Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HipKat

John Roberts Hates Trump

Recommended Posts

Why else would he have voted against a motion that he sided with in another case?

Regardless, the hits on Trump just keep hitting

Supreme Court hands down major decision reaffirming abortion rights in Louisiana case

 

The Supreme Court announced a major ruling on abortion, deciding that the Louisiana law is unconstitutional and should not stand.

The opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts also filed an opinion concurring for the majority.

 

The case, June Medical Services v. Russo, was a challenge to a Louisiana law that required abortion providers have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital -- an agreement between a doctor and a hospital that allows a patient to go that hospital if they need urgent care.

Abortion providers argued this was an unnecessary requirement unrelated to health outcomes that only served to prevent them from being able to provide abortion care. Admitting privileges can be difficult for abortion providers to obtain as hospitals do not want to be associated with them due to the stigma and as abortion is a statistically safe procedure, requiring extremely limited numbers of patients to have to go to hospitals for care.

In fact, in 2016, the Supreme Court ruled, in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, that a nearly identical hospital admitting privileges law out of Texas caused an "undue burden" on patients seeking abortions after it caused roughly half of clinics in the state to shut down. In the 2020 opinion, Breyer called the Louisiana law "almost word-for-word identical to Texas' admitting-privileges law."

"This case is similar to, nearly identical with, Whole Woman's Health. And the law must consequently reach a similar conclusion. Act 620 is unconstitutional," Breyer wrote in conclusion on the June Medical opinion.

That 2016 case set what was supposed to be a precedent that laws like Texas' that "'do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion' cannot survive judicial inspection," Ginsburg wrote in a concurring opinion, referencing a lower court case.

Roberts had been on the dissenting side of the Texas Whole Woman's case. In his concurring opinion with the majority on June Medical, Roberts explained that he still believed his 2016 opinion that "the case was wrongly decided," but he joined the majority this time around because "the question today" is on "whether to adhere to [the Whole Woman's case] in deciding the present case." Essentially, Roberts based his decision not on his opinion on the law itself, but on the basic concept of court precedent.

"The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike," he wrote. "The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana's law cannot stand under our precedents."

 


“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, HipKat said:

Why else would he have voted against a motion that he sided with in another case?

Because he turned into a leftist homo.  :niterider:

 


process.jpg

 

Fuck this team

I'll tie a frying pan to my ass so you hurt your penis, you ****ing homo!

Shut the fuck up dark cloud pussy

Anyone who is foolish enough to not be a Buffalo Bills fan can go f*ck themselves with a wooden shovel handle.

image-trump-emoticon.png

also, all that shit in your signature is beyond annoying. just like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Woody said:

Because he turned into a leftist homo.  :niterider:

Right. Yeah, I’m sure that’s it


“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, HipKat said:

Right. Yeah, I’m sure that’s it

He put his own feelings and beliefs ahead of his country.  That's a hallmark of leftist homo behavior.  :niterider:

 


process.jpg

 

Fuck this team

I'll tie a frying pan to my ass so you hurt your penis, you ****ing homo!

Shut the fuck up dark cloud pussy

Anyone who is foolish enough to not be a Buffalo Bills fan can go f*ck themselves with a wooden shovel handle.

image-trump-emoticon.png

also, all that shit in your signature is beyond annoying. just like you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh, no.

The article clearly explains that Justice Roberts still thinks the case was decided wrongly but felt an obligation to go along with it. 
 

From the article...

“Essentially, Roberts based his decision not on his opinion on the law itself, but on the basic concept of court precedent.”

  • Like 1

96769446_10102201393347587_5716922665810264064_n.jpg
 

On 1/31/2015 at 3:34 PM, IlluminatusUIUC said:

Jungle was one of the worst posters on the site and I'm not backing off that. The guy would say completely ridiculous, indefensible things over and over, and he would misquote and whine about attempts to refute those points as personal attacks. He was also completely devoted to scouting reports. My favorite one was when he tried to use a 2006 draft profile of Tarvaris Jackson as a counterpoint, after the dude had played six years in the league on two different teams.

945D802F-8FEC-4EF8-90CA-6D6166161CB4.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ps, this has literally nothing to do with Trump.

