Posted on 06/19/2020 7:02:29 AM PDT by Kaslin
John Roberts is a politician — a politician who consistently makes laws, inconsistently applies the Constitution, and can't be voted out of office.
Knock, knock. Who’s there? Unelected leftist politicians in robes with lifetime tenure. Turns out, the Supreme Court is a joke, and the punchline is Chief Justice John Roberts.
Two high court decisions this week brought that reality into focus, when the George W. Bush-appointed chief sided with leftist justices to say sexual orientation is “sex,” and that the current commander in chief can’t undo unlawful executive action from a past president because of his reasons.
Roberts has quite the track record of leftist judicial activism, however, of which you’ll find a few notable instances below. It’s about time we call a spade a spade — or in this case, call a hack a hack.
From the moment then-President Barack Obama signed into law the infamous Affordable Care Act that colloquially bears his name, the mess of a law was ripe for legal challenges. In 2012, the Supreme Court upheld Obamacare in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, despite a legitimate challenge based on the Commerce Clause. This faulty 5-4 decision fell solely on the swing vote of Roberts, who wrote the majority opinion.
In it, he dreamed up a “constitutional” justification for the Obamacare monster that rested solely on the tax penalty enforcing the law’s individual mandate. It’s fine, Roberts unreasonably reasoned, because Congress has the power to tax.
Then in 2015, Roberts again saved the Affordable Care Act in King v. Burwell, when he sided with the leftist majority to extend Obamacare tax credits to federal exchanges.
“Maybe ‘Obamacare’ should be renamed ‘Robertscare’ for the justice who went out of his way to save the individual mandate,” wrote Chris Jacobs in The Federalist.
In February 2019, in the first abortion-related case after President Trump appointed Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh to the bench, Roberts joined the leftists in a 5-4 decision to block Louisiana from enforcing an abortion law that would have required abortionists to have admitting privileges at a nearby hospital. This law would have resulted in one remaining doctor legally qualified to perform the barbaric procedure. Opponents of the state law argued it would lead to the destruction of “safe and legal” abortions, an obvious oxymoron.
The majority’s order blocking the law was brief and unsigned, without a written opinion, meaning Roberts and the leftist justices offered no explanation for their decision.
The Supreme Court in 2019 ruled unanimously in favor of U.S. Marine Corps veteran James L. Kisor, who had filed a disability claim with the Department of Veterans Affairs but was denied repeatedly after presenting to the VA what he considered “relevant” materials in support of his claim.
Roberts, however, wrote an opinion concurrent with that of the leftist justices, refusing to strike down a 1997 legal doctrine known as Auer deference. Auer defers broad leeway to agencies to interpret their own ambiguous rules, granting the administrative state unchecked power.
After Roberts established that adding a citizenship question to the 2020 census would indeed be constitutional and consistent with the Administrative Procedures Act, the chief justice joined with the leftists on the bench to strike the question because they thought the Trump administration’s reason for asking it was disingenuous. Seriously.
“For the first time ever, the Court invalidates an agency [Commerce Department] action solely because it questions the sincerity of the agency’s otherwise adequate rationale,” wrote Justice Clarence Thomas in dissent. “Unable to identify any legal problem with the Secretary’s reasoning, the Court imputes one by concluding that he must not be telling the truth.”
In blatant disregard for the prerogatives of the U. S. Congress, Roberts censored and consequently undermined Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., during the Senate’s partisan Trump impeachment trial.
Paul submitted a question card, which included the name of Eric Ciaramella, whom RealClearInvestigations had identified as the whistleblower central to the impeachment inquiry. After reading the question to himself, Roberts promptly stated, “The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted.”
The senator’s question did not ID Ciaramella as the whistleblower. In fact, it didn’t even use the term “whistleblower.” Paul later disclosed his anodyne question on Twitter.
Senator @RandPaul sends question to the desk during Impeachment Trial.
Chief Justice Roberts: "The presiding officer declines to read the question as submitted." pic.twitter.com/CCeB33HnRP
— CSPAN (@cspan) January 30, 2020
Make no mistake, in declining to read Paul’s question, Roberts, an unelected judge, shamelessly censored an elected representative in the performance of his senatorial duties.
READ: The Question About Eric Ciaramella That Chief Justice John Roberts Just Refused To Read
“There is only one word for what the Court” did Monday, said Justice Samuel Alito. “Legislation.”
