Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Chief Justice Roberts War on voting Rights

Roberts is just doing the party's bidding; it's why George W. appointed him chief justice, bypassing a step as an associate justice.
 
He's obviously just there to do the party's bidding, which is why Obamacare is now the law of the land. Oh wait... Well, it's still a highly unorthodox measure by Bush to bypass the associate justice step. Clearly, only a partisan politician would take such step. In fact, here's a list of Supreme Court chief justices who were not associate justices:

John Jay
John Rutledge
Oliver Ellsworth
John Marshall
Roger Taney
Salmon Chase
Morrison Waite
Melville Fuller
William Taft
Charles Hughes
Fred Vinson
Earl Warren
Warren Burger

As opposed to the long list of Supreme Court chief justices who were associate justices (excluding acting Chief Justices who served a year or less, of which there were 4 - 5 if you count both times Hugo Black was acting chief justice)

Edward White
Harlan Stone
William Rehnquist

From the lists, it's clear how unusual it is to bypass the associate justice step - it's just blatant partisan politics. Too bad Bernie Sanders is an unaccomplished, bat shit crazy moron because he would never do anything of the sort.
 
Last edited:
He's obviously just there to do the party's bidding, which is why Obamacare is now the law of the land. Oh wait... Well, it's still a highly unorthodox measure by Bush to bypass the associate justice step. Clearly, only a partisan politician would take such step. In fact, here's a list of Supreme Court chief justices who were not associate justices:

John Jay
John Rutledge
Oliver Ellsworth
John Marshall
Roger Taney
Salmon Chase
Morrison Waite
Melville Fuller
William Taft
Charles Hughes
Fred Vinson
Earl Warren
Warren Burger

As opposed to the long list of Supreme Court chief justices who were associate justices (excluding acting Chief Justices who served a year or less, of which there were 4 - 5 if you count both times Hugo Black was acting chief justice)

Edward White
Harlan Stone
William Rehnquist

From the lists, it's clear how unusual it is to bypass the associate justice step - it's just blatant partisan politics. Too bad Bernie Sanders is an unaccomplished, bat shit crazy moron because he would never do anything of the sort.

this doesn't refute anything I said.
 
Roberts is just doing the party's bidding; it's why George W. appointed him chief justice, bypassing a step as an associate justice.

George Washington appointed John Jay, John Rutledge and Oliver Ellsworth as Chief Justice.

Of the three, only Rutledge had previously been an Associate Justice.

I just looked up the SCOTUS CJ wikipedia page. Interestingly - and I wouldn't have known nor thought this - it appears that only 4 of the 17 Chief Justices had been appointed from the ranks of Associate Justice of the SCOTUS.

So it looks like that appointments directly to Chief Justice are more the norm than the exception.
 
this doesn't refute anything I said.

Eh, the bit about the Obamacare vote clearly refutes everything you said. But setting that aside, the rest adds a bit of missing context and makes what you said just as meaningless and stupid as everything else you say.
 
George Washington appointed John Jay, John Rutledge and Oliver Ellsworth as Chief Justice.

Of the three, only Rutledge had previously been an Associate Justice.

I just looked up the SCOTUS CJ wikipedia page. Interestingly - and I wouldn't have known nor thought this - it appears that only 4 of the 17 Chief Justices had been appointed from the ranks of Associate Justice of the SCOTUS
So it looks like that appointments directly to Chief Justice are more the norm than the exception.

I missed Rutledge because he wasn't an associate justice at the time of his appointment as Chief Justice - he had resigned from the court in 1791 and was appointed chief justice in 1795. So technically, only 3 have been appointed from the ranks of associate justice - or at least active associate justice.
 
Last edited:
I missed Rutledge because he wasn't an associate justice at the time of his appointment as Chief Justice - he had resigned from the court in 1791 and was appointed chief justice in 1795. So technically, only 3 have been appointed from the ranks of associate justice - or at least active associate justice.

You still published a lot of data pretty fast.

All I could do was link to the Wikipedia data that I had just looked up (honestly, before just now I had known very little about the history of appointment to Chief Justice - then again, there really had never been reason to know much before) and I was still about eleven minutes behind you.
 
'Had it in for the voting rights act. ..Article from Mother Jones .
November/December 2016 issue

http://www.motherjones.com/politics...ice-john-roberts-voting-rights-north-carolina

I don't think it's fair to imply he's been fixated on turning back the clock on the civil rights movement his whole career - he's done plenty of other bad things! - but it is odd for someone that educated to remain true to a cause like that, especially when there's plenty of evidende that racism, especially against African Americans continues to exist. And you have courts like the 4th Circuit striking down the NC law in opinions hundreds of pages long finding the intent was unambiguously racist and discriminatory. Someone like Roberts - CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT NO LESS! - can just waive it off and press on...

