Chief Justice John Roberts warns Supreme Court over Texas abortion law

AZRWinger · #1 (**permalink**) 12-11-2021, 10:34 AM

Chief Justice Roberts has once again reverted to his true form where the SCOTUS acts as a super legislature infallible as in its discovery of new rights advancing the radical Leftists agenda.

Quote:

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.

Sorry Mr Chief Justice, the Constitution doesn't give the authority to "discover" new rights like abortion to the SCOTUS. Based on a mythical right to privacy conjured up from the so-called penumbra from the Bill of Rights, the so-called right to abortion begs to be challenged by the states. But to faux Conservative Justice Roberts who anointed himself with the authority to rewrite Obamacare law twice and discovered a heretofore unknown Federal right to homosexual marriage the act of state legislatures elected by the unwashed masses challenging the sacred SCOTUS edict of viability beginning beginning at 26 weeks is a full frontal assault on the Court as an institution.

Quote:

The opinion was a remarkable plea by the chief justice to his colleagues on the court to resist the efforts by right-wing lawmakers to get around court decisions they dislike, in this case Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that made abortion legal in the United States, within limits. But in this case, his urgent request was largely ignored by the other justices on the court who were appointed by Republicans.

His point to them was that the court system should decide what the law is, and it should resist efforts like that of the Texas Legislature to get around the courts by limiting the ability of abortion providers to sue.

It is a basic principle, he wrote, "that the Constitution is the 'fundamental and paramount law of the nation,' and '[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.'"

What a surprise the leader of the judicial branch, Chief Justice of the Court of no appeals, insists that in a Constitutional Republic empowers him and 4 or more of his cronies to decide what the law is. Never mind the Constitution gives the power of law making to Congress and assigns powers it doesn’t specifically give to the Federal government to the states and the People. Can't they see that Roberts wears a black robe and dispenses Justice from a raised dias?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1285747

jamesrage · #2 (**permalink**) 12-11-2021, 03:08 PM

Its funny how abortionists can claim that as long as I am allowed to own a single shot firearm, have to get a license and all sorts of other restrictions then my right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed on. But if Texas limits abortion to only for the first six weeks of pregnancy then all of a sudden those same abortionist claim that their right to an abortion is being infringed on.

AZRWinger · #3 (**permalink**) 12-11-2021, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesrage

Its funny how abortionists can claim that as long as I am allowed to own a single shot firearm, have to get a license and all sorts of other restrictions then my right to keep and bear arms has not been infringed on. But if Texas limits abortion to only for the first six weeks of pregnancy then all of a sudden those same abortionist claim that their right to an abortion is being infringed on.

The contrast between the right to keep and bear arms couldn’t be more stark. The 2A explicitly grants firearms rights. The so-called right to abortion was birthed from the illegitimate interpretation of the penumbra said to emitted by the bill of rights. States have great latitude determining gun regulations. The Federal judiciary dictates every aspect of gun laws.

saltwn · #4 (**permalink**) 12-11-2021, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Chief Justice Roberts has once again reverted to his true form where the SCOTUS acts as a super legislature infallible as in its discovery of new rights advancing the radical Leftists agenda.

Sorry Mr Chief Justice, the Constitution doesn't give the authority to "discover" new rights like abortion to the SCOTUS. Based on a mythical right to privacy conjured up from the so-called penumbra from the Bill of Rights, the so-called right to abortion begs to be challenged by the states. But to faux Conservative Justice Roberts who anointed himself with the authority to rewrite Obamacare law twice and discovered a heretofore unknown Federal right to homosexual marriage the act of state legislatures elected by the unwashed masses challenging the sacred SCOTUS edict of viability beginning beginning at 26 weeks is a full frontal assault on the Court as an institution.

What a surprise the leader of the judicial branch, Chief Justice of the Court of no appeals, insists that in a Constitutional Republic empowers him and 4 or more of his cronies to decide what the law is. Never mind the Constitution gives the power of law making to Congress and assigns powers it doesn’t specifically give to the Federal government to the states and the People. Can't they see that Roberts wears a black robe and dispenses Justice from a raised dias?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1285747

yes it would undermine the court. A straight forward vote on an appealed right of the uborn would be best, or a clause in the hippa regulations somehow taken through the court process and voted on would be better.
We have the technology to test unborn for pain, for viability, or brain activity, etcetera,; it's just laziness not t go that route and to try and undo this statute by skirting around the law through state legislation. Also there's the real fear this will set precedent.
Roberts is trying very hard to protect the court's independence here.

jamesrage · #5 (**permalink**) 12-12-2021, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

yes it would undermine the court. A straight forward vote on an appealed right of the uborn would be best, or a clause in the hippa regulations somehow taken through the court process and voted on would be better.
We have the technology to test unborn for pain, for viability, or brain activity, etcetera,; it's just laziness not t go that route and to try and undo this statute by skirting around the law through state legislation. .

