john roberts2

US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ dissent on the gay marriage decision issued by the court is not only too little too late and indicative of his deficient leadership skills; it also reflects his misapprehension of the power of the court and the implications of the decision relative to the integrity of the court. The court has absolutely no constitutional authority to bind anyone, not party to the litigation before the court, to any decision of the court. States are not bound by this decision.

The Judiciary Act of 1789 states,
“SEC. 34. And be it further enacted, That the laws of the several states, except where the constitution, treaties or statutes of the United States shall otherwise require or provide, shall be regarded as rules of decision in trials at common law in the courts of the United States in cases where they apply.”

which means the courts must recognize state laws as controlling absent a clear constitution precept or federal law.

Unlike a jury foreman, who is randomly selected by fellow jurors, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court is especially selected for a specific and permanent job.
Ostensibly he or she is selected for his or her constitutional prowess, reverence for the rule of law and leadership ability. John Roberts never asserted that he was such a person. In fact at his confirmation hearing he likened the job to an umpire; not a participant, rather the ultimate spectator. The job of the Chief Justice, however, is to ensure that all decisions of the court are well founded in the US Constitution and the laws that flow therefrom. The Chief Justice has no obligation to render a decision known to him or her to have no clear constitutional founding. In effect, the Chief Justice has veto power.

Notwithstanding Roberts’ lack of appreciation for the requirements of the position, he received a unanimous endorsement from the American Bar Association (ABA) and was confirmed by the US senate. Roberts’ performance on the court. however, has been in keeping with his umpire metaphor; except he does not use the official rule book; the US Constitution; and he does not ensure everyone “plays by the rules”.

The Roberts’ court is preoccupied with social reform. Anthony Kennedy is obsessed with trying to confer “dignity” on a deviant subculture. In an interview on The Takeaway Ruth Bader Ginsberg said, “I see my advocacy as part of an effort to make the equality principle everything the founders would have wanted it to be if they weren’t held back by the society in which they lived,”; clearly demonstrating her complete disconnect with the US Constitution and the function of the court; and her view that the founders and members of the court are somehow superior to thr societies from which they came.

Ginsberg is apparently joined by several other members of the court who together conspire to convolute rationales for hearing cases, through which they can advance their personal agendas; and refusing to hear cases antithetical to their view; which is a violation of the 1st amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

The Roberts’ court rejects all constitutional constraint, opting instead to selectively rely on prior court decisions to which it refers as “case law”; and to which Roberts, at his confirmation hearing, referred as precedent. The problem with that is neither “case law” nor precedent is law. Law is legislation and the US Constitution vests “all” legislative power in the congress; not the court. Even in the eighteenth century the founders knew that having the power to legislate and the power to adjudicate in one body was inherently unjust and conducive to tyranny.

The injustice is abundantly clear in the case of Perry v Brown (aka Perry v Schwarzenegger; Hollingsworth v Brown). Beginning with Vaughn Walker, a California District Court judge (now retired) who presided over the first appeal in the case. Walker had an obligation under the Code of Conduct for United States Judges to disclose the fact that he stood to benefit personally from a favorable decision in the case; he did not.

Then Walker, like any other judge, was bound by constitutional oath to adjudicate in accordance with the US Constitution and existing federal law. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was and is the law but Walker stated that he felt DOMA was unconstitutional and ignored it. It is not a function of any court to determine the constitutionality of a federal law; nor does any court have the power to amend, expand, repeal or otherwise invalidate an Act of Congress. In doing so, Walker clearly demonstrated his inability to impartially follow the law in the case.

Instead of the Roberts’ court addressing the obvious violations and improprieties in the district court proceedings, it compounded the injustice by refusing to hear the appeal claiming the voters of California lacked “standing”. “Standing” is a court contrivance that has no constitutional foundation nor is it codified in any federal law. The court cannot make law; particularly a law which violates the US Constitution.

Other court devices which serve to deny Americans justice are “substantive due process” and “protected classes”. Neither is codified in federal law and both are unconstitutional because they deny some Americans the equal protection of the law in deference to others. Title VII of the Civil Rights Acts prohibits specific bases for refuses to render specific goods and services.  No matter how well intentioned, the court has no authority to expand the bases or list of goods and or services.

The US Supreme Court is first and foremost an appellate court; not a ruler. It is extremely unlikely that any decision will please both parties to a dispute. Therefore, the courts decision must be well founded in constitutional or federal law; otherwise the court has arbitrarily chosen the winner and the loser and denied both parties justice.

Roberts now has to show that he is not corrupt and has the ability to retether the court to the US Constitution. Otherwise the people must force congress to impeach the members and have them tried for malfeasance..


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s