Judge Roberts is heavily criticized in letter from very prominent barrister.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/03/judge-james-dannenberg-supreme-court-bar-roberts-letter.html

The critic sits on the Supreme Court Bar. A little known group of some very experienced and well regarding attorneys and judges.

It is a resignation letter that spells out why the Court in general and Roberts in particular has turned a corner on judicial neutrality.

A little sidestep from the coronavirus issues.

14 thoughts on “Judge Roberts is heavily criticized in letter from very prominent barrister.

  1. Oh horrors, free speech means free speech, even if it hurts someone’s feelings and freedom of religion means freedom to live as your religion dictates even if someone else doesn’t get your approval or your service.

    There is no such thing as a right to infringe on someone else’s rights.

    Like

      1. Masterpiece Cake Shop though it was a 7-2 decision with Kennedy opining, stands out but I’m sure it wasn’t the only one.

        “Your “conservative” majority has cynically undermined basic freedoms by hypocritically weaponizing others. The ideas of free speech and religious liberty have been transmogrified to allow officially sanctioned bigotry and discrimination, “

        Like

        1. It was his opinions in the letter that lacked detail was my only issue.

          Gay weddings are a thorny issue. If the law of the land says that businesses cannot discriminate in the marketplace on the basis of sex, color, orientation etc., is it right to carve out a myriad of exceptions based on professed beliefs that it offends a person.

          These are not easy cases. Can we refuse to serve racially mixed marriages also because of Biblical tenets?

          Public commerce without discrimination is what we have decided as a nation. You don’t want to serve Jews then move to a nation that says ok.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Personally, I thing the whole “Public Accommodations” concept is bogus and unconstitutional. The marketplace is capable of dealing with such discrimination without the force of law.

            Like

          2. Maybe. It didn’t do so well until the Civil Rights Laws came into being. Not just Jim Crow either.

            The gender bias had to be enforced.

            Now sex orientation.

            I think the market follows cultural trends, not the other way around. And as we determine what is acceptable in our culture, a nudge via legislation is probably needed.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. “The marketplace is capable of dealing with such discrimination without the force of law.”

            You have got to be kidding me? Do you seriously believe that? It happens daily to people who are not white, straight males.

            The marketplace NEEDS to be told to treat all fairly. If not, there would be a need for “speciality” shops to cater to those that are being discriminated against. Then those shops would not be able to serve their customers because their suppliers won’t sell to “those kind of people.”

            It is a vicious circle when ALL people are not treated equally regardless of race, creed, color, origin, gender, sexual orientation, etc.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Don’t confuse the appearance of non-discrimination with acceptance,

            I prefer my cake without bodily fluids, and I want my doctor to want me to live. There is a vast difference between accommodation and service.

            I can see some circumstances, like emergency rooms and the only gas station on a long stretch of desert highway where it is necessary that all comers be served, but that can be accomplished through access regulation.

            Declaring all businesses open to the public, even when there are abundant alternatives to be ‘public accommodations’ is counterproductive. Better to let the remaining bigots show their hands and let reputation services spread the word.

            After all, if a business posts a “No Irish” sign, they may as well be posting a “no decent people” sign.

            Like

          5. Being part Irish myself, I’ll ignore the comparison. Even though that happened quite a bit back in the day.

            Your marketplace would discriminate regularly if they were allowed. To say otherwise is to show ignorance of what real discrimination is all about.

            Imagine if Jewish professional folks decided not to take care of non-Jews. Where would you get the best accountants, doctors and lawyers? Good luck with it.

            Like

          6. Actually, my daughter works for a firm owned by Jewish accountants.

            Jewish professionals would presumably know that was bad business, if we’re going to be led by stereotypes.

            But yes, SOME PEOPLE in the marketplace will discriminate. DO you really want to do business with people who wish you harm? Can you legislate away ill intent?

            The better remedy is to reward the businessmen who do not discriminate, and who serve their customers without prejudice, with your patronage.

            What do really gain by forcing someone to bake you a cake, especially considering what they can do with it while they’re making it.

            Like

          7. @Tabor

            The idea that the marketplace will deal with discrimination is not supported by evidence. Growing up in Louisiana you should know that, but are obviously ignoring the evidence in favor of your a priori postulates.
            IMHO, in the real world it is just as – if not more – likely that the market would exacerbate discrimination. A business that accepted and served one and all might lose the business of the haters and we have PLENTY of those.

            Liked by 1 person

          8. So isolating 12-15% of our population from full participation in our economy was the answer?

            During those days, there were horrible incidents in Florida and Oklahoma of retaliatory actions against any black prosperity in their own towns.

            Later, women, who make up half the population were allowed greater access.

            We cannot afford to shut the door on segments of the population with regards to our free market economy just because of someone’s personal beliefs.

            IMHO

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s