NSIAP, This Chief Justice is confused on how the constitution works and is a traitor.

Chief Justice John Roberts warns Supreme Court over Texas abortion law


WASHINGTON The chief justice of the United States, John Roberts, warned Friday that the Supreme Court risks losing its own authority if it allows states to circumvent the courts as Texas did with its near-total abortion ban.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

clear purpose and actual effect" of the Texas law was "to nullify this Court's rulings."

---

That's clearly what it is.

The Texas law is terrible. Not as terrible as abortion, not even close really. But still terrible.

Roberts is right on this one. Allowing stated to have a civil statute That punishes people for exercising their rights should not be permitted.

And while I fully believe there is no right to abortion, that's the current law of the land. Hopefully that changes with the Mississippi case.

If the Texas law is allowed to stand, that would be a state could put in a law allowing people to sue others for having scary guns etc. it's not the slope we want to start sliding down

Having a different opinion doesn't make the guy a traitor...tone the hyperbole down, otherwise we are no different than the left.

ElKabong said:

---

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.

---

I think that is what's wrong, legislators make laws, not the courts. The courts should protect the people from legislative over reach, they shouldn't be deciding what the law is.

JMO

I actually agree and wonder what other avenues states could approach in limiting gun rights of its citizens.

aggie2812-2 said:

---

I actually agree and wonder what other avenues states could approach in limiting gun rights of its citizens.

---

I'm really hoping the 2A adds enough protection to keep this from happening.

aggie2812-2 said:

---

I actually agree and wonder what other avenues states could approach in limiting gun rights of its citizens.

---

I agree, this is a can't see the forest for the trees argument. Same as the Obergefell case, and many others... it got the outcome the people wanted, but the reasoning is incredibly open to abuse.

Abortion is murder. The situations in which murder are justified have been pretty clearly defined as a society. I've never figured out why we treat this one type of murder so differently.

Roberts is a CM aka a lib. If he can't stand up for the rights of the unborn over the supposed reputation of the high court, what is he doing exactly? He'd probably have been weak on slavery too.

The perfect Bush appointee

Ozzy Osbourne said:

---

Roberts is a CM aka a lib. If he can't stand up for the rights of the unborn over the supposed reputation of the high court, what is he doing exactly? He'd probably have been weak on slavery too.

---

The Texas law is exactly what he said it is, an attempt by Texas to work around Roe. I would hope that's why he's spoken out against it but not the Mississippi law. The Mississippi law will go before SCOTUS as a "we think Roe is wrong and he's what we want to do different." That's not what the Texas law is. It really is a terrible piece of legislation designed to render meaningless a court ruling rather than forcing the court to reconsider.

He's as deep state as you get. Must sacrifice the babies to Moloch.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

clear purpose and actual effect" of the Texas law was "to nullify this Court's rulings."

---

That's clearly what it is.

The Texas law is terrible. Not as terrible as abortion, not even close really. But still terrible.

Roberts is right on this one. Allowing stated to have a civil statute That punishes people for exercising their rights should not be permitted.

And while I fully believe there is no right to abortion, that's the current law of the land. Hopefully that changes with the Mississippi case.

If the Texas law is allowed to stand, that would be a state could put in a law allowing people to sue others for having scary guns etc. it's not the slope we want to start sliding down

---

But we want to win now! Who cares about the rules or the cost, all about that sweet W!

For those paying attention this is how we got here. A bad law for a good reason is still a bad law. It isn't going to survive.

The Texas law paved the way for other state laws on abortion. And, regardless of any problems with the Texas Law, it was a middle finger at John Roberts. That kind of makes my day.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Quote:

---

clear purpose and actual effect" of the Texas law was "to nullify this Court's rulings."

---

That's clearly what it is.

The Texas law is terrible. Not as terrible as abortion, not even close really. But still terrible.

Roberts is right on this one. Allowing stated to have a civil statute That punishes people for exercising their rights should not be permitted.

And while I fully believe there is no right to abortion, that's the current law of the land. Hopefully that changes with the Mississippi case.

