- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
"The Legacy of the Roberts Court"
Posted on 4/23/25 at 9:02 am
Posted on 4/23/25 at 9:02 am
A good article summarizing the failings of Chief Justice Roberts. The article presents several topics in detail demonstrating Roberts globalist leanings, here a small example of one:
LINK
quote:
Campaign Financing
Roberts is a 2005 appointee of Republican George W. Bush, who is a staunch globalist like his predecessor Bill Clinton and successor Barack Obama. It is no wonder, then, that Roberts declared regarding campaign financing that the overall limits “intrude without justification on a citizen’s ability to exercise `the most fundamental First Amendment activities.'” He selected Justice Anthony Kennedy to do his dirty work, and the obedient jurist obliged, stating, “The Government has muffled the voices that best represent the most significant segments of the economy… By suppressing the speech of manifold corporations, both for-profit and nonprofit, the Government prevents their voices and viewpoints from reaching the public and advising voters on which persons or entities are hostile to their interests.”
This opinion required that all corporations, for-profit and nonprofit alike, be allowed to spend as much as they wanted, anytime they wanted, in support of the candidates of their choosing. This decision has allowed the oligarch billionaire class to control political campaigns and elections. A mere 100 billionaires contributed over $2.6 billion to federal elections in 2024.
LINK
9
Posted on 4/23/25 at 9:13 am to lake chuck fan
The funk on this guy Roberts has been stinking up America for a looong time. Yes, his loyalities are as a "staunch Globalist" and to the Jesuit agenda (like a few too many in SCOTUS.)
Remember this oldie but goodie?
US Top judge ‘flees’ to Malta after endorsing ObamaCare, 1 July 2012
Remember this oldie but goodie?
US Top judge ‘flees’ to Malta after endorsing ObamaCare, 1 July 2012
quote:
United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts joked this week that he will be spending some time in the “impregnable fortress” of Malta after casting a decisive, and highly controversial, vote that upheld President Barak Obama’s healthcare law.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 9:35 am to EphesianArmor
quote:
funk on this guy Roberts has been stinking up America for a looong time
Was about to post this as the point in time I lost faith in Roberts - one of the worst decisions for the health and economic success of America's future.
It could well be that only another absolute economic crash that levels the entire world back to sustinence levels will allow a responsible economic recovery to take place.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 9:55 am to ChineseBandit58
quote:
Was about to post this as the point in time I lost faith in Roberts - one of the worst decisions for the health and economic success of America's future.
Ditto.
We both recognized Roberts' disappointing vote and role as spelling the death knell for America and justice. The BIG dominoes began falling then.
quote:
It could well be that only another absolute economic crash that levels the entire world back to sustinence levels will allow a responsible economic recovery to take place.
Brutha, if a system Crash and RESET is The Plan, I'm pretty sure the intention was not about resetting "responsible" anything. It's about an ugly depop, survival of the fittest, demolition of the Middle Class, and renewed feudal-serf-slave system, pure and simple. This situation has happened before many times in the not so distant past from what I gather.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 9:58 am to lake chuck fan
What case is he talking about? Article does not say. Is it Citizens United?
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:01 am to lake chuck fan
Roberts can think about his legacy for an eternity while he’s roasting
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:01 am to lake chuck fan
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:20 am to JimEverett
quote:
What case is he talking about? Article does not say. Is it Citizens United?
quote:
Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).
In this landmark 5-4 decision, the Court ruled that restrictions on independent political expenditures by corporations, unions, and nonprofit organizations violated the First Amendment's free speech protections. The majority opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that such spending is a form of protected speech and that limiting it based on the speaker’s corporate identity was unconstitutional. The ruling overturned parts of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (McCain-Feingold) and prior precedents like Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), which had upheld restrictions on corporate spending.
However, it’s important to clarify that Citizens United did not allow unlimited direct contributions to candidates’ campaigns. Direct contributions from corporations to candidates remain banned under the Tillman Act of 1907 and were upheld in cases like FEC v. Beaumont (2003). Instead, the decision enabled unlimited independent expenditures, such as funding ads or super PACs that support or oppose candidates, as long as they don’t coordinate with campaigns. This led to the rise of super PACs following Speechnow.org v. FEC (2010), which applied Citizens United’s logic to remove contribution limits for independent groups.
