John Roberts Is The Judicial Supremacist
The Founders Warned Us About
The Federalist,
by
Shawn Fleetwood
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
5/10/2025 10:09:43 AM
It’s a sad day in America when the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court ignores the basic framework of the Constitution he’s supposed to interpret.
That’s what happened on Wednesday, when Chief Justice John Roberts took it upon himself to subtly thumb his nose at President Trump and conservatives (snip) … the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president. That innovation doesn’t work if … the judiciary’s not independent. Its job is to, obviously, decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses
Post Reply
Reminder: “WE ARE A SALON AND NOT A SALOON”
Your thoughts, comments, and ideas are always welcome here. But we ask you to please be mindful and respectful. Threatening or crude language doesn't persuade anybody and makes the conversation less enjoyable for fellow L.Dotters.
Reply 1 - Posted by:
philsner 5/10/2025 10:15:17 AM (No. 1947958)
Well, if the judicial is the "weakest branch" since it has no power of the sword or over the purse, the other branches have to simply ignore its attempted "judicial supremacy".
51 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
marbles 5/10/2025 10:33:42 AM (No. 1947968)
According to johnny , all branches of government are equal but some are more equal than others.
42 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Trump Won 5/10/2025 10:37:28 AM (No. 1947970)
The easiest way to stop the judicial overreach of the federal courts would be Congress enacting a law to do so. However, given that Congress is loathe to actually do their collective jobs, then the administration should just ignore these blatantly unconstitutional injections. Maybe then the entire SCOTUS will settle these issues.
31 people like this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
sagman 5/10/2025 10:40:15 AM (No. 1947972)
The current situation is unsustainable. SCOTUS either either stops judicial overreach or the administration says it will not obey rulings that infringe on the president's executive authority.
Roberts doesn't seem to understand that he is lurching toward a constitutional crisis of his own making. When it goes down, I suspect he'll join with the three sisters to kneecap the president, and Alito, Gorsuch, Thomas, and Kavanaugh will do the right thing. The question is whether Barrett disappoints once again and in so doing perhaps dooms the SCOTUS to irrelevancy.
53 people like this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
franco 5/10/2025 10:45:25 AM (No. 1947975)
Getting tired of so-called "Constitutional Scholars" telling me the judiciary is co-equal. As Mark Levin points out so eloquently in his books, the founding fathers did not see the judiciary that way at all; the Supreme Court is the only court mentioned in The Constitution, and its role is to arbitrate disputes between the executive and legislative branches, not to have plenary power over both.
The judiciary is only co-equal if one accepts the implied power of judicial review that was asserted by CJ John Marshall in 1803. That power is not vested by The Constitution as adopted in 1789, and at some point both the executive and the legislative branches will have to stuff John Marshall's genie back into its bottle. I believe that day is approaching, and the republic will be better off for it, because the founding fathers did not intend to create a judicial tyranny with a veneer of representative government... and that's what we have right now.
50 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
planetgeo 5/10/2025 10:57:37 AM (No. 1947981)
The U.S. isn't lurching toward a constitutional crisis, it is already in one. It's already clear that the Supreme Court is choosing to not correct the blatantly unconstitutional actions by many of its district courts to interfere in the rightful actions of the President. The language in Article II couldn't be clearer in granting the authority to manage the agencies of the Executive branch to the President.
The continued inaction by the Supreme Court to rein in those district judges cannot be allowed to continue. President Trump has been very respectful of judicial processes. But the time has come to take the necessary corrective action.
There will undoubtedly be outage among the Democrats and their propaganda press, but the President MUST not only act to openly reject the restraining orders but should also make a national address to the people on why he is doing it. We the People will back him up in this. It MUST be done
42 people like this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
WhamDBambam 5/10/2025 11:01:33 AM (No. 1947983)
Pretty soon, he'll likely begin festooning himself with gold bars on his sleeves. Lots of gold bars.
12 people like this.
Reply 8 - Posted by:
chumley 5/10/2025 11:23:26 AM (No. 1947995)
Remember when he took office and all of us were dancing in the streets? Or some of the other justices? Or some of the senators and reps? Only to find out later we have been snookered again and we got another deep state lackey? Hope he enjoyed his time at Epstein Island. It will forever sully his legacy.
