Repealing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was a snap for most Americans BEFORE Chief Justice John Roberts said it was a constitutional tax.
Roberts must have been talking about midgets when he said this at his confirmation hearing:
“If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me, but if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution.”
Roberts clearly voted for the big guy —— the federal government —— when he abandoned the Constitution in order to save Hillarycare II because every decision involving income tax revenues must go against the little guy.
When more horror stories about patient abuse and bureaucratic death panels surface in the years ahead you can blame one man —— John Roberts. He is the one and only individual who could have repealed the ACA before it took hold.
Finally, John Roberts only followed through on his ACA “constitutional tax” when he voted to continue funding Planned Parenthood’s butcher shops. To no one’s surprise, Kavanaugh replacing Anthony Kennedy amounted to business as usual.
Bottom line: Five isobilateral Supreme Court justices ruled for the parasite class —— not healthcare —— when they upheld the ACA and Planned Parenthood funding. Repealing the ACA and driving Planned Parenthood away from the public trough would have set precedents tax dollar parasites would never allow.
If not money, the Lord only knows what form of payment faux strict constructionists John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh received.
Roberts must have been talking about midgets when he said this at his confirmation hearing:
“If the Constitution says that the little guy should win, then the little guy's going to win in the court before me, but if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well then the big guy's going to win because my obligation is to the Constitution.”
Roberts clearly voted for the big guy —— the federal government —— when he abandoned the Constitution in order to save Hillarycare II because every decision involving income tax revenues must go against the little guy.
When more horror stories about patient abuse and bureaucratic death panels surface in the years ahead you can blame one man —— John Roberts. He is the one and only individual who could have repealed the ACA before it took hold.
Finally, John Roberts only followed through on his ACA “constitutional tax” when he voted to continue funding Planned Parenthood’s butcher shops. To no one’s surprise, Kavanaugh replacing Anthony Kennedy amounted to business as usual.
Bottom line: Five isobilateral Supreme Court justices ruled for the parasite class —— not healthcare —— when they upheld the ACA and Planned Parenthood funding. Repealing the ACA and driving Planned Parenthood away from the public trough would have set precedents tax dollar parasites would never allow.
If not money, the Lord only knows what form of payment faux strict constructionists John Roberts and Brett Kavanaugh received.
XXXXX
NOTE: John Roberts invoked democracy in a Republic, but he failed to mention that the American people did go to their elected legislators and he ruled against both.
Roberts did not join anybody. He has always been a lying-liberal sneak:
XXXXX
As far back as Judge Robert Bork’s confirmation hearing most Americans learned that John Roberts’ ludicrous definition of an unbiased court is pure Grade A baloney offered for public consumption:
XXXXX
QUESTION: If balance is the criterion what does that say about John Roberts’ baloney? ANSWER: It is rancid.
XXXXX
Chief Justice John Roberts could have stopped socialized medicine in its tracks. Instead of holding back the tide of creeping Socialism he lied through his teeth and singlehandedly shoved socialized medicine down the public’s throat. When this case gets to the Supreme Court the split will still be four-against-four with Roberts making the final decision.
XXXXX
John Roberts will not change his stripes for DACA next year, or 20 years from now:
XXXXX
I do not want to put a damper on the dreams and aspirations conservatives are placing on Ginsburg’s departure because I am reminded of the euphoria Chief Justice John Roberts spread around like butter on a hot bagel after Bush the Younger nominated him. Roberts turned out badly. He, and he alone, could have stopped the ACA. Instead, Roberts tortured the Constitution into a tax for socialized medicine.
I put together the above observations taken from different threads about Chief Justice John Roberts because his highly-touted judicial magnificence is no longer fooling the American people. When all is said and done Roberts is another shyster lawyer that climbed to top of the legal profession’s garbage heap.
My comments about John Roberts are weightless in the general scheme of big doings, while Attorney Larry Klayman taking on the entire the federal bench might make a dent in the copious corruption permeating the federal courts:
The chief justice of the Supreme Court, the ever leftist-oriented John Roberts, many months ago strongly criticized President Trump for speaking plainly about the biases and political inclinations of federal judges. The president's criticism came in response to a ruling by the Honorable Jon Tigar, an Obama appointee on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, perhaps the most openly leftist of all district courts in the United States – and that says a lot given the makeup of most lower federal courts, particularly in the District of Columbia. Judge Tigar, who is the son of far-left activist attorney Michael Tigar, who not coincidentally intervened in the 9th Circuit case involving my client Sheriff Joe Arpaio, arguing that the sheriff's pardon should be nullified, had just issued injunctive relief thwarting the administration's asylum policy to limit rampant illegal immigration. After Trump simply pointed out that another Obama judge had ruled against him, Chief Justice Roberts issued this pubic statement:
"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." [Adam Liptak, "Chief Justice Defends Judicial Independence After Trump Attacks 'Obama Judge,'" New York Times, Nov. 21, 2018.]
Roberts' ridiculous defense of the political and other biases inherent in the federal judiciary is dishonest, and it is why conservatives and many others have lost confidence in the chief justice, who might just as well be head of the Supreme Court on Pluto. Even the left and its Fake News Media know that federal court rulings in cases that involve or even touch on politics, or social issues like abortion, usually go along partisan lines. That is why the media of all political bents generally make reference to which president, Democrat or Republican, appointed a federal judge to the bench.
