HawkShack.com

From my perspective, the most enlightening aspect of our government's performance in the past few months as been that of the United States Supreme Court. IMO Chief Justice Roberts is doing a magnificent job managing the court and navigating it through some very contentious issues during an unprecedent pandemic and a very volatile and polarized political atmosphere.

The most recent example was the 7-2 decision ruling on access to Trump's tax returns in a criminal investigation and an identical 7-2 decision preventing Congress from access to the same documents. The majority included not only Chief Justice Roberts, a Bush appointee, it included both Justice Gorsuch and Justice Kavanaugh, Trump's two appointees. This should help alleviate fears that SCOTUS is nothing but a bunch of politicians in black robes and that Trump has packed the court with justices that will exonerate him from anything.

And this week is just one example. In recent months, despite having just 4 members in the liberal wing of the court (Democratic appointees Ginsberg, Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor), liberals have scored victories on abortion rights, LBGTQ, and immigrants. In all those decisions, plus the two regarding the Trump tax returns, Chief Justice Roberts sided with the majority. Indeed, Roberts has sided with the majority opinion in all but two of nearly 60 cases in the current term. Additionally, most decisions, including the major ones alluded to, have 6 or 7 justices voting in the majority instead of the 5-4 ideological split that many had feared.

And it's not just the Republican appointees that have joined liberals. In a 7-2 decision that favored the Trump Administration and religious based employers, Kagan and Breyer joined the conservatives as the court ruled that employers could opt out of providing no cost birth control benefits, a victory for conservatives

This has been a pretty extraordinary term for SCOTUS. Too bad that Chief Justice Roberts can't be our President.

I agree. The idea that political bias rules the court is usually unfounded. Judges are judges. Most of the good ones aren't much interested in personal politics, but are more interested in interpreting the law in regards to the issues before them. You don't rise to the level of the Supreme Court unless you have a very good record of interpreting the law in an intellectual and detached manner. It's one of the advantages of not having to worry about being elected or removed due to politics. You just have to be good at making legal decisions.

Aseahawkfan wrote:I agree. The idea that political bias rules the court is usually unfounded. Judges are judges. Most of the good ones aren't much interested in personal politics, but are more interested in interpreting the law in regards to the issues before them. You don't rise to the level of the Supreme Court unless you have a very good record of interpreting the law in an intellectual and detached manner. It's one of the advantages of not having to worry about being elected or removed due to politics. You just have to be good at making legal decisions.

While I agree with that, there are times that the Supreme Court should not be making decisions in a vacuum and must take into account how their rulings will impact society. A good example is their decision on DACA where although it was probably within Trump's legal right to end the program, the court ruled that the administration did not take into consideration the plight of hundreds of thousands of people (800,000 have registered for the program) and that their decision to end it was "arbitrary and capricious." In that decision, Roberts sided with the 4 liberal judges.

I also think that the recent ruling that, at least for now, Congress cannot access Trump's tax records was motivated in part because the court did not want to make such a decision 4 months from an election, and I agree.

Yeah LMAO even the you know what Kavanaugh sided with the majority and he was picked by trump specifically due to his writings on executive powers which contended presidents were pretty much immune from any introspection at all. That shocked me.

Hawktawk wrote:Yeah LMAO even the you know what Kavanaugh sided with the majority and he was picked by trump specifically due to his writings on executive powers which contended presidents were pretty much immune from any introspection at all. That shocked me.

Did you see the Stone commutation? Presidential pardon powers need to be constrained. That was ridiculous.

Hawktawk wrote:Yeah LMAO even the you know what Kavanaugh sided with the majority and he was picked by trump specifically due to his writings on executive powers which contended presidents were pretty much immune from any introspection at all. That shocked me.

Yea, I thought it would. Kavanaugh isn't the first justice to respond differently than a POTUS or the supporters/detractors of a POTUS had expected. Dwight Eisenhower said that the biggest damn fool mistake he ever made was appointing Earl Warren to the court.

Roberts has essentially become the swing vote, and that's fine with me. It leaves no doubt that it's his court. I am not afraid to see a liberal judge appointed if Biden beats Trump and the Democrats win control of the Senate if it means keeping the current balance. I have not seen a decision handed down during this term that I have had a strong disagreement with. Even the decision to restrain Congress from accessing Trump's tax records, 4 months before the election, is something I can appreciate.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Did you see the Stone commutation? Presidential pardon powers need to be constrained. That was ridiculous.

There's no doubt the power to pardon can and has been be abused, and obviously was the case in this instance. Slick Willy's pardon, although for a different motivation, of Marc Rich was outrageous as well. Some will argue that Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon was an abuse of the power.

