Chief Justice John Roberts

Ah do declare that he was my favorite gentleman caller. He was most appreciative of my prize winning lemon bars.

Hot daddy, Red Dragon cheese and frosting eater.

Married very late. Adopted two kids.

Chief Justice John Roberts is a closeted homophobic queen.

Please pass the quiche.

Even his dissent was SO GAY!

Loser Libertarian. It's not his fault. All of NW Indiana is a toxic chemical cesspool.

Cruising the Supreme Court hallways...

Isn't his sister a lez?

r7, that pic is hilarious

Guuuuuuurl

Yes, John Roberts is gay. Find the two guys in this photo--and they will tell you for sure. That guuurl is fooling no one.

Roberts is a the worst kind of closet queen.

^ So many cookies being sniffed in that picture

bump

In the closet as far as the general population is concerned (and many probably wouldn't even know who he is), but among certain circles in DC, people know his story.

What is his story, r14? Scat queen? Fister? Cross-dressing? Or just plain ol' vanilla farmboy sex on the hay stacks?

r14, details please! Is he in into rent boys like much of the DC gay elite?

That's the rumor, OP.

But if he is gay, he certainly didn't rule in favor of gay marriage yesterday.

Maybe he was worried about being found out by the social conservatives.

He keeps to himself, but he sure does like the freshly baked plate of cookies sotomayor brings in from time to time

r17, that makes more sense compared to his bogus dissent about the "the blowing winds" bullshit.

For whatever reason, Roberts is willing to back Obamacare, but not gay marriage.

D.C. rent boys, where are you?

Aspergers. Nightmares on dates.

Same for POTUS hopeful John Kasich. Repugs found him a wife at age 45, then turkey-basted her with twins.

He pings to me, too, and I think he's a handsome man.

I was very surprised that he didn't vote for gay marriage, especially considering he attempted to couch it as sexual discrimination, rather than sexual preference. If you read his dissent, though, he oddly seems to be imply that gays SHOULD be able to get married, but there just isn't a constitutional justification for it, so he voted against it. It was a curious dissent.

"Aspergers. Nightmares on dates."

Are you speaking from personal experience?

Apparently

I haven't read Roberts' ruling, but I'm curious what he had to say about the first question: Whether same sex marriages performed elsewhere should be recognized in a state that doesn't allow their residents to gay marry. (This is a separate question from whether there is a fundamental right to marry same sex.) What did he say about this first question?

r7 wins

Er, I meant Roberts' dissent.

[quote]Maybe he was worried about being found out by the social conservatives.

Conservatives have hated him ever since he voted in favor of Affordable Care Act. Ann Coulter hated him before he was appointed and wrote a column ripping him apart.

r26. He implies that he agrees with the majority, but that it wasn't something the court should have decided.

Thanks, r30. Then Roberts makes no sense to me, since this issue can only be addressed as a matter of federal jurisdiction.

r26

The Supreme Court has never applied the Full Faith and Credit Clause to marriage.

R31 - he thinks it's a matter for Congress, not the courts.

Asperger's seems like a ridiculous theory to me - you don't get to that level of achievement without (among other things) social skills.

R26, you COULD of course bother to read the easily accessed ruling and dissents, and not ask others to do the homework you're wondering about but are too lazy to do.

And, of course, the order of the questions, through the proceedings, have been set in the opposite order of what you insist on. But I'll respond, as the price of my pissiness at your being such a typical little nimnuts.

Roberts focused on the main issue, Question 1, and with the Court finding a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, thanks to the 14th Amendment, Question 2 really didn't matter, to him or anyone else. Question 2 mattered only if the first issue was not settled in favor of our equal right to due process.

Thanks, r34. I assumed others would have already read the opinion and could toss off an terse one or two sentence summary without being a pedantic cunt. Apparently I was only partially correct (see r33).

[quote]I was very surprised that he didn't vote for gay marriage,

Anyone surprised by that should retire from the SCOTUS prognostication game.

