The Man Who Made Charlottesville Inevitable


The recent tragic events in Charlottesville, Va are but one instance of the myriad consequences resulting from US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts’ failure to perform his constitutional duty.

Article III of the United States Constitution states, “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court,…”. Section 8 of The Judiciary Act of 1789; legislation enacted by congress under authority of the Constitution; states,

“And be it further enacted, That the justices of the Supreme Court, and the district judges, before they proceed to execute the duties of their respective offices, shall take the following oath or affirmation, to wit: “I, A. B., do solemnly swear or affirm, that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent on me as , according to the best of my abilities and understanding, agreeably to the constitution, and laws of the United States. So help me God.”.

As Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court (scotus), one of the duties incumbent upon John Roberts is to ensure that all decisions of the scotus are well founded in the Constitution and the laws of the United States; as they exist. However, Roberts has allowed or led the court to render decisions having no reasonably discernible constitutional foundation; supported only by a collage of excerpts from previous court cases, contrived to ostensibly support the court’s preconceived view.

The scotus further presumes to decide what does and does not qualify as “free speech”; but the US Constitution does not empower the court to do so. The first amendment to the Constitution prohibits congress from enacting laws abridging the freedom of speech or the right to peaceably assemble, however, nothing; expressed or implied in the Constitution; extends that prohibition to the several states. Therefore, under the tenth amendment to the Constitution, states have the right to enact legislation necessary to preserve the peace and protect public safety.

Virginia should, have required the organizers of each group to post substantial bonds, in advance, to be forfeited upon any breach of the peace; and provided for immediate arrests of any demonstrators not covered by bond and permit; but the corrupt judiciary panders like politicians; and it would doubtless have entertained arguments of a first amendment violation even though none would exist.

Roberts also joins the scotus in recognizing so called “hate crime” legislation despite the fact that it patently contravenes the fourteenth amendment. “Hate” is an emotion and nothing in the Constitution empowers any part of the federal government to control how people think and or feel by punishing them for undesirable thoughts or emotions.

Roberts has made no attempt to constrain Ruth Bader Ginsburg who has publicly stated, in no uncertain terms, that she is not guided by the law but rather by her idea of what the country’s founders envisioned. The scotus has successfully deluded the country into believing the court need only declare a law unconstitutional to invalidate it; and legalize an activity by decree. The fact is the court has no authority to invalidate any duly enacted legislation; nor legalize any activity or behavior; and presuming to do so only serves to invalidate the integrity of the court.

The Constitution presupposes that the scotus will exercise due diligence and earnest deliberation before rendering a decision, so that the decision is permanent and final. Therefore the Constitution does not provide for petitioning of the scotus to reconsider any case upon which the it has rendered a decision; nor does it provide for the court to reconsider a decided case, so that the scotus practice of reconsidering past cases to “overturn” past decisions has no basis in law or the Constitution.

While Ginsburg has been the most forthcoming, relative to the court’s corrupt practices, all members apparently believe the court to be omnipotent and decline to be constrained by anything other than their own views and ability to sway or coerce four other members to their way of thinking.

When five unelected  individuals decide who gets justice and who does not, it fosters an environment of frustration and anger which can manifest in violent fatal events like Charlottesville; John Roberts and his scotus cultivate that environment.

Only congress can impeach judges and justices who refuse to be constrained by the Constitution and the laws of the United States; but congress is too busy posturing for the next election.


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