Judge Roberts backlash

I agree, the reaction has been a bit startling.

From the perspective of someone who would like to see the court be more liberal than it generally has been lately, I'm happy to see it, as I think it will only distance Roberts further from the more conservative "constituency" (even though he's not an elected official). The venom is really out of proportion IMO.

However, just in general, I completely agree with you, especially "get a grip and get on to the next step."

Get your t-shirts right here!

Yep. That's sad and makes me feel bad that they "represent" my side in things.

I've shared the same feeling on many occasions.

I can imagine what the backlash would have been had he voted with the conservative wing... I think it would have been just as nasty coming from the left.

It's funny they are branding him a coward for taking what he must know is an unpopular stand.

The GOP is acting no worse with respect to Roberts than the Dems would if Sotomayor or Kagan had switched what people had expected. I don't fault them for a little emotional outburst right now, as it's a heady issue we've been arguing about for years.

I have noticed, though, that the GOP seems a little more invested in having 'their' justices reliably vote the way that works best for them politically.

Cycloptichorn

Are you sure he dident vote conservatively. Rebranding the thing a tax certainly helps the repubs and hurts Obama. I still think it was a political decision. What I dont understand is why the libs of the court found with the Chief Justice unless he blackmailed them into this decision. Vote with me or I will go with the conservative bunch and declare the whole thing against the constitution.

Interesting, but I think it was an honest and apolitical vote.

I admire that he did what he thought right. It would have been easy to do the political thing instead.

Maybe there is a certain wisdom in appointing them for life. If it doesn't eliminate the politics, at least they aren't grandstanding for the next election.

Did Thomas even sign his name? Or did he just drool over the minority statement in his sleep?

Rap

Exactly. Do you think he's worried about the media cycle? Not me.

I'll say this for Clarence Thomas: his has been a far more consistent -- and principled -- jurisprudence than that of Antonin Scalia. He's consistently wrong, in my opinion, but at least he's consistent.

But doesn't he mirror Scalia in about every opinion?

Thomas is actually much more of a constitutional absolutist than Scalia, and they have very different views concerning precedent (Scalia will follow well-established precedent even if he thinks it was decided wrongly, Thomas won't). They usually end up voting the same way, but they don't always share the same reasons for their votes.

I hear ya, but my opinion about that is, if they each make the same extremist, oppressive decision for two different reason, the reasons don't matter to the people whose lives are forever affected by it.

In practical application, Constitutional absolutism makes about as much sense as fundamentalist Christianity to me. Even less. The constitution is supposed to be a living document; the SCOTUS exists to interpret it. Scalia and Thomas are blights.

If all you're interested in is counting votes, that's a perfectly understandable position to take. If you're interested in understanding those votes, however, you do need to dig a little deeper.

What does the level of my (or anyone's) understanding about the reasoning the justices exercise have to do with the effects their decisions have? Focusing on the nuances of the justices' reasoning and not on the effects of their decisions (which come about by way of majority votes among the 9 members) seems like so much mental masturbation to me.

I happen to think the rationalizations that led to - for instance - the ability of corporations to donate without limit to political campaigns amount to exactly bupkus. I happen to think that whatever the reasoning was that caused Roberts to cast the vote that let affordable healthcare legislation go forward matters infinitely less than the fact it goes forward.

And please excuse me, but if you think knowing why they vote the way they do is important, knock yourself out. But it is most certainly no more than your personal opinion, so kindly spare me the highhanded "if you want to dig deeper, you should..." patronization.