Republican admission Supreme Court just political tool, would anger Chief Justice Roberts.

There is no precedent for what Republicans are doing to delay the nomination of Obama's justice pick. The fact that they've come clean, like it wasn't obvious with all the GOP lawsuits in front of the court, they expected a certain, activist outcome, and got it most of the time.

Chief Justice John Roberts noticed, and said what most of us have been saying for centuries. The trolls will be bumping into walls after this one...:

Ten days before Justice Antonin Scalia died, launching the political battle over who would fill his vacancy, Chief Justice John Roberts delivered a speech slamming the Supreme Court nomination process. In remarks at Boston's New England Law, The New York Times reportsthat Roberts denounced the politicization of the process that he says is really just meant to ensure that nominees are qualified for the job.

"We don't work as Democrats or Republicans," the chief justice said, "and I think it's a very unfortunate impression the public might get from the confirmation process."

Roberts pointed out that while nominees back in his day were easily confirmed, the last three justices — Samuel Alito Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan — have all faced split votes from the Senate. "Look at my more recent colleagues, all extremely well qualified for the court and the votes were, I think, strictly on party lines for the last three of them, or close to it, and that doesn't make any sense," Roberts said. "That suggests to me that the process is being used for something other than ensuring the qualifications of the nominees."

President Obama nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court last week, despite Republicans' promises that they will deny any Obama nominee in favor of letting the next president fill the vacancy. 

Believe it or not, Justice John Roberts echoes Glenn Grothman on Affirmative Action Ban!

You’re always hearing Republicans talk about that state’s rights thing, and how every state is different, so who needs the federal governments overbearing one-size-fits-all interference?

Thanks to the Supreme Court’s decision today, the more things change, the more they stay the same in Republican world. Add banning affirmative action to the list.

Let’s face it, Republican have a national one-size-fits-all agenda that includes trashing Common Core, wiping out teachers unions, killing public education, promoting vouchers, defunding higher education, deregulating business, corporate tax cuts, corporate welfare, streamlining DNR permitting, vaginal probes, activist conservative judges, voter suppression…what part of that makes each state different?

It doesn't. It’s a national policy duplicated in every red state.

Take State Sen. Glenn Grothman’s latest idea, stolen from Michigan’s own constitutional law banning affirmative action:

jsonline: In the wake of Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision, one Wisconsin lawmaker is pledging legislation to ban affirmative action policies in the state. State senator and congressional candidate Glenn Grothman, a Republican from West Bend, said he would seek to bring back such legislation, which he has proposed in the past without success.

Grothman pointed to state and federal contracts going to businesses owned by women and minorities or to businesses with certain hiring or subcontracting practices for those groups. Those kinds of requirements and targets are "divisive."

You know something is wrong when Glenn Grothman is giving us the same argument as Justice John Roberts. You read that right:

Justice Roberts: "...it is not “out of touch with reality” to conclude that racial preferences may themselves have the debilitating effect of reinforcing precisely that doubt, and—if so—that the preferences do more harm than good."