In response to comments by Trump about the 9th circuit court 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.”
In a world in which Justice Ginsburg came out and attacked Trump before the election and where Federal judges have ruled that if Hillary had issued the exact same executive order that Trump did it would be legal but because Trump wrote it it isn't legal to act as though all judges are not biased is insane.
It behooves us to note how Roberts has borrowed the Democrat tactic of dishonestly overgeneralizing Trump's comments.
When Trump said that some illegals are criminals the #FakeNews media said that Trump said that all illegals are criminals.
When Trump said that people from some countries should be temporarily banned from entering the US because those countries couldn't be trusted to verify the identity of people the #FakeNews media said that Trump was banning all Muslims from entering the US even though the ban applied to everyone from those countries no matter what their faith and it didn't apply to 84% of the worlds Muslims.
Similarly Trump only attacked the 9th circuit not every Federal judge but Roberts response implies that Trump was attacking all judges. Either that or Roberts is claiming that there are no dishonest judges at all which is clearly absurd.
While it may be true that most judges are honest the reality is that judges Obama and Clinton appointed tend to be dishonest adherents of the "living Constitution" theory which says that judges can "update" the Constitution without following the prescribed process. That's how courts have enforced the Democrat agenda that couldn't be passed through the legislature.
There is no right to privacy, much less abortion, in the Constitution. That was made up by dishonest judges who were not in fact "doing their level best to do equal right". Rather they were using their position to impose on the country their own personal beliefs bypassing the Constitutionally defined process.
In one sense Roberts is right in that there are not Trump, Obama, Bush, or Clinton judges. There are just honest judges--ones who only interpret the law--and dishonest judges--those who think they can make laws.
No matter who appoints a judge if that judge believes that they have the right, and the responsibility, to create laws that the people's representatives won't vote for they are tyrants and traitors.
While Republicans and conservatives want an independent judiciary the Democrats do not. The whole fight over Kavanaugh was about the Democrats losing their power to make up laws through judicial fiat.
Honest judges have never imposed on the country rules that conservatives couldn't get through Congress but dishonest judges, like the "notorious RBG", have imposed the left's vision on America time and time again.
One of the most egregious cases was the ruling that redefined marriage. The Constitution explicitly says that all powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States. The Constitution does not mention marriage. Hence the Supreme Court has no authority to define marriage; note that this also means that if a State were to redefine marriage the Supreme Court would have no authority to overturn that law.
Yet the Supreme Court overthrew the votes of 51,000,000 Americans and imposed the radical left's definition of marriage on the entire country.
Interestingly the very fact that Roberts would rebuke the president is a political act. If the judges are strictly neutral interpreters of the law as Roberts claims they shouldn't be going out attacking the President. It's the job of elected representatives to defend the judges not the job of "neutral" judges.
Further Justice Roberts didn't speak out against Obama when Obama attacked and threatened the Supreme Court on issues ranging from the Court's defense of the right of the people to contribute to political campaigns to Obamacare.
Hence it's hard to view these latest comments as not politically motivated. If Obama can threaten and intimidate the Supreme Court about Obamacare without Justice Roberts making a comment it's unclear why Roberts should respond so forcefully against Trump's valid concerns about political bias on the 9th circuit court.
On the other hand given that Roberts is the man who declared that what Obamacare called fees are really taxes thereby allowing Obamacare to stand it's not insane for us to wonder just how unbiased he is.
What an honest judge should have done with Obamacare is declare that according to the Constitution the Congress can't mandate fees on Americans if Americans choose to not do something-- Roberts in fact said so-- so that for Obamacare to stand the law would have to be amended to change fees to taxes. But Roberts knew that with a Republican Congress--elected by the people to get rid of Obamacare--an amended Obamacare would never pass. So instead of requiring the Congress to make Obamacare Constitutional Roberts did it for them thereby nullifying the Republican election victories and imposing on the people a law they'd clearly rejected.
The fact that Roberts doesn't have a problem with what he did is strong evidence that the judiciary is not neutral or fair but rather ordered towards enforcing a leftist agenda on the people.
That's why his attack on Trump is so bothersome and dangerous. As he claims to be defending a "neutral" judiciary he is in fact defending a highly partisan judiciary.
“That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
In a world in which Justice Ginsburg came out and attacked Trump before the election and where Federal judges have ruled that if Hillary had issued the exact same executive order that Trump did it would be legal but because Trump wrote it it isn't legal to act as though all judges are not biased is insane.
It behooves us to note how Roberts has borrowed the Democrat tactic of dishonestly overgeneralizing Trump's comments.
When Trump said that some illegals are criminals the #FakeNews media said that Trump said that all illegals are criminals.
When Trump said that people from some countries should be temporarily banned from entering the US because those countries couldn't be trusted to verify the identity of people the #FakeNews media said that Trump was banning all Muslims from entering the US even though the ban applied to everyone from those countries no matter what their faith and it didn't apply to 84% of the worlds Muslims.
Similarly Trump only attacked the 9th circuit not every Federal judge but Roberts response implies that Trump was attacking all judges. Either that or Roberts is claiming that there are no dishonest judges at all which is clearly absurd.
While it may be true that most judges are honest the reality is that judges Obama and Clinton appointed tend to be dishonest adherents of the "living Constitution" theory which says that judges can "update" the Constitution without following the prescribed process. That's how courts have enforced the Democrat agenda that couldn't be passed through the legislature.
There is no right to privacy, much less abortion, in the Constitution. That was made up by dishonest judges who were not in fact "doing their level best to do equal right". Rather they were using their position to impose on the country their own personal beliefs bypassing the Constitutionally defined process.
In one sense Roberts is right in that there are not Trump, Obama, Bush, or Clinton judges. There are just honest judges--ones who only interpret the law--and dishonest judges--those who think they can make laws.
No matter who appoints a judge if that judge believes that they have the right, and the responsibility, to create laws that the people's representatives won't vote for they are tyrants and traitors.
While Republicans and conservatives want an independent judiciary the Democrats do not. The whole fight over Kavanaugh was about the Democrats losing their power to make up laws through judicial fiat.
Honest judges have never imposed on the country rules that conservatives couldn't get through Congress but dishonest judges, like the "notorious RBG", have imposed the left's vision on America time and time again.
One of the most egregious cases was the ruling that redefined marriage. The Constitution explicitly says that all powers not granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States. The Constitution does not mention marriage. Hence the Supreme Court has no authority to define marriage; note that this also means that if a State were to redefine marriage the Supreme Court would have no authority to overturn that law.
Yet the Supreme Court overthrew the votes of 51,000,000 Americans and imposed the radical left's definition of marriage on the entire country.
Interestingly the very fact that Roberts would rebuke the president is a political act. If the judges are strictly neutral interpreters of the law as Roberts claims they shouldn't be going out attacking the President. It's the job of elected representatives to defend the judges not the job of "neutral" judges.
Further Justice Roberts didn't speak out against Obama when Obama attacked and threatened the Supreme Court on issues ranging from the Court's defense of the right of the people to contribute to political campaigns to Obamacare.
Hence it's hard to view these latest comments as not politically motivated. If Obama can threaten and intimidate the Supreme Court about Obamacare without Justice Roberts making a comment it's unclear why Roberts should respond so forcefully against Trump's valid concerns about political bias on the 9th circuit court.
On the other hand given that Roberts is the man who declared that what Obamacare called fees are really taxes thereby allowing Obamacare to stand it's not insane for us to wonder just how unbiased he is.
What an honest judge should have done with Obamacare is declare that according to the Constitution the Congress can't mandate fees on Americans if Americans choose to not do something-- Roberts in fact said so-- so that for Obamacare to stand the law would have to be amended to change fees to taxes. But Roberts knew that with a Republican Congress--elected by the people to get rid of Obamacare--an amended Obamacare would never pass. So instead of requiring the Congress to make Obamacare Constitutional Roberts did it for them thereby nullifying the Republican election victories and imposing on the people a law they'd clearly rejected.
The fact that Roberts doesn't have a problem with what he did is strong evidence that the judiciary is not neutral or fair but rather ordered towards enforcing a leftist agenda on the people.
That's why his attack on Trump is so bothersome and dangerous. As he claims to be defending a "neutral" judiciary he is in fact defending a highly partisan judiciary.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment