Chief Justice Roberts’s Rogue Ruling Pattern

Supreme Court

As the final arbiter on the rule of law, The Supreme Court has always been a part of presidential campaigns to some extent. But this time around the issue has been catapulted to front and center.

For the last eight years one individual has played a pivotal role in some of the most significant societal-altering decisions that have come down from the High Court. That lone figure is Chief Justice John Roberts.

The past term is one in which Justice Roberts seems to have shed any trace of conservative jurisprudence. But for a while now he has regularly sided with leftists members of the High Court. Evidently, Vice President Mike Pence felt the need to speak out on the subject.

“Look, we have great respect for the institution of the Supreme Court of the United States,” the vice president recently told David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network. He then had the guts to say something out loud that a whole lot of people had been feeling.

“… Chief Justice John Roberts has been a disappointment to conservatives — whether it be the Obamacare decision, or whether it be a spate of recent decisions all the way through Calvary Chapel,” Vice President Pence said.

With the Supreme Court firmly on the electoral radar, it seems as though it is 2016 all over again. But now it appears as if there’s even more at stake for the country.

In June of 2020, President Donald Trump pledged to unveil a new list of potential justices ahead of November’s general election.

“He did that [an unveiling] in 2016. He kept his word,” Vice President Pence said of President Trump’s list. “He’s going to do that in the fall of 2020, and in the next four years, he’ll keep his word and appoint more principled conservatives to our courts.”

It goes without saying that the vice president’s criticism of the chief justice is completely warranted. All anyone has to do is look at the series of appalling rulings that have piled up at the feet of Justice Roberts. Over and over again he has chosen to side with left-leaning Democrat appointees to the High Court.

Curiously, Justice Roberts’s rogue tendencies began to surface in 2012. He facilitated the High Court’s upholding of Obamacare when, as the swing vote and writer for the majority, he penned an opinion using a contorted rationale that was almost totally devoid of legal reasoning.

He framed the clearly unconstitutional individual mandate as a “tax” even though the Obama administration had never even argued that the mandate was a tax.

In 2019 Justice Roberts voted with the far-left justices to reject a restriction on the overly powerful federal bureaucracy. This enabled federal agencies to continue to interpret their own regulations.

In another case, for no apparent legal reason Justice Roberts again joined with liberal justices, this time to invalidate a 2020 census citizenship question.

In the most recent term, Justice Roberts appears to have put the pedal to the metal in his judicial activism. He voted with left-leaning justices in adding the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” to the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s workforce protections.

The chief justice also went renegade when he struck down President Trump’s executive order that canceled a previous Obama administration executive order that was illegal. This ended up allowing the program called the Deferred Action on Childhood Arrivals (DACA) to continue.

Justice Roberts also joined the leftist justices in preventing the citizens of Louisiana from implementing a duly passed law that would have required physicians performing abortions to have admitting privileges at nearby hospitals. He claimed that he really didn’t want to vote with the liberals on this one. His excuse, in effect, was that precedent made him do it.

Four years ago Justice Roberts dissented from the majority ruling in a case that had similar facts. In his current concurring opinion, he writes, “I joined the dissent in Whole Woman’s Health and continue to believe that the case was wrongly decided.”

In a case that may come to haunt Justice Roberts in the future, he joined with the far-left justices in rejecting a Nevada church’s request to block the state’s COVID cap on church attendees. The disregard that was on display with respect to the Constitution was obvious to legal scholars as well as everyday folks.

Justice Neil Gorsuch was able to refute the legal gymnastics of the majority with a single paragraph dissent.

“…the First Amendment prohibits such obvious discrimination against the exercise of religion. The world we inhabit today, with a pandemic upon us, poses unusual challenges. But there is no world in which the Constitution permits Nevada to favor Caesars Palace over Calvary Chapel,” Justice Gorsuch wrote.

Reacting to the decision, Texas Senator Ted Cruz tweeted, “John Roberts has abandoned his oath. But, on the upside, maybe Nevada churches should set up craps tables? Then they could open?”

Many court watchers have speculated about what could be motivating Justice Roberts to move so far leftward.

The truth is it doesn’t really matter.

With the track record that he has laid down, it is clear that he is willing to play the role of unelected legislator for cases that have a huge impact on society, cases involving the power of the administrative state, the right to life, and the right of free religious expression.