I have said many times, including in my autobiography, "Whores: Why and How I Came to Fight the Establishment!" that one can predict with great certainty how a federal judge is likely to rule based on the political party of the president who appointed him or her. There are exceptions, but not many, and when there is an exception, its usually for other reasons, such as a judge not wanting to rule in favor of a party that is controversial, such as with many of my clients. Here, a federal judge may not want to be seen siding with a party who has been smeared heavily by the media or elsewhere, lest he or she also then be smeared for ruling in that party's favor. Again, there are exceptions, but very few.
Yesterday, two rulings came down from the most politicized federal district court in the United States, short of Judge Jon Tigar's one in San Francisco, ruling against my clients Dr. Jerome Corsi and Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The two rulings, dismissing their cases, were largely the result of these extra-judicial currents and forces.
NOTE:
Getting even for articles Jerome Corsi wrote about Obama is the real reason Mueller indicted him.
https://www.justplainpolitics.com/s...y-Opposite-Of-Excellent&p=3103154#post3103154
The Corsi case was primarily against Special Counsel Robert Mueller for having illegally surveilled and threatened my client with indictment if he would not lie under oath and implicate President Trump in crimes as part of the Russian collusion grand jury investigation. On behalf of Dr. Corsi, I alleged constitutional violations under the Fourth and First Amendments. You can view our complaint at www.larryklayman.com. The first judge assigned to the case, as related to other cases I had brought that involved some of my clients, the Honorable Richard Leon, a Bush appointee, decided not to keep it on his docket, probably because the judge himself was likely under surveillance by the intel agencies, I had learned. The case was then was bucked over to a Clinton appointee, the Honorable Helen Segal Huvelle.
A few weeks ago, an oral argument was held before Judge Huvelle, which I wrote about, and it was clear then, as ultimately occurred Thursday with her dismissal, that she would conjure up politicized grounds to protect her fellow Washington elite comrade, Robert Mueller.
Sure enough, in a very contrived decision, Judge Huvelle dismissed the case, mostly claiming that we did not show in the complaint that Mueller had ordered the attempted suborning of perjury and illegal surveillance of Dr. Corsi. What made this ruling most dishonest was that my client need only have alleged these facts in the complaint. Absolute proof would have been obtained through later discovery in the form of document requests and oral deposition testimony.
In response to the dismissal, which is being appealed, I issued this statement, which was reported in various publications:
"Judge Huvelle's decision was largely politically influenced and sadly comes as no surprise. In today's world, the elite establishment club in Washington, D.C., are 'protected species,' who are above the law. The American people are beginning to understand, and it is a dangerous situation when the judiciary provides cover for the elite and powerful. We saw that same thing in the years leading up to July 4, 1776."
Interestingly and regrettably, another politically tinged decision came out of the federal court in the District of Columbia yesterday, this one issued by a judge I have generally a high regard for, the Honorable Royce C. Lamberth, who has made many good rulings in my clients' favor, particularly during the Clinton administration. Judge Lamberth, who was appointed by President Ronald Reagan, effectively ruled in dismissing a defamation complaint I had filed for Sheriff Joe Arpaio, that while America's Toughest Sheriff was defamed by CNN, Rolling Stone and the Huffington Post, who falsely called him a "convicted felon," we had not pled actual malice with enough specificity to allow the case to go forward.
At the oral argument in the Arpaio case, I had told Judge Lamberth that I would amend the complaint if he wanted more specificity. But rather than asking me to amend, he dismissed the case with prejudice even though his decision admits that the sheriff was defamed.
Why did Judge Lamberth do this? In my view because the leftist media had made Arpaio so radioactive that even my favorite jurist got cold feet, preventing this case to go forward lest similar scorn come down on him as he faces the prospect of holding Hillary Clinton's feet to the fire in a FOIA case involving the destruction of her 33,000-plus emails.
I had seen this approach before with Judge Lamberth during my days at Judicial Watch, and while I do not agree with it, I have always been thankful that he did frequently stand up to the elite in the nation's capital. Given that we can easily be more specific as to the actual malice requirement for defamation against a public figure like the sheriff, I will now file a new complaint with more detail, have it assigned as related to Lamberth and hold the judge to his own words.
All of this underscores why federal judges should never have been given life tenure by our Founding Fathers, as they are not accountable to We the People. And, it also points out why state judges, who generally can be voted out of office, suffer from "less fun and games" on the bench.
If this nation is not to go the way of another revolution, we need to find a way to depoliticize and disinfect the federal judiciary. Otherwise, we will be right back to July 4, 1776.
Depoliticize and disinfect federal judges
By Larry Klayman
Published November 1, 2019 at 7:08pm
https://www.wnd.com/2019/11/depoliticize-disinfect-federal-judges/
By Larry Klayman
Published November 1, 2019 at 7:08pm
https://www.wnd.com/2019/11/depoliticize-disinfect-federal-judges/
Finally, the entire federal government is working on disarming the American people; so Congress has no reason to fear more judicial activism.
In normal times, members of Congress run the risk of being driven out of office by passing a bad law. Conversely, every Democrat running for the presidency promises to sign bad laws, or simply write regulations and executive orders.
In order to avoid the consequences of passing bad laws Congress encourages federal judges to govern the country with bad decisions. Simply put, the current system makes judicial activism the best job protection insurance members of Congress will ever have.