|The Smiling F U|
Adelman referenced Roberts' 2005 confirmation hearing in which he promised to be a non-political "umpire," "calling balls and strikes." Adelman labels that promise a “masterpiece of disingenuousness.” Gee. What's a synonym for disingenuousness? Oh yes ... dishonesty.
Adelman cited a series of cases, most of them 5-4 decisions, which he says have consolidated the power of the rich, limited redress for the powerless, and weakened democracy. Among them were Shelby County v. Holder, a 2013 Roberts opinion that loosened Voting Rights Act safeguards for minorities, and the North Carolina voting rights case, Rucho v. Common Cause, in which the court, in a 2018 Roberts opinion, said partisan gerrymandering presents “political questions beyond the reach of the federal courts.”
He also cited Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission in 2010, which allowed unlimited corporate and union spending in federal elections, and the 2018 decision in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, which held that it was unconstitutional to allow public employee unions to require collective-bargaining fees from workers who choose not to join the union.
Adelman also had words for Twitterman, who he wrote ran as a populist but failed to deliver “policies beneficial to the general public …. While Trump’s temperament is that of an autocrat,” Adelman wrote, “he is disinclined to buck the wealthy individuals and corporations who control his party.”
There's a lot of squawking on the right about "how dare this liberal judge express his opinion," when conservative judges do it all the time, do it with gusto, and get away with steering the Republic toward a full-on oligarchy. It's refreshing to have a federal judge call "bullshit!"
Post a Comment