John Roberts on the Most Insignificant Justice Ever

[@jpsartrean]

As a law student/geek - this was HILARIOUS.

[@UtubeCliche]

I may not agree with him in most things. But Chief Justice Roberts is brilliant and will likely go down as a non-insignificant justice

[@stephenabm]

He has proven to be a very good Chief justice.

[@writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, ForaTv.

[@cangeloc127]

Way to go, Chief Justice John Roberts. Thank you very much for that humorous presentation of a certain segment of American judicial history.

[@charleshoskinsoncrypto]

What particular decisions are you opposed to? What particular opinions are you clamming are terrible?

[@macmacreynolds8712]

If you look at the portrait of Justice Duvall, he looks like an elderly Rod Stewart! LOL

[@66gtb]

@urwhatthewho SO very clever...well done!

[@Einsteinbomb]

Don't agree with him and the rest of the Conservatives on the court, but he is quite intelligent and knows his law.

[@Zuliris1]

Why do all you people think that corporations and the people are on different sides?

[@OutsidrArtst]

Chief Corporatist of the Supreme Court.

[@66gtb]

This may come as news to you but the court is not "for the people", "the government" or "the corporation". It is only to determine if something is constitutional....my nine year old knows this.

[@jadedstu]

Read it again. Ask an attorney to help you.

[@jadedstu]

Have you ever read Article III before...?

[@miguelin97223]

SEAN: Three weeks ago, you wrote that Roberts could administer more Presidential oaths than anyone else. Will he always get the oaths wrong in public and then have to give it again in private to fix his mistake? That's what he's done so far - maybe that's his strategy. He's already given 1.5 oaths!!!!

[@RobertHannah89]

So is your theory that Roberts decided to give up his $1 million/ year job to be a federal judge with a salary of $176,000? How devious...

[@jadedstu]

That's your problem, then. You're still wrong.

[@haldonrichardson1]

Think about this: Each citizen in our republic now has one vote. Each person has one voice. Each person is guaranteed freedom of speech. Where in the US Constitution does it say that money = speech?? It does not. This right wing activist court, in an effort to afford their political cronies more power, equates money with speech: someone with more money to have more speech. We need to amend the constitution to make it a felony to contribute more than $1 to a candidate for any office.

[@Kolef88]

JR rocks

[@jadedstu]

Yeah, that isn't relevant; an amendment wasn't required to create the Supreme Court. It's in the plain text of Article III.

[@plasticine86]

He's a chief justice, who are you?

[@miguelin97223]

John G. Roberts JUNIOR: you flubbed a 35-word oath, man! You know, on an open-book test, you get no extra points for faulty memorization.

[@DarkReapersGrim]

@Jujuman2003 Liberalism! The Beauty Of America!

[@mittdanfellixc.dasilva9109]

Demais

[@dollaresque]

Great history made cool :)

[@willsjaime]

This is actually quite witty.

[@markluffel]

I was -1 on Roberts, knowing only that GWB liked him. Having seen this video I'm now +1.

[@jadedstu]

I'm sure your time is so valuable; you're spending it arguing over an extremely minor point with another commenter on KZbin. Find a constitutional law textbook if you don't trust attorneys (lolconspiracy) to give you an accurate account as to whether Article III creates the Supreme Court by itself.

[@Snoopz0087]

@haldonrichardson1 Certainly you would agree that a celebrity has more of a voice than an unknown American such as you or I. The words of James Madison and Thomas Jefferson have lived over two centuries while the writings of other, less-prominent, Americans from that time period have not. Freedom of Speech Does Not Mean Equality of Speech.

[@66gtb]

Where did good old HENRY go? Read the second amendment...HENRY. Please tell us what you think it means HENRY.

[@stephenabm]

@RationaIAthiest Flag burning is part of free speech, but many people (conservatives and liberals) are bothered by this act. I am a veteran and understand their anger over it. I am opposed to a amendment to ban this act, but many want it. A judge has taken an oath to make decisions based on the rule of law (constitution), so that should answer your question. There should never be personal opinions in these decisions.

[@stephenabm]

@RationaIAthiest They have and it is very wrong - it should be based on the rule of law, as we are a country of laws and not of men. We are a Republic to which it stands.

[@admiralmachine]

So funny!

[@VictoriaBruno]

ur umm nephew is in my class

[@thelonedissenter]

lol!

[@philonaut662]

two words! ha!

[@albertvenndicey]

Neothomist1275, Bullsit. The Supreme Court is the only court existing ex constitutio. It cannot neither be established by Congress, nor be abolished by Congress. Read Art. III of the Constitution.

[@sklanger]

LOL, Roberts' dry wit at work.

[@hannityforpres]

Thank you, Mr. Bush, for giving us Alito and Roberts, Im afraid of what the democrats will do if they win, though.

[@sklanger]

LOL, Roberts' dry wit at work.