Standing Up For America

Justice Roberts has the sadz

Share It
Tweet It

Want to post your comments? Hit Subscribe to register for a free account - then post your comments!

Saturday, December 11, 2021

Justice Roberts has the sadz

Chief Justice John Roberts is sad. Texas passed a law gutting the Roe v. Wade and the majority of the Supreme Court is cool with that.The majority decided on Friday to keep the law in place while the case is being heard in the lower courts. Technically, the vote was 8-1 (with Justice Clarence Thomas not to allow the case to move forward) but clearly the chief justice does not like the law. 

NBC reported, “In a strongly worded opinion joined by the high court’s three liberal justices, Roberts wrote that the ‘clear purpose and actual effect’ of the Texas law was ‘to nullify this Court’s rulings.’ That, he said, undermines the Constitution and the fundamental role of the Supreme Court and the court system as a whole.

Writing for himself and the Three Liberal Stooges on the court, Roberts said, “The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings. It is, however, a basic principle that the Constitution is the ‘fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'”

He quoted Marbury v. Madison, 1803, which is the foundation of the Supreme Court assuming the role as the final arbiter of the Constitution. 

But the Constitution was set up with three branches that serve as checks and balances against the other two.

The problem with that is that the only method of checking the Supreme Court is to impeach and remove the justices or to pass a constitutional amendment. No one is fool enough to impeach a justice. Only once have Congress and the states overturned the court with an amendment. That was the 16th Amendment, which enabled the government to levy an income tax, which shows what the priorities of Congress and the state legislatures are.

The only way to overturn terrible decisions such as Plessy v. Ferguson (which enshrined the separate but equal doctrine of the Democrat Party) is to sue again 50 years later and hope a new court will overturn the earlier decision.

Unfortunately, good decisions can be overturned as well. In 1971, Baker v.  Nelson stated the Constitution allows states to ban gay marriage. In 2015, the court decided that all 50 states must recognize gay marriages. Roberts voted against that, by the way. But the Three Liberal Stooges all voted for it.

Quoting an 1809 case, Roberts wrote, “If the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery.”

But the court mocks itself. Consider immigration. The court allows California to ignore the federal law, but refused to allow Arizona to enforce it.


Ours is a constitutional republic that protects the rights of the individual while at the same time honoring the will of the people. In the case of abortion, both sides can make the same claim. You can say abortion protects a woman’s rights and it also reflects the will of the people in California and other blue places.

But banning abortion protects baby’s rights and it also reflects the will of the people in Texas and other red places.

You don’t have to be King Solomon to figure out what to do. Let the states decide. That’s what they did pre-Roe. 

Roberts ain’t happy to see 5 justices kick Roe v Wade to the curb? Too darned bad.

The states passed those abortion restrictions to force the court to reconsider Roe just as Minnesota and other states passed laws to overturn Baker.

Posted by Don Surber at 12/11/2021 11:00:00 AM