Chief Justice John Roberts just PROVED Trump’s point: The Supreme Court IS politicized

By Jon Dougherty

(NationalSentinel) If you are a Cabinet official in a presidential administration, and you hear a majority of Supreme Court justices actually say that a regulation, rule, or policy you implemented was not unconstitutional, not against federal law, and well within your purview to issue, you would rightly assume that the high court was going to issue a ruling in your favor.

But then, you might not be taking into consideration two things: Chief Justice John Roberts and his disdain for the current occupant of the Oval Office, President Donald Trump.

Thanks to Roberts, who was appointed by an establishment ‘conservative’ president, George W. Bush, the Census Bureau will likely not be able to include a citizenship question on the 2020 Census because…well, because.

On Thursday, Roberts voted with the liberals on the high court in a 5-4 ruling that did not claim the Commerce Department’s decision to include a citizenship question in the census next year was unconstitutional or that Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross exceeded his authority when it decided to respond to another agency’s request to include it.



Rather, as Roberts wrote for the majority, Commerce just didn’t justify the reason for adding the question good enough. Or something like that.

“The Secretary’s decision to reinstate a citizenship question  is  amenable  to  review  for  compliance  with  those  and  other  provisions  of  the  Census  Act,  according  to  the  general   requirements   of   reasoned   agency   decision making,” Roberts wrote in his opinion. “At  the  heart  of  this  suit  is  respondents’  claim  that  the  Secretary  abused  his  discretion  in  deciding  to  reinstate  a  citizenship question.

“Altogether,  the  evidence  tells  a  story  that  does  not  match the explanation the Secretary gave for his decision.  In the Secretary’s telling, Commerce was simply acting on a  routine  data  request  from  another  agency,” he continued.

Well, so what? That’s not the question before the court.

In fact, the purpose of federal courts and especially the Supreme Court is to determine whether an administrative act by the government is both legal and constitutional. And Ross’ decision clearly was, as the dissenters wrote in their separate opinion.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch argue in their dissent the Supreme Court’s only role was to determine whether Commerce Secretary Ross was breaking the law by including a question about citizenship; and a majority on the court found he did not break the law in doing so.


“The  Court’s erroneous decision in this  case is bad enough, as it unjustifiably interferes with the 2020 census.  But the implications of today’s decision are broader.  With today’s  decision,  the  Court  has  opened  a  Pandora’s  box  of  pretext-based challenges in administrative law,” they wrote.

“In short, today’s decision is a departure from traditional principles of administrative law.  Hopefully it comes to be understood  as  an  aberration—a  ticket  good  for  this  day  and this train only,” they continued.

“Because the  Secretary’s  decision  to  reinstate  a  citizenship question on the 2020 census was legally sound and a reasoned  exercise of his broad discretion, I respectfully dissent from Part V of the opinion of the Court,” they concluded.

Once again Roberts came to his conclusion — the one he believes is right for our country — first, then crafted a decision to support his preconceived conclusion…just like he did when he twisted logic, the law, and the English language to rule that Obamacare was a “tax” and within Congress’ authority (when it was no such thing — even Obama said so).

Because the census forms are set to be printed July 1, according to reports, there is virtually no way that this issue will be settled by a lower court in time for this decade’s census.

Roberts knows that. So it means even if the high court eventually does side with the administration on this, it’ll be another 10 years before the question can be asked — and obviously Roberts is betting that whoever is president for the 2030 Census won’t care or will oppose the question altogether.

A highly political ruling, then.

In November, Roberts pushed back against POTUS Donald Trump’s very accurate statement that “Obama judges” were improperly ruling that his Executive Branch immigration policies were not legal or constitution. The president implied very plainly that federal judges are essentially political appointees, and he was absolutely right (having appointed several himself by then, based purely on political ideology).

American Liberty: “Established 1776” Order yours now!

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement released by the court’s public information office. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

Yes, we do, Chief Justice Roberts. We always have.

And the longer you’re on the bench, the more you prove it with your decisions.

Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Subscribe to our Brighteon channel

Sign up for our daily headlines newsletter

You Might Like


22
Leave a Reply

avatar
21 Comment threads
1 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  Subscribe  
Notify of
dickee
Guest
dickee

TOO DAMN BAD ROBERTS IS SO YOUNG… NOT ONLY IS TRUMP RIGHT ABOUT HIM AND OTHER CIRCUIT COURT JUDGES POLITICIZING WITH LEFTIST IDEOLOGY AND CREATING RULINGS THAT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE TO LIVE WITH WHEN THAT IS “NOT” THEIR JOB, BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE THIS SH*T GOING ON FOR A LONG TIME… AT LEAST UNTIL RUTH DIES, AND TRUMP CAN FINALLY GET A MAJORIY VOTE “WITHOUT” PISS-ANT ROERTS.

ItsJo
Guest
ItsJo

This may have something to do with Roberts, giving in to ObamaCare, as Obama himself, may have ‘threatened to take the TWO adopted children FROM Roberts and his wife they brought back from Ireland with them.” It was suggested that the ‘adoption was NOT LEGAL and from what we KNOW about the Corrupt Obama/Spying on Everyone, perhaps one of his Lemmings from his Intel Agencies, “Got the Story about the Adoption and ‘USED IT AS COLLATERAL AGAINST JUSTICE ROBERTS W/THE ADOPTION, AND LET HIM KNOW, THOSE KIDS WILL BE RETURNED TO IRELAND, IF ‘YOU DO NOT PLAY BALL WITH OBAMA.”… Read more »

Eloise
Guest

Chief Justice Roberts is somehow compromised, and he makes decisions according to orders he receives from his Deep State overlords. Whether the hold over him is related to his adoption of children or something else, he is compromised. Damn the Constitution, All Hail, Deep State anti-America handlers—John Roberts belongs to you. You win. We lose.

Dan
Guest
Dan

Trump, Do it anyway!

trackback

[…] we reported Thursday, a majority of justices agreed that it is, indeed, constitutional to add the […]

trackback

[…] we reported Thursday, a majority of justices agreed that it is, indeed, constitutional to add the […]

trackback

[…] we reported Thursday, a majority of justices agreed that it is, indeed, constitutional to add the […]

trackback

[…] we reported Thursday, a majority of justices agreed that it is, indeed, constitutional to add the […]

trackback

[…] we reported Thursday, a majority of justices agreed that it is, indeed, constitutional to add the […]

trackback

[…] we reported Thursday, a majority of justices agreed that it is, indeed, constitutional to add the […]

trackback

[…] we reported Thursday, a majority of justices agreed that it is, indeed, constitutional to add the […]

trackback

[…] we reported Thursday, a majority of justices agreed that it is, indeed, constitutional to add the […]

trackback

[…] we reported Thursday, a majority of justices agreed that it is, indeed, constitutional to add the […]

trackback

[…] we reported Thursday, a majority of justices agreed that it is, indeed, constitutional to add the […]

trackback

[…] we reported, Roberts, who sided with the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 ruling against the administration, […]

trackback

[…] we reported, Roberts, who sided with the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 ruling against the administration, […]

trackback

[…] we reported, Roberts, who sided with the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 ruling against the administration, […]

trackback

[…] we reported, Roberts, who sided with the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 ruling against the administration, […]

trackback

[…] we reported, Roberts, who sided with the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 ruling against the administration, […]

trackback

[…] we reported, Roberts, who sided with the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 ruling against the administration, […]

trackback

[…] we reported, Roberts, who sided with the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 ruling against the administration, […]

%d bloggers like this: