Why is this man so often portrayed with a contorted face in media reports?

Not exactly flattering!

In case you do not recognize him: Chief Justice John Roberts of the US Supreme Court

I feel sorry for him.

Soure

Chief Justice John Roberts flatly rejects Democrat recusal requests pertaining to ginned-up Alito flag controversy

Bravo! Tip of the hat! Kudos!

Again Dimocratic U.S. Senators like Durbin and Whitehouse expose themselves as utter fools!

"... Last week, Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) demanded Roberts force Justice Samuel Alito to recuse himself from cases "related to the 2020 presidential election" and Jan. 6. The senators even specified they wanted Alito recused from a forthcoming ruling on Trump's presidential immunity case. ...

"In regard to questions concerning any Justice's participation in pending cases, the Members of the Supreme Court recently reaffirmed the practice we have followed for 235 years pursuant to which individual Justices decide recusal issues," Roberts explained in a letter. ..."

Chief Justice John Roberts flatly rejects Democrat requests pertaining to ginned-up Alito flag controversy | Blaze Media

Litmus Test For Future U.S. Supreme Court Nominees

Posted: 6/28/2015

Trigger

Almost finished reading Chief Justice Roberts dissent in Obergefell V. Hodges. Soon I will release a blog post on my analysis of this decision.

One Litmus Test Should Be Lochner v. New York

I do not know whether John Roberts was grilled during his confirmation hearing about this seminal decision or not. I also do not have time to research this.

It is very clear from his arguments in the above dissent that he has a very twisted and misguided understanding of Lochner v. New York. He further disparages the so called Lochner era. His arguments in the above dissent to support his dissent related to Lochner are weird at best.

Given his ideological or biased understanding of Lochner it is perhaps no surprise that he twice supported an unconstitutional decision regarding the Affordable Care Act (Obama Care).

The Chief Justice does not get it that Lochner was primarily about private property, individual liberty and freedom of contract! He also does not get it that in the so called post Lochner era, the U.S. Supreme Court violated increasingly and pervasively private property, individual liberty, and freedom of contract.

Nothing To Celebrate Independence Day 2015

Posted: 6/27/2015 Updated: 6/28/2015

The U.S. Supreme Court has imposed two definite, and a third potentially unconstitutional decisions on all American people!

These two decisions (about Obama Care and gay marriage) will probably go down in history as infamies like Dred Scott v. Sandford (1857) or Plessy v. Ferguson (1897)!

Mark my words!

Caveat! I still did not have time to read the decisions itself or more about them.

In Chief Justice John Roberts’s Own Words

Just finished reading all dissenter opinions in Obergefell V. Hodges.

Here are the concluding remarks by the Chief Justice in his dissent (emphasis added):

“If you are among the many Americans—of whatever sexual orientation—who favor expanding same-sex marriage, by all means celebrate today’s decision. Celebrate the achievement of a desired goal. Celebrate the opportunity for a new expression of commitment to a partner. Celebrate the availability of new benefits. But do not celebrate the Constitution. It had nothing to do with it. I respectfully dissent.”

Another Unconstitutional Decision By The Supreme Court

Posted: 6/25/2015

Trigger

Yesterday the infamous decision on Obamacare, today another infamous decision on gay marriage (Obergefell Et Al. V. Hodges, Director, Ohio Department Of Health, Et Al.).

The events are happening so fast that I did not have any time to read more about it.

I hope to amend this blog post as soon as I have read more about it.

Deeply Unconstitutional

The Supremes usurped again the power to define the law of the land for all Americans what should have left to each state to decide.

The U.S. Supreme Court today went roughshod over state referenda and state constitutional amendments like the one in South Dakota.

This ruling today has all the qualities to become as controversial as Roe v. Wade!

What is celebrated today by NPR and many homosexuals etc. could very well turn out to become a big bone of contention in the years ahead.

Confusing Marriage With Slavery?

The U.S. Supreme Court, to my mistaken knowledge, never outlawed slavery even though it should have done so. Thus, a complete failure of Scotus on this issue. Not only that the Scotus issued several horrible or infamous decisions regarding slaves or former slaves (e.g. Dred Scott v. Sanford (1857) or equal but separate in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896)).

Unlike slavery, marriage is a very personal decision!

One-Two-Punch Foul Compromise Among Supremes

Is this pure coincidence that these two decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court were released just one day apart? I sense here that the Supremes were having a struggle here and, unfortunately, something terribly awful came out of it!

This could be another hint that the Chief Justice John Roberts is totally unprincipled, incompetent and inept!

Privatize Marriage!

It is high time to privatize marriage! I intend to blog about this subject in more detail as soon as possible. Government or courts at all levels of government should only legitimately get involved in these personal decisions when there is a dispute of some sorts or when children are involved.

Chief Justice Roberts Massively Failed Again

Posted: 6/25/2015

Trampling On The Constitution And Mocking The Law

Today (6/25/2015), the U.S. Supreme Court in a 6 to 3 decision failed to uphold the U.S. Constitution and the laws of the land. Shame again on Chief Justice Roberts. This will go down as a sad or even infamous day in U.S. history.

I have not yet read a summary or the decision itself, thus I rely on excerpts published in the media. It appears again that the Chief Justice came up with a flimsy, untenable reasoning. Hope to add some remarks later.

I have previously blogged about John Roberts first failure regarding Obamacare here. Since then I have blogged here and here about the Chief Justice.

Hope Springs Eternal

One can only hope, that this miscarriage of justice will ignite a storm like the infamous Kelo v. City Of New London decision of about 10 years ago whereafter many states strengthened their private property protections.

One hopes the voters in November 2016 will vote out those who are responsible for Obamacare and for failing to repeal it and vote in a president who means business.

Lastly, we urgently need strict term limits for all justices including the supremes!

Chief Justice Roberts Is Weak

Trigger

Just read “John Roberts' Constitutional Avoidance

In Bond v. United States, the chief justice used a "saving construction" to avoid a constitutional showdown. Sound familiar?”(Source)

Unfortunately, the Chief Justice turns out to be a very weak one. Instead of upholding the U.S. Constitution, he let's big government get away with too many things. He like so many other supreme justices do not understand what is meant by constitutional "checks and balances" and the responsibility of the judiciary.

The Case

The whole case here was absurd to begin with The issue arose in the prosecution of an individual under the federal Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act of 1998 (the convention is a treaty with foreign governments) for a personal assault using a chemical irritant. The individual was sentenced to six years in federal prison under the terms of this act. Her crime, she smeared two toxic chemicals on the doorknob, car door, and mailbox of a woman who had been having an affair with her husband. The victim suffered a slight burn to one hand.

Takeaway

I have already previously argued here that the Chief Justice ruined his legacy when he cast the decisive vote on upholding ObamaCare (Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

This law should have been declared unconstitutional as it allows for such egregious prosecutions under federal law as happened in this case. Or as the the three partial dissenters appear to have expressed it as “that fact rendered it an unconstitutional exercise of federal power” (Source). Or simply the U.S. Congress did a sloppy job when they implemented this international convention as domestic law.

One of the key phrases used in the Supreme Court decision:

“that “[i]f the treaty is valid there can be no dispute about the validity of the statute” that implements

it “as a necessary and proper means to execute the powers of the Government”

Of course the implementation of an international treaty into domestic law should always be disputed as necessary and proper until proven so. This is way too much deference to federal power!

See also the detailed discussion about this subject in the opinion of Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Essentially these three Justices are warning that about anything could be introduced as domestic law affecting all aspects of domestic life if an international treaty requires it.

Overcriminalization And Expansion Of Federal Power

This case represents another fine example how the federal government constantly overcriminalizes petty offenses in myriad of ways and of how federal powers are becoming more and more expansive.

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 Is Outdated And Should Be Entirely Repealed

Voting Rights Act of 1965

This was an extraordinary act to address an exceptional situation allowing the Federal government to interfere with state, county, and municipal election administration. Once the exceptional situation has become insignificant or has been remedied, this act should be automatically be repealed.

The US constitution and the Declaration of Independence make such a Voting Rights Act entirely unnecessary. See e.g. the 14^th and 15^th Amendment of 1868 and 1870 respectively.

Why not repeal the old law and pass a new law should the exceptional situation still exists and let’s have a debate about it. This clinging to outdated and perhaps harmful laws is one of the significant nuisances of representative democracy.

The US Supreme Court Lauds The Act

In Shelby County v. Holder it reads: “There is no doubt that these improvements are in large part because of the Voting Rights Act. The Act has proved immensely successful at redressing racial discrimination and integrating the voting process. … Today both of those towns [Philadelphia, MS & Selma, AL] are governed by African-American mayors. Problems remain in these States and others, but there is no denying that, due to the Voting Rights Act, our Nation has made great strides.”

How much progress would have been made had the Voting Rights Act never been enacted? Does anyone really believe that without this Act there would not be African American mayors or US President today? Less draconian/authoritarian measures would have probably done the job as well. Future generations would have rejected racial discrimination anyway had the civil unrest and activism continued.

The Voting Rights Act was a big government wielding a big club thereby further undermining federalism in the USA.

US Supreme Court Justices Are Only Too Human

Given the centrist and leftist leanings of the Justices of the US Supreme Court the most recent decision on this Act (a 5 to 4 vote) can only be seen as some kind of awful compromise. The leftist Justices are like Soviet Comrades, basically always voting in unison even when their mediocre intellect should have told them otherwise, because of their ideological biases.

Another Renewal For 25 Years In 2006?

How much more stupid does it get? What were our elected representatives thinking?

Although the US Supreme Court previously warned the US Congress, our eager and inept lawmakers voted to renew this anachronistic law for another 25 years in 2006. It was dutifully signed into law by then President Bush, who rarely vetoed anything. Why he did not veto it is a mystery to me.

The Chief Justice Again

The Chief Justices legacy is already tarnished by his foolish decision on Obamacare. I blogged about this here, and here.

In Shelby County v. Holder he stated (emphasis and comment added):

1.       “Striking down an Act of Congress “is the gravest and most delicate duty this Court is called on to perform. … We do not do so lightly.” [Well, the Court did not really strike down the Act, it only corrected parts of it. It is actually the duty of the Judiciary to entirely strike down excessive laws enacted by legislatures.]

2.       “… we [US Supreme Court in 2009] expressed our broader concerns about the constitutionality of the Act. … “

3.       “Our decision in no way affects the permanent, nationwide ban on racial discrimination in voting found in §2.” [A superfluous statement as it is already covered by the US Constitution and Declaration of Independence.]

4.       “We issue no holding on the §5 itself, only on the coverage formula. Congress may draft another formula based on current conditions.” [Man, you got to make up your mind about whether this Act is constitutional or not. To encourage Congress to add more insult to injury is remarkable.]

Chief Justice Roberts Exposed The Four Liberal Justices As Unelected Partisans

When Ends Justify The Means

If there is anything favorable to be found in the Obamacare decision by Chief Justice Roberts, then it is his sole achievement to expose the so called liberal Justices on the court to be mediocre judges ready to accept any bogus and contorted reasoning to further their ideological pursuits.

Four Liberal Justices Disagreed With And Mocked Chief Justice Roberts

In what is captioned “Opinion of GINSBURG, J.”, the four liberal Justices of the court formulated a 60 page long dissent to the Chief Justice Robert’s opinion. Thus 60 out of a total of 193 pages are mischaracterized as an opinion what in fact is a serious dissent.

Justice Ginsburg joined by Justices Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor dispute that the Commerce Clause does not apply to the individual mandate saying in their dissent that (Emphasis added):

·         “According to THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the Commerce Clause does not permit that preservation. This rigid reading of the Clause makes scant sense and is stunningly retrogressive.”

·         “THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s crabbed reading of the Commerce Clause harks back to the era in which the Court routinely thwarted Congress’ efforts to regulate the national economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it.”

·         “Straightforward application of these principles would require the Court to hold that the minimum coverage provision is proper Commerce Clause legislation.”

·         “THE CHIEF JUSTICE relies on a newly minted constitutional doctrine.”

What the heck do these four liberal Justices mean by “... to regulate the national economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it.”? What kind of ideological narrow-mindedness is behind this reasoning? This kind of prejudiced reasoning is totally unfit for a Justice of the US Supreme Court. Period!

The Liberal Dissent Is Heavily Based On New Deal

It is stunning to read the four liberal Justices’ dissent opinion, because it relies on numerous New Deal decisions of the US Supreme Court to support their argument. Their frame of reference appears to be Social Security as a model for health care in the US or in their own words (Emphasis added):

“Aware that a national solution was required, Congress could have taken over the health-insurance market by establishing a tax-and-spend federal program like Social Security. Such a program, commonly referred to as a single-payer system (where the sole payer is the Federal Government), would have left little, if any, room for private enterprise or the States. Instead of going this route, Congress enacted the ACA, a solution that retains a robust role for private insurers and state governments.”

These liberal Justices also included a lengthy discussion of socio-economic factors like the uninsured, cost shifting, free riders, the costs to individual states which introduced universal care due to out of state uninsured patients etc. supposedly supporting the Affordable Care Act’s intentions.

Reaffirmed Rational Basis Doctrine

The four liberal Justices were not remiss to point once more the bogus “rational basis” doctrine as they wrote (Emphasis added):

“When appraising such legislation, we ask only (1) whether Congress had a “rational basis” for concluding that the regulated activity substantially affects interstate commerce, and (2) whether there is a “reasonable connection between the regulatory means selected and the asserted ends”.

I don’t think the US Constitution directly or indirectly contains such an elastic doctrine, which Justices can apply freely and arbitrarily. This so called “rational basis” is rather a whimsical basis. It is antithetical to liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Therefore, it is no surprise that these liberal Justices adopt such fanciful conclusions like (Emphasis added):

·         “… The minimum coverage provision, furthermore, bears a “reasonable connection” to Congress’ goal of protecting the health-care market from the disruption caused by individuals who fail to obtain insurance. …”

·         “… Moreover, an insurance-purchase requirement limited to those in need of immediate care simply could not work. Insurance companies would either charge these individuals prohibitively expensive premiums, or, if community rating regulations were in place, close up shop. …”

·         ”… Everyone will, at some point, consume health-care products and services. …

·         ”… This criticism ignores the reality that a healthy young person may be a day away from needing health care. …”

·         ”… Rather, Congress is merely defining the terms on which individuals pay for an interstate good they consume: Persons subject to the mandate must now pay for medical care in advance (instead of at the point of service) and through insurance (instead of out of pocket) …”

Clearly, political preferences and prejudices have overtaken sound and legitimate judgment based on the US Constitution. These four liberal Justices should be commended for the Nobel Prize in Economics. What is wrong with individuals paying for medical services out of pocket at the point of service? Where in the US Constitution does it say how you pay for what you consume?

Liberal Justices Acted Like Politicians

I am afraid, the dissent written by four liberal Justices leaves no other conclusion, but that these Justices used their position of power to act like politicians in gross violation of their oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The Statue of Liberty is inconsolably weeping.