Good day all. As you know by now, the black robed tyrants of the United States Supreme Court have just destroyed the Constitution of the United States. One of the most disappointing members is George W. Bush appointee Chief Justice John Roberts.
Roberts has twice rewritten the Affordable Care Act, (Obamacare), to make it “Constitutional.” In fact, he and the others who have twice upheld this disaster have legislated from the bench in violation of the constitution they are sworn to uphold.
Now this treasonous POS has the nerve to say that he is exercising “Judicial Restraint.” Here’s what the New York Times has to say:
On Thursday, when Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. helped save the Affordable Care Act for a second time, conservatives accused him of everything short of treason.
While what Roberts and the others have done is classic treason, it isn’t the constitutional definition of treason. That is:
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court. The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except during the Life of the Person attainted.
I’m not sure using the Constitution as a doormat could be considered treason in this case…Damn it!
On Friday, when he dissented from a decision establishing a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, liberals not too busy celebrating charged that he had tarnished his legacy and landed on the wrong side of history.
That was the second major bad decision made by the Court this year. (There may be another that can be considered bad, but we will need to see how that goes)
Now completing his 10th term as the leader of a deeply divided court, Chief Justice Roberts remains more apt to surprise than any of his colleagues, and therefore more likely to disappoint. He seemed to anticipate the dueling critiques, and used this week’s opinions to cast himself as a steady practitioner of judicial modesty. Indeed, he employed very similar language to suggest that his votes were consistent and principled.
Judicial modesty? What we saw this term was a blatant usurpation of powers the court is not entitled to. You know, I wonder if a case for treason could be made against them. These black robed tyrants might not be taking up arms, but they have moved to overthrow the elected government of the United States and make themselves the ultimate rulers of America.
The court’s job in the health care case, he wrote on Thursday, was to let the political process work and ensure that Congress’s intentions were honored. “In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people,” he wrote.
This was the case where the law flat out said that if a state didn’t set up an insurance exchange, they couldn’t get subsidies. Roberts, Kennedy and the four Liberals on the bench ignored the plain language of the law and rewrote it to protect it. The New York Times was fine with that, but not to happy with Roberts coming down on the opposite side of the gay marriage case.
The Roberts court’s most memorable decisions include campaign finance, health care and Second Amendment cases in which the chief justice was in the majority. But with Friday’s marriage decision, a civil rights landmark, Chief Justice Roberts was on the losing side, and it seemed to sting.
I’ve heard from a person who is a retired lawyer. I suspect he supports gay marriage, but when he read these decisions, he was horrified at them. Long story short, the Court has repealed the 10th Amendment of the Constitution and seriously damaged the 1st Amendment. It’s only a matter of time before direct legal attacks on churches and synagogs begins. (Care to wager there will be no such legal attacks on Mosques? Care to guess why?) Roberts, not understanding what’s actually happening wrote this when the Gay Marriage ruling came down:
His colleagues, he said, had portrayed him and other fair-minded people “as bigoted” for not sharing their understanding of the Constitution.
Your understanding of the Constitution is in serious question Roberts. I wouldn’t call you a bigot though. I have a few other terms I would use instead.
“In the face of all this,” he wrote, “a much different view of the court’s role is possible. That view is more modest and restrained. It is more skeptical that the legal abilities of judges also reflect insight into moral and philosophical issues. It is more sensitive to the fact that judges are unelected and unaccountable, and that the legitimacy of their power depends on confining it to the exercise of legal judgment.”
He suggested but did not quite say that he might vote for same-sex marriage were he an elected lawmaker.
Considering his and Kennedy’s ruling on Obamacare, they should both step down and run for office, but then they might actually lose and no one would pay any attention to them any longer.
“Stripped of its shiny rhetorical gloss, the majority’s argument is that the due process clause gives same-sex couples a fundamental right to marry because it will be good for them and for society,” he wrote. “If I were a legislator, I would certainly consider that view as a matter of social policy. But as a judge, I find the majority’s position indefensible as a matter of constitutional law.”
And how do you explain rewriting Obamacare TWICE you moron? Now, there is a possible unintended upside the Gay Marriage ruling. People are now saying that it MUST be applied to the 2nd Amendment, meaning that states MUST recognize carry permits from other states.
You can bet that one is being looked at by the NRA. Thanks to the idiots on the Court, states like Maryland, Massachusetts, California and others will have to allow people to carry concealed weapons into their states. While I have no doubt that will end up in front of the Court, I have serious doubts on Roberts and the others being consistent.
In any case, Roberts, along with Kennedy, Ginsberg, Sotomayor, Kagin and Breyer have repeatedly violated their oaths to uphold the constitution. I am of the opinion that sufficient grounds exist to impeach and convict all of them and force their removal from the bench. Will it happen? Are you kidding? With the current Congress? Don’t make me laugh.
Thatisall
~The Angry Webmaster~
[yasr_visitor_votes size=”medium”]
