Supreme Court rejects review of asylum ban

Roberts sides with four liberals. Kavanaugh, Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas dissent.

Why can’t we pick reliable Justices? O’Connor, Kennedy, Souter, and now Roberts. Those are four picks we had and wasted. The Dems have wasted none. Fucking Roberts. We need one more.

What a pickle.

What you meant to say is that he sided with the law and not with the party, unlike Kavanaugh, who, despite his protestations, does just the opposite.

IOW, Roberts gets kudos for upholding a treaty that was duly passed in conformity with the constitution.

It’s too bad Bricker is on hiatus. I’m sure if he was here, he’d agree with this ruling. If you want to change immigration laws, you do it through the legislature – not Presidential proclamations or activist judges.

I understand Kavanaugh ALWAYS sides with the party…

Especially if there is beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeerrrr.

The Supremes making a decision at odds with what you think is correct does not make them unreliable.

The SCotUS is supposed to uphold law and the constitution, not accommodate whomever is resident in the Oval Office at the time or the non-expert population at large.

Republicans keep getting more and more right-wing, so it stands to reason that yesterday’s model of judge may not be perfectly aligned with today’s priorities. The same thing happens to politicians too, but they can be primaried. I’m not sure there’s a way around this risk. You can try to test for what a judge thinks today, but there’s no guarantee that he or she will watch enough Fox News shows to stay current on the real driving issues. Maybe the Federalist Society should start ranking their spouses as well, to make sure they all go home to someone like Ginni Thomas who will give them the propaganda directly.

Seems that your complaint is that Democrats are better at picking judges who put the law above party loyalty.

Because that’s not what Republicans at the time or Democrats now look for in their Justices. We aren’t looking for people to rubber stamp our agenda. We’re looking for judges.

I do not know if there actually is an effect of the judges appointed by Democrats siding with the Democratic position on cases where it differs with the Republican one. But, if such an effect does exist, it’s not by design.

I would suspect it’s that whole “reality has a liberal bias” thing. There’s a reason why only conservatism had to create their own news network that vilifies the others. Liberalism kept working even with unbiased news.

The judges are well educated, and thus, if they change beliefs, are more likely to go leftward than rightward. That’s what happens when the right embraces anti-intellectualism.

I’d ask, why you can’t pick justices that put the country above party? Seems that you only got one out of five there.

The way I understand the law, it should have been 9-0. Except that certain conservatives place their ideology above the text of the law. It seems you have the same view.

And he’s damn proud of it.

What does Justice mean to you, exactly?