29 people like this.
Reply 9 - Posted by:
hershey 5/10/2025 11:42:38 AM (No. 1948000)
Have to wonder who got to him???
19 people like this.
Reply 10 - Posted by:
Venturer 5/10/2025 12:09:20 PM (No. 1948008)
I didn't study law, and I never stayed at a Holiday Inn, but I can see the feces hitting the fan over this one day.
We cannot survive as a government if we have every little biased, woke, dingleberry judge telling the pPresident what he can and cannot do. And we all know what a Dingleberry is even though most of us bathe.
In a case like that we have. We have a couple of hundred district court Judges and if each one can decide what the President can and cannot do we have chaos. Like we have right now. It has to stop, and by right the SCOTUS should stop it.
If Roberts and the 3 sisters cannot do what is right , then the Congress has to act and the President has to ignore them.
Again Just to remind all The Democrats started this ,even Schumer admitted it.
The Democrats are America's worst domestic enemy
35 people like this.
Reply 11 - Posted by:
whyyeseyec 5/10/2025 12:21:15 PM (No. 1948017)
Constitutional Farm
3 people like this.
Reply 12 - Posted by:
MickTurn 5/10/2025 12:30:41 PM (No. 1948021)
Sorry Jonny Boy, you don't get to rewrite the Constitution, Pound Broken Glass!
13 people like this.
Reply 13 - Posted by:
BarryNo 5/10/2025 12:53:30 PM (No. 1948031)
He needs spanked, badly. What a moron. It's awful sad when one of the top justices in the US, serving as head of SCOTUS, doesn't seem to understand the Constitution. or the limitations therein.
12 people like this.
Reply 14 - Posted by:
Hermit_Crab 5/10/2025 1:08:13 PM (No. 1948038)
"...That’s what happened on Wednesday, ...."
Nah, that is what happened in June of 2012 when Roberts declared that '0bamacare' was 'Constitutional'.
27 people like this.
Reply 15 - Posted by:
rikkitikki 5/10/2025 1:27:40 PM (No. 1948043)
Is there any truth to the rumor that Roberts was one of Epstein's "clients"?
9 people like this.
Reply 16 - Posted by:
Rumblehog 5/10/2025 2:21:36 PM (No. 1948061)
Shouldn't the Executive Branch investigate each member of the Supreme Court for any ethical or legal violations of their professional function? Were J. Edgar Hoover still running the FBI, you can be damned sure each Justice would have an active "raw" file folder their their name on it.
And by the way, what ever happened regarding that unprecedented, never before made, LEAK of a Supreme Court Justice's draft opinion to Politico, which nearly ended in the assassination of SC Justice Kavanaugh, thanks to Biden malfeasance. No, we still don't know which Justice leaked it, only cricket sounds come from Roberts' office.
11 people like this.
Reply 17 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 5/10/2025 2:50:39 PM (No. 1948073)
FTA - "The chief justice begins by claiming that the judiciary is a “co-equal” branch of government. Then, in the very next breath, he asserts that the courts can “strike down … acts of Congress or acts of the president.”"
With this statement, Roberts assures the demise of the United States of America, as founded. America has crossed the rubicon. But, the remaining salvation? Congress must try and convict Robert's for crimes against the country. Pubbies - a hint, try leading and draft Articles of Impeachment against Roberts, pass them in both houses, convict, then send Roberts home. Same for other federal district judges who have abused the Constitution and their oath of office.
17 people like this.
Reply 18 - Posted by:
Dodge Boy 5/10/2025 2:55:39 PM (No. 1948074)
Also, it would be very dangerous for the administration to start ignoring these lefty court rulings as silly and unfounded as they are. Because eventuallly, when the dims are back in charge, they will do the exact same thing. And then, it is absolutely all over for this once great nation.
6 people like this.
Reply 19 - Posted by:
SouthernYankee 5/10/2025 3:41:21 PM (No. 1948087)
Worst justice ever.
He is the reason Jefferson said When in the course of human events…. ‘The Tree of Liberty needs to be watered, from time to time, with the blood of of tyrants and patriots. Getting closer
7 people like this.
