Was the trigger point for John Roberts’ appointment based upon Smith v Doe?

Admin

One of the most influential appointments in the history of the United states has turned out to be John Roberts, Chief Justice and Price Club Manager of the United States Supreme Court. I am in the process of researching how judicial appointments were made in the United States, including both the historical records as well as political gamesmanship in making those selections. Full Editorial on sosen.org

Related posts

Subscribe
Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...

 

  1. Submissions must be in English
  2. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  3. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  4. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t and a**
  5. Please avoid the use of derogatory labels.  Always use person-first language.
  6. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  7. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  8. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  9. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  10. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address that are not personally identifiable.
  11. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  12. Please do not post in all Caps.
  13. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  14. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  15. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  16. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people.  Do not use your real name.
  17. Please do not solicit funds
  18. No discussions about weapons
  19. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), Person Forced to Register (PFR) or any others, the first time you use it in a thread, please expand it for new people to better understand.
  20. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  21. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
  22. We no longer post articles about arrests or accusations, only selected convictions. If your comment contains a link to an arrest or accusation article we will not approve your comment.
  23. If addressing another commenter, please address them by exactly their full display name, do not modify their name. 
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  
 

3 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

I love how one if the comments states we would allow our licenses to be taking away because of a new law being passed that revoked licenses for a dui you had five or ten years ago? After all there is a rational basis for such a regulatory scheme. Dui drivers have a much higher recidivism rate and are much more frequent and dangerous then the rso.

0
Reply
View Replies (1)

No need to recuse the ‘Umpire’, as he described himself during his confirmation hearings. He said he calls ’em as he sees ’em, with respect to the Constitution. Before Roberts now serving on the Supreme Court, he did pro bono work for gay rights advocates. But Roberts was part of the dissent on the ruling allowing gay marriage, saying the ruling to allow gay marriage has nothing to do with the Constitution. Not that his dissent on gay marriage was very enlightening, but maybe Roberts really is the Umpire, who is above being confined to the spirit of positions he has had in the past, positions on similar questions with different circumstances now, and the empirical and unquestionable knowledge we have today on low re-offense rates of registrants.

0
Reply