Get HuskerMax™ on your iPhone. Click here for details. Get tickets for all home and away games here.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 21

Thread: Justice Roberts switched vote

  1. #1
    Scout Team
    Lakewood Husker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    lakewood,ca
    Posts
    4,991

    Justice Roberts switched vote

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162...in;contentBody

    What I find amazing is that Roberts is known to worry what people think about the court is doing . I thought he was the umpire and his job was to call him as he sees it.

    At his confirmation hearing he was talking about what he does is much like an umpire, silly me I thought the umpire didn't care what the fans and coaches thought.

  2. #2
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    Wow... not one quote in that article.

    So... it's basically like a HM poster writing an internet blog.

    Out of all the hand wringing and "this is the worst ever" complaints out there, I think complaints about the state of journalism in the internet world may rank as the most legitimate.

  3. #3
    God of Huskermax

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Overland Park, KS
    Posts
    58,799
    Damn lame stream media leftists.

  4. #4
    Scout Team
    Lakewood Husker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    lakewood,ca
    Posts
    4,991
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    Wow... not one quote in that article.

    So... it's basically like a HM poster writing an internet blog.

    Out of all the hand wringing and "this is the worst ever" complaints out there, I think complaints about the state of journalism in the internet world may rank as the most legitimate.
    CM,

    Jan Crawford does not write a blog she is actually the lead election writer for CBS news, now you can attack CBS news for all kinds of things but this was not a blog and was written by a respected journalist

  5. #5
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    Quote Originally Posted by Lakewood Husker View Post
    CM,

    Jan Crawford does not write a blog she is actually the lead election writer for CBS news, now you can attack CBS news for all kinds of things but this was not a blog and was written by a respected journalist
    Lakewood,

    Who cites no real sources.

    I don't care who she is and who she works for... this is the journalistic equivalent of a blog, except that might an insult to blogs... it's a message board post.

    She's just surmising about something pretty serious with no real support for her position. It's shoddy journalism.

    Best,
    CM

  6. #6
    Scout Team
    Lakewood Husker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    lakewood,ca
    Posts
    4,991
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    Lakewood,

    Who cites no real sources.

    I don't care who she is and who she works for... this is the journalistic equivalent of a blog, except that might an insult to blogs... it's a message board post.

    She's just surmising about something pretty serious with no real support for her position. It's shoddy journalism.

    Best,
    CM
    According to her bio she covered the court for close to 20 years and was the lead reporter on the court for the Jim Leher news Hour.

    Well Bob Woodward used many anonymous sources and was able to penetrate the Nixon Whitehouse, anonymous sources are not always nefarious.

  7. #7
    I am skeptical of her sources in that article.

  8. #8

  9. #9
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    18,620
    So legal journalists are gossiping and reading tea leaves... shocker. Wonder if they figured that would sell some ad space?



    By the way... uh oh... Scalia referred to the majority 4 who would have upheld the mandate under the CC as the "dissent." Some folks on here better drafts some letters to him.

  10. #10
    Travel Squad
    Husker Mort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    9,121
    ...and this would be the first justice to change their mind?

    What is most unfortunate, if true, is the "camp" mentality of the court.
    “If it is not right do not do it; if it is not true do not say it.” Marcus Aurelius

  11. #11
    All Big 10
    huskernut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Louisville, CO
    Posts
    18,525
    Quote Originally Posted by Husker Mort View Post
    ...and this would be the first justice to change their mind?

    What is most unfortunate, if true, is the "camp" mentality of the court.
    Yeah. I have expected to hear they told him he couldn't sit at their table at lunch anymore.

    This might be a little overblown though. I have to believe the justices form into camps almost entirely on how they see the merits of the arguments, not on personalities or other factors. These are people who are generally dedicated to intellectual process and are used to separating emotion from reason, at least as much as anyone is.

  12. #12
    All Big 10
    huskernut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Louisville, CO
    Posts
    18,525
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    Lakewood,

    Who cites no real sources.

    I don't care who she is and who she works for... this is the journalistic equivalent of a blog, except that might an insult to blogs... it's a message board post.

    She's just surmising about something pretty serious with no real support for her position. It's shoddy journalism.

    Best,
    CM
    I think you've gone overboard. She's a credible reporter who says this story is based on conversations with two sources who she states have direct knowledge of the deliberations. That would about have to be law clerks. Geez, most of the early reporting on Watergate was with anonymous sources. This is way different than a HM post.

    I know the possibility that Roberts changed positions or considered political factors makes some conservatives hyperventilate, but I don't think it is a big deal, even if it is true. And this story only is negative if you come in wanting to see it that way. Roberts certainly found a reasonable argument to hang his hat on, even if his conservative colleagues didn't like it. I can't find fault with his reasoning, even if I'm a little worried about what kind of other social engineering may be attempted with fines cum taxes. He didn't make such taxes constitutional, he just pointed out that they already are. And of course, he agreed with them on the key point about the commerce clause.

    So Roberts here takes a long term view that gradualism and a conservative approach allows him to steer the court in a more conservative direction, in line with his judicial philosophy. There's nothing wrong with that. He was hired to interpret the Constitution and agree with him or not that's the basis of what he is doing. It's not like he threw the game because he's in debt to his bookies or something.

    If there is anything in the article that may be a stretch it would be suggesting that protecting the court's credibility was a significant factor. Even if the dynamics were as described and he did indeed switch, imputing that motive to him would seem to be beyond law clerk's pay grade. I just can't imagine he would discuss it with them, even if it was true. But to a small degree, I would expect a Chief Justice to consider to some degree what will help the Court's influence be the greatest in the long run. So if it was a factor, big whoop.


  13. #13
    Scout Team
    RedRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Amarillo, TX
    Posts
    3,028
    I figured someone would switch a vote to make the court not look as divided. Thought it would be a 5-4 ruling turned 6-3, not reverse a ruling.

    Now it shows that those who yell the loudest will get the results.

  14. #14
    Husker Fan

    Join Date
    Feb 2000
    Posts
    40,855
    what? someone changing stances? Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by cm husker View Post
    So legal journalists are gossiping and reading tea leaves... shocker. Wonder if they figured that would sell some ad space?



    By the way... uh oh... Scalia referred to the majority 4 who would have upheld the mandate under the CC as the "dissent." Some folks on here better drafts some letters to him.
    That is what led many to believe that Scalia's original draft was a concurring opinion and he intentionally did not change the language after it became the dissent. He certainly knows better than to make an elementary error about how to label the opinion of the four concurring justices, particularly in light of the amount of proofreading that takes place with respect to an opinion of this magnitude.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II








Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •