Thread: Justice Roberts, you miss, or ignore, the truth spoken by President Trump

See: Why Chief Justice John Roberts spoke out

November 21, 2018

”In a statement on Wednesday, made public because of a query from The Associated Press, Roberts said, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Your above statement, Justice Roberts, made in response to President Trump’s criticism of our Judicial System handing down decisions which are “not law”, a criticism which is not only accurate, but it is documented by your very response to Trump’s criticism. Our judges and Justices job is not to do “equal right to those appearing before them” as you assert. Their job, as outlined in our very Constitution, is to support and defend “this Constitution”, and in doing so, observe “the rules of the common law”.

To put this another way, our judges and Justices are bound by our Constitution to observe and expound upon the text of our written Constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text. This of course is in harmony with the most fundamental rule of the “common law”.

Our judges and Justices are not given latitude to do “equal right” as you assert, but are bound to adhere to the text of the Constitution and its documented legislative intent as expressed during its framing and ratification debates.

In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."

It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."

Your assertion that your job is to do “equal right to those appearing before” you, opens the door to you imposing your personal whims and fancies as being right and equal, and abandons an adherence to the “rule of law”.

To put this in other words, Justice Black once declared: “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

Have our judges and Justices abandoned the rule of law in favor of imposing their personal views as the rule of law? You bet they have and have even admitted it when doing so, a case in point is the Kelo ruling. Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:


while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose.”

The irrefutable fact is, Justice Roberts, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Court took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounts to judicial tyranny!

On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional law and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted. He then concludes:

”The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court’s prior cases to derive today’s far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham’s high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O’Connor’s dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners’ favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”

And then we have Helvering v. Davis” and Steward Machine Co. case upholding the Social Security Act in which the Court stated:

“Congress may spend money in aid of the ‘general welfare.’ Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, … There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents”

What is significant is, the court cited the Butler decision decided the previous year and goes on to assert Hamilton’s view concerning the phrase “general welfare” prevails over that of Madison, and it will not “resurrect the contest”. In other words, the Court refused to follow a fundamental rule of constitutional construction and review the historical record during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution to document the meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood during the framing and ratification debates. Instead, it relied upon something Hamilton wrote years after the Constitution had been adopted concerning the phrase “general welfare” in order to uphold the socialist Social Security Act as being constitutional, and defiantly ignored the meaning of “general welfare” as expressed during the framing and ratification debates which gave birth to our Constitution.

The Justice even ignored what Hamilton wrote during the framing and ratification debates:Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution, referred to a “specification of particulars” [those grants of power appearing beneath Article 1, Section, 8, Clause 1] which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.

The bottom line is, Justice Roberts, President Trump is correct in that countless judges and Justices have, and are to this very day, ignoring the rule of law ___ the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent ___ and imposing what they believe is equal and right, as you did when defying the defined and limited powers granted to Congress when you pretended Congress is vested with power by our Constitution to enter the states and meddle in the people’s personal decisions and choices with regard to their health care needs ___ a power never granted to Congress!

JWK


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

Justice Roberts should have never spoken out against a President trying to protect our nation from an invasion of illegal aliens and frauds seeking asylum under false pretenses. What possessed him to do this just shows Justice Roberts is biased against the American People and thinks more of his fellow jurists on the district courts than he does the well-being of US citizens and other Americans. Shameful!!

These Judges are ignoring the rule of law when they release criminal illegal aliens back into our community and then those illegal aliens commit MORE crimes against our country and our citizens!

.

How the 9th Circuit lied in the same sex marriage case, and reviewing Justice Roberts’ dissenting opinion when same sex marriage reached the Supreme Court

LINK TO THE CASE


About the case:

”Both Idaho and Nevada passed statutes and enacted constitutional amendments preventing same-sex couples from marrying and refusing to recognize same-sex marriages validly performed elsewhere. The panel held that the Idaho and Nevada laws at issue violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because they deny lesbians and gays who wish to marry persons of the same sex a right they afford to individuals who wish to marry persons of the opposite sex, and do not satisfy the heightened scrutiny standard the Court adopted in SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 740 F.3d 471 (9th Cir. 2014).”

On page 44 we find:

Because defendants have failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose, they unjustifiably discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and are in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. ___ REINHARDT, Circuit Judge

Note Reinhardt’s premise that defendants “failed to demonstrate that these laws further any legitimate purpose”. This, of course, is not within the Court’s assigned duty ___ a duty which is exclusively lodged in the legislative branch of government. For Judge Reinhardt to second guess the wisdom of a Legislature, and in this case several Legislatures, is to violate our system of government’s fundamental separation of powers and assume the exclusive power lodge in a Legislature.


Now, the lie which the 9th Circuit asserts is, the Fourteenth Amendment, its “Equal Protection Clause”, is violated by a state making a law which makes a distinction based upon sex.

The Fourteenth Amendment declares:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

First note the words in the last clause of the first Section of the Fourteenth Amendment, “nor deny to any person”, is a reference to a “person” and not a group or couple. In fact, the 14th Amendment declares whatever laws are adopted by a state, the state may not deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of those laws. The amendment does not say that laws containing distinctions based upon sex are forbidden. It only declares whatever laws are adopted by a state, they must be enforced equally with respect to “any person”.


The irrefutable fact is, the 14th Amendment does not prohibit by its text, nor was it intended by those who framed and ratified the amendment, to prohibit a state to make distinctions in law based upon sex. The idea that it does prohibit distinctions based upon sex was wrongly asserted by Justice Ginsburg who engaged in judicial tyranny in the Virginia Military Academy (VMI) case.

The obvious question which goes unanswered is: Why would there have been a proposed and so-call equal rights amendment attempted to be added to the Constitution of the United States in the 1980’s to prohibit sex discrimination, which fell short of the required number of ratifying States, if the 14th Amendment already prohibited discrimination based upon sex?


Now, on to Chief Justice Roberts dissent in the same sex marriage dispute LINK


”Petitioners make strong arguments rooted in social policy and considerations of fairness. They contend that same-sex couples should be allowed to affirm their love and commitment through marriage, just like opposite-sex couples. That position has undeniable appeal; over the past six years, voters and legislators in eleven States and the District of Columbia have revised their laws to allow marriage between two people of the same sex.”

”But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized courts to exercise "neither force nor will but merely judgment." The Federalist No. 78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton) (capitalization altered).”

” Although the policy arguments for extending marriage to same-sex couples may be compelling, the legal arguments for requiring such an extension are not. The fundamental right to marry does not include a right to make a State change its definition of marriage. And a State’s decision to maintain the meaning of marriage that has persisted in every culture throughout human history can hardly be called irrational. In short, our Constitution does not enact any one theory of marriage. The people of a State are free to expand marriage to include same-sex couples, or to retain the historic definition.”


The bottom line is, there are fundamental rules which must be followed when trying to determine what our Constitution means. And to allow these rules to be set aside in favor of a judges or Justices personal beliefs as to what the Constitution means, and without a preponderance of evidence from the framing and ratification debates to support those beliefs, is to allow our Constitution to be dismantled and rewritten one provision at a time.

And, with respect to President Trump's comment about the 9th Circuit, Justice Roberts own words in the same sex marriage dispute prove Trump was telling the truth about the 9th Circuit!

JWK

Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.