Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,790
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 4:
Line 4: + +
But the liberal bloc apparently feels that Roberts will rule on the side of Trump unless there is public criticism, and the liberal bloc started that process with a concurring opinion that rebuked Roberts' majority (per curiam) opinion.
== Fear of Disunity ==
== Fear of Disunity ==
Chief Justice [[John Roberts]], whose vote [[liberals]] need to prevail on any case, has a fear of disunity that guided his decision in this case and perhaps similar future cases. Roberts justifiably fears that the country could splinter if [[Leftist]]s are allowed to block Trump from becoming president again.
Chief Justice [[John Roberts]], whose vote [[liberals]] need to prevail on any case, has a fear of disunity that guided his decision in this case and perhaps similar future cases. Roberts justifiably fears that the country could splinter if [[Leftist]]s are allowed to block Trump from becoming president again.
== Liberal panic ==
The liberal Justices, led by Justice [[Elena Kagan]], are typically savvy in trying to bring Chief Justice Roberts and another [[conservative]], who in this context would be Justice [[Amy Coney Barrett]], over to the Left side. But the liberal bloc apparently feels that Roberts will rule on the side of [[Trump]] unless there is public criticism, and the liberal bloc started that process with a concurring opinion that rebuked Roberts' majority (per curiam) opinion.
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]
[[category:United States Supreme Court Cases]]