Scalia, Thomas, and Alito, in contrast, come right out an accuse the majority of doing the job of Congress in rewriting the law to achieve the desired result. They start from the simple premise that the role of the Court since Marbury v. Madison is to apply the law as written -- no more, no less. They go on to state that the Chemical Warfare Treaty Act is clear on its face and clearly applies to the Defendant's conduct, and the issue is whether the Act is unconstitutional under the 10th Amendment as applied to the Defendant. They hold that it is not.
I’d say we have a pattern with Roberts—and it is not a good one.
I see this in a similar light to you (I think)... The Supreme Court has authority to adjudicate, not legislate. Similarly we have a President whose job is to execute the law of the land... but here this clocksucker is changing legislation to suit his ignoble goals.
At some point the G-d damned House and Senate better pull their collective heads out of their asses and start by filing articles of impeachment against all of these tyrants.
What had the potential to be a landmark decision ended up being a small case of statutory construction. Chief Justice Roberts, ever the minimalist, read into the Chemical Warfare Treaty Act an implied exception for traditional state crimes. This allowed him, along with a majority of the Court, to avoid having to make a Constitutional ruling. At least he didn't convert the Act into a tax on chemical weapons.
“They hold that it is not.”
I meant to write that Scalia, Thomas, and Alito found the Act UNconstitutional under the 10th Amendment.
Traitor Roberts remains out of control.
Whatever happened to the 9th Amendment?