John Roberts just PROVED Trump’s point: The Supreme Court IS politicized

The National Sentinel ^ | 6/27/19 | Jon Dougherty

[SleeperCatcher]

If you are a Cabinet official in a presidential administration, and you hear a majority of Supreme Court justices actually say that a regulation, rule, or policy you implemented was not unconstitutional, not against federal law, and well within your purview to issue, you would rightly assume that the high court was going to issue a ruling in your favor.

But then, you might not be taking into consideration two things: Chief Justice John Roberts and his disdain for the current occupant of the Oval Office, President Donald Trump.

Thanks to Roberts, who was appointed by an establishment ‘conservative’ president, George W. Bush, the Census Bureau will likely not be able to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census because…well, because.

On Thursday, Roberts voted with the liberals on the high court in a 5-4 ruling that did not claim the Commerce Department’s decision to include a citizenship question in the census next year was unconstitutional or that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross exceeded his authority when it decided to respond to another agency’s request to include it.

Rather, as Roberts wrote for the majority, Commerce just didn’t justify the reason for adding the question good enough. Or something like that.

“The Secretary’s decision to reinstate a citizenship question is amenable to review for compliance with those and other provisions of the Census Act, according to the general requirements of reasoned agency decision making,” Roberts wrote in his opinion. “At the heart of this suit is respondents’ claim that the Secretary abused his discretion in deciding to reinstate a citizenship question.

“Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision. In the Secretary’s telling, Commerce was simply acting on a routine data request from another agency,” he continued.

Well, so what? That’s not the question before the court.

In fact, the purpose of federal courts and especially the Supreme Court is to determine whether an administrative act by the government is both legal and constitutional. And Ross’ decision clearly was, as the dissenters wrote in their separate opinion.

Re census citizenship q, what a dumbfounding opinion. SCOTUS says citizenship q is constitutional. SCOTUS says Sec Ross made a reasonable decision to include it, reasonably explained. Yet SCOTUS doesn't allow it bc it doesn't believe in stated rationale https://t.co/zxKNf9WEsN pic.twitter.com/PkRZkdNFag

— Benjamin Weingarten (@bhweingarten) June 27, 2019

Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch argue in their dissent the Supreme Court’s only role was to determine whether Commerce Secretary Ross was breaking the law by including a question about citizenship; and a majority on the court found he did not break the law in doing so.

“The Court’s erroneous decision in this case is bad enough, as it unjustifiably interferes with the 2020 census. But the implications of today’s decision are broader. With today’s decision, the Court has opened a Pandora’s box of pretext-based challenges in administrative law,” they wrote.

“In short, today’s decision is a departure from traditional principles of administrative law. Hopefully it comes to be understood as an aberration—a ticket good for this day and this train only,” they continued.

“Because the Secretary’s decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census was legally sound and a reasoned exercise of his broad discretion, I respectfully dissent from Part V of the opinion of the Court,” they concluded.

Once again Roberts came to his conclusion — the one he believes is right for our country — first, then crafted a decision to support his preconceived conclusion…just like he did when he twisted logic, the law, and the English language to rule that Obamacare was a “tax” and within Congress’ authority (when it was no such thing — even Obama said so).

Because the census forms are set to be printed July 1, according to reports, there is virtually no way that this issue will be settled by a lower court in time for this decade’s census.

Roberts knows that. So it means even if the high court eventually does side with the administration on this, it’ll be another 10 years before the question can be asked — and obviously Roberts is betting that whoever is president for the 2030 Census won’t care or will oppose the question altogether.

A highly political ruling, then.

In November, Roberts pushed back against POTUS Donald Trump’s very accurate statement that “Obama judges” were improperly ruling that his Executive Branch immigration policies were not legal or constitution. The president implied very plainly that federal judges are essentially political appointees, and he was absolutely right (having appointed several himself by then, based purely on political ideology).

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement released by the court’s public information office. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

Yes, we do, Chief Justice Roberts. We always have.

And the longer you’re on the bench, the more you prove it with your decisions.

[jmaroneps37]

Is Roberts being blackmailed?

https://bigleaguepolitics.com/brennan-and-clapper-accused-of-hacking-john-roberts-to-blackmail-him/

https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a36019/the-true-story/

https://spookdblog.blogspot.com/2018/11/chief-justice-roberts-blackmailed.html

NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE’S CHILDREN
Drudge Report ^ | August 3, 2005 | Matt Drudge