But I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and change something that in theory would be a last check and balance to prevent a true injustice from occurring by having a single, elected official review the case of a convicted man. State governors have the power to pardon criminals convicted of state crimes as well, and I think it totally appropriate for a President to have the power to pardon or commute sentences.

RiverDog wrote:There's no doubt the power to pardon can and has been be abused, and obviously was the case in this instance. Slick Willy's pardon, although for a different motivation, of Marc Rich was outrageous as well. Some will argue that Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon was an abuse of the power.

But I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and change something that in theory would be a last check and balance to prevent a true injustice from occurring by having a single, elected official review the case of a convicted man. State governors have the power to pardon criminals convicted of state crimes as well, and I think it totally appropriate for a President to have the power to pardon or commute sentences.

Commuting someone's sentence who directly helped you in an election seems not right. That's fine when a president pardons someone for a miscarriage of justice. Pardoning someone who helped you get elected using illegal means seems like a bad power to provide the president. Stone feels invincible now.

RiverDog wrote:There's no doubt the power to pardon can and has been be abused, and obviously was the case in this instance. Slick Willy's pardon, although for a different motivation, of Marc Rich was outrageous as well. Some will argue that Gerald Ford's pardon of Richard Nixon was an abuse of the power.

But I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater and change something that in theory would be a last check and balance to prevent a true injustice from occurring by having a single, elected official review the case of a convicted man. State governors have the power to pardon criminals convicted of state crimes as well, and I think it totally appropriate for a President to have the power to pardon or commute sentences.

Aseahawkfan wrote:Commuting someone's sentence who directly helped you in an election seems not right. That's fine when a president pardons someone for a miscarriage of justice. Pardoning someone who helped you get elected using illegal means seems like a bad power to provide the president. Stone feels invincible now.

You're preaching to the choir, except I'd strike the word 'seems'. It IS wrong, horribly wrong, and I wish there a way we could correct it and still preserve the system. But at least Trump did it at a time when we can vote the SOB out of office in 4 months. Clinton's pardon of Marc Rich came during his lame duck period where it neither hurt him or his party.

The old saying that I'd rather see 100 guilty people be set free than to convict 1 innocent person applies, except in reverse. I'd rather see 100 Roger Stones set free if it means saving the life of someone wrongly convicted.

The most nakedly corrupt administration in history just doin what it does. All of them should be in the penitentiary. I think its BS we have to wait 4 months to (maybe) vote him out or maybe put up with 4 more years of lawlessness. If Biden loves america he should be the first president to actually reign in his own authority, push for more reforms. Its the only way it will happen is if a president goes along with it.Ill not hold my breath. The founders are rolling over in their graves at their grievous error creating the type of possibility we have now where the only tools of removal impeachment and 25th amendment have no chance even though this is the most fit candidate for either remedy in our history.

The US presidency is the most out of control untethered political office I'm aware of anywhere

Ginsberg hospitalized again. Watch the trumpanzees rooting for her to die before november so we can have a court outside the mainstream of not only america but most of the world for decades to come.

Hawktawk wrote:Ginsberg hospitalized again. Watch the trumpanzees rooting for her to die before november so we can have a court outside the mainstream of not only america but most of the world for decades to come.

Yea, that was one of Idahawkman's lower moments when he started a thread when Ginsberg went into the hospital. He didn't actually come out and say it, but there's not many reasons why a person that is as dedicated to Trump as he is would be bring up the subject if not in wishful anticipation of another SCOTUS appointment.

But if there is a SCOTUS opening, I'm not sure if there's enough time to get an appointment ran through before the election. A lot of those R Senators desperately need to get back to their home states and out on the campaign trail, not the least of which is Mitch McConnell, who has a tough re-election fight ahead of him.

Hawktawk wrote:The most nakedly corrupt administration in history just doin what it does. All of them should be in the penitentiary. I think its BS we have to wait 4 months to (maybe) vote him out or maybe put up with 4 more years of lawlessness. If Biden loves america he should be the first president to actually reign in his own authority, push for more reforms. Its the only way it will happen is if a president goes along with it.Ill not hold my breath. The founders are rolling over in their graves at their grievous error creating the type of possibility we have now where the only tools of removal impeachment and 25th amendment have no chance even though this is the most fit candidate for either remedy in our history.

The US presidency is the most out of control untethered political office I'm aware of anywhere

When Trump was elected, I remember there being a thought out there that the weight of the office would temper his excesses.
Clearly that doesn't work on supreme narcissists.
However, it may be having some effect on the SCOTUS with some of the rulings by Roberts. He has a legacy to think about and he
probably has a much better holistic view of the effects of the rulings on the populace or at least a feel for the national mood than
seemingly DT does.