He was supposed to deliver SCOTUS...

[Soph0571]

All those republican religious right types have turned a blind eye to the utter immorality, the unethical and the criminal conduct of Twitler because he was supposed to deliver SCOTUS. But with gay employment rights and DACA being upheld this week they have to be wondering why they are sticking with him?

Of course what they have failed to realise - or maybe what they are just waking up to - is if you elect a complete and utter morality free moron to the highest office in the land everything he touches is going to turn to rancid dust. He and the sycophantic fuckwits he surrounds himself with are not skilled enough to deliver anything substantive - the people who remain silent in the face of the awfulness of this administration must know this. They have put 2 far right religious zealots in the Supreme Court and they STILL can't win these cases. Yet another thing they are losing at and one has to wonder if they cannot even deliver the Supreme Court to the righties why should the righties come out in November?

Now SCOTUS has confirmed that the haters cannot fire gay and trans employees just cause, and children who have known no other home than America cannot be sent to a land they do not know... Righties right now be like:

[riversedge]

1. Repugs are wounded. They will be more dangerous than usual.

[Lonestarblue]

6. They will also vote in droves for Trump and the Senate.

They have their eye on RBG’s seat. If Trump is re-elected and Republicans hold the Senate, he would almost certainly get one more appointment, and the next person would be the youngest, most rabid anti-abortion, anti-gay, segregationist right-winger the Federalist Society can find.

[Cha]

2. Didn't count on Bush2's appointee going

rogue.. if that's what happened!

Excellent Soph! I saw a post with some idiot on fux screws asking if BLOTUS could get rid of Roberts or some such shite.

[bucolic_frolic]

10. Roberts is schooling Trump on the rule of law

That's what is holding here. America means adherence to the rule of law grounded in common sense. This is not Trump's strong suit.

Roberts may be right of center, but he takes jurisprudence extremely seriously, and from his few interviews appears to me to indicate the law must be legitimate and properly interpreted. It's not the same as fairness or popularity, but it's not some wild interpretation.

[oldsoftie]

14. Most people seem to miss this entirely.

In the earlier decision, Roberts TOLD the Administration what rules they had to follow. Trump still didnt do it right, so Roberts smacked him with this defeat.

[Soph0571]

17. That was the point I was trying to make

When they are relying on Trump they are relying on someone who is so incompetent that he was never going to get their coup right!

[Cha]

19. Thanks.. I saw BLOTUS tweeted the opposite.. that it

wasn't the law.. of course.

[duforsure]

3. If trump tried to bribe , blackmail , or threaten them in any way,

Which he has a history of doing , this may be why they are ruling against him , and why he should be worried even more now, his tax cases are coming soon. Also if he did try to do any thing to change the outcome by these ways any justice who then voted should be impeached from their position for not exposing these actions against them , and for not recusing themselves.

[certainot]

7. his 'strongman' is limbaugh and he's croaking with stage 4 lung so he's very iffy

now as far as pointing the army of teabag trumper dittoheads at anyone

every time he has to take time off for treatments he loses more and more control of the 1500-station orchestra that the latest iteration of the republican party and more lately trump and putin depend on for messaging control

the republican politicians and national and local blowhards made careers picking through and regurgitating limbaugh's daily well-chewed central messaging smorgasbord of lies and rationalizations delivered with orgasmically satisfying levels of sex on the wrong brain authoritarian certitude

they all may be sensing the end of the 30 year age of imbaugh

[oldsoftie]

15. When Limbaugh is off the air, his listeners will simply move to the other shows.

There are many already out there who get high ratings.
Which one will take over as #1 is the question.

[certainot]

18. imo no one can take his spot, for a number of reasons

1/ he's on 600 of the loudest stations and there are a number of station owners who will choose different replacements - so there will not be one centralized messaging leader and intimidator. while the local blowhards had some freedom and worked for local and state republican entities on any major issues and takes they had to follow the limbaugh line or would get screamed at by local dittoheads who could never get through to their god. it is the ultimate political correctness among the dipshits who scream "political correctness!"