You honestly think abortionists give two shits about viability of a unborn baby or a unborn baby having brain activity, feeling pain or any other stuff? These are the same monsters that support abortion all the way 9 months of pregnancy.

Quote:

Also there's the real fear this will set precedent.
Roberts is trying very hard to protect the court's independence here

Roberts is a liberal masquerading as a republican He is upset one of the things he supports might be undermined.

saltwn · #6 (**permalink**) 12-12-2021, 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jamesrage

You honestly think abortionists give two shits about viability of a unborn baby or a unborn baby having brain activity, feeling pain or any other stuff? These are the same monsters that support abortion all the way 9 months of pregnancy.

edit my remarks to say instead of skirting the law.
It matters to the law if it can be proved in court.

Roberts is a liberal masquerading as a republican He is upset one of the things he supports might be undermined.

If he was a liberal he would have voted to overturn citizens united. no he is a just man, therefore some on both sides don't like him and claim his actions are emotionally connected to some cause besides justice. That's just poppy-cock.

FrancSevin · #7 (**permalink**) 12-12-2021, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

The contrast between the right to keep and bear arms couldn’t be more stark. The 2A explicitly grants firearms rights. The so-called right to abortion was birthed from the illegitimate interpretation of the penumbra said to emitted by the bill of rights. States have great latitude determining gun regulations. The Federal judiciary dictates every aspect of gun laws.

Actually, the second amendment does not "grant" firearms rights. It swears under Constitutional contract agreement, that those rights are to be protected by the government as they a sovereign "birth rights."

This is specific in the Constitution. To your point, abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution as a right,,,,; or a crime. Or anything.
The right to one's own body is limited. One cannot commit suicide in most states. But again, the Constitution says nothing on the subject.

So it is left to the states, per the 10th Amendment.

However, the individual "right to life" IS in the Constitution and now that we know the fetus is not a lump of flesh belonging to the mother but a unique new citizen, the Constitution does guarantee that right. Hence the conundrum of sanctification of abortion on demand by the SCOTUS in 1977.

I E the right.... to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

AZRWinger · #8 (**permalink**) 12-13-2021, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FrancSevin

Actually, the second amendment does not "grant" firearms rights. It swears under Constitutional contract agreement, that those rights are to be protected by the government as they a sovereign "birth rights."

This is specific in the Constitution. To your point, abortion is not mentioned anywhere in the Constitution as a right,,,,; or a crime. Or anything.
The right to one's own body is limited. One cannot commit suicide in most states. But again, the Constitution says nothing on the subject.

So it is left to the states, per the 10th Amendment.

However, the individual "right to life" IS in the Constitution and now that we know the fetus is not a lump of flesh belonging to the mother but a unique new citizen, the Constitution does guarantee that right. Hence the conundrum of sanctification of abortion on demand by the SCOTUS in 1977.

I E the right.... to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

You are correct, the Constitution is one of negative rights, what the government may not do to you. It is not the source of rights.

mr wonder · #9 (**permalink**) 12-13-2021, 09:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AZRWinger

Chief Justice Roberts ....

I told my conservative buds when we was appointed that the only issues Roberts is "conservative" on are "law and order" issues.
That is, he'll rule for the STATE/COPS in doing whatever they claim they need to do.
Spy, Detain, Break into, Withhold, etc etc.. basically "the STATE" in the form of cops and prosecutors are given the benny of the doubt OVER the citizens.

Which IMHO is NOT what we need at this point, and Not a constitutional POV.

But everyone assured me that Roberts was great.
I never bought it.
He's dangerous and will likely be there a long time.
Thankfully the other conservative justices are truly more constitutionally minded.

FrancSevin · #10 (**permalink**) 12-13-2021, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mr wonder

I told my conservative buds when we was appointed that the only issues Roberts is "conservative" on are "law and order" issues.
That is, he'll rule for the STATE/COPS in doing whatever they claim they need to do.
Spy, Detain, Break into, Withhold, etc etc.. basically "the STATE" in the form of cops and prosecutors are given the benny of the doubt OVER the citizens.

Which IMHO is NOT what we need at this point, and Not a constitutional POV.

But everyone assured me that Roberts was great.
I never bought it.
He's dangerous and will likely be there a long time.
Thankfully the other conservative justices are truly more constitutionally minded.

Roberts was a Bush 43 appointee. 'nuff said.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
American, mr wonder, pjohns

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to jamesrage For This Useful Post:
American, mr wonder

The Following User Says Thank You to jamesrage For This Useful Post:
American

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
AZRWinger, GetAClue, mr wonder, saltwn

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to AZRWinger For This Useful Post:
FrancSevin, GetAClue, mr wonder

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to mr wonder For This Useful Post:
FrancSevin, GetAClue, jamesrage

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FrancSevin For This Useful Post:
jamesrage, mr wonder