**tl;dr:** John Roberts is very worried about being replaced by AI.
“For those who cannot afford a lawyer, AI can help. It drives new, highly accessible tools that provide answers to basic questions, including where to find templates and court forms, how to fill them out, and where to bring them for presentation to the judge—all without leaving home. These tools have the welcome potential to smooth out any mismatch between available resources and urgent needs in our court system.”
Hell of a leap from that to replacing Judges, Johnny.
A clown 🤡 , drunk with power…
Yeah, fuck this guy
SCOTUS is behaving like the old-timers when they tell the young: you must respect your elders. Really? I have to respect you for no other reason than you are older than me? Where’s the logic there?
The court is a rotted corpse still shambling like a zombie determined to overturn the last century of jurisprudence. This was caused by the absence of leadership by Roberts and the appointments of political hacks by Trump. The effect is to delegitimize the court.
Useless chief justice
“Let them eat cake!”
2024 Annual Report Written by Chief Justice Barak Obama: Welp, it’s a new ball game. I never thought I’d be able to wear a tan suit again, but now I know I can wear it under a black robe! Yep, I’m here all week folks, actually first week of October is the worst week, like going back to class after summer break and seeing your desk has gum stuck under it. Thanks Sam. Now about a defendant named Don. Big customer here. Frequent flyer. …
Senator Obama’s speech against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts in September 2005.
Say what you will about Obama, but damn it did he fucking nail it. Just an absolutely prophetic take on what the Roberts Court has come to be.
He called it.
> There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn’t have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court — adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.
> The problem I face — a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts — is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.
> In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled — in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.
> I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn’t like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.
> I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General’s Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.
> I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn’t like bullies and he sees the law and the Court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.
> The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.
If anything the headline was underselling just how wildly out of touch Roberts is if he thinks the most pressing issue facing the court is AI.
These clowns need to be brought back down to earth and reminded they are not high priests.
I’ve eaten Doritos tacos locos more supreme than this court
Well John, the feeling is mutual.
No wonder the court has sunk to new depths
Roberts is embarrassed because his wife earns more than him by at least 1 order of magnitude. Sure she’d have that job if she wasn’t married to the guy who presides over the most corrupt SCOTUS in US history.
John Roberts is a judicial terrorist and an agent of MAGA. At the end of the days that’s who he works for and that’s who he sides with.
Destroy the Supreme Court and rebuild it right
Can’t we do better?
Worst Chief since Taney.
Coming from the guy who can’t even wrangle the other conservatives on the court. Alito and Thomas are really leading the clueless Trump appointees off a cliff and then whine about how the public hates their rulings. Fuck your feelings, Roberts.
Roberts throwing out a distraction before they do something nutty to allow Trump of the hook.
Precedent be damned.
Roberts court is basically famous for that at this point. Precedent doesn’t matter if it stand in the way of ideological goals:
> Roughly a third of the precedents at issue in the Roberts court had been on the books for less than 20 years, and in one 2014 decision — Johnson v. U.S. — the Roberts court struck down two of its own rulings issued only a few years before.
> During his During his 14 years as Chief Justice, Roberts presided over 21 precedent-overturning cases and voted to overturn precedent in 17 of them (81%), making him the second-most frequent member of the majority in precedent-overturning cases. Only Justice Thomas has been a more frequent member of the majority in such cases (90%).
> In the 15 precedent-overturning cases with partisan implications, in other words, Justice Roberts voted for a conservative outcome 14 times (93%).
This is what voters need to understand. They’re pawns despised by their leaders. Few of them would even have been able to vote in 1776 because they didn’t own large amounts of land and are not ultra wealthy. They’re just useful peasants. Always have been.
Yes, and we have upmost contempt for Roberts and his court of lackies!
At this stage in the game, John Roberts is either going go down as the most unpopular Supreme Court Chief Justice or the last.
I got contempt for him.
does he use condoms? any sex toys?
how about bad dragon dildos. Which species does he prefer?
aint got no answers to this, get the fuck in the ground you old fart. You are what is known as “yesteryear”
25 comments
**tl;dr:** John Roberts is very worried about being replaced by AI.
“For those who cannot afford a lawyer, AI can help. It drives new, highly accessible tools that provide answers to basic questions, including where to find templates and court forms, how to fill them out, and where to bring them for presentation to the judge—all without leaving home. These tools have the welcome potential to smooth out any mismatch between available resources and urgent needs in our court system.”
Hell of a leap from that to replacing Judges, Johnny.
A clown 🤡 , drunk with power…
Yeah, fuck this guy
SCOTUS is behaving like the old-timers when they tell the young: you must respect your elders. Really? I have to respect you for no other reason than you are older than me? Where’s the logic there?
The court is a rotted corpse still shambling like a zombie determined to overturn the last century of jurisprudence. This was caused by the absence of leadership by Roberts and the appointments of political hacks by Trump. The effect is to delegitimize the court.
Useless chief justice
“Let them eat cake!”
2024 Annual Report Written by Chief Justice Barak Obama: Welp, it’s a new ball game. I never thought I’d be able to wear a tan suit again, but now I know I can wear it under a black robe! Yep, I’m here all week folks, actually first week of October is the worst week, like going back to class after summer break and seeing your desk has gum stuck under it. Thanks Sam. Now about a defendant named Don. Big customer here. Frequent flyer. …
Senator Obama’s speech against the confirmation of Chief Justice Roberts in September 2005.