This case was about a law that went into effect 2 years before Trump became President.


96769446_10102201393347587_5716922665810264064_n.jpg
 

On 1/31/2015 at 3:34 PM, IlluminatusUIUC said:

Jungle was one of the worst posters on the site and I'm not backing off that. The guy would say completely ridiculous, indefensible things over and over, and he would misquote and whine about attempts to refute those points as personal attacks. He was also completely devoted to scouting reports. My favorite one was when he tried to use a 2006 draft profile of Tarvaris Jackson as a counterpoint, after the dude had played six years in the league on two different teams.

945D802F-8FEC-4EF8-90CA-6D6166161CB4.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John Roberts reads the WaPo and worries about what they say about him there.


Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LiterateStylish said:

Ps, this has literally nothing to do with Trump.

This case was about a law that went into effect 2 years before Trump became President.

True, but the gutting of Roe vs Wade is a policy that Trump pushed in his campaign. The issues, as you described, are precedence and procedure. The way it was said on NPR yesterday, "If the DOJ spent 12 more minutes actually lawyering, they probably would have gotten the opposite decision". Procedure was the case in the 2 motions that went against the Trump administration's agenda last week.


“There he goes. One of God's own prototypes.

A high-powered mutant of some kind, never even considered for mass production.

Too weird to live, and too rare to die.”

 

Twitter: @HKTheResistance

 

HipKat, on *** other h***, is genuine, unapoli***tically nasty, and w**** his hea** on his ******. jc856

I’ll just forward them to Bridgett. comssvet11

Seek help. soflabillsfan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, HipKat said:

Right. Yeah, I’m sure that’s it

That is it.  Fuck John Roberts.  Legislating from the bench is bullshit.  Karma will nail him eventually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HipKat said:

Why else would he have voted against a motion that he sided with in another case?

Regardless, the hits on Trump just keep hitting

Supreme Court hands down major decision reaffirming abortion rights in Louisiana case

The Supreme Court announced a major ruling on abortion, deciding that the Louisiana law is unconstitutional and should not stand.

The opinion was written by Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan. Chief Justice John Roberts also filed an opinion concurring for the majority.

 

The case, June Medical Services v. Russo, was a challenge to a Louisiana law that required abortion providers have admitting privileges with a nearby hospital -- an agreement between a doctor and a hospital that allows a patient to go that hospital if they need urgent care.

Abortion providers argued this was an unnecessary requirement unrelated to health outcomes that only served to prevent them from being able to provide abortion care. Admitting privileges can be difficult for abortion providers to obtain as hospitals do not want to be associated with them due to the stigma and as abortion is a statistically safe procedure, requiring extremely limited numbers of patients to have to go to hospitals for care.

In fact, in 2016, the Supreme Court ruled, in Whole Woman's Health v. Hellerstedt, that a nearly identical hospital admitting privileges law out of Texas caused an "undue burden" on patients seeking abortions after it caused roughly half of clinics in the state to shut down. In the 2020 opinion, Breyer called the Louisiana law "almost word-for-word identical to Texas' admitting-privileges law."

"This case is similar to, nearly identical with, Whole Woman's Health. And the law must consequently reach a similar conclusion. Act 620 is unconstitutional," Breyer wrote in conclusion on the June Medical opinion.

That 2016 case set what was supposed to be a precedent that laws like Texas' that "'do little or nothing for health, but rather strew impediments to abortion' cannot survive judicial inspection," Ginsburg wrote in a concurring opinion, referencing a lower court case.

Roberts had been on the dissenting side of the Texas Whole Woman's case. In his concurring opinion with the majority on June Medical, Roberts explained that he still believed his 2016 opinion that "the case was wrongly decided," but he joined the majority this time around because "the question today" is on "whether to adhere to [the Whole Woman's case] in deciding the present case." Essentially, Roberts based his decision not on his opinion on the law itself, but on the basic concept of court precedent.

"The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires us, absent special circumstances, to treat like cases alike," he wrote. "The Louisiana law imposes a burden on access to abortion just as severe as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana's law cannot stand under our precedents."

Because John Roberts is corrupt.  So, of course, he hates the Aquarian.  It's what corrupt people do.

