JUST MUSING ON THIS MAY MORN
DEMOCRAT'S TWO-TIER JUSTICE SYSTEM

WE WILL NOW FIND OUT IF SUPREME COURT JUSTICE HAS THE COJONES TO BUCK THE DEMOCRATS AND THE MEDIA

John-roberts

In an unprecedented leak of a Supreme Court draft opinion on a monumental case, it appears that five Justices, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, all voted with the majority opinion writer, Justice Sam Alito, to overturn the egregiously unconstitutional Roe v. Wade decision.

As expected, the court’s three progressives, Justices Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, all appointed during Democratic administrations, dissented.

However, it appears that the wishy-washy Chief Justice John Roberts, who has affirmed clearly unconstitutional cases in the past,  has not yet voted—although his vote will not change the decision if we are to believe this first draft opinion.

Let us hope that the past is not a prologue…

Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U.S. 529 (2013). The Roberts Court's evisceration of the most important civil-rights legislation passed since Reconstruction was its lowest moment. The impact of the decision to reverse a key part of the Voting Rights Act is anti-democratic, allowing numerous illegal voter-suppression schemes to go into effect, and making it much more difficult to stop them. But what makes Shelby County especially egregious is its threadbare legal reasoning, which can't even be called "constitutional law." The Constitution unambiguously gives Congress the power to enforce the 15th Amendment. The "equal sovereignty of the states" doctrine that the chief justice used to trump Congress's explicit powers is a Roberts invention, and he has yet to identify any constitutional basis or Supreme Court precedent for it.

NFIB v. Sebelius, 567 U.S. 519 (2012). This case is generally seen as a liberal triumph because Chief Justice Roberts ultimately decided not to rule Barack Obama's signature domestic policy achievement unconstitutional. But its Medicaid expansion holding might actually belong at the top of the list. In terms of its policy impact, it would be hard to identify a worse decision in the history of the Supreme Court. Thousands of people a year will literally die because Roberts re-wrote the Medicaid expansion of the Affordable Care Act to make it much easier for states to opt out. Allowed Congress to force people to buy health insurance from private companies on the basis of the regulation being a “tax,” by implication allowing Congress do virtually anything with the taxing power that no independent power, even the expansive Commerce Clause, would allow.

Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak, 590 U.S. (2020). The United States Supreme Court denied a church’s request for an exemption from a state mandate limiting the size of worship services. Under the Governor’s edict, a 10-screen “multiplex” may host 500 moviegoers at any time. A casino, too, may cater to hundreds at once, with perhaps six people huddled at each craps table here and a similar number gathered around every roulette wheel there. Large numbers and close quarters are fine in such places. But churches, synagogues, and mosques are banned from admitting more than 50 worshippers—no matter how large the building, how distant the individuals, how many wear face masks, no matter the precautions at all.

Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011). The Supreme Court determined that a District Attorney’s office cannot be held vicariously liable for failing to properly train its prosecutors based on a single incident in which prosecutors suppressed evidence favorable to the defendant. A 22-year-old African American father of two was awarded $14 million after serving close to 20 years for a murder he didn’t commit and in which the prosecutor withheld exculpatory evidence.

Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC v. Bennett, 564 U.S. 721 (2011). The Court held that Arizona's matching funds scheme substantially burdens political speech and is not sufficiently justified by a compelling interest to survive First Amendment scrutiny.

The Court’s refusal to hear a Pennsylvania election challenge would have forced Pennsylvania to adhere to existing state and federal election laws. This would have eliminated many of the procedural defects which permitted an election to be unduly influenced by illegal actions. With no public comment, the justices refused to grant a review of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruling.

20–542   REPUBLICAN PARTY OF PENNSYLVANIA v. VERONICA DEGRAFFENREID, ACTING SECRETARY OF PENNSYLVANIA, ET AL.

20–574 JAKE CORMAN, ET AL. v. PENNSYLVANIA DEMOCRATIC PARTY, ET AL. ON PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME

Bottom line…

If Roe v. Wade is not overturned, some members of the United States Supreme Court are not fit to sit in judgment of matters involving Constitutional issues and should be considered unfit ideologues.

We are so screwed.

-- steve


“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS


Comments