Roberts second guesses policy making decision on census, violates separation of power
Justice Roberts second guesses policy making decision, violates separation of powers doctrine
It appears with all the noise about the question
“Is this person a citizen of the United States?” we are overlooking Justice Roberts has usurped legislative power by second guessing a legitimate policy making decision.
In regard to this assumption of power Justice Stone reminds us that:
”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)
Additionally, the court in
Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:
”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”
And, in
ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:
…..we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress' action, however, is not within our province to second guess.
And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges' views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violate the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction by interfering with a legitimate question being replaced on our census form . . .
“Is this person a citizen of the United States?”
JWK
Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.
The Roberts census opinion is an attack on our representative system of government
Just for the record, the Administrative Procedure Act, (APA) which was used to justify Roberts’ opinion, is a clever device created by our Washington Swamp Creatures to undermine our representative system of government, and allow unelected activist judges and Justices to second guess and overturn policy making decisions and legislation which rightfully rests with Congress and our Executive branch of government, that is, unless Congress itself, our elected representatives, decide to intervene and strike down a policy judgement made by the Executive branch.
In this case, the APA was used to overturn the consequences of an election and a policy making decision made by our President which is objected to by those who lost the election.
This is not rocket science to figure out. Just read the entire Court which documents the whining and frivolous objections of those who ran to the Court over a question which is admitted by all parties does not violate the terms of our Constitution.
Justice Thomas, in his dissent, identifies the can of worms opened by Justice Roberts:
"Now that the Court has opened up this avenue of attack, opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them. Moreover, even if the effort to invalidate the action is ultimately unsuccessful, the Court’s decision enables partisans to use the courts to harangue executive officers through depositions, discovery, delay, and distraction. The Court’s decision could even implicate separation-of-powers concerns insofar as it enables judicial interference with the enforcement of the laws. 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"
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."
The bottom line is, the Roberts’ decision is an outright attack on our democratic system and attempts to overturn the consequences of our last election.
This whole case is summed up as follows:
"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