If the Texas law is allowed to stand, that would be a state could put in a law allowing people to sue others for having scary guns etc. it's not the slope we want to start sliding down

---

While I agree that is not a slippery slope we should want to go down, I disagree with Roberts' analysis on the broader point.

Case in point, the horrible Kelo decision granting unlimited eminent domain authority under "economic redevelopment." Several states enacted laws to "get around" that decision and rightly so.

Congress tries to pass work around laws in response to SCOTUS decisions, too.

Also agree that the Texas law will eventually fail but for other reasons, legitimate reasons and Roberts is just mucking up the waters with this ploy. Poor form, in my view.

I wonder what Roberts would think if someone tried to get around a mandate by claiming it's, say… a tax?

Kelo is a bad example. That involves how broad a government regulation can be. States can make regulations less broad. So it's not accurate to say states try to "get around" Kelo

Roberts is talking about states trying to be more restrictive, not less.

Here's the entire paragraph:

Quote:

---

The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to
nullify this Court's rulings. It is, however, a basic principle that the Constitution is the "fundamental and paramount law of the nation," and "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). Indeed, "if the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809). The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.

---

aggie2812-2 said:

---

I actually agree and wonder what other avenues states could approach in limiting gun rights of its citizens.

---

This, I am pro-life, but Texas found a "back door" legal entry that other states may use to assault the constitution.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Here's the entire paragraph:

Quote:

---

The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to
nullify this Court's rulings. It is, however, a basic principle that the Constitution is the "fundamental and paramount law of the nation," and "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). Indeed, "if the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809). The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.

---

---

The court says what the law is because the court said so. Circular logic at its finest and most blatent.

Guess we need to just ignore the laws we don't like. That doesn't seem to be an issue. See the southern border.

Wait, regarding 2nd Amendment don't we already have "gun free zones" and all manner of restrictions, especially in heavily blue big cities?

How come Texas can't do the same when it comes to "rights" that aren't even in the Constitution?

I want an "abortion free zone" for all of Texas.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Kelo is a bad example. That involves how broad a government regulation can be. States can make regulations less broad. So it's not accurate to say states try to "get around" Kelo

Roberts is talking about states trying to be more restrictive, not less.

---

This is where you and I have disagreed in the past. The power or authority to do something in one direction, implies the existence of authority or power not to do it or to do it in the opposite direction. Could be too broad and ambiguous and fail on that ground or too restrictive as to infringe on a guaranteed individual Constitutional right which triggers the scrutiny of the courts to weigh the competing interests of the state in passing such legislation and the individual right(s) involved.

Like Scalia said about the 2nd amendment, it is inviolate but it still can be regulated in some respects.

Like Al Gore said about the 2000 election as VP during the Electoral Vote count, he said because of the make-up of the state delegations in the House, going to a contingent election under the Twelfth would not change the outcome, Bush would still win. That is not the same thing as saying he was powerless to do anything as VP. Just that nothing he could do would be effective in changing the outcome.

My distaste for Roberts' statement remains. It was an unhelpful thing to say, given the tinderbox the country is in right now.

I'm sure the babies being saved by the law don't care. If it gets shot down, you just try again until RvW is overturned.

I don't see what you think we disagree about. No right is absolute.

The difference I see between SB8 and 2A is that RvW pulled a ruling out of thin air and made some pretty crazy arguments and labeled them "Constitutional" rights. The 2A is pretty straight forward and IS ACTUALLY LISTED AND EXPLAINED IN THE CONSTITUTION. While you can only try to dissect certain portions of 2A, the fact remains that it is expressly described in the Constitution. States may try end runs around it just as Texas did but even the crazy 9th would have to admit that gun ownership to law abiding citizens is a constitutional right, whereas abortion is not

BMX Bandit said:

---

I don't see what you think we disagree about. No right is absolute.

---

I am not ascribing this to you per se but I go back to Obama's understanding of the Constitution.

Quote:

---

Obama in his interview disparages the Constitution as merely "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." He believesand he's rightthat changing this is the way to bring about "redistributive change."