I mean sure, you expect jackwads and doofuses like Spartanracist to be able to stay in denial or turn a blind eye toward the racism inherent in society, but a guy as educated and purportedly intelligent as Roberts? crazy. I like to know what makes him tick. How can he look himself in the mirror each day and say "despite all the evidence to the contrary, today I'm going to publicly hold that racism is dead, and gut the Civil Rights Act?"
 
Eh, the bit about the Obamacare vote clearly refutes everything you said. But setting that aside, the rest adds a bit of missing context and makes what you said just as meaningless and stupid as everything else you say.

no it doesn't. I didnt say all Roberts does pushes the GOP line, just that he was doing so here.
 
You still published a lot of data pretty fast.

All I could do was link to the Wikipedia data that I had just looked up (honestly, before just now I had known very little about the history of appointment to Chief Justice - then again, there really had never been reason to know much before) and I was still about eleven minutes behind you.

I got my info from Wikipedia too.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Justices_of_the_Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States

Before Roberts I was clueless about the appointment process - the last chief justice was appointed before I got my driver's license. When Roberts was appointed I thought it was odd that he wasn't already an associate justice but then a lawyer friend of mine who didn't go to a third tier law school told me most CJ's completely new to the court. So I knew when turd made it sound like an unorthodox move that he was either doing it intentionally to mislead people or because he didn't actually know - hard to tell since he is such a biased lefty, is the board's most prominent revisionist historian AND he also went to a third tier law school.
 
Last edited:
I don't think it's fair to imply he's been fixated on turning back the clock on the civil rights movement his whole career - he's done plenty of other bad things! - but it is odd for someone that educated to remain true to a cause like that, especially when there's plenty of evidende that racism, especially against African Americans continues to exist. And you have courts like the 4th Circuit striking down the NC law in opinions hundreds of pages long finding the intent was unambiguously racist and discriminatory. Someone like Roberts - CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT NO LESS! - can just waive it off and press on...

I mean sure, you expect jackwads and doofuses like Spartanracist to be able to stay in denial or turn a blind eye toward the racism inherent in society, but a guy as educated and purportedly intelligent as Roberts? crazy. I like to know what makes him tick. How can he look himself in the mirror each day and say "despite all the evidence to the contrary, today I'm going to publicly hold that racism is dead, and gut the Civil Rights Act?"

It probably has a lot to do with the fact that there is no evidence that America is inherently racist or that there is institutionalized racism or laws that are explicitly racist unlike libtard idiots who are themselves extremely racist, like you who despite the lack of any evidence, insist that America is nearly irredeemably racist. Clearly, he's smarter than you, has a far superior education than you and he's far more accomplished - you basically said as much yourself. I'm pretty sure that's it - the fact that he's right and you're wrong pretty much explains everything.
 
Last edited:
Ami Horowitz strikes again!

How White liberals view Blacks insofar as voting and voter ID is concerned. Hint: They're racist:

I've been telling everyone for years how racist turd is - this should not be a surprise to anyone.
 
Last edited:
There are a lot of black people in this country who live at neither 125th and third Avenue in Manhattan nor in Berkeley California.

Just because a few white people in Berkeley are stupid and just because a few black people in Harlem are smart is no proof whatsoever that voter disenfranchisement is not occurring all across the United States.
 
There are a lot of black people in this country who live at neither 125th and third Avenue in Manhattan nor in Berkeley California.

Just because a few white people in Berkeley are stupid and just because a few black people in Harlem are smart is no proof whatsoever that voter disenfranchisement is not occurring all across the United States.

you think only a few black people in Harlem are smart? the point about racist voter disenfranchisement virtually always centers around poor urban communities like Harlem. you could probably do similar interviews in any mostly minority urban center in America and get similar results. there is a reason the complaints come primarily from affluent white liberals who are card carrying Democrats, he party notorious for rigging elections and actively promoting voter fraud. voter id laws are not racist, getting a state issued ID is not an onorous task - it's simple. there is no easier and more effective step to safeguarding the integrity of the voting process. period.
 
Just because a few white people in Berkeley are stupid and just because a few black people in Harlem are smart is no proof whatsoever that voter disenfranchisement is not occurring all across the United States.

Don't you guess there are more than a few smart people in Harlem?
 
Don't you guess there are more than a few smart people in Harlem?

I do.

But the subjects of the clip were only a few, maybe 10.

Don't blame me that Horowitz didn't put every black person in Harlem on camera; he's the film maker; not me.

EDIT: Not too surprisingly-and again I'm extrapolating an assumption over a broad population based on a very small sample size-Berkeley chicks seem to be a lot like Ann Arbor chicks-OK but nowhere near as fuckable as chicks EL or C bus.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top