The ruling has been controversial, with critics arguing it amplifies the influence of wealthy donors and corporations, while supporters claim it protects free speech. Public opinion, as shown in polls like an ABC–Washington Post survey (80% opposed) and statements from figures like former President Jimmy Carter, who called it “unlimited political bribery,” reflects significant disapproval.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:24 am to lake chuck fan
Worse than the legacy of the “Roberts Court” is the legacy of the Bush presidency. Man were a lot of people fooled by his compassionate conservative bullshite. Unfortunately, myself included.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:34 am to lake chuck fan
Holy shite the 180 to Leftism is almost complete. "Conservatives" bitching about Citizens United and the 1st Amendment 
What a fricking idiot to write this
Again, utter dishonesty (It's too hard to claim ignorance here)
quote:
Not once did the Supreme Court even send a memo to the sentencing Washington judges to support the rights of the J6 prisoners.
What a fricking idiot to write this
quote:
This practice by the Biden Administration first materialized in May 2023 when court cases were brought against Trump, spanning Florida to New York. The Supreme Court failed to weigh in for over a year, finally siding with Trump as the lawfare cases began to unravel.
Again, utter dishonesty (It's too hard to claim ignorance here)
quote:
In short, the Roberts Court is a globalist operation geared to marginalizing the United States, a process of managed decline that has been happening since the end of World War II.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:35 am to JimEverett
quote:
What case is he talking about? Article does not say. Is it Citizens United?
Yes (note his link is to a New Yorker article
) Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
SlowFlowPro
a dickhead lawyer who would change any position he has if he is paid enough whining about others changing positions
It is the middle of the day on Wednesday. Don't you have a fricking job?
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:37 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
Don't you have a fricking job?
He thinks he does, so that's all that matters to him... You folks are gonna play hell picking on SFP's hero...
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:39 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
a dickhead lawyer who would change any position he has if he is paid enough whining about others changing positions
What a strange post.
I've always supported Citizens United and the 1st Amendment
These people who used to support it are the ones changing positions and taking the Leftist side, now.
quote:
It is the middle of the day on Wednesday. Don't you have a fricking job?
I've already been to court (and won my hearing). The calendar budget for a hearing is 9-12, so I'm just replying to emails and thinking about non-legal stuff that's business-related and laughing at idiots like the author in OP
Posted on 4/23/25 at 10:52 am to SlowFlowPro
Yeah.
The government wanted to ban a movie. The Roberts Court held it unconstitutional.
Citizens United might be the best case the Roberts court has ruled.
The government wanted to ban a movie. The Roberts Court held it unconstitutional.
Citizens United might be the best case the Roberts court has ruled.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 11:11 am to lake chuck fan
We got Obama care because this idiot said it was a tax even though it wasn’t presented as a tax.
President Obama may not call the individual mandate a “tax”—but John Roberts does.
President Obama may not call the individual mandate a “tax”—but John Roberts does.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 11:23 am to JimEverett
quote:
The government wanted to ban a movie. The Roberts Court held it unconstitutional.
Citizens United might be the best case the Roberts court has ruled.
It's utterly insane to me that "conservatives' have now turned on Citizens United.
A private company wanted to release a movie on cable, and these people want the government to be able to prohibit that, now
Posted on 4/23/25 at 11:24 am to RohanGonzales
quote:
Don't you have a fricking job?
He literally barely has any clients
Posted on 4/23/25 at 11:36 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Yes (note his link isl to a New Yorker article
"American Thinker" is a New Yorker article??
Posted on 4/23/25 at 11:55 am to JimEverett
quote:
The government wanted to ban a movie. The Roberts Court held it unconstitutional.
They should have stopped with the movie. Allowing a single CEO to use the collective wealth of a corporation to push his own political agenda is retarded. The CEO has all the rights as an individual to donate to whom he wants. Allowing corporations to donate eliminates the point of a democracy - a government by the people. It encourages corruption and shifts power away from the people.
That were right to allow the movie, but the consequences of their broad ruling are destructive.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News