---

By that he is stating that the Constitution should favor state action over the individual and should be read that way. Indeed the Constitution does charge the federal government to maintain the sovereignty of the country's borders and maintaining a military for such purpose. Nor are there any such things as "negative liberties."

The rejoinder to Obama's flawed view is thus:

Quote:

---

But the founders were deeply purposeful and intellectually coherent in their definition of rights. Classically, rights are the lowest, most basic universal claims. Think of them as the ground rules for everyone, weak and strong, to respect each other and get on.

Their important characteristics are these: First, they exist outside of us, coming from God or nature, not government, and so are independent of the whims of government and cannot be either manufactured or, of even greater concern, extinguished when they get in the way of someone powerful. No one has to give us the ability to pursue happiness; it comes from within ourselves.

Second, they are timeless, applying regardless of whether it's 200 years ago or a thousand years in the futuregovernments can't use the excuse "well, that was then, but times have changed."

Third, they are universal, applying to everyone, not just some preferred subset.
And fourth, they are noncoercive, or negative: They delineate what others cannot deprive you of without due process of law. And they prevent you from being coerced.

---

Link

Roberts appears to me to be agreeing with Obama and that is a concern to me.

(Apologize for being rather inarticulate this morning. Bad hangover.)

Kind of like how Roberts undermined the US Constitution by allowing Congress to impose a direct tax on non-activity?

I hate abortion with all my heart, and while the Texas law has a noble cause, I refuse to stoop to the progressives Machiavellian approach of the 'ends justifies the means.'

It is easy to see the communists in this country using a law like this against free speech, gun owners, and other civil rights. And no, I do not agree that abortion is a civil right under the Constitution of the United States, but for the moment Roe v. Wade says it sort of is.

BMX Bandit said:

---

Here's the entire paragraph:

Quote:

---

The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to
nullify this Court's rulings. It is, however, a basic principle that the Constitution is the "fundamental and paramount law of the nation," and "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). Indeed, "if the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809). The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.

---

---

IANAL
I do not agree with the statement, "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."

Maybe it is the wording but my understanding is the legislative branch says "what the law is" not the courts. The courts rule on

• the legality of the law relative to the Constitution
• if a law was broken within the definition of the law as written by the legislature

Courts seem to have seized the power to interpret the law. I could be wrong but no where in the Constitution does it give the courts the power to interpret the law. A law is either Constitutional or not.

A law to rat out your neighbors for not being Vaxxed

You can disagree with Roberts and think him a traitor, but he isn't wrong here

Central Committee said:

---

I hate abortion with all my heart, and while the Texas law has a noble cause, I refuse to stoop to the progressives Machiavellian approach of the 'ends justifies the means.'

It is easy to see the communists in this country using a law like this against free speech, gun owners, and other civil rights. And no, I do not agree that abortion is a civil right under the Constitution of the United States, but for the moment Roe v. Wade says it sort of is.

---

This is why the right can never win anything. This sort of weak thinking keeps the right paralyzed and do nothing but kvetch on the internet.

"Wahhh wahhhh if we win then the libs might punish us!!!"

THEY'RE ALREADY DOING IT DUMBASS

BMX Bandit said:

---

Here's the entire paragraph:

Quote:

---

The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to
nullify this Court's rulings. It is, however, a basic principle that the Constitution is the "fundamental and paramount law of the nation," and "it is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). Indeed, "if the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery." United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809). The nature of the federal right infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.

---

---

"You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps.... Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves."

--- Thomas Jefferson ---

What a justice should say: "If you don't like our decision, make a better law without the constitutional violations as we have identified."

What Roberts is saying: "If you don't like our decision, don't even try to pass another law or a better law."

You wrongly conflate opposition to one bill as weakness. As I have posted on this forum repeatedly, we have to fight the progressives/communists and be a ruthless as they are.

But this law is dumbass. If someone takes part in what is currently (tragically) a protected right, you sue them for monetary 'damages.'

It is easy to imagine the communists suing conservatives for speech they don't like. Not libel or slander, just conservative speech. So instead of being attacked on social media we end up in court.

The Texas bill is not ruthless. It is just dumb.

And the personal insult is unnecessary and unbecoming a good Ag.