Of course there's no undoing the all the harm and stress all those people suffered.
There are people who were deported who will never be able to come back or will never receive restitution for their hardship. Even if Trump loses, the cruelty is the point.
DACA continues to exist, and is effectively reinstated. Eliminating it will require crossing all those t's and dotting i's, which will take years to do. Meaning a Biden presidency keeps it alive through 2024 at the earliest, assuming Congress doesn't pass any new immigration laws.
Of course there's no undoing the all the harm and stress all those people suffered.
There are people who were deported who will never be able to come back or will never receive restitution for their hardship. Even if Trump loses, the cruelty is the point.
DACA continues to exist, and is effectively reinstated. Eliminating it will require crossing all those t's and sitting i's, which will take years to do. Meaning a Biden presidency keeps it alive through 2024 at the earliest, assuming Congress doesn't pass any new immigration laws.
Yup this pretty much guarantees another 3 or so years of DACA because even once all the I's are dotted and T's crossed it still has to go through the whole court process yet again and I don't see the SCOTUS being that hot to fast track it when they do.
AFAIK it means that the Trump Administration's attempt to revoke DACA goes back to square 1.
And this time they have to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed, which normally takes months, so in all likelyhood DACA is safe until the election.
AFAIK it means that the Trump Administration's attempt to revoke DACA goes back to square 1.
And this time they have to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed, which normally takes months, so in all likelyhood DACA is safe until the election.
Doing it correctly will take months and then this basically sets the court case back to square one and it will immediately get challenged yet again and have to go through another multi year process before it hits the SCOTUS again.
AFAIK it means that the Trump Administration's attempt to revoke DACA goes back to square 1.
And this time they have to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed, which normally takes months, so in all likelyhood DACA is safe until the election.
Doing it correctly will take months and then this basically sets the court case back to square one and it will immediately get challenged yet again and have to go through another multi year process before it hits the SCOTUS again.
A lot of that will depend on what kind of halt (injunction?*) is made, when, and how much damage the Trump Admin can do in the meantime.
* IANAL and didn't want to use an incorrect term.
I mean, it wouldn't shock me if Trump's people put up the same exact revocation, with only peripheral changes, and then trying to do as much damage as they can in the meantime. Like signing it late on the 2nd of July, and then doing as many rapid deportations as they can manage before the courts open again on the Monday.
Until this fucker is actually (and likely forcibly) removed from the White House, we shouldn't be underestimating Trump and Miller's craven sliminess.
These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!
Does this mean we get to argue that the decisions this week were really Gorsuch and Roberts playing a long game to motivate republican voters instead of dem voters
Does this mean we get to argue that the decisions this week were really Gorsuch and Roberts playing a long game to motivate republican voters instead of dem voters
no.
League of Legends: Sorakanmyworld
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
Does this mean we get to argue that the decisions this week were really Gorsuch and Roberts playing a long game to motivate republican voters instead of dem voters
The goal isn't to motivate voters (it's possible that their actions may suppress Republican votes as social conservatives see this as a betrayal.) Rather, the goal is to maintain the appearance of the Court as apolitical, especially if they feel 2020 could be a wave election. Right now, that apolitical appearance is keeping political solutions to the Court off the table. It goes, and now things like court packing become viable.
These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!
lol.
I'm surprised he didn't outright call them RINOs.
Followed immediately by him saying this
“ Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?”
As if, had they liked him more they would have ruled in his favor.
Im wondering how many significant defeats on topics of great importance conservatives have to be dealt by the court before this notion of politically canny rulings falls apart.
Styrofoam Sammich on
+1
Options
AbsalonLands of Always WinterRegistered Userregular
If Roberts also sides with the good side on June Medical Services (abortion related), that will either demoralize or whip up hard-line republican voters.
