Andy Divine on the Roberts Court. Political Observer comments

Andy Divine praises Justice Roberts, larded with toxic self-congratulation :

The Wisdom of the Roberts Court

Yes, this means that almost all employers can be legally punished if they discriminate against gay, lesbian, and trans people, but employers whose business is wrapped up in their religious values — in Catholic hospitals and schools, for example — can be exempted from these punishments if they are merely seeking to retain the religious integrity of their enterprises. I really can’t see the problem with that. As someone who is both gay and religious, I can see the merits of both. As a citizen, I hope I can see the legitimate concerns of both as well.

The fact that Trump’s own appointees ruled against him in the cases about presidential power is also worth absorbing and admiring. The left’s caricature of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh has been muddied by their actual records so far. Kavanaugh has not exactly behaved as if he is a bitter partisan on these questions. Gorsuch stuck to his legal literalism even when it conflicted with his ideological preferences. And at the same time, the large majority of cases in which the chief justice, John Roberts, has been on the winning side is impressive. He is guiding a conservative Court — not a Republican one.

Roberts, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are playing the ‘Long Game’ ,willing to make sacrifices on the more ‘trivial’ LGBTQ issues, for the moment, as the in-order-too of an Originalist Court: that could last, if all remain in good health, at least a generation, or more. Alito and Thomas are not just along for the ride, given the possibility of a trans-generational ‘reformation’ of the Court.

The Voting Rights Act and its ‘pre-clearance clause’ was eviscerated with the aid of the fictional ‘Centrist’ Kennedy, under the rubric of ‘things have changed’ in Shelby County v Holder. 

The reader might just ask: is there any difference between a Conservative Court and a Republican Court? Was the Warren Court a Republican Court? Brown v Board answers that question! 

Political Observer


About stephenkmacksd

Rootless cosmopolitan,down at heels intellectual;would be writer. 'Polemic is a discourse of conflict, whose effect depends on a delicate balance between the requirements of truth and the enticements of anger, the duty to argue and the zest to inflame. Its rhetoric allows, even enforces, a certain figurative licence. Like epitaphs in Johnson’s adage, it is not under oath.'
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.