t be a standardized protocol. But when someone’s worst act is egregious enough to basically undo everything good they did previously, then it takes just that single act. It doesn’t apply to all situations or people, but it’s a thing that can apply to some, especially so for people who’s actions impact everyone. For instance, Hitler.
I think your example regarding Warren better explains my question regarding Roberts. Prioritizing the legitimacy of the court (using the definition I think most people use) is more important than any single person’s wishes over their legacy. If Roberts wants his legacy to be that he defended the legitimacy of the court, I’m already questioning his prioritization of that desire over his actually doing the work. His motivations shouldn’t be self-centered. If they are, the best case scenario is that he does good things (allegedly) for bad reasons.
Hopefully that makes more sense. I’m not a lawyer, so I don’t always understand the nuanced differences between common use terms and their legalese counterparts, and I’m not sure when/if I’ve bumped into them. My understanding is that Roberts was the deciding vote in Citizens United, which has had such an all-encompassing negative impact on the country and our democracy. Just one of many decisions. I view it as indication that he’s just as radical as his louder colleagues, but better at hiding behind ‘legitimacy’.
Thanks for the clarification - I think I understand better where you’re coming from.
I’m glad I remembered the Warren example because it does nicely address the issue of the Court’s legitimacy. Warren already had the votes to issue a majority opinion in Brown that separate is inherently not equal. But, he continued to twist arms to make sure it was a unanimous decision, because (1) the case was significant in its own right, and (2) it was a rare example of the Court overturning its own precedent in Plessy.
Roberts is certainly no Warren, although he’s also not the worst CJ ever. And as a conservative, he was never going to rule as I suspect you and I would hope for in every case. He’s particularly bad on voting rights, and I would include Citizens United in that group.
In contrast to what Warren did in Brown, I believe we’re going to see a spectacular failure of Roberts’ legacy AND the Court’s legitimacy when the Mississippi abortion decision is issued. I suspect we’ll see a 5-4 decision* overturning Roe, because Roberts simply doesn’t have the power to convince Thomas, Alito, & the 3 TFG Justices to uphold established precedent. Likewise, he’s not going to convince the other 3 Justices that Roe was wrongly decided and should be overturned. From a lawyer’s perspective, this will be TERRIBLE for the Court’s legitimacy, because it will mean that SCOTUS is willing to overturn precedent simply because it has enough partisan votes at any given time. I’m sure you can see the distinction between overturning Plessy 9-0 because it was wrongly decided, versus overturning Roe 5-4 just because a bunch of partisan hack Justices have enough votes to do so.
*I really hope I’m wrong and at least one of the SCOTUS5 will uphold Roe, but sadly I don’t think that will be the case. There have already been three 5-4 decisions last year allowing SB8 and SB4 to go into effect in Texas, with both laws clearly in violation of Roe’s pre-viability standard, so in my view they’ve already overturned Roe without explicitly stating it.
I’ve now managed to become thoroughly depressed, but thank you for the thought-provoking conversation.
I live in a deep red corner of an otherwise blue state. Vax rate in this county is somewhere in the 30's, and everybody down at the Food Lion is swaggering around maskless. Buncha assholes. Oh yeah, and I'm glad the vaccination "lasts longer than the end of the workday." That's kinda the point.