Reply 20 - Posted by:
Sunhan65 5/10/2025 5:27:24 PM (No. 1948109)
FTA Roberts said: "In our Constitution … the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president. That innovation doesn’t work if … the judiciary’s not independent."
It's not an "innovation." It's an invention. Judicial review and the power to declare acts of Congress unconstitutional is derived from a supreme court decision (Marbury versus Madison) and nowhere else. The Executive and Legislative branches have abided by the precedent the court established in Marbury because they don't want to fight the constitutional issue out with the court directly.
However, it may be time to do that. The Legislature and the Executive are granted the authority by the Constitution to make and execute laws. Nowhere does the Constitution give the supreme court the authority to review those laws and acts and declare them unconstitutional.
Either Roberts doesn't know this, in which case he doesn't understand the Constitution, or he does know it and wants us to believe something else.
Both are bad.
11 people like this.
Reply 21 - Posted by:
EQKimball 5/10/2025 8:16:03 PM (No. 1948138)
The Chief Justice said nothing more about judicial independence than other chiefs before him, as well as the entire judiciary throughout history. He is entirely correct that the branches are co-equals, but the popular misunderstanding of the separation is because that each branch possesses different powers prescribed by the framers. The Supreme Court can determine that a law or action is unconstitutional, but only the Executive Branch can enforce the court's ruling. For example, in 1957, President Eisenhower ordered elements of the 101st Airborne Division to Central High School in Little Rock to enforce the Supreme Court's decision on desegregation. Under Art. II of the Constitution, the president is invested with the Power (capital "P") of the Executive Branch. But that power does not include the right to remove judges or members of Congress. Under Art. I, Congress has the power to Impeach the President, but it cannot remove him by any other means. Of the three co-equal branches, the President has broad, extraordinary daily power, but the only power he has over the Supreme Court is the appointment power with the advice and consent of the Senate. The Congress can impeach justices, approve the Court budget, and enact laws (including codes of evidence and civil procedure). Congress may also establish lower trial and circuit courts, but only the President may appoint the judges with the consent of the Senate. Regrettably, American schools fail to teach the subject of the Constitution and government without proselytizing a vision of the nation that is based on opinion at the expense of facts.
3 people like this.
Reply 22 - Posted by:
Italiano 5/10/2025 8:20:23 PM (No. 1948139)
Has a Democrat nominee ever disappointed a Democrat President, or proved to be anything other than a faithful liberal/leftist, the Constitution be damned? I don't think so. Republicans seem to be about 50/50.
5 people like this.
Reply 23 - Posted by:
redraider 5/11/2025 7:38:06 AM (No. 1948251)
For context:
Bill Clinton signed into law in 1996 the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA). This authorized the expedited removal of certain undocumented immigrants without the need for judicial hearings or traditional due process.
Roberts and the Supremes need do nothing more than follow codified law. Anything more is judicial supremacy.
2 people like this.
Reply 24 - Posted by:
franq 5/11/2025 7:44:22 AM (No. 1948253)
Can it get any more confusing?
1 person likes this.
Reply 25 - Posted by:
FJB 5/11/2025 7:48:00 AM (No. 1948256)
Trump will have to pull habeas corpus and stick the crooks in jail. MAGA
1 person likes this.
Reply 26 - Posted by:
Elljay 5/11/2025 10:00:38 AM (No. 1948302)
The President swears an oath to defend the Constitution, too, and has as much of a duty to act upon it as
judges do. The Article II Executive is equal — and not subordinate — to the Article III courts. Time for Trump to pull an Andrew Jackson and ignore the rogue judges, including the Supreme Court if need be. As a co-equal branch, the Executive has as much right to check the judiciary as vice versa. Black robes are not meant to cloak evil.
2 people like this.
Reply 27 - Posted by:
Strike3 5/11/2025 10:06:35 AM (No. 1948308)
Roberts' day will come, probably sooner than later. His life is full of question marks and I'm guessing Epstein connections.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
Where did John-boy find that in the Constitution? And the judiciary independent while the other two branches are subject to its discipline? Nothing co-equal about that..