Along with Trump appointee Gorsuch, Roberts once again joined the leftists on the bench in Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia, this time to absurdly write “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” into the word “sex” in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which protects against employment discrimination.
While it might please Roberts to tell employers they cannot fire an employee or disqualify an applicant for being gay or transgender, that’s Congress’s job, and Congress has repeatedly declined to pass such a law. Plus, there is simply no way to define “sex” as “sexual orientation.”
As author and professor Robert Gagnon explains, in accordance with the court’s ruling, “a man must be allowed to join a professional women’s sports team if he shows himself to be equal or better than the women on the team, irrespective of whether the man in question identifies as a woman. Denying his employment would be sex discrimination because, if not for his sex, he would be accepted onto the team.”
Roberts and Gorsuch’s judicial activism creates egregious precedent ripe for abuse, or as The Federalist’s Joy Pullmann notes, “the LGBT version of Roe v. Wade.”
Roberts’ ushering in of politically expedient outcomes continued Thursday, when the Supreme Court blocked the Trump administration’s efforts to end the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, an Obama-era administrative rule unauthorized by Congress that afforded special protections and considerations to illegal immigrants who were smuggled into the United States as children.
Without ruling on the “wisdom” of Obama’s policy, Roberts joined the leftists in a 5-4 decision, writing for the majority that the current Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to eliminate DACA were conducted in an “arbitrary and capricious” manner that violated the Administrative Procedures Act.
Do you get the impression that the Supreme Court doesn’t like me?
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2020
Roberts’ reasoning sent a clear message: Democratic presidents can issue unconstitutional diktats without consequence, but Republican administrations may not reverse those unlawful programs if Roberts doesn’t like their reasons for doing so.
As the Supreme Court continues to issue rulings with clear and catastrophic implications for religious liberty, free speech, conscience protections, and more, conservatives should relinquish any delusion that Roberts will uphold the rule of law and the integrity of the Constitution.
The ruling on another pivotal abortion case, June Medical v. Gee will be released within the next couple weeks. Given Roberts’ track record, his belief in a nonexistent constitutional “right to privacy” that allows for killing innocent humans, and the fact that he has notably avoided discussing Roe v. Wade, saying during his 2005 confirmation that overturning precedent is a “jolt to the legal system,” conservatives shouldn’t hold their breath that he’ll uphold the constitutional right to life.
Take a hint from the actual conservative justices, who have signaled they don’t trust Roberts either. In order for the Supreme Court to take a case, only four of the nine justices must agree to hear an appeal. Despite the fact that four conservatives besides Roberts occupy the bench and that those conservatives bemoan that “the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court,” they just passed on 10 gun rights-related cases, indicating they don’t trust Roberts with the Second Amendment. That a so-called conservative justice cannot be counted on to uphold the Bill of Rights is telling.
“John Roberts is terrified of the liberal op-ed columnists. They know they hold him captive. They can easily sway his opinions by issuing their ‘warnings’ to him through their columns,” conservative commentator Dan Bongino correctly diagnosed. “He’s not a judge anymore, he’s a politician.”
Roberts is a politician indeed, a politician who consistently makes laws, inconsistently applies the Constitution, and can’t be voted out of office.
bttt
Nevermind, I missed your post #25. Okay, that’s a good assessment of the ideological makeup of the current Supreme Court.
Technically possible, but pointless and not practical. There’d be a confirmation hearing, and the CJ doesn’t have a huge amount of unique power.
Not guilty.
I have thought all along Roberts is getting revenge for the Bush family.
We know how Georgie had no problem with illegal aliens.
“arbitrary and capricious” — seems to me that is how Roberts is running the Supreme Court and how he decides the issues rather than the law and the Constitution.
“...A deep dive search on Roberts needs to be made. We need to know what Obama/The Deep State knows about Roberts....”
There have been a couple of theories: One is that he’s a closet homo and they have the compromising pics of him and his BBF.
The other is that he’s pedophile and they have the compromising pics in that scenario.
Whatever it is, it needs to be doxxed and brought out to the public once and for all. He’s in too high of a position to be compromised like this.
How did he manage to fool Bush and his advisors into believing he was a Constitutionalist?
What makes you think Bush was fooled?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.