{"id":13725,"date":"2013-12-05T04:14:00","date_gmt":"2013-12-05T04:14:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/consistency-in-judicial-opinions-the-case-of-chief-justice-roberts\/"},"modified":"2013-12-05T04:14:00","modified_gmt":"2013-12-05T04:14:00","slug":"la-coherencia-de-las-opiniones-judiciales-el-caso-del-presidente-del-tribunal-supremo-roberts","status":"publish","type":"article","link":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/es\/articles\/consistency-in-judicial-opinions-the-case-of-chief-justice-roberts\/","title":{"rendered":"La coherencia de las opiniones judiciales: el caso del presidente de la Corte Suprema Roberts"},"template":"","class_list":["post-13725","article","type-article","status-publish","hentry","article_type-blog-post"],"acf":{"details":{"summary":"","featured_image":null,"article_type":1103,"authors":["{\"site_id\":\"1\",\"post_type\":\"person\",\"post_id\":13692}"],"related_issues":[137,2082],"related_work":false,"location":null},"sidebar":{"helper_enable_sidebar":false,"helper_media_contact":{"heading":"Media Contact","manually_enter_person":false,"person":null,"name":"","role":"","phone":"","email":""},"helper_links_downloads":{"heading":"Links & Downloads","links":null}},"page_layout":[{"acf_fc_layout":"layout_wysiwyg","_acfe_flexible_toggle":null,"component_wysiwyg":{"content":"

(Esta publicaci\u00f3n se public\u00f3 como art\u00edculo de opini\u00f3n en The MetroWest Daily News, haga clic aqu\u00ed<\/a>.)<\/strong><\/em><\/p>

There are many qualities that excellent justices require. First is what is called the judicial temperament; that is, according to the American Bar Association, \"compassion, decisiveness, open-mindedness, sensitivity, courtesy, patience, freedom from bias and commitment to equal justice.\" Second must be a thorough knowledge of the law. But neither of these are of much use unless the judge shows consistency; consistency in outcomes for similar cases, consistency in the logic used to reach those outcomes, and consistency in what is and what is not allowed to influence the decisions.<\/p>

Si estas caracter\u00edsticas son deseables en un juez de primera instancia, cu\u00e1nto m\u00e1s necesarias son en un juez de la Corte Suprema de los Estados Unidos. Sin embargo, el Presidente de la Corte Suprema Roberts ha demostrado carecer de coherencia en el razonamiento que sustenta sus decisiones. Necesitamos hacer una comparaci\u00f3n minuciosa entre el caso McCutcheon, recientemente decidido (McCutcheon et al. contra la Comisi\u00f3n Federal Electoral<\/em><\/a>, 2014) y un caso de Arizona decidido en 2011 (Arizona Free Enterprise Club's PAC et al. versus Bennett, Secretary of State of Arizona, et al.<\/em><\/a>, 2011).<\/p>

En McCutcheon,<\/em> Roberts deja muy claro que la especulaci\u00f3n sobre lo que podr\u00eda ocurrir (como la canalizaci\u00f3n de fondos excesivos a un candidato o partido a trav\u00e9s de un complejo de comit\u00e9s) es irrelevante para decidir la cuesti\u00f3n. En este caso, s\u00f3lo los hechos verificables que realmente ocurrieron pueden considerarse como prueba. Escribe:<\/p>

\"And\" importantly\" we \"have never accepted mere conjecture as adequate to carry a First Amendment burden.\" Nixon contra el Comit\u00e9 de Acci\u00f3n Pol\u00edtica (PAC) Shrink Missouri Government<\/a><\/em>, 528 U. S. 377, 392 (2000).\"<\/p>

Lo que est\u00e1 diciendo aqu\u00ed es que hay que tener un argumento s\u00f3lido y basado en hechos para tomar una decisi\u00f3n que afecte a la libertad de expresi\u00f3n. De hecho, ya existen comit\u00e9s conjuntos de este tipo y los cabilderos de Washington como Covington & Burling lo est\u00e1n celebrando:<\/p>

\"we expect today's decision will increase the political power of Members of Congress who have a strong relationship with high net worth donors. We also expect it to increase the influence of major donors.\"<\/p>

Sin embargo, en Libre empresa de Arizona<\/em>, he took a quite different tack. The Arizona law provided public financing to candidates whose opponents exceeded a threshold amount of private funding. At first glance, this would appear to fulfill the requirement that more speech (or money in Robert's view) in an election is better. However, Chief Justice Roberts speculated that the existence of the threshold would create a disincentive for privately financed candidates to raise and spend as much as they could because this would trigger an additional public financing for opponents. Thus the law inhibits, according to Roberts, the free speech of the privately financed candidates. Here speculation, based on very little evidence other than affidavits from political candidates stating that they believed that if public funding were available, they would have been unable to raise money, is admitted as a fundamental rationale for the striking down of the Arizona law.<\/p>

It would nice if Chief Justice Roberts was consistent in his rejection of speculation in these cases. Just as it would have been nice if he had upheld the doctrine of \"stare decisis,\" which he promised to do at his confirmation hearings.<\/p>

El juez Roberts no es confiable. El pueblo estadounidense merece algo mejor del presidente de la Corte Suprema de Estados Unidos.<\/p>

Martin Evans es miembro de la junta directiva de Common Cause Massachusetts. <\/em><\/p>"}}]},"yoast_head":"\nConsistency in Judicial Opinions: The Case of Chief Justice Roberts - Common Cause<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/es\/articulos-2\/la-coherencia-de-las-opiniones-judiciales-el-caso-del-presidente-del-tribunal-supremo-roberts\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"es_MX\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Consistency in Judicial Opinions: The Case of Chief Justice Roberts\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/es\/articulos-2\/la-coherencia-de-las-opiniones-judiciales-el-caso-del-presidente-del-tribunal-supremo-roberts\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Common Cause\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CommonCause\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/CC-Share-Graphic-Main9.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"630\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@CommonCause\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/consistency-in-judicial-opinions-the-case-of-chief-justice-roberts\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/consistency-in-judicial-opinions-the-case-of-chief-justice-roberts\/\",\"name\":\"Consistency in Judicial Opinions: The Case of Chief Justice Roberts - Common Cause\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2013-12-05T04:14:00+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/consistency-in-judicial-opinions-the-case-of-chief-justice-roberts\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/consistency-in-judicial-opinions-the-case-of-chief-justice-roberts\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/consistency-in-judicial-opinions-the-case-of-chief-justice-roberts\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Consistency in Judicial Opinions: The Case of Chief Justice Roberts\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/\",\"name\":\"Common Cause\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"es\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Common Cause\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"es\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Common-Cause-Logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Common-Cause-Logo.png\",\"width\":2066,\"height\":331,\"caption\":\"Common Cause\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CommonCause\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/CommonCause\",\"https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/ourcommoncause\/\"]}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"La coherencia en las opiniones judiciales: el caso del presidente de la Corte Suprema Roberts - Common Cause","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/es\/articulos-2\/la-coherencia-de-las-opiniones-judiciales-el-caso-del-presidente-del-tribunal-supremo-roberts\/","og_locale":"es_MX","og_type":"article","og_title":"Consistency in Judicial Opinions: The Case of Chief Justice Roberts","og_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/es\/articulos-2\/la-coherencia-de-las-opiniones-judiciales-el-caso-del-presidente-del-tribunal-supremo-roberts\/","og_site_name":"Common Cause","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CommonCause","og_image":[{"width":1200,"height":630,"url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/10\/CC-Share-Graphic-Main9.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_site":"@CommonCause","schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/consistency-in-judicial-opinions-the-case-of-chief-justice-roberts\/","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/consistency-in-judicial-opinions-the-case-of-chief-justice-roberts\/","name":"La coherencia en las opiniones judiciales: el caso del presidente de la Corte Suprema Roberts - Common Cause","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#website"},"datePublished":"2013-12-05T04:14:00+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/consistency-in-judicial-opinions-the-case-of-chief-justice-roberts\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"es","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/consistency-in-judicial-opinions-the-case-of-chief-justice-roberts\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/articles\/consistency-in-judicial-opinions-the-case-of-chief-justice-roberts\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Consistency in Judicial Opinions: The Case of Chief Justice Roberts"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/","name":"Causa com\u00fan","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"es"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#organization","name":"Causa com\u00fan","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"es","@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Common-Cause-Logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/05\/Common-Cause-Logo.png","width":2066,"height":331,"caption":"Common Cause"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/CommonCause","https:\/\/x.com\/CommonCause","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/ourcommoncause\/"]}]}},"distributor_meta":false,"distributor_terms":false,"distributor_media":false,"distributor_original_site_name":"Common Cause","distributor_original_site_url":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/es","push-errors":false,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/13725","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/article"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/article\/13725\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.commoncause.org\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=13725"}],"curies":[{"name":"Gracias","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}