Posted on 8/4/2005, 11:48:41 AM by kennedy
XXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU AUG 04, 2005 11:35:09 ET XXXXX
NY TIMES INVESTIGATES ADOPTION RECORDS OF SUPREME COURT NOMINEE’S CHILDREN
**Exclusive**
The DRUDGE REPORT has uncovered a plot in the NEW YORK TIMES’ newsroom to look into the adoption of the children of Supreme Court Nominee John G. Roberts.
The TIMES has investigative reporter Glen Justice hot on the case to investigate adoption records of Judge Roberts’ two young children, Josie age 5 and Jack age 4, a top source reveals.
Judge Roberts and his wife Jane adopted the children when they each were infants.
Both children were adopted from Latin America.
A TIMES insider claims the look into the adoptions are part of the paper’s “standard background check.”
Roberts’ young son Jack delighted millions of Americans during his father’s Supreme Court nomination announcement ceremony when he wouldn’t stop dancing while the President and his father spoke to a national television audience.
Previously the WASHINGTON POST Style section had published a story criticizing the outfits Josie’s and Jack’s mother had them wear at the announcement ceremony.
One top Washington official with knowledge of the NEW YORK TIMES’ plans declared: “Trying to pry into the lives of the Roberts’ family like this is despicable. Children’s lives should be off limits. The TIMES is putting politics over fundamental decency.”
One top Republican official when told of the situation was incredulous. “This can’t possibly be true?”
Developing...
https://the-fringe.com/thread-audio_proof_john_roberts_was_blackmailed_into_changing_his_vote_on_obamacare

[KavMan]

Once TRUMP appoints another Justice, he should make a deal with Democrats to help him get rid of Roberts & we'll give them Merrick Garland

Teach Roberts & the other Justices a lesson

[Bobalu]

Trump always gets revenge...

I wonder what this will cause him to do?

[Yo-Yo]

“For the first time ever, the court invalidates an agency action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale,”

It may be the first time for the Supreme Court, but it's not the first time ever for a federal court to do so.

Questioning the motive behind the completely lawful executive order restricting travel from designated countries was precisely the reason given by federal judges in staying that travel ban order.

The Supreme Court ended up upholding the travel ban in those cases, so why would Roberts question motivation behind a lawful act in this case?

I agree with Justice Alito, the only test is is the action lawful or is it not lawful. The motivation behind the action doesn't matter.

[bigbob]

Your pal Dougherty is full of shit.

[Rockingham]

I have no doubt that the judges on almost all courts have two primary topics of casual conversation: gossip about judges and lawyers; and gossip and comments about politics. At least that is what the judges whom I have known have told me.

[Pikachu_Dad]

Clearly so !

[bigbob]

I’ll tell you:

He will instruct Commerce to add the requested reasoning/explanation into the Census form and continue on. The plantiffs will of course have to sue to prevent this and they will do so where a district court judge will enjoin the question from being added.

Normall the Trump Administration would have to go to the court of appeals, but given the urgency of the Census they will seek a writ of certiorari before judgment (immediate SCOTUS review}.

This was NOT a defeat, it was a “Do-Over”. That’s exactly what Trump will do, and then the Scotus will have to decide once and for all.

[magna carta]

I believe he is a two-faced sodomist which explains his neither here nor there rulings

[rockrr]

Well, I wasn’t one of those who said you were nuts about Roberts, but...

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=pee+wee+sorry

[monkeyshine]

It was actually the gerrymander case that showed very clearly there are “GOP” and “DEM” justices. The vote went 5-4 exactly by party. The GOP justices in classic Republican form chose to leave the political question to the marketplace of ideas in the states. The DEM justices wanted to impose a central/federal standard for drawing Congressional districts.

[House Atreides]

I believe he is a two-faced sodomist which explains his neither here nor there rulings
***************************************************
Involving either a dead or underage boy. Roberts disgusts me.

[kabar]

Yes, all persons are included including green card holders and illegals.

[ontap]

Roberts is what rinos call conservative....I feel dirty having voted for both Bushes!!!

[Colo9250]

That would be great! I believe that the Times dug up the truth on Roberts adoption and are sitting on the results which are being used to blackmail him.

[maxwellsmart_agent]

The citizenship question just proved that the Supreme Court is politicized. If it were not, they would have reached a decision on it.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Well, so what? That’s not the question before the court. In fact, the purpose of federal courts and especially the Supreme Court is to determine whether an administrative act by the government is both legal and constitutional. And Ross’ decision clearly was, as the dissenters wrote in their separate opinion.

Wrong.

We have something called the Administrative Procedure Act, which is an important check on the power of unelected bureaucrats. If an official or agency can permissibly make one of two decisions, they have to show their work-- they have to demonstrate that they considered the possible alternatives and gave a reasoned explanation for their decision.

Here, the evidence showed that the decision the Secretary of Commerce gave was a pretext-- he came into office determined to add the citizenship question and then asked the Department of Justice to tell him they needed the citizenship information to enforce the Voting Rights Act.

[Lurking Libertarian]

Are illegals included in the count for Congressional representatives?

Yes-- the 14th Amendment says that apportionment of representatives among states is based on "counting the whole number of persons in each State."

[ronnie raygun]

Extortion and black mail, open the books lets see who is doing this

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Once TRUMP appoints another Justice, he should make a deal with Democrats to help him get rid of Roberts & we'll give them Merrick Garland

Teach Roberts & the other Justices a lesson

Nonsense; the Democrats wouldn’t go for it. Why would they “teach Roberts and other justices a lesson?"