Justice Roberts, you miss, or ignore, the truth spoken by President Trump

See: Why Chief Justice John Roberts spoke out

November 21, 2018

”In a statement on Wednesday, made public because of a query from The Associated Press, Roberts said, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Your above statement, Justice Roberts, made in response to President Trump’s criticism of our Judicial System handing down decisions which are “not law”, a criticism which is not only accurate, but it is documented by your very response to Trump’s criticism. Our judges and Justices job is not to do “equal right to those appearing before them” as you assert. Their job, as outlined in our very Constitution, is to support and defend “this Constitution”, and in doing so, observe “the rules of the common law”.

To put this another way, our judges and Justices are bound by our Constitution to observe and expound upon the text of our written Constitution, and its documented legislative intent, which gives context to its text. This of course is in harmony with the most fundamental rule of the “common law”. Our judges and Justices are not given latitude to do “equal right” as you assert, but are bound to adhere to the text of the Constitution and its documented legislative intent as expressed during its framing and ratification debates.

In a newspaper article published in the Alexandria Gazette, July 2, 1819, Chief Justice Marshall asserted he could "cite from [the common law] the most complete evidence that the intention is the most sacred rule of interpretation."

It should also be pointed out that the notable Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (1833) wrote: "The first and fundamental rule in the interpretation of all instruments is, to construe them according to the sense of the terms, and the intention of the parties."

Your assertion that your job is to do “equal right to those appearing before” you, opens the door to you imposing your personal whims and fancies as being right and equal, and abandons an adherence to the “rule of law”.

To put this in other words, Justice Black once declared: “The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice.” – Justice Hugo L. Black ( U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968

Have our judges and Justices abandoned the rule of law in favor of imposing their personal views as the rule of law? You bet they have and have even admitted it when doing so, a case in point is the Kelo ruling.

Justice Stevens in delivering the opinion of the Court writes:

while many state courts in the mid-19th century endorsed "use by the public" as the proper definition of public use, that narrow view steadily eroded over time. Not only was the "use by the public" test difficult to administer (e.g., what proportion of the public need have access to the property? at what price?),7 but it proved to be impractical given the diverse and always evolving needs of society.8 Accordingly, when this Court began applying the Fifth Amendment to the States at the close of the 19th century, it embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as "public purpose.”

The irrefutable fact is, Justice Roberts, the people did not erode the meaning of “public use” via an appropriate constitutional amendment process which is the only lawful way to change the meaning of words in a Constitution. The Court took it upon itself to do for the people what they did not willingly and knowingly do for themselves with a constitutional amendment as required by our Constitution, and, the Court brazenly appealed to the “evolving needs of society” to justify its own “broader and more natural interpretation” of “public use”. And this amounts to judicial tyranny!

On the other hand, Justice Thomas, in his dissenting opinion, observes the rules of constitutional law and carefully documents the meaning of the words “public use” as they were understood during the time the constitution was adopted. He then concludes:

”The Court relies almost exclusively on this Court’s prior cases to derive today’s far-reaching, and dangerous, result. See ante, at 8-12. But the principles this Court should employ to dispose of this case are found in the Public Use Clause itself, not in Justice Peckham’s high opinion of reclamation laws, see supra, at 11. When faced with a clash of constitutional principle and a line of unreasoned cases wholly divorced from the text, history, and structure of our founding document, we should not hesitate to resolve the tension in favor of the Constitution’s original meaning. For the reasons I have given, and for the reasons given in Justice O’Connor’s dissent, the conflict of principle raised by this boundless use of the eminent domain power should be resolved in petitioners’ favor. I would reverse the judgment of the Connecticut Supreme Court.”

And then we have Helvering v. Davis” and Steward Machine Co. case upholding the Social Security Act in which the Court stated:

“Congress may spend money in aid of the ‘general welfare.’ Constitution, art. 1, 8; United States v. Butler, … There have been great statesmen in our history who have stood for other views. We will not resurrect the contest. It is now settled by decision. United States v. Butler, supra. The conception of the spending power advocated by Hamilton and strongly reinforced by Story has prevailed over that of Madison, which has not been lacking in adherents”