2/ none of the possible replacements know who and what he knows as far as sources - the putins and roves only had to get it to llimbaugh either directly or through sources and guys like stone, corsi, etc - they're not going to be able to trust the others - he was given scoops and sources to make him look like he knew what was going on

3/ they could count on limbaugh to usually spin events they could use, like racism, the right way with 'subtlety' without going all out KKK, for eg - he didn't need micromanaging

4/ limbaugh knew he was useless in public and in one on one adversarial debate and they could trust him to hide in his mansion and studio and not divulge - and they probably had compromat on him

5/ there is an army of wannabes who are /will be chomping at the bit to TRY to be top dog and in trying to outdo each other it will be a total ignoramus fest

6/few people will be able to match limbaugh's wholesale shameless ignorant lying, hypocrisy, and ability to rationalize two opposites in the same paragraph with total royal authoritarian wet dream certitude

for these and other reasons the republican party is looking at a complete disaster if dems and left finally stop ignoring rw radio and with very little activism force the ad industry to break up the monopoly. the ad industry and stations can't charge the same rates for the replacements

[oldsoftie]

4. With Gorsuch siding with the "left", will trumps backers blame TRUMP?

Because thats what they would do for Bush & W Bush

[Mariana]

8. Trump's backers have never blamed Trump for any of his failures.

They're not about to start now.

[oldsoftie]

16. And I dont want to see what he'd have to do to lose ALL support. nt

[Danmel]

5. Way too soon to get cocky or complacent

We have lots of big decisions to go, including choice, faithless electors and executive privilege.
Not ready to declare victory
And not sure if those decisions don't go bunker boys way, that he won't try a stunt like court packing.

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

9. When Eisenhower named Earl Warren to be Chief Justice of the Supreme Court

He thought that Warren would be a safe conservative. Instead, he got a liberal. Eisenhower remarked that his appointment of Warren was "the biggest damn fool mistake I ever made".

Just goes to show that such appointments aren't always what one expects.

[catbyte]

11. It appears that all the evangelicals have managed to do is screw themselves economically

with this SCOTUS. The majority are corporatists who will reliably rule for business over the individual. At this point, I guess we'll have to put our faith in Roberts to care enough about the rule of law and his legacy to maintain some sort of balance. It's a scary proposition.

[plimsoll]

12. I think it's his legacy.

He may appreciate having the rule of law to go back to but I think it's how he's presented to history that matters. I don't think he wants to be the next Roger B. Taney.

[eppur_se_muova]

13. That's the problem with appointments for life -- the appointess might start to think for themselves.

Roberts is clearly concerned for his historical reputation, and doesn't want it to be that of a political toady. He's still a far cry from what a Chief Justice should be, but he has been more constrained than we originally feared.

Many Supreme Court Justices Have Disappointed Presidents Who Appointed Them

GARRICK UTLEY, anchor:

Even if the President does get his choice confirmed, there is no guarantee that the new justice will act in a predictable way. Presidents can--and have been deeply disappointed.

On the current court, Harry Blackmun was appointed by Richard Nixon, but has turned out to be generally liberal in his findings. He wrote the majority opinion in Roe vs. Wade guaranteeing a woman's right to an abortion.

Byron White was appointed by a liberal Democrat: John Kennedy. Today he generally votes with the conservative wing of the Court.

Dwight Eisenhower appointed Republican Earl Warren as chief justice and then watched as the Warren court became the most liberal in the nation's history. And Eisenhower also appointed William Brennan, who is now retiring, thinking he would be more conservative than he turned out to be.

When he was asked whether he had made any mistakes as president, Eisenhower said, `Yes, and they are both sitting on the Supreme Court.' A lifetime appointment encourages independent thinking, which is precisely what the framers of the Constitution wanted.

https://archives.nbclearn.com/portal/site/k-12/flatview?cuecard=3739

A salute to the late Mr. Utley, who explained it for the kids.