Conservatives Accidentally Siding With the Villain Again
Roberts Is at It Again, Siding with Liberal Justices To Strike Downwards Pro-Life Police force
Seeing Chief Justice John Roberts side with the liberal justices on yet another high-profile Supreme Courtroom conclusion brings to listen on quondam debate line employed by Ronald Reagan against Jimmy Carter: There yous go again.
Let's go down the contempo listing of Roberts' defections from constitutional fidelity, starting with his Mon determination striking downwards a Louisiana constabulary requiring doctors performing abortions to having admitting privileges at a hospital within 30 miles of the clinic.
Roberts sided with Justices Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan finding such a requirement unconstitutional.
Listen you, 4 years ago Roberts dissented from a ruling striking down a Texas police force with a similar requirement, only that requirement was more than restrictive than Louisiana'south.
In that instance, now-retired Justice Anthony Kennedy joined with the liberal wing of the court in the 2016 Texas case Whole Woman'southward Health five. Hellerstedt.
Riddle me this: How is a more restrictive Texas police force constitutional in Roberts' mind in 2016 simply a less restrictive Louisiana law unconstitutional in 2020?
Roberts has fully ensconced himself in the function of swing vote offset filled in contempo times past quondam Justice Sandra Mean solar day O'Connor, then by Kennedy and now by the master justice.
Remember that talk most the court shifting to the right with President Donald Trump'south appointment of Brett Kavanaugh to supplant Kennedy?
Roberts has assured u.s. that has not happened.
Practice you call back Roberts is too impacted by political considerations?
Yeah: 99% (168 Votes)
No: 1% (2 Votes)
In his concurring opinion on Mon in June Medical Serivces LLC v. Russo, the chief justice wrote he felt jump to follow court precedent and claimed the Louisiana law was just as restrictive as the Texas police force. But that nevertheless does not explain the flip-flop.
"The legal doctrine of stare decisis requires the states, absent special circumstances, to care for like cases alike," the chief justice wrote. "The Louisiana law imposes a brunt on access to ballgame just as astringent as that imposed by the Texas law, for the same reasons. Therefore Louisiana's police force cannot stand up under our precedents."
Justice Clarence Thomas took him to task for the switch, noting stare decisis more often than not refers to settled police with a long record of decisions stemming from information technology.
"[North]o ane could seriously claim … Whole Adult female'due south Health, decided just four Terms ago — [is] part of the 'inheritance from our forefathers,' fidelity to which demonstrates 'reverence to antiquity,'" Thomas wrote, quoting philosopher Edmund Shush.
Of course, Roberts has been more than willing to side with the liberal justices when his vote actually matters.
We all call up him throwing down the deciding lot upholding the constitutionality of Obamacare.
But the trend has get pronounced since Trump took function.
Last summer, Roberts, in his majority stance, ruled against the president'southward administration including a citizenship question on the census. He claimed Trump's commerce secretary did not explain well enough why such a question was relevant.
What kind of silliness is that? Our state ought to know how many citizens it has so they tin be properly represented in Congress.
The citizenship question, in some form, has appeared in virtually every census conducted during the history of the nation.
Earlier this month, Roberts joined the liberal justices in rejecting a suit brought by California churches in which they argued Gov. Gavin Newsom'southward restrictions on religious gatherings were too restrictive.
The governor had limited church gatherings to 25 percent capacity while secular businesses were non subject to such a restriction.
These included "factories, offices, supermarkets, restaurants, retail stores, pharmacies, shopping malls, pet grooming shops, bookstores, florists, hair salons, and cannabis dispensaries," Kavanaugh wrote in his dissent.
"California's 25% occupancy cap on religious worship services indisputably discriminates against religion, and such bigotry violates the First Amendment," Kavanaugh concluded.
Maybe the whopper of them all from this term was Roberts' ruling blocking Trump from winding down the Deferred Activity for Childhood Arrivals program.
Former President Barack Obama best-selling on numerous occasions he had no authority to alter immigration law without Congress, simply he did information technology anyway during the summer of 2012 at the height of his re-election campaign.
In his bulk opinion, Roberts made the implausible claim the justices were not seeking a specific policy upshot.
"We do non decide whether DACA or its rescission are sound policies. 'The wisdom' of those decisions 'is none of our concern,'" the main justice wrote.
"We address only whether the bureau complied with the procedural requirement that information technology provide a reasoned explanation for its action," Roberts connected. "Here the bureau failed to consider the conspicuous problems of whether to retain abstinence and what if anything to do about the hardship to DACA recipients.
"That dual failure raises doubts about whether the bureau appreciated the telescopic of its discretion or exercised that discretion in a reasonable way."
Since when is it the judicial branch's role to gauge if the executive co-operative exercised its "discretion in a reasonable manner" in terms of ending an illegal programme?
Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas responded to Roberts' decision, observing, "It cannot be the law that what Barack Obama has unlawfully done, no president may undo. Notwithstanding John Roberts again postures as a Solomon who will relieve our institutions from political controversy and accountability."
"If the Main Justice believes his political judgment is so exquisite, I invite him to resign, travel to Iowa, and go elected. I suspect voters volition find his foreign views no more compelling than do the principled justices on the Court."
What has become perfectly clear is Trump needs some other term if for no other reason than to effort to truly establish a conservative, law-abiding majority on the court.
Then Master Justice Roberts tin bring together with the liberals all he wants while the American people enjoy a high court that keeps fidelity with the Constitution regardless of political expediency.
Source: https://www.westernjournal.com/roberts-siding-liberal-justices-strike-pro-life-law/
0 Response to "Conservatives Accidentally Siding With the Villain Again"
Post a Comment