Pence rips Chief Justice Roberts in interview, calls him ‘disappointment to conservatives’

[Michie]

From the article.
Several recent cases "are reminders of just how important this election is for the future of the Supreme Court," Pence said

In a television interview scheduled to air Thursday, Vice President Mike Pence tears into U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Roberts, calling him a “disappointment to conservatives.”

The vice president’s comments – made during a discussion with Christian broadcaster CBN News – follow several cases before the court in which Roberts, a 2005 appointee of former President George W. Bush, has sided with the court’s liberals in majority opinions.

“We have great respect for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States but Chief Justice Roberts has been a disappointment to conservatives,” Pence told CBN’s David Brody, according to the network’s website.

Continued below.
Pence rips Chief Justice Roberts in interview, calls him ‘disappointment to conservatives’

 

[jgarden]

Pence rips Chief Justice Roberts in interview, calls him ‘disappointment to conservatives’

I'm sure the feeling of disappointment is mutual!

 

[Hank77]

The justice leg of our democracy isn't supposed to be political. They're asking a Supreme Court Justice to make decisions in their favor as Republicans.
“I think several cases out of the Supreme Court are reminders of just how important this election is for the future of the Supreme Court,” the vice president added.

 

[Michie]

Mike Pence is 'totally right' to criticize Roberts and conservatives are deeply 'alarmed': Carrie Severino

 

[seeking.IAM]

Pence doesn't seem to understand how our system of checks and balances works and the merits of independent and impartial judges, especially SCOTUS. Every high school senior in Indiana of Pence's generation had to take a class in Civics. Pence must have snoozed through that.

 

[tulc]

Sounds like the Chief Justice is doing his job.
tulc(is going to need more coffee soon)

 

[Albion]

"Disappointment" seems like a pretty mild comment--and an obviously correct one, if that matters--for so many people to be jumping up and down about.

 

[Albion]

Pence doesn't seem to understand how our system of checks and balances works and the merits of independent and impartial judges, especially SCOTUS. Every high school senior in Indiana of Pence's generation had to take a class in Civics. Pence must have snoozed through that.

Shall we review the comments of Congressional members of the other party who have sworn to either pack the court if their party wins in November or else like to talk about impeaching Justice Kavanaugh?

 

[seeking.IAM]

Pence doesn't seem to understand how our system of checks and balances works and the merits of independent and impartial judges, especially SCOTUS. Every high school senior in Indiana of Pence's generation had to take a class in Civics. Pence must have snoozed through that.

Shall we review the comments of Congressional members of the other party who have sworn to either pack the court if their party wins in November or else like to talk about impeaching Justice Kavanaugh?

That would be okay, yes. An independent judiciary is just that. Stupid is not confined to any political party.

 

[Albion]

That would be okay, yes.

Sooooo, it is not the case, after all, that Vice President Pence's comment about Chief Justice Roberts being a disappointment is anything special?

 

[seeking.IAM]

Sooooo, it is not the case, after all, that Vice President Pence's comment about Chief Justice Roberts being a disappointment is anything special?

*Original response removed* You are right that Pence is not the only person practicing stupid inside the beltway, so I suppose that doesn't make his expressing disappointment in this instance anything "special." However, it doesn't make what he expects of the Court acceptable either. We should not accept a biased judiciary from our leaders. I had enough of Pence's attempts to impose his views on others when he was my governor.

 

[Albion]

*Original response removed* You are right that Pence is not the only person practicing stupid inside the beltway, so I suppose that doesn't make his expressing disappointment in this instance anything "special." However, it doesn't make what he expects of the Court acceptable either. We should not accept a biased judiciary from our leaders. I had enough of Pence's attempts to impose his views on others when he was my governor.

But all he said was that Justice Roberts disappointed conservatives. Obviously they ARE disappointed.

How does that amount to all that you were saying about separation of powers and him not knowing how government is supposed to operate, etc.? That's really the point of my comment about the things said by others.

I guess I just don't get why it's not permitted to say that the decisions of the court are disappointing when people on all sides and of both parties express disappointment all the time when they had hoped and expected some decision and it went the other way. And by the way, I shouldn't make this totally about your post because it was not alone with its message.

 

[jgarden]

"Disappointment" seems like a pretty mild comment--and an obviously correct one, if that matters--for so many people to be jumping up and down about.

Pence rips Chief Justice Roberts in interview, calls him ‘disappointment to conservatives’

Given that Mitch McConnell took the unprecedented step of refusing to provide Senate Confirmation Hearings for Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, in the Supreme Court, the Republicans are in no position to be pointing fingers when judgements don't go their way - what goes around comes around!

 

[Albion]

Given that Mitch McConnell took the unprecedented step of refusing to provide Senate hearings for Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, the Republicans are in no position to be pointing fingers when judgements don't go their way - what goes around comes around!

Well, it wasn't really unprecedented. It had already been announced that that was how the Democrats would proceed the next time that they had a chance at a nomination. It just so happened that when that vacancy rolled around, it was the Republicans who were in the majority; but the die had already been cast.

Besides, Pence's comment about being disappointed was not about the appointment process. The two are not comparable.

 

[seeking.IAM]

But all he said was that Justice Roberts disappointed conservatives. Obviously they ARE disappointed...

Because Pence is the archetype conservative. He wasn't just making a comment about others. He was speaking about himself, too, and using others as a way of distancing himself from his own comment in order to be one step removed from saying it himself.

 

[Albion]

Because Pence is the archetype conservative. He wasn't just making a comment about others. He was speaking about himself, too, and using others as a way of distancing himself from his own comment in order to be one step removed from saying it himself.

My friend, this is getting ridiculous. I'm sorry to say it, but the man said that conservatives have been disappointed in some of Justice Robert's decisions on the court. That is so unremarkable a comment that it doesn't merit any of the analysis, outrage, criticisms, and comparisons, sincere or otherwise, that have been posted on this thread.

 

[jgarden]

Well, it wasn't really unprecedented. It had already been announced that that was how the Democrats would proceed the next time that they had a chance at a nomination. It just so happened that when that vacancy rolled around, it was the Republicans who were in the majority; but the die had already been cast.

Besides, Pence's comment about being disappointed was not about the appointment process. The two are not comparable.

Pence rips Chief Justice Roberts in interview, calls him ‘disappointment to conservatives’

In the Merrick Garland case the appointment process was deliberately blocked for a year until the Senate Republicans received the candidate of their choice - so process and candidate have become interchangeable with this precedent whereby in the future there are no guarantees that Presidential nominees for the Supreme Court will ever receive a hearing!

Blaming the Democrats for McConnell's actions doesn't hide the fact that as an "outsider," this President was running on the promise of "draining the Washington swamp" - it doesn't get much "swampier" than the "hijacking" of a Supreme Court nominee!

 

[Albion]

In the Merrick Garland case the appointment process was deliberately postponed until the Senate Republicans received the candidate of their choice - so the 2 are comparable!

No, that point, important or not, only makes the two less comparable.

Blaming the Democrats for McConnell's actions doesn't hide the fact that this President was running on the platform of "draining the Washington swamp" - it doesn't get much "swampier" than the "hijacking" of a Supreme Court nominee!

That doesn't even address the issue.

 

[jgarden]

No, that point, important or not, only makes the two less comparable.

That doesn't even address the issue.

What happens in the future when the White House and the Senate are controlled by opposing Parties - conceivably, the Senate could postpone hearings on a Presidential nomination to the Supreme Court for 4 years in the hope of electing a new President from their Party!

If McConnell and the Republicans can set the precedent of postponing Supreme Court hearings for 1 year, what's to stop the next Senate majority for extending that to 4 years or more?

Justice Roberts has been opposed to the "politicization" of the Supreme Court and some of his decisions might be interpreted as an attempt reassert the balance that had previously existed!