Moonbat judge attacks John Roberts

Good day all. Last week a federal judge decided to let fly at Chief Justice John Roberts. He basically accused Roberts and the Supreme court of being a threat to the Constitution and the democratic institutions of the United States.

This judge, U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman, was appointed to the bench by President Bubba Horndog Clinton. A moderate he is not. Apparently, he is considered a very “Progressive” (meaning leftist big government), judge. Apparently, he’s one of those judges that considers the Constitution to be no more then advisory when it comes to his rulings. Here is what Fox News’s Gregg Jarrett has to say:

A federal judge in Wisconsin is making headlines by trashing Chief Justice of the United States John Roberts and the conservative majority on the Supreme Court. This is likely what he wanted.

The first thing you should know about U.S. District Judge Lynn Adelman is that he is a zealous and habitual flamethrower. His latest diatribe, published in the Harvard Law & Policy Review, was designed to shock with the incendiary title, “The Roberts Court’s Assault on Democracy.”

Using the word “assault” was an invective guaranteed to conjure up images of criminal behavior, although that is nowhere in Adelman’s article. But his contention that democracy is on the precipice because conservatives hold a 5-4 majority on the Supreme Court is his underlying thesis.

You may be wondering why some black robed moonbat thinks that a supreme court that actually follows the constitution is such a threat to democracy. The answer is simple. This jackass has nothing but contempt for the constitution or democracy.

This is so, according to the 80-year-old jurist, because sometimes the Supreme Court rules in a way that is contrary to popular sentiment. Never mind that there might be a legitimate or well-reasoned legal basis for such decisions. The “will of the majority is ignored,” bemoans the judge.

I see this senile idiot slept through his law school classes on why majority rules is not what runs the United States. We’re a republic and we choose representatives. The whole reason for the constitution was to protect the rights of the minority from the predation of the majority. Basically democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner.

Adelman seems to be under the mistaken impression that justices are supposed to conform their decisions not to the law, but to public opinion at any given moment. This is a profoundly distorted vision of how justice and the rule of law are designed to operate within our constitutional framework.

This makes me wonder if there shouldn’t be a review of this idiot’s past rulings. If this diatribe comes from his core beliefs, there should be concern that his rulings may not reflect the constitution or the law. Taking the political temperature is not the job of the courts, that is the job of the administration and legislative branches.

Adelman, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1997, levels harsh criticism at a variety of Supreme Court decisions, including campaign finance, collective bargaining, health insurance, gerrymandering and voting rights (his hobbyhorse).

These rulings have stripped power away from the government and unions, returning that power to the individuals. Adelman doesn’t seem to believe that individuals have any rights, only groups and certain ones of those should have more rights then others. See why I think his decisions may need to be reviewed?

The judge accuses the high court of deliberately favoring large corporations and wealthy individuals as if that was the only reason for its decisions. He rails against economic inequality and social disparities that afflict poor people and minorities. As constitutional law professor Josh Blackman remarked, “This screed could have come from a Bernie stump speech.” He added, “It has no place in a publication by a federal judge.”

It does if you’re a judge who is also a Progressive Liberal Democratic CommuNazi who thinks he’s smarter then everyone else.

Setting aside the dubious ethical propriety of a sitting federal judge lambasting the chief justice of the United States and his Supreme Court colleagues, it is the blatant partisan nature of Adelman’s attack that undermines his own arguments.

To hear Adelman tell it, President Trump is an “autocrat” and the source of all imagined evil. So, too, is the Republican Party, acting as a witting co-conspirator in the plot against democracy.

Now that’s funny! President Trump is probably the first president in decades to actually follow the law and the constitutional limits on the powers of the president. Unlike President “Pen&Phone” Obama, President Trump will follow the dictates of the courts. Of course, if the ruling is pretty blatantly bad, as the Obama Judges tend to be, he appeals them. I think Adelman’s problem is that President Trump is appointing people to the bench that are actual scholars of the constitution.

Adelman’s antipathy was particularly venomous toward Chief Justice Roberts. Recalling Roberts’ statement during his Senate confirmation hearing that justices are like umpires “who call the balls and strikes,” Adelman referred to the comment as “a masterpiece of disingenuousness.” That is a polite way of calling someone a liar.

Personally, I have little to no use for Chief Justice John Roberts. He’s come across as a deep state RINO and a flat out coward, unwilling to make the really hard decisions. His Obamacare ruling was an absolute disgrace, and now that it’s falling apart, there is another case coming up that will force him to finally kill Obamacare once and for all.

Adelman has a demonstrated fondness for publishing politicized denunciations. In 2017, he penned a law review article excoriating “How Big Money Ruined Public Life in Wisconsin.”

I looked up that article and if you google it, it appears as a .pdf file. I didn’t read through it, (I actually have a life), but a quick glance indicates that this clown is totally unfit to serve as a judge in traffic court, never mind the federal bench. Of course, these weren’t “One off’s” where he was having a bad day.

The next year, the judge authored another one titled “The Erosion of Civil Rights And What To Do About It.” Last year he composed “The Supreme Court and the Corruption of Democracy.” You get the picture. Adelman is nothing if not consistent. Conservatives on the Supreme Court are always portrayed by him as the hobgoblins of little minds (to borrow a phrase from Ralph Waldo Emerson)

Sadly, this liberal federal judge gives no credit to the intellectual honesty of the justices who sit well above him on our nation’s highest court. Nor does he respect the judicial philosophies that inform their decisions.

There is a simple reason for that. As far as this barking moonbat is concerned, they are wrong and he is right, always and forever.

We may not always agree with the Supreme Court. But publicly castigating the justices for their rulings and personally attacking the chief justice as disingenuous serves only to demean and diminish the federal bench.

Actually, there are times when they do need a good castigating, but that should be administered by the legislative branch and/or the administrative branch. That We, the People, can slam the court at will, and should, goes without saying. However, other judges should be mindful of their role and keep any remarks private.

Adelman certainly has a right to express his opinions. But the caustic nature of those opinions makes one wonder if his own decisions are free of the kind of bias of which he so freely accuses others.

In my unschooled opinion, I would say this walking diaper stain has prejudged a number of cases and done some significant damage to people, businesses, pretty much anyone who was not in tune with his political viewpoint. Judges talk about things that are political all the time, however they are “Judicious” in their remarks. Adelman has demonstrated he is anything but judicious.

Barking Moonbat

He’s 80 years old, and it’s time for him to retire. He won’t of course, since he believes he’s one of the “Special People” who’s job it is to rule over the lesser beings. (That would be the average citizen) We really need to start looking at an amendment to the constitution to find a way, other then impeachment, to get people off the bench. It shouldn’t be easy of course, and it should be very limited. Failing that, we need to put term limits on judges. They will still have the independence of course, it’s just that their term will be finite with a definite end date. We can start with Adelman and continue with Ruth Bader-Ginsberg.


1 Star2 Stars3 Stars4 Stars5 Stars (2 votes, average: 5.00 out of 5)

~The Angry Webmaster~

Share Button