Say what you will about Obama, but damn it did he fucking nail it. Just an absolutely prophetic take on what the Roberts Court has come to be.
He called it.
> There is absolutely no doubt in my mind Judge Roberts is qualified to sit on the highest court in the land. Moreover, he seems to have the comportment and the temperament that makes for a good judge. He is humble, he is personally decent, and he appears to be respectful of different points of view. It is absolutely clear to me that Judge Roberts truly loves the law. He couldn’t have achieved his excellent record as an advocate before the Supreme Court without that passion for the law, and it became apparent to me in our conversation that he does, in fact, deeply respect the basic precepts that go into deciding 95 percent of the cases that come before the Federal court — adherence to precedence, a certain modesty in reading statutes and constitutional text, a respect for procedural regularity, and an impartiality in presiding over the adversarial system. All of these characteristics make me want to vote for Judge Roberts.
> The problem I face — a problem that has been voiced by some of my other colleagues, both those who are voting for Mr. Roberts and those who are voting against Mr. Roberts — is that while adherence to legal precedent and rules of statutory or constitutional construction will dispose of 95 percent of the cases that come before a court, so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of the cases — what matters on the Supreme Court is those 5 percent of cases that are truly difficult. In those cases, adherence to precedent and rules of construction and interpretation will only get you through the 25th mile of the marathon. That last mile can only be determined on the basis of one’s deepest values, one’s core concerns, one’s broader perspectives on how the world works, and the depth and breadth of one’s empathy.
> In those 5 percent of hard cases, the constitutional text will not be directly on point. The language of the statute will not be perfectly clear. Legal process alone will not lead you to a rule of decision. In those circumstances, your decisions about whether affirmative action is an appropriate response to the history of discrimination in this country or whether a general right of privacy encompasses a more specific right of women to control their reproductive decisions or whether the commerce clause empowers Congress to speak on those issues of broad national concern that may be only tangentially related to what is easily defined as interstate commerce, whether a person who is disabled has the right to be accommodated so they can work alongside those who are nondisabled — in those difficult cases, the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.
> I talked to Judge Roberts about this. Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and his deeper feelings. That is not how he is trained. He did say he doesn’t like bullies and has always viewed the law as a way of evening out the playing field between the strong and the weak.
> I was impressed with that statement because I view the law in much the same way. The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak. In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General’s Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process. In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of the concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.
> I want to take Judge Roberts at his word that he doesn’t like bullies and he sees the law and the Court as a means of evening the playing field between the strong and the weak. But given the gravity of the position to which he will undoubtedly ascend and the gravity of the decisions in which he will undoubtedly participate during his tenure on the Court, I ultimately have to give more weight to his deeds and the overarching political philosophy that he appears to have shared with those in power than to the assuring words that he provided me in our meeting.
> The bottom line is this: I will be voting against John Roberts’ nomination. I do so with considerable reticence. I hope that I am wrong. I hope that this reticence on my part proves unjustified and that Judge Roberts will show himself to not only be an outstanding legal thinker but also someone who upholds the Court’s historic role as a check on the majoritarian impulses of the executive branch and the legislative branch. I hope that he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society. I hope that his jurisprudence is one that stands up to the bullies of all ideological stripes.
If anything the headline was underselling just how wildly out of touch Roberts is if he thinks the most pressing issue facing the court is AI.
These clowns need to be brought back down to earth and reminded they are not high priests.
I’ve eaten Doritos tacos locos more supreme than this court
Well John, the feeling is mutual.
No wonder the court has sunk to new depths
Roberts is embarrassed because his wife earns more than him by at least 1 order of magnitude. Sure she’d have that job if she wasn’t married to the guy who presides over the most corrupt SCOTUS in US history.
John Roberts is a judicial terrorist and an agent of MAGA. At the end of the days that’s who he works for and that’s who he sides with.
Destroy the Supreme Court and rebuild it right
Can’t we do better?
Worst Chief since Taney.
Coming from the guy who can’t even wrangle the other conservatives on the court. Alito and Thomas are really leading the clueless Trump appointees off a cliff and then whine about how the public hates their rulings. Fuck your feelings, Roberts.
Roberts throwing out a distraction before they do something nutty to allow Trump of the hook.
Precedent be damned.
Roberts court is basically famous for that at this point. Precedent doesn’t matter if it stand in the way of ideological goals:
> Roughly a third of the precedents at issue in the Roberts court had been on the books for less than 20 years, and in one 2014 decision — Johnson v. U.S. — the Roberts court struck down two of its own rulings issued only a few years before.
> During his During his 14 years as Chief Justice, Roberts presided over 21 precedent-overturning cases and voted to overturn precedent in 17 of them (81%), making him the second-most frequent member of the majority in precedent-overturning cases. Only Justice Thomas has been a more frequent member of the majority in such cases (90%).
> In the 15 precedent-overturning cases with partisan implications, in other words, Justice Roberts voted for a conservative outcome 14 times (93%).
This is what voters need to understand. They’re pawns despised by their leaders. Few of them would even have been able to vote in 1776 because they didn’t own large amounts of land and are not ultra wealthy. They’re just useful peasants. Always have been.
Yes, and we have upmost contempt for Roberts and his court of lackies!
At this stage in the game, John Roberts is either going go down as the most unpopular Supreme Court Chief Justice or the last.
I got contempt for him.
does he use condoms? any sex toys?
how about bad dragon dildos. Which species does he prefer?
aint got no answers to this, get the fuck in the ground you old fart. You are what is known as “yesteryear”