Does this mean we get to argue that the decisions this week were really Gorsuch and Roberts playing a long game to motivate republican voters instead of dem voters
The goal isn't to motivate voters (it's possible that their actions may suppress Republican votes as social conservatives see this as a betrayal.) Rather, the goal is to maintain the appearance of the Court as apolitical, especially if they feel 2020 could be a wave election. Right now, that apolitical appearance is keeping political solutions to the Court off the table. It goes, and now things like court packing become viable.
Looks like 5 opinions released. Most of them had consensus between conservatives and liberals, so nothing too exciting.
Thole V US Bank is a case where two people with a pension plan at US bank tried to sue because they allege US bank did a bad job investing for the plan between 2007 and 2010, even though they have received their monthly distributions every month so far. SCOTUS says nice try, but so long as US bank pays them what was agreed, they have no standing to sue.
Puerto rico cases has some long name, but is apparently about the appointment of officials to an oversight board that is working on puerto rico's bankruptcy. The board was appointed by Obama, in the way specified by some law that was created specifically to handle the weird situation (weird because peurto rico isn't a state but isn't a private entity, so nobody was sure how that would affect their bankruptcy). The rub here was whether or not that board needed to get congressional approval of appointees (per some law) or not (per some other law). SCOTUS says they do not need congressional approval.
Nasrallah v Barr is an immigration type case. The US can deport non-citizens if they commit a crime, but the non-citizen can appeal if they are likely to be tortured in their home country. They can apparently appeal many times. First to an immigration judge, then to the CBP, then to a federal court. Then question here is once the appeal reaches federal court, can the federal court look at whether the facts of the case were decided correctly or incorrectly in previous appeals, or just look at whether the ruling was correct (assuming the previous facts were correct). SCOTUS says that the federal court can look at the facts too, but has to be "differential" to the original findings.
Banister v Davis is some ruling about technical details of how appeals work. Like when some clock starts for the limited window to file an appeal. It was very complicated and didn't look to be that far reaching so I didn't read much.
GE v some other company looked extremely boring and I didn't even attempt to read it. Probably some kind of arbitration or contract law dispute.
ThyssenKrupp contracted F.L. Industries to build steel rolling mills for a facility in Alabama. F.L. Industries sub-contracted the production of the motors for the mills to GE Power. Outokumpu took over ownership of the Alabama facility. The motors failed, and when Outokumpu sued GE Power for the failures, GE Power tried to invoke arbitration clauses from the original ThyssenKrupp/F.L. Industries contract. The Supreme Court said "Hold up, neither GE Power nor Outokumpu were parties to the original contract. Arbitration denied!".
These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!
lol.
I'm surprised he didn't outright call them RINOs.
Followed immediately by him saying this
“ Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?”
As if, had they liked him more they would have ruled in his favor.
It wasn't even a ruling on the merits of eliminating DACA. It literally is just the Court pointing out his incompetence at governing.
These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!
lol.
I'm surprised he didn't outright call them RINOs.
Followed immediately by him saying this
“ Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?”
As if, had they liked him more they would have ruled in his favor.
It wasn't even a ruling on the merits of eliminating DACA. It literally is just the Court pointing out his incompetence at governing.
Saw a reporter say the Trump admin is something like 6-for-85 at getting their deregulation justifications past the courts. Turns out it is hard to implement your agenda when you hire incompetent stooges to do it.
AFAIK it means that the Trump Administration's attempt to revoke DACA goes back to square 1.
And this time they have to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed, which normally takes months, so in all likelyhood DACA is safe until the election.
All I can say about the practical consequences is that I don't think rule of law means much to the nativists running ICE
"and the morning stars I have seen
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
Im wondering how many significant defeats on topics of great importance conservatives have to be dealt by the court before this notion of politically canny rulings falls apart.
This is the key to this line of thinking. If they rule a conservative way, it's proof that they were die-hard conservatives all along. If they rule the other way, its ALSO proof that they are die-hard conservatives, who are sneaky.
It doesn't matter what happens. Which means two things
1.The theory of "They are Die-hard conservatives playing 4d chess, and throwing away rulings in a calculated way." is useless for making predictions, because it predicts they will rule either conservative or not-conservative, which is tautologically true.