What is significant is, the court cited the Butler decision decided the previous year and goes on to assert Hamilton’s view concerning the phrase “general welfare” prevails over that of Madison, and it will not “resurrect the contest”. In other words, the Court refused to follow a fundamental rule of constitutional construction and review the historical record during the framing and ratification debates of our Constitution to document the meaning of “general welfare” as it was understood during the framing and ratification debates. Instead, it relied upon something Hamilton wrote years after the Constitution had been adopted concerning the phrase “general welfare” in order to uphold the socialist Social Security Act as being constitutional, and defiantly ignored the meaning of “general welfare” as expressed during the framing and ratification debates which gave birth to our Constitution. The Justice even ignored what Hamilton wrote during the framing and ratification debates:

Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 83, which was written to explain the meaning of the Constitution, referred to a “specification of particulars” [those grants of power appearing beneath Article 1, Section, 8, Clause 1] which he goes on to say “evidently excludes all pretension to a general legislative authority“.

The bottom line is, Justice Roberts, President Trump is correct in that countless judges and Justices have, and are to this very day, ignoring the rule of law ___ the text of our Constitution and its documented legislative intent ___ and imposing what they believe is equal and right, as you did when defying the defined and limited powers granted to Congress when you pretended Congress is vested with power by our Constitution to enter the states and meddle in the people’s personal decisions and choices with regard to their health care needs ___ a power never granted to Congress!


The whole aim of construction, as applied to a provision of the Constitution, is to discover the meaning, to ascertain and give effect to the intent of its framers and the people who adopted it._____HOME BLDG. & LOAN ASS’N v. BLAISDELL, 290 U.S. 398 (1934)

1 Like

Happy Thanksgiving. Let’s revisit a post from 2 years ago.

Verbose then, verbose now. Keep trying to tell the chief justice of the Supreme Court how to do his job. I’m sure your opinion carries a lot of weight.


So is an Obama judge is someone who releases illegal aliens back into our communities and then sends the bill to the American people?

If there are three CO-EQUAL branches of government, how is it CO-EQUAL for two branches to be permitted to criticise, keep accountable and provide a check on POTUS exceeding their constitutional powers, but it not be acceptable for POTUS to criticise, keep accountable and provide a check on the legislature and the judiciary exceeding their constitutional powers?

Good question…one that they won’t answer.

With all due respect, SottoVoce, I noticed you took the liberty to ridicule me rather than refute the accuracy of what I have posted, which includes supportive documentation defining a judge and Justices fundamental duty. Is that your best shot?


Those who reject abiding by the text of our Constitution and the intentions and beliefs under which our Constitution was agree to, as those intentions and beliefs may be documented from historical records, wish to remove the anchor and rudder of our constitutional system so they may then be free to “interpret” the Constitution to mean whatever they wish it to mean.

1 Like

The Left have a short attention span, and are not interested in evidence, and where that evidence LOGICALLY leads.

They can listen for three sentences to the presentation of a contrary view, and then they feel compelled to try and silence the inconvenient speech of the inconvenient speaker presenting an uncomfortable message. Hence Sotto Voce’s reaction,
" Verbose then, verbose now. Keep trying to tell the chief justice of the Supreme Court how to do his job. I’m sure your opinion carries a lot of weight." Or, in other words,
“No one’s listening. No one cares what you think. So you might as well stop speaking.”

1 Like

There is no requirement that anybody care about what you or anybody else writes here.

The check the POTUS and congress has over the SC is legislation and constitutional amendments.

The branches aren’t co-equal and never have been.

What happens when all three habitually ignore constitutional limitations?

A few examples from both sides of the spectrum.

Defense is Marriage Act
Most gun control
Pot being illegal
Universal Healthcare.

All of the above are nowhere specifically authorized by the constitution and should have required an amendment.

I don’t know why you think all of those things need a Constitutional amendment.

Maybe try reading amendment number 10.

Done. Now what?

DOMA. What power was used to pass it? Although it’s since been removed.

Gun Control is specifically prohibited. An amendment should be needed.

Pot being illegal. What constitutional justification is there for it?

Govt mandated healthcare. No power exists to justify its passage.

Most of these things could, and should, be passed at the state level without issue if desired.

1 Like

Of course, nobody questions that you’re entitled to all of those opinions.

Each of these issues has been addressed through the courts.

Why do you presume to know more about our laws than trained justices?

It’s not about knowing more about our laws than trained justices. It’s about following the text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text.