As the vice president stated, these shameful extrajudicial decisions “are a reminder of just how important this [November 2020] election is for the future of the Supreme Court.”

This is especially true since Justice Roberts can’t be voted out of office. The only practical way his now-established rogue ruling pattern can be offset is to elect a president who will appoint justices that revere the Constitution and adhere to it.

That would be President Donald J.Trump.

The Fourth Amendment Is Worth Protecting

Intelligence Chiefs Testify At House Hearing On National Security Threats

The New York Times recently published an extensive article that attempted to shine a positive light on an appallingly scandalous set of facts.

However, even with its extravagant spin efforts the newspaper could not exclude the information that the FBI employed secret counterintelligence tools to spy on the Trump campaign, including the use of a paid confidential informant who sought to extract damaging information from several people associated with the campaign.

It is a grave situation when, through the use of counterintelligence powers, a presidential administration targets officials associated with the campaign of the opposition party.

The same Obama executive branch engaged in a series of extraordinary actions to step-up government intrusions, including the following:

-The NSA was allowed to obtain private data on American citizens;

-Members of the press were spied upon;

-Hundreds of individuals were “unmasked” by the ambassador to the UN and the national security adviser;

-An unreliable dossier was used to obtain FISA warrants, and the parties submitting the applications failed to disclose key facts to the FISA court.

After all of these expansive actions were taken, the FBI counterintelligence probe, code-named “Crossfire Hurricane,” placed then-presidential candidate Donald Trump under surveillance.

It is the height of irony that in early 2017 President Trump was derided for his tweet that claimed he was being surveilled.

As these and other troubling facts emerged, the mainstream media did their dutifully best to rev up the spin engines.

The New York Times characterized the actions taken by the FBI during the above-referenced period as focused on Russia rather than spying, while the Washington Post attempted to twist the narrative into asserting that the FBI was “protecting” President Trump rather than targeting him.

In an appearance on CNN about the spying on the Trump campaign that had taken place via the hands of the government, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper channeled Martha Stewart as he indicated how the spying was a “good thing.”

Seemingly lost in the media coverage as well as in the continuing discussion is the damage being done to the fundamental principles of individual privacy rights, which are set forth in the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution.

The Fourth Amendment provides that “the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”

The Framers sought to protect citizens from unreasonable intrusions by the government. It was indeed a breakthrough notion by the Founding Fathers that the privacy of our persons, houses, papers, and effects are off limits to interference by government, unless and until a judge has signed off on a warrant that authorizes a search, seizure, or surveillance.

Judges may only issue warrants after finding probable cause to believe that the invasion of privacy or surveillance will produce evidence of criminal behavior. In addition, the Fourth Amendment requires a warrant to specifically describe what will be seized and where a search will take place.

The norm in the Colonies during the pre-Fourth Amendment era was that warrants were issued in secret by British courts, without the inclusion of probable cause and/or specificity. In other words, the government could conduct a search without any legitimate judicial scrutiny.

It is now known that secret FISA warrants for surveillance on the Trump campaign were issued, based on an unreliable dossier purchased by the Hillary Clinton campaign, and that the FBI failed to disclose key information to the FISA court.

The use of so-called national security letters to gather documents on Trump campaign figures, however, constitutes a whole new level of government action that flies in the face of Fourth Amendment precepts.

According to the New York Times, the FBI “obtained phone records and other documents using national security letters – a secret type of subpoena…”

Several federal statutes allow intelligence officials to request certain business record information using national security letters, which are documents that compel the production of private materials.

National security letters are a type of administrative subpoena, which must be used solely in connection with national security investigations. The documents require individuals or organizations to provide materials that typically involve telephone, email, and/or financial records.

The national security letters include a gag order mandating that those responsible for complying cannot disclose the existence of the document or its content. When used in the manner in which the New York Times describes, national security letters are de facto warrants.

Simply said, phone records and other documents were compelled by a government agency from individuals connected with an opposing political party’s campaign, without a court, probable cause, or any judicial oversight whatsoever.

History demonstrates the danger of granting government agencies the ability to subvert constitutional norms.

Even in cases involving national security, the full requirements of the Fourth Amendment can and should be fulfilled in an expedited fashion, with no intrusions into citizens’ privacy without probable cause that is determined by a court of law, upheld by affirmation or sworn oath, which sets forth precisely what will be confiscated and the location that will be searched.