Thursday, May 15, 2014

Majority of Americans Do Not Trust Supreme Court Justice John Roberts or His Colleagues!
In Contrast,  Israeli Judge David Rozen Just Sentenced Former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to Six Years in Jail For Bribery!!

As most of you know by now,  I have been quite harsh on both the Israelis and Justice John Roberts in my previous blogs.  However,  a recent article in the NYTimes, May14, 2014, entitled “Ex-Israeli Leader Is Given 6 Years in Bribery Case,” written by Jodi Rudoren (posted earlier),  emphasized an important point—No public servant is above the law!
Judge Rozen said the following:
  “The cancer [bribery/corruption] MUST BE UPROOTED.” 
Please note that Judge Robert’s recent decision in “McCutcheon Vs. Federal Election” effectively reaffirmed that ‘bribes’ can be limitless and ‘corruption’ in situ will remain the inalienable right of any powerful, rich individual political donor or  corporation.  Roberts,  in some twisted perverted logic of human behavior,  absent from any Catholic schoolbooks, deified the longstanding importance of ‘bribery’ as the  “Boss Tweed”  back-room corrupt politicians always believed---‘cash influences democracy’.  Simply stated: Roberts and his senile colleagues have long stood for personal wealth [they charge up to $500,000 for speeches] and for complete secrecy.
  Clearly,  in stark contrast to Tel Aviv Judge Rozen who sent his former boss to jail for bribery and almost sent Bibi Netanyahu to prison as well,  maintains that peculiar notion that THE SERVANTS OF THE PEOPLE ARE NOT ABOVE THE LAW.  However, Judge Roberts, a man of unknown personal peculiarities,  appointed by one of the most corrupt, incompetent, criminal Presidents,  Bush Jr, cannot really explain his history as a devout Catholic in all boys school; or more importantly, his trip to the nefarious island of Malta where only the crooked gangsters of the world are paid off or paying someone off.

Of course,  these are only speculations and musings of a novelist who mistrusts any Harvard Student who clerked for Judge “Wrenquest’—one of the  stupidest Judges whom my former boss,  Nixon detested.  Unfortunately, you and I as American citizens,  are not privy to the personal history; personal finances of the Supreme Court Justices; nor are we allowed to monitor their behavior in the Supreme Court using television cameras.  Don’t forget that Judge Scalia, the Italian-American sculpted Pinocchio, whose wit incorporates inanity and fascism in one burst of “oral flatulence”,  refuses to make the holy sanctuary of the Supreme Court subject to public scrutiny.
Today Americans who pay these senescent factotums to make inane pronouncements that literally ruin most of our lives,  regard the supreme court as ‘useless’, ‘antiquated’ and ‘completely out of touch with mainstream America.” 

Public polls show that 60% of American citizens believe correctly that the Supreme Court Justices “were more likely to be CARRYING OUT A PERSONAL OR POLITICAL AGENDA THAN WORKING TO RENDER A FAIR AND IMPARTIAL JUDGEMENT, an opinion that crosses party lines’’. [Huffington Post, by Ryan Grim, 5/7/ 2014].
What do we have to do? 
[1] Term limits.  Just like congress should have-in for two terms and out.
[2] TV,  internet,  radio and complete media access to all hearings in the Supreme Court.
[3] Complete financial auditing of every Supreme Court Justice every year.  Scrutiny for those who make money outside of their allotted salaries. They are our employees, not our masters.
[4] Complete financial, political, personal, mental history of any ‘irregularities’ like Clarence Thomas’s history of “sexual abuse”.  They should have a public record as should POTUS, where EVERYTHING IS VETTED OUT,  including SEXUAL ORIENTATION, FINANCIAL BACKERS, FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