For example, and with regard to our federal government entering the states to prohibit the growth, use and transportation of marijuana within a state’s borders, keep in mind it took a constitutional amendment, Section two of the 18th Amendment, to allow our federal government to enter the states to prohibit the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors. But this power was repealed by the 21st Amendment!

So, where is the grant of power in our federal Constitution allowing the federal government to enter the states to prohibit the growth, sale, use or transportation of marijuana within a State’s borders?

And just what are our federal government’s authorized powers as summarized by one of our Founders?

Federalist Paper No. 45 tells us:

“The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected.

The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.”


1 Like

I’ll answer it. That big ass wall of text is hundreds of words wasted saying the exact thing that Roberts meant by the statement quoted at the beginning. Apply the law (Constitution) equally to all, without regard to one’s personal biases or opinions. That is not to say he always succeeds at it of course.

1 Like

“Level best to do equal right” as Roberts said, refers to ruling with impartiality and without respect to what political administration or political party appointed them. This independent judiciary is a cornerstone of our government. Trump accused the 9th Court of being partial, because their ruling was not in his favor. I doubt he would have tweeted if the ruling was the opposite. When Trump didn’t get his way, he called into question the independence of the judicial system. Roberts is refuting that claim.

The judicial branch is charged with interpreting the laws and constitution of this country without bias or political motivation. Trump throwing a hissy fit on Twitter when a ruling doesn’t go his way does not mean the ruling was somehow biased. It means Trump didn’t get his way. Roberts, as Chief Justice, has every right to remind the president that the courts are here to rule without partiality and not simply serve the presidents agenda.

Nothing in your word salad changes that. It didn’t two years ago. It doesn’t now.


I thought it would be productive to give another example of our Supreme Court subjugating our Constitution’s legislative intent, and done so in a manner which has, and is now, violating every tax paying citizen’s First Amendment protection.

With regard to this subject it is important to recall what one of our forefathers stated concerning the limited power granted to Congress to encourage “learning and useful arts”.

"The framers of the Constitution guarded so much against a possibility of such partial preferences as might be given, if Congress had the right to grant them, that, even to encourage learning and useful arts, the granting of patents is the extent of their power.” Annals of Congress Feb 7th,1792 Representative Page

In 1998, the U. S. Supreme Court ruled in the case National Endowment for the Arts v. Finley, that NEA grants are constitutional if content does not offend "…general standards of decency…" But the Court not only ignored the absence of a power granted to Congress by our Constitution to fund the promotion of art, it likewise ignored the carefully limited wording in our Constitution granting power to Congress To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, which then goes on to limit how this may be done by the following words, “. . . by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.”

Not only is federal funding of the “arts” not authorized by our federal Constitution, but taxing and spending for this purpose, has given us such things as Andres Serrano’s anti-Christian bigotry called “P*** Christ”; Robert Mapplethorpe’s homosexual display called “The Perfect Moment”; Annie Sprinkle’s pornographic performances at a New York theater; Karen Finley, “the nude, chocolate smeared women”; Kyle Abraham’s “The Watershed and When the Wolves Came In” focusing on sexual identity; a 2016 festival for sexual deviant singing groups who appeared in a “flash mob” in Denver; taxpayer financing for a sexual deviant festival in San Francisco; funding for the Feminist Press at the City University of New York to digitize classic LGBT titles; an open mic group in D.C for story telling about “Queer Culture in America"; and the recent venomous and hateful smut financed by tax revenue being Shakespeare In Central Park depicting the violent murder of President Trump ___ all of which is a plain violation of a working person’s 1st Amendment protections who had their earned wages confiscated to finance the speech of others!

So, how does federal funding of the arts violate a taxpayer’s guarantee that Congress shall make no law …abridging freedom of speech? Federal funding does so by allowing A, who has received federal grant money taxed away from B, to vocalize and express their opinions and feelings in a more forceful manner than B, who has been taxed to finance A’s expressions and feelings in public, while B’s financial resources are reduced by the hand of the federal government in its quest to fund A’s speech and expressions.

So, once again, Justice Roberts, we can very well see how our constitutionally limited system of government can be undermined and subjugated when judges and Justices ignore the actual text of our Constitution, and its documented legislative intent which gives context to its text, and these judges and Justices take it upon themselves to do what they arbitrarily allege is an “equal right to those appearing before them”.


”That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical. . .” Jefferson,

1 Like