"John Roberts might endorse the idea that presidential candidates, so long as they are the incumbent, can kill members of Congress to stay in power. But doing so would clarify the absurdity of such a ruling."
Discussion about this post
No posts
"John Roberts might endorse the idea that presidential candidates, so long as they are the incumbent, can kill members of Congress to stay in power. But doing so would clarify the absurdity of such a ruling."
No posts
In the years while he and his sweet family still lived in our beloved city, I competed with Jack in time trials and triathlons. Smith went 30 seconds before Tate at any of the Bells Bend TTs we both did between 2015-2018. I learned early on that he is strong and does not waver. This is a man equipped with an aptitude for metronomic intensity and a capacity to suffer for the goal. His adherence to the rules even when no one was looking I'd say is a metric of his integrity. I would often catch him and pass within the first half of the 12 mile course and there were times he could've gotten away with drafting me, but he never did it. Not one time. What he would do is turn up the intensity and pass me back, testing my mettle and my integrity. It still stands out to me as a life lesson.
The memory of him explaining to me that he'd probably be moving his family to the Netherlands and for what reason is indelible in the Hippocampus. It never occurred to me in that stage of my development that a person who races endurance races could also be such a serious person - a real one. I took it to heart.
I pray Jack makes it to the finish line in good form. It'd be a win in more ways than one.
To Elizabeth Warren's query (see posts below):
What shocks me today is that 30-40% of the public still believe in this court's legitimacy. Maybe that shouldn't be so shocking, as it coincides roughly with the percent that have a favorable view of Trump.
If you polled the Framers, rather than the public, I am certain the favorability rating would hover somewhere between zero and two percent.
This is a court that says bribery is legal as long as you don't use the word bribery.
It says legislators can pick and choose their own voters through gerrymandering, as long as it is done for purely partisan reasons and not (wink-wink) about race.
It asserts the authority to usurp Congress' judgment on whether pre-clearance rules are still appropriate under the Voting Rights Act ("The South has CHANGED," proclaimed John Roberts, who has never spent any time in the South, and who then had to shut his pie hole the very next week when unchanged Southern states began restricting voting rights).
And now, this Court says that presidents are above the law as long as they can claim that, say, having your political opponents killed or jailed was done as part of your presidential duties and for the good of the country.
Roger Taney is remembered as perhaps the worst Chief Justice in history on the basis of one decision, Dred Scott. John Roberts has so far presided over four Dred Scotts, and that doesn't even count the overturn of Roe v. Wade or the Chevron decision.
The Framers would have impeached and removed Roberts for betraying the principles they enshrined, and he'd have been lucky if they didn't do more than that.