2. This theory is PERFECT for self-aggrandizing back-patting because it can never be wrong.
AFAIK it means that the Trump Administration's attempt to revoke DACA goes back to square 1.
And this time they have to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed, which normally takes months, so in all likelyhood DACA is safe until the election.
All I can say about the practical consequences is that I don't think rule of law means much to the nativists running ICE
The only real consequence is that Trump & Co. have to actually order DACA ended, which they have been studiously avoiding doing because it polls terribly. Hence the multiple incredibly long legal battles to try and get it removed as a technical mistake on Obama’s part.
These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!
lol.
I'm surprised he didn't outright call them RINOs.
Followed immediately by him saying this
“ Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?”
As if, had they liked him more they would have ruled in his favor.
It wasn't even a ruling on the merits of eliminating DACA. It literally is just the Court pointing out his incompetence at governing.
Saw a reporter say the Trump admin is something like 6-for-85 at getting their deregulation justifications past the courts. Turns out it is hard to implement your agenda when you hire incompetent stooges to do it.
The problem is Trump has stacked federal courts so that these decisions have to work their way up to SCOTUS. So yeah for people with money and time they can fight this bullshit and win, but that's not a luxury for everyone getting screwed by the Trump agenda.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives. We need more Justices or we will lose our 2nd. Amendment & everything else. Vote Trump 2020!
lol.
I'm surprised he didn't outright call them RINOs.
Followed immediately by him saying this
“ Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?”
As if, had they liked him more they would have ruled in his favor.
It wasn't even a ruling on the merits of eliminating DACA. It literally is just the Court pointing out his incompetence at governing.
Saw a reporter say the Trump admin is something like 6-for-85 at getting their deregulation justifications past the courts. Turns out it is hard to implement your agenda when you hire incompetent stooges to do it.
We are very, very fortunate that Trump is incompetent and too lazy to use any of the variety of resources and tools he could use to offset that incompetence to achieve his terrible goals. There are so many Republicans who are alienated or exiled who would happily be somewhat competent evil toadies if he wasn't such a terrible egotistical boss.
If Trump was even moderately competent, the only saving grace would probably be that he's 74 years old and not the best health.
Does this mean we get to argue that the decisions this week were really Gorsuch and Roberts playing a long game to motivate republican voters instead of dem voters
The goal isn't to motivate voters (it's possible that their actions may suppress Republican votes as social conservatives see this as a betrayal.) Rather, the goal is to maintain the appearance of the Court as apolitical, especially if they feel 2020 could be a wave election. Right now, that apolitical appearance is keeping political solutions to the Court off the table. It goes, and now things like court packing become viable.
Well unless Trump wants to pack it!
Packing the court requires full control of Congress and the Executive to pass the enabling law.
Love how he tries to rally his fanbase anytime something goes wrong by saying they're going to take your guns. Obama didn't take your stupid guns, nobody taking away your stupid guns.
Sotomayor was alone in this, but she wanted to grant equal protection grounds to the DACA recipients.
EDIT: The rest of the court rejected this because they say they didn't prove the decision to revoke DACA was due to racial animus. Sotomayor's like, "have you, like, ever listened to the President?"
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
Love how he tries to rally his fanbase anytime something goes wrong by saying they're going to take your guns. Obama didn't take your stupid guns, nobody taking away your stupid guns.
My father in law is a member of the NRA and so he gets their magazine. Every month of the entire Obama presidency their magazine opened with a special word from the NRA president, and pretty much every single one of those messages was about how Obama and the Dems were just about to take away everyone’s guns.
Every month, for 8 years. Lying that Democrats are coming to take all your guns is a reflex for Republicans.
Love how he tries to rally his fanbase anytime something goes wrong by saying they're going to take your guns. Obama didn't take your stupid guns, nobody taking away your stupid guns.
The fact that a few of the most recent SCOTUS decisions did not actively enshrine people as second-class citizens is not really a great argument that the SCOTUS is not significantly captured by conservative justices.