We finally have a President that can't be bought.  There is no quid prop quo so Trump can get on the easy-cash speaking circuit, unlike all of the others. 

That is not for the Aquarian.  It's refreshing and inspiring. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think somebody has a “file” on this guy. 
 

The name John Roberts is supposedly on the log for visiting Epstein island. It seems legit enough that the Fox News John Roberts made public statements that he is not the John Roberts on the “sex island” log book. If you believe the Netflix Jeffrey Epstein doc, The guy video taped everything. They suggest he had the goods on everyone and that is how he got away with things for so long. 
 

Regardless whether the above is true or not, I think somebody has something on this guy. He has ruled opposite of his past on more than one significant issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, travolta said:

I think somebody has a “file” on this guy. 
 

The name John Roberts is supposedly on the log for visiting Epstein island. It seems legit enough that the Fox News John Roberts made public statements that he is not the John Roberts on the “sex island” log book. If you believe the Netflix Jeffrey Epstein doc, The guy video taped everything. They suggest he had the goods on everyone and that is how he got away with things for so long. 
 

Regardless whether the above is true or not, I think somebody has something on this guy. He has ruled opposite of his past on more than one significant issue. 

It's speculation but I heard that Roberts adopted two kids from Latin America and the paperwork wasn't exactly kosher. Whether that's being leveraged against him or if it's just some conspiracy stuff I can't say for sure but there definitely is something going on with him that needs to be brought to light to explain why he's suddenly Mr. Liberal on these rulings. About 50% of judges picked by the Republicans do a switch on them which is puzzling and goes back before Roberts to people like Earl Warren, etc.

Also worth noting is Judge Sullivan in the Flynn case. Allegedly he has an adult son who went gangsta and violently assaulted and raped an underage girl in 2012 so daddy pulled some strings to get him off the charges. If you try to find info on Sullivan's family though it's been magically scrubbed from the internet and the best you'll find is that he lives a "private life" and has a couple of children.

Fact is, like politicians, you can control a judge with skeletons.


Sack "The Buffalo Range's TRUSTED News Source!"

“When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic.” ~ Dresden James

Parler @NYexile

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, SackMan518 said:

It's speculation but I heard that Roberts adopted two kids from Latin America and the paperwork wasn't exactly kosher. Whether that's being leveraged against him or if it's just some conspiracy stuff I can't say for sure but there definitely is something going on with him that needs to be brought to light to explain why he's suddenly Mr. Liberal on these rulings. About 50% of judges picked by the Republicans do a switch on them which is puzzling and goes back before Roberts to people like Earl Warren, etc.

Also worth noting is Judge Sullivan in the Flynn case. Allegedly he has an adult son who went gangsta and violently assaulted and raped an underage girl in 2012 so daddy pulled some strings to get him off the charges. If you try to find info on Sullivan's family though it's been magically scrubbed from the internet and the best you'll find is that he lives a "private life" and has a couple of children.

Fact is, like politicians, you can control a judge with skeletons.

I hate career politicians.  Term limits are in order.  Except for maybe the Supreme Court, I'd have them for judges too.  Way too much corruption.  It's all a breeding ground.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Thebowflexbody said:

That is it.  Fuck John Roberts.  Legislating from the bench is bullshit.  Karma will nail him eventually.

Legislating from the bench? The old Repub standby.

Roberts did the opposite of that. He followed established precedent.

If you're gonna lawyer up, get a lawyer, Bowflex

  • Like 1
  • Barf 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Kelly's Heroes said:

Legislating from the bench? The old Repub standby.

Roberts did the opposite of that. He followed established precedent.

If you're gonna lawyer up, get a lawyer, Bowflex

Oh good lord.  LOL.  Okay, hotshot, whatever you say.  Smirk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Kelly's Heroes said:

Legislating from the bench? The old Repub standby.

Roberts did the opposite of that. He followed established precedent.

If you're gonna lawyer up, get a lawyer, Bowflex

Yes, precedents or 'case law'; perpetuating unconstitutionality based upon previous wrongheaded decisions.   You are ignorant.   I could educate you; you would have to free your mind first. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am so proud to have reached across the aisle with an olive branch to Kelly's Heroes. 

I would like to thank Anwar Sadat and Menachim Begin for inspiring my previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...