( twitter | raw text )

Choke on your turkey you miserable fat ****ing imbecile.

Do you ACTUALLY believe he did that? I mean, come on. You're smarter than this.

You can pretty much bank on it being wrong at the comparison to reality step.

In Robert's defense, he was probably asserting not that judges aren't biased but rather that judges don't feel obligated to please those who appointed them. Of course it is not an important distinction, practically speaking, because appointers try to pick those who have indicated by their past decisions that they will be happy with future decisions.

I don't know if Roberts is looking through rose colored glasses when he asserts that almost all judges call them like they legally see them rather than based on who they are beholden to. It is likely that he has a naive opinion of other judges, similar to how the posters on this site don't realize that 65 % of Americans are deplorables rather than 40 %. But it is forgiveable that he takes umbrage given he was the conservative that saved Obamacare.

It's very obviously a joke.

I didn't say a single thing about the SC agreeing with cases they haven't heard. Are you high?

No time for wrath today.

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGG

Why did you bring up choosing cases randomly? My post clearly implied that they choose those that have a good chance of being overturned. But you assertion, while logically possible is still beyond common sense. Especially given that they don't have time to rule on all cases that they know they might overturn. Although there are things in life that are either 100% or 0% I can think of nothing that is either 80% or 0%. This is an important concept that comes up in a lot of areas besides this one and should not be given short shrift.

You are still not getting it. The original post you replied to said that 99%,of their decisions stand. That must be true if a higher court only hears 1% of their cases because that’s the only mechanism by which their ruling can possibly not stand. If you are the highest court that hears a particular case you are correct 100% of the time.

My first sentence could have been "for those who might have took from master's post the implication that the Supreme Court essentially agrees with 99.2% of 9th Circuits decision. I need to point out......" Is that better?

Someone take grandpa’s phone away.

Do you think the majority of posters here are ****ing stupid?

Which one

All of them.

So the Supreme Court VOTES on which appealed cases to take- by definition they aren’t taking a lot of cases unless the MAJORITY think it’s at least possible they would overturn- I think it’s corrxt that the easily overturn half he cases they decide to consider.

There is a strong confirmation bias (in this OK, this is the law not a science experiment).

It’s irrelevant the percent of unappealed cases or cases they don’t take under consideration.

The whole argument about the 9th circuit is bogus and anyone that tries to prove something via math is just revealing their own bias.

Paying any attention to Grandpas bull**** tweets is a counter productive waste of fine.

Everyone understands the 9th only covers part of the country, right?

Are you including the President of the United States of America in your definition of "everyone"? If so: no.

What if I were to tell you that Roberts repeatedly went before the Supreme Court as a lawyer to overturn parts of the Voting Rights Act, and one of his first acts as a Supreme Court Justice was to overturn parts of the Voting Rights Act.

Roberts isn't naive. He knows that the key to the Supreme Court's legitimacy is being perceived as objective so as he institutes a conservative agenda from the bench he needs to throw up as much smoke that's its not a conservative agenda but simply judges dispassionatly looking at the law. Faux fighting with Trump achieves the look of independence.

You are misunderstanding. The legal effect of denying certiorari is to allow the case you are denying certiorari from to stand as good law. By denying certiorari the Supreme Court is not overturning the lower court decision, it is in fact making an affirmative decision that has the opposite effect. Thus the original point that the Supreme Court only overturns 80 percent of 1 percent of cases, from the 9th and allows 100 percent of 99 percent of them to stand, as evidence that 99.2 percent of the 9th circuit decisions are not overturned by the Supreme Court is both correct, and relevant to show that the 9th circuit (and for that matter all circuits, and all district courts) get the case decisions right the vast vast vast majority of the time. And yes I am confident in saying that the other 99 percent of cases are cases that the Supreme Court is not overturning 100 percent of the time because the Supreme Court by denying certiorari is doing exactly that.

Jman220...Thanks for these posts....

Does that mean that once the subpoena comes down & it gets to the supreme court, then its getting overturned, so T dosen't need to sit for Q's.

I know the Nixon case was documents & this has never been tested before.

And roberts know this, and is why he fired back now, giving the appearence of independence.

He did not imply any such thing.

You inferred it. Incorrectly, I might add.

Such a master logician...

Of the thousands of tweets, today’s “it’s cold outside lol global warming” is by far the single dumbest. It’s so dumb I really doubt it will ever be surpassed.

It’s so dumb Sklansky almost certainly is about to post how he is actually correct cause logic and algebra.

This tweet is a perfect litmus test. Show it to someone and ask them if they support Trump still. If the answer is yes you don’t need to know anything else about that person to completely ignore anything they say on any topic ever.