Their decisions have in general been horrific, hence the fucking thread title. I am pleased they did not decide to outright endorse the idea that LGBTQ people don't deserve protection under the law and that they decided the president can't just write "I'm Racist" on a piece of paper if he wants to reverse executive actions, but that's not like a counterpoint or a reversal of Shelby County. This SCOTUS has led to the deterioration of voting rights, union rights, and human rights in the US.
It is silly to try to wave that away as irrelevant because they didn't make the wrong decision every time. Particularly because 3 of them DO make the wrong decision every time, since they're ideologically committed to trying to hurt all of us as much as possible.
I don't think they're playing 4D chess. I think they're a conservative court that has hurt a lot of people and will continue to hurt a lot of people because their decisions are often horrible and the members of the court express horrific opinions that they seem deeply ideologically committed to carrying out.
Love how he tries to rally his fanbase anytime something goes wrong by saying they're going to take your guns. Obama didn't take your stupid guns, nobody taking away your stupid guns.
The fact that a few of the most recent SCOTUS decisions did not actively enshrine people as second-class citizens is not really a great argument that the SCOTUS is not significantly captured by conservative justices.
Their decisions have in general been horrific, hence the fucking thread title. I am pleased they did not decide to outright endorse the idea that LGBTQ people don't deserve protection under the law and that they decided the president can't just write "I'm Racist" on a piece of paper if he wants to reverse executive actions, but that's not like a counterpoint or a reversal of Shelby County. This SCOTUS has led to the deterioration of voting rights, union rights, and human rights in the US.
It is silly to try to wave that away as irrelevant because they didn't make the wrong decision every time. Particularly because 3 of them DO make the wrong decision every time, since they're ideologically committed to trying to hurt all of us as much as possible.
I don't think they're playing 4D chess. I think they're a conservative court that has hurt a lot of people and will continue to hurt a lot of people because their decisions are often horrible and the members of the court express horrific opinions that they seem deeply ideologically committed to carrying out.
I mean thank fuck for Sotomayor.
Basically, the point is that Roberts is walking a fine line of empowering the conservative agenda while maintaining the popular fiction of the court as apolitical, because losing that fig leaf puts political solutions to conservative control of the court (like packing) on the table.
Their decisions have in general been horrific, hence the fucking thread title. I am pleased they did not decide to outright endorse the idea that LGBTQ people don't deserve protection under the law and that they decided the president can't just write "I'm Racist" on a piece of paper if he wants to reverse executive actions, but that's not like a counterpoint or a reversal of Shelby County. This SCOTUS has led to the deterioration of voting rights, union rights, and human rights in the US.
A large part of me hopes that Roberts saw the reality of the GOP party when he ran the impeachment hearing and realized to his own abject horror that Citizen's United basically put us here. Another part of me hopes this week is the court realizing that the majority of Americans are just about out of patience with their legacy of terrible rulings that fuck over said group to either protect niche rural minority blocks, or allow deep pockets to run rampant over the american political process.
That's definitely a pipe dream though, one thing that's become glaringly obvious over the last decade plus is that SC justices are comically out of touch with day to day american life and might as well be considered aristocrats in their own right.
The fact that a few of the most recent SCOTUS decisions did not actively enshrine people as second-class citizens is not really a great argument that the SCOTUS is not significantly captured by conservative justices.
Their decisions have in general been horrific, hence the fucking thread title. I am pleased they did not decide to outright endorse the idea that LGBTQ people don't deserve protection under the law and that they decided the president can't just write "I'm Racist" on a piece of paper if he wants to reverse executive actions, but that's not like a counterpoint or a reversal of Shelby County. This SCOTUS has led to the deterioration of voting rights, union rights, and human rights in the US.
It is silly to try to wave that away as irrelevant because they didn't make the wrong decision every time. Particularly because 3 of them DO make the wrong decision every time, since they're ideologically committed to trying to hurt all of us as much as possible.