[quote]If you read his dissent, though, he oddly seems to be imply that gays SHOULD be able to get married

No, he really didn't. Rather, he put words in to invite you to read him that way but if you've paid attention to what a shameless fucking liar and poser the man is, you'd see how insincere those words are. It doesn't take 29 pages to say "I would vote at the ballot box to extend marriage rights to same sex couples, I just don't believe it's the place of the Supreme Court to dictate that outcome for the entire country." It's a game to him. He loves it when he gets an opportunity to act reasonable (notice how rarely this happens with him as the deciding vote), and gain the approval of the mainstream that so desperately wants to believe he's not the intellectually dishonest, politically motivated hack any "just calling strikes and balls" analysis would conclude him to be. It doesn't matter that the right wing freaks out at him at those points, because he's smart enough to know that generating some disgust from that quarter just gives his right wing opinions (aka most of them) more legitimacy.

I think the only reason he sounded conciliatory at oral arguments was because he was pretty certain Kennedy would vote for gay marriage and so assumed that this was the case he would use as a sop to the left. Roberts would join for a 6-3 majority, possibly assigning the opinion to himself and this would help salve the wound he intended to deliver to the ACA. But Kennedy fucked him over by voting to save ACA, so Roberts switched his vote on that case instead, joined for a 6-3 majority, assigned himself the opinion (and still managed to toss a sop to the idiot architects of the plaintiffs' case), and was free to vote his true beliefs on gay marriage. It's all a scam. The man knows he is a fucking fraud and he doesn't care because he believes in the righteousness of his outcomes.

If you want an example of what "this is a dumb law, but it's not the Supreme Court's job to change it" looks like, check out Clarence Thomas' dissent in Lawrence v. Texas.

Kennedy's opinion was so poignant and logical, that anyone who disagrees with it could be termed a homophobe.

Or a closet case.

What's the deal with his wife?

knowing beard. $$$$$$$$

Pings in person. Somewhat handsome (not trollish but not movie star looks either). Not sure what the story is with his wife, whether it's a lavender marriage or just on his part.

r40, when did you meet him?

He does look good for 60.

I read on the Deep Dark Web that he frequents a certain establishment on K Street.

[quote]Pings in person. Somewhat handsome (not trollish but not movie star looks either). Not sure what the story is with his wife, whether it's a lavender marriage or just on his part.

Perhaps it's similar to the Hastert marriage?

I wonder if he is getting blackmailed by ex-tricks....

Although I'm glad the SCOTUS approved gay marriage, and Kennedy's opinion had some lovely passages in it, I wish that it hadn't all been made to have been about recognizing "love." To me, love had nothing to do with it. Marriage had nothing to do with it. For me, it was a clear case of equal rights, period. I think all this "love wins" nonsense obscures the fact that gays were being denied equality. If Kennedy's opinion discussed this more than "I just want to be loved, is that so wrong", it would have better-set the stage for the upcoming battles of getting housing and job protection. I almost wonder if NOT support equality was part of the reason Kennedy's opinion didn't address that.

Roberts, schmoberts! Let's talk about COLTON HAYNES!

He loves whips And chains

One important question about Roberts:

Top or bottom?

My bet is insatiable bottom. Likes it doggy style.

Stupid pig.

[R6] is correct. I'm from NW Indiana (still live here, hoping to move to Indianapolis next year), and we're known for pretty much these things:

1. the "ghetto trio" of Gary, Hammond, and East Chicago 2. industrialism, albeit a very fast-declining one 3. being Chicago suburbs 4. generic quality of life 5. being the only solidly blue county in an otherwise generally red state

I'm from Calumet City and I loved Hammond. The best Goldblatt's was there.

Don't forget floods and dunes

Does anyone else recall a DLer who said Roberts either cruised or tried to pick him up in DC, I think at or around Dupont Circle?

JR: trembling, half-clothed frottage is probably the limit of his homosex experience.

Wolf Lake, isn't that near the storm drain the homosex murderers stuffed the boys body?

[R52]: Isn't that from a bygone era? My Mom used to talk about Goldblatts, and she said that closed down in the 70s or so.

[[R55]]: Nah, John Roberts comes off as the insatiable bottom type.

Regardless, he is a very handsome man.

Is he a tinymeat bottom like me?

[[R59]]: No doubt. He comes off as the Cary Grant or Robert Redford type in terms of looks. He has that "classical man" look.

He's a cute dude.

I bet he got lots of dick back in the day

R7 You make a good argument...