If you though that Supreme Court Chief Judge John Roberts has rehabilitated himself after the monumental betrayal of his Obamacare opinion that mandatory forced coverage would be viewed as a tax, horrified any sincere conservative, think again. This appalling action has been viewed as a response of being blackmailed to a concealed acceptance of the totalitarian collectivism of Federal Government supremacy. Whatever the tipping point reason, the result is that any platitude that the courts are the defenders of the rule of law is a sad and very sick joke. The prevalent paradigm on judges that society is instructed to accept as gospel, stresses that the profession is the safeguard arbitrator of constitutional law.
In reality the magistrates are autocrats that apply strict enforcement dictates to the judicial charade. Protecting individual civil rights fall short when the supreme injustices, no matter their ideological bent, pronounce from on high, legal opinions that usually contradict the original intent of the American Revolution.
Dara Lind in the left leaning Vox publication article, John Roberts is mad at Trump for attacking an “Obama judge” opines.
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in the statement (which was sent by the Supreme Court in response to an inquiry from the Associated Press). “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
The statement itself sounds like boilerplate. And it is. The remarkable thing is that it was issued at all.”
Roberts’s statement, certainly unfit for a confirmation hearing begs the issue. Just who does he think he is and by what authority (other than claimed by him) does he usurp? No one ever elected him to a Federal Judgeship.
So when Trump lashes back in President Trump Refuses to Back Down – Takes it to Chief Justice Roberts, he is acting consistent with his America First viewpoint.
“TRUMP: Justice Roberts can say what he wants, but the 9th Circuit is a complete & total disaster. It is out of control, has a horrible reputation, is overturned more than any Circuit in the Country, 79%, & is used to get an almost guaranteed result. Judges must not Legislate Security…”
View the video SCOTUS Roberts stands AGAINST Americans for a detailed analysis on Roberts.
An essay, John Roberts Is the Supreme Court’s New Swing Justice in the progressive TruthDig by Bill Blum presents an assessment based upon flawed liberal ideology.
“At a macro level, it means that the conservative legal movement, headed by think tanks and organizations like The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation, has finally achieved the solid 5-4 majority it has craved for decades.
More concretely, it means that a host of liberal precedents crafted by the high court since the New Deal are in jeopardy of being overturned or substantially weakened. Among the most vulnerable are the court’s landmark decisions in the areas of abortion, affirmative action, workers’ rights and employment discrimination, antitrust, and environmental protection.”
While the headline for this column has merit, the true danger is that jurist Roberts, by chastising President Trump is more likely to be the next Chief Justice Earl Warren. The fantasy that a conservative tribunal can and will correct the ills of generations of judicial tyranny is a false aspiration. In essence allowing the courts to be the ultimate jurisdiction elevates the esquire class of authoritarians over all other citizens.
Certifying laws does not create rights. Natural rights are not up for discretion, nor do judges have the legitimate power to neither designate a new nor eliminate an inherent birthright. The best method to cleanse the underlying conflicts that are routinely demonstrated by the courts is to prohibit attorneys from being elected or appointed as judges. Lawyers are comrades of the bar and in practice are protected as made members of the barrister crime syndicate.
John Roberts cannot be trusted to uphold his oath of office. He obviously would object to any serious effort to curtail the judicial overreach of the 9th Circuit. Insulting the American public with arguments that the courts need to be independent in their decision deliberation is nothing but a rationalization that the Federal Courts must maintain their untouchable status and the Supremes be accepted as the absolute authority.
No one should be surprised when “so called” conservative judges evolve into closet liberal interpreters when the culture sinks even deeper into a cesspool of arbitrary relativism. Since the libtards have adopted radical lobbying of judges using the most vile intimidation techniques and tactics, the prospects for a constructive reform of the judiciary are unlikely.
The progressives want greater latitude for judges to make law under a “living constitution”. Unfortunately, balanced and traditional jurists who acknowledge restraint and strict constitutional standards for review of case law are subject to collegial resentment as their fellow bench potentates keep pushing the liberal envelope to even higher levels of absurdities.
The essay, Who Is John Roberts to Judge Trump?, by Daniel J. Flynn in The American Spectator provides a valuable historic account of previous political criticism of the courts.
“A chief justice weighing in on political matters through a prepared statement seems as the extraordinary part of all this. In injecting himself into the rough-and-tumble of Washington, Roberts validates Trump’s criticism. Defending the judicial branch as detached from politics in such a political manner seems self-refuting.
Trump finds himself in good company in criticizing rulings from the federal bench. One president went further — and did so by criticizing John Marshall, a man who served longer in John Roberts’s position than any other.
“To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy,” Thomas Jefferson, coming out on the wrong side of Marbury v. Madison, reflected after his presidency. “Our judges are as honest as other men and not more so. They have with others the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.”
John Glover Roberts Jr., you are a lingering collaborator and a member of the legal quisling clan that will look after your own solicitors before ever defending an American citizen.