I don't think they're playing 4D chess. I think they're a conservative court that has hurt a lot of people and will continue to hurt a lot of people because their decisions are often horrible and the members of the court express horrific opinions that they seem deeply ideologically committed to carrying out.
I mean thank fuck for Sotomayor.
Basically, the point is that Roberts is walking a fine line of empowering the conservative agenda while maintaining the popular fiction of the court as apolitical, because losing that fig leaf puts political solutions to conservative control of the court (like packing) on the table.
To put it another way, if it becomes too obvious that the Court is used to bypass democracy, rather than to protect human rights against democracy, then it will be reformed.
This leads to radical ideas, like packing, where the number of judges increases after every elections (in practice; once one party does it...), or setting the number of member to 0 and asking Richard Wagner if he and his 8 colleagues want a part-time job.
The kind of things Roberts really doesn’t want. Because he has a democracy to bypass.
Posts
DACA continues to exist, and is effectively reinstated. Eliminating it will require crossing all those t's and dotting i's, which will take years to do. Meaning a Biden presidency keeps it alive through 2024 at the earliest, assuming Congress doesn't pass any new immigration laws.
Yup this pretty much guarantees another 3 or so years of DACA because even once all the I's are dotted and T's crossed it still has to go through the whole court process yet again and I don't see the SCOTUS being that hot to fast track it when they do.
AFAIK it means that the Trump Administration's attempt to revoke DACA goes back to square 1.
And this time they have to make sure all the i's are dotted and t's crossed, which normally takes months, so in all likelyhood DACA is safe until the election.
Doing it correctly will take months and then this basically sets the court case back to square one and it will immediately get challenged yet again and have to go through another multi year process before it hits the SCOTUS again.
A lot of that will depend on what kind of halt (injunction?*) is made, when, and how much damage the Trump Admin can do in the meantime.
* IANAL and didn't want to use an incorrect term.
I mean, it wouldn't shock me if Trump's people put up the same exact revocation, with only peripheral changes, and then trying to do as much damage as they can in the meantime. Like signing it late on the 2nd of July, and then doing as many rapid deportations as they can manage before the courts open again on the Monday.
Until this fucker is actually (and likely forcibly) removed from the White House, we shouldn't be underestimating Trump and Miller's craven sliminess.
lol.
I'm surprised he didn't outright call them RINOs.
no.
FFXIV: Tchel Fay
Nintendo ID: Tortalius
Steam: Tortalius
Stream: twitch.tv/tortalius
The goal isn't to motivate voters (it's possible that their actions may suppress Republican votes as social conservatives see this as a betrayal.) Rather, the goal is to maintain the appearance of the Court as apolitical, especially if they feel 2020 could be a wave election. Right now, that apolitical appearance is keeping political solutions to the Court off the table. It goes, and now things like court packing become viable.
Followed immediately by him saying this
“ Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?”
As if, had they liked him more they would have ruled in his favor.
Well unless Trump wants to pack it!
ThyssenKrupp contracted F.L. Industries to build steel rolling mills for a facility in Alabama. F.L. Industries sub-contracted the production of the motors for the mills to GE Power. Outokumpu took over ownership of the Alabama facility. The motors failed, and when Outokumpu sued GE Power for the failures, GE Power tried to invoke arbitration clauses from the original ThyssenKrupp/F.L. Industries contract. The Supreme Court said "Hold up, neither GE Power nor Outokumpu were parties to the original contract. Arbitration denied!".
It wasn't even a ruling on the merits of eliminating DACA. It literally is just the Court pointing out his incompetence at governing.
Saw a reporter say the Trump admin is something like 6-for-85 at getting their deregulation justifications past the courts. Turns out it is hard to implement your agenda when you hire incompetent stooges to do it.
All I can say about the practical consequences is that I don't think rule of law means much to the nativists running ICE
and the gengars who are guiding me" -- W.S. Merwin
This is the key to this line of thinking. If they rule a conservative way, it's proof that they were die-hard conservatives all along. If they rule the other way, its ALSO proof that they are die-hard conservatives, who are sneaky.
It doesn't matter what happens. Which means two things
1.The theory of "They are Die-hard conservatives playing 4d chess, and throwing away rulings in a calculated way." is useless for making predictions, because it predicts they will rule either conservative or not-conservative, which is tautologically true.
2. This theory is PERFECT for self-aggrandizing back-patting because it can never be wrong.
The only real consequence is that Trump & Co. have to actually order DACA ended, which they have been studiously avoiding doing because it polls terribly. Hence the multiple incredibly long legal battles to try and get it removed as a technical mistake on Obama’s part.
twitch.tv/Taramoor
@TaramoorPlays
Taramoor on Youtube
The problem is Trump has stacked federal courts so that these decisions have to work their way up to SCOTUS. So yeah for people with money and time they can fight this bullshit and win, but that's not a luxury for everyone getting screwed by the Trump agenda.
pleasepaypreacher.net
We are very, very fortunate that Trump is incompetent and too lazy to use any of the variety of resources and tools he could use to offset that incompetence to achieve his terrible goals. There are so many Republicans who are alienated or exiled who would happily be somewhat competent evil toadies if he wasn't such a terrible egotistical boss.
If Trump was even moderately competent, the only saving grace would probably be that he's 74 years old and not the best health.
Packing the court requires full control of Congress and the Executive to pass the enabling law.
EDIT: The rest of the court rejected this because they say they didn't prove the decision to revoke DACA was due to racial animus. Sotomayor's like, "have you, like, ever listened to the President?"
My father in law is a member of the NRA and so he gets their magazine. Every month of the entire Obama presidency their magazine opened with a special word from the NRA president, and pretty much every single one of those messages was about how Obama and the Dems were just about to take away everyone’s guns.
Every month, for 8 years. Lying that Democrats are coming to take all your guns is a reflex for Republicans.
Title is still accurate for me, this week nonwithstanding.
What's even funnier is that he openly offered up new gun control laws to bribe Pelosi from moving forward with the Ukraine investigation.
Their decisions have in general been horrific, hence the fucking thread title. I am pleased they did not decide to outright endorse the idea that LGBTQ people don't deserve protection under the law and that they decided the president can't just write "I'm Racist" on a piece of paper if he wants to reverse executive actions, but that's not like a counterpoint or a reversal of Shelby County. This SCOTUS has led to the deterioration of voting rights, union rights, and human rights in the US.
It is silly to try to wave that away as irrelevant because they didn't make the wrong decision every time. Particularly because 3 of them DO make the wrong decision every time, since they're ideologically committed to trying to hurt all of us as much as possible.
I don't think they're playing 4D chess. I think they're a conservative court that has hurt a lot of people and will continue to hurt a lot of people because their decisions are often horrible and the members of the court express horrific opinions that they seem deeply ideologically committed to carrying out.
I mean thank fuck for Sotomayor.
I had forgotten about that :biggrin:
Basically, the point is that Roberts is walking a fine line of empowering the conservative agenda while maintaining the popular fiction of the court as apolitical, because losing that fig leaf puts political solutions to conservative control of the court (like packing) on the table.
A large part of me hopes that Roberts saw the reality of the GOP party when he ran the impeachment hearing and realized to his own abject horror that Citizen's United basically put us here. Another part of me hopes this week is the court realizing that the majority of Americans are just about out of patience with their legacy of terrible rulings that fuck over said group to either protect niche rural minority blocks, or allow deep pockets to run rampant over the american political process.
That's definitely a pipe dream though, one thing that's become glaringly obvious over the last decade plus is that SC justices are comically out of touch with day to day american life and might as well be considered aristocrats in their own right.
This leads to radical ideas, like packing, where the number of judges increases after every elections (in practice; once one party does it...), or setting the number of member to 0 and asking Richard Wagner if he and his 8 colleagues want a part-time job.
The kind of things Roberts really doesn’t want. Because he has a democracy to bypass.