• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Donald Impeachment

Junebug said:
I’m feeling a lot better about the supposed crises in the SCOTUS’s authority after reading today’s posts. Turns out it may just be an overreaction to conspiracy theorizing know-nothings.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that Roberts is going to swoop in and somehow save the day and ensure that Trump is convicted. That’s not up to him. But he is going to ensure that any proceedings under his watch are fair.
Click to expand...

Suppose the SCOTUS overturns Roe, Junebug. Do you really think that vast numbers of people are just going to accept that and not see it as a hard-right partisan decision by the Federalist Society justices placed onto the Court? And do you not think such decisions will affect the Court's credibility with tens of millions of people who could be adversely affected by those decisions in civil rights, gun rights, women's rights, gay rights, etc? I know you don't see Gorsuch and Kavanaugh as hard-right justices chosen by the Federalist Society to perform a specific hard-right task on the Court, but a good many people would disagree with you. I have no idea how Roberts will preside over a Senate trial, but to say there is no cause for concern given all that has happened since November 2016 strikes me as whistling past the graveyard.
 
birdman said:
He is being pre-judged based on the party that he is affiliated with because we have almost no other information on which to base a prediction. The entire professional Republican Party are bunch of crooked liars these days, it is not unreasonable or outlandish to worry that Roberts might be too.
Click to expand...

Why do you need to predict anything?
 
Junebug said:
I’m feeling a lot better about the supposed crises in the SCOTUS’s authority after reading today’s posts. Turns out it may just be an overreaction to conspiracy theorizing know-nothings.

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that Roberts is going to swoop in and somehow save the day and ensure that Trump is convicted. That’s not up to him. But he is going to ensure that any proceedings under his watch are fair.
Click to expand...


Of course he will. There is no reason to think otherwise. Until there is a reason to think otherwise.

God, I'd hate for some people here to be on a jury where I was on trial. I mean hell, I'm a boomer, I'm male, I'm white. Plus I'm reasonably successful. "Guilty you Honor."
 
Chief Justice Roberts is the least “odious” of recent conservative justices on the bench. Lord knows he’s a million times better than Rehnquist, who made it his sole mission on the bench to ruin American jurisprudence (and was regrettably far too successful at it). Roberts has shown that he will vote against predicted conservative arguments when it is prudent and when the decision will affect how he is viewed long-term. He will self-preserve above all else. Junebug is right, Roberts cares more about his perceived legacy than any completely coherent jurisprudential ideology. It’s honestly what has made him a better justice, despite being largely for the wrong reasons.

All that is to say that I agree with Junebug that he would be most likely an extremely fair and strict overseer of an impeachment trial. He definitely is not in the tank for Trump. In fact, he might be the most anti-Trump federal employee that’s not an elected Democrat, though you’d probably have to ask Alito too.
 
Shorty said:
[/B]

Of course he will. There is no reason to think otherwise. Until there is a reason to think otherwise.

God, I'd hate for some people here to be on a jury where I was on trial. I mean hell, I'm a boomer, I'm male, I'm white. Plus I'm reasonably successful. "Guilty you Honor."
Click to expand...

You should have stopped after your first paragraph. Geez.
 
yeah, i'm with shorty. as with most things in life, white boomers are the ones who have the hardest time in court
 
Shorty said:
God, I'd hate for some people here to be on a jury where I was on trial. I mean hell, I'm a boomer, I'm male, I'm white. Plus I'm reasonably successful. "Guilty you Honor."
Click to expand...

Spot on. But as long as you produce evidence proving you're a registered Dem and you support social justice the sentencing phase will be painless.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Chief Justice Roberts is the least “odious” of recent conservative justices on the bench. Lord knows he’s a million times better than Rehnquist, who made it his sole mission on the bench to ruin American jurisprudence (and was regrettably far too successful at it). Roberts has shown that he will vote against predicted conservative arguments when it is prudent and when the decision will affect how he is viewed long-term. He will self-preserve above all else. Junebug is right, Roberts cares more about his perceived legacy than any completely coherent jurisprudential ideology. It’s honestly what has made him a better justice, despite being largely for the wrong reasons.

All that is to say that I agree with Junebug that he would be most likely an extremely fair and strict overseer of an impeachment trial. He definitely is not in the tank for Trump. In fact, he might be the most anti-Trump federal employee that’s not an elected Democrat, though you’d probably have to ask Alito too.
Click to expand...

I appreciate this perspective, and Junebug's reassurances too.

As I said earlier, Robert's impartiality is largely irrelevant though. Sure he can make sure Bolton gets to testify, but he can't make Republican senators listen to or abide by a single word Bolton says. There is plenty of evidence to base a prediction about Republican Senators' behavior and future actions.
 
Agreed with Junebug and others on Roberts running a fair trial. His main concern his is own legacy and he’s not going to tarnish that unwillingly by kowtowing to Donald when he has a lifetime appointment as the Chief Justice.
 
Liquid Karma said:
This.
Click to expand...

You said the same thing about Barr. You’re so wed to being a “both sides” moderate, you don’t see what’s going on.

Shorty, look up the stats. You’d have nothing to worry about. And when white men are the judges, they hand out far harsher sentences to black men than white men for the same crimes. Fuck you and your pretend victim nonsense. You live in the same fairy tale world as Junebug.
 
Wakeforest22890 said:
Agreed with Junebug and others on Roberts running a fair trial. His main concern his is own legacy and he’s not going to tarnish that unwillingly by kowtowing to Donald when he has a lifetime appointment as the Chief Justice.
Click to expand...

Agreed. He has nothing to "lose" by running a fair trial. It's not like any of his rulings are going to lead to Trump being removed.

I'm more interested on how he'll side on "absolute immunity".
 
birdman said:
I appreciate this perspective, and Junebug's reassurances too.

As I said earlier, Robert's impartiality is largely irrelevant though. Sure he can make sure Bolton gets to testify, but he can't make Republican senators listen to or abide by a single word Bolton says. There is plenty of evidence to base a prediction about Republican Senators' behavior and future actions.
Click to expand...

But the original PH post was about Roberts, not Pub senators. There is nothing to suggest that Roberts would be anything but impartial. I agree that to get even a handful of Pub senators to remove is impossible. That doesn't mean the Congress shouldn't do the right thing because of any prediction of the eventual outcome.
 
Shorty said:
Well, answer it.
Click to expand...

I make predictions because I worry about the future. Making predictions either enhances or assuages the worry. I try to base those predictions on current and past data, which can be a good predictor of future system behavior. In the case of Roberts and predicting his future actions, we don't have much data to make a prediction, so we either turn to surrogate, similar actors (other conservatives) and use their past behaviors to parameterize our predictions or rely on expert opinion but that, in my modeling experience, is subject to individualized bias.
 
Shorty said:
But the original PH post was about Roberts, not Pub senators. There is nothing to suggest that Roberts would be anything but impartial. I agree that to get even a handful of Pub senators to remove is impossible. That doesn't mean the Congress shouldn't do the right thing because of any prediction of the eventual outcome.
Click to expand...

Yes, and I am saying it is a misdirected worry because the outcome of Roberts' impartiality only matters if the Pub senators can be swayed by the facts during the trial, which I predict they won't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top