John Roberts

But if Democrats are able to pack the Supreme Court, none of that matters.

And of course, given that John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett aren't really conservative, there's a chance they'll get it done anyway in time for the 2020 election.

There's also a chance that Democrats fail to get this done.

Michigan, as Axios points out, failed to enact the compact the last time Democrats controlled the state government.

this is where this all eventually ends up.

While John Roberts has not been this, what I would call this rock rib conservative, he, you know, he wrote the opinion against the Affordable Care Act before he wrote the opinion for the Affordable Care Act.

He literally wrote both sides because he switched sides.

The idea that the Senate is going to just foist up a bunch of new Supreme Court justices onto the Supreme Court, even if it gets through the voting process, there's nothing that says in the – in the Constitution that the Supreme Court has to seat these people.

I just have a hard time believing, because John Roberts is very, very, very, very much a institutionalist.

He is concerned about the perception of the Supreme Court.

He's concerned about the reputation of the Supreme Court.

Suggestion.

Weirdly, John Roberts, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, would agree, but he said the reckoning is with the voters at elections.

And aren't we in a strange position of having had that election? the reckoning having happened, and immunity having been granted to the president and his family and his businesses for life, everything other than government is, I submit, a vain endeavour on the part of the Democrats.

No, I disagree.

If you remember.

Chief Justice Roberts had said that they were conducting their own investigation, which quietly, you know, after a little time passed, he just kind of said, yeah, we didn't find the person.

On to the next thing.

U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro's office is leading the probe.

Politico published the draft before the 2020 ruling, prompting Chief Justice John Roberts to order that internal investigation that failed to identify the leaker.

The Justice Department has so far not put out any other details or, you know, if they've if they've got a specific target in mind or a direction or where they're at in this investigation, which is being described as a criminal probe.

I don't know if we're intentionally staying away from the word investigation there, but...

Oh my God, that is so yes there are i i know some you know some of these ultra religious air quotes here friends who put their religious religion on their social media posts talk about how they're being infringed upon and That's what she was talking about there.

Of the court's conservatives, only Chief Justice John Roberts expressed any skepticism at all about the Archdiocese's argument.

All six of the court's conservatives were raised Catholic, so too was Liberal Justice Sotomayor.

A decision in the case is expected by summer of 2027.

You know, they get some pretty good people coming on, right? And some guests you want to cut down to size.

But every time they bring Pete Buttigieg on, he winds up owning John Roberts.

Abdul El-Sayed should have been slaughtered by Jesse Waters.

Instead, Abdul had upper hand, really.

Wade nearly two months before the court made it official.

Chief Justice John Roberts called it a, quote, singular and egregious breach of that trust and ordered an internal investigation.

Eight months and 97 sworn affidavits later, it came up empty.

Now the New York Times reports Trump's Justice Department has made it a criminal investigation.

I think they're the two longest-serving members.

Maybe John Roberts, too, but that's the point.

They wouldn't be grandfathered in then.

It would apply to everybody that's there right now as well as new appointees.

Everybody has a bias.

Uh, You had Ty Cobb on and you were talking about John Roberts and he said he was, you know, one of the top five most brilliant people he's ever met in his life.

And I think what people don't understand is that there's a lot of gray area in the law, both old cases and new cases that are subject to interpretation.

Just because a judge rules in a way that you don't agree with doesn't mean it's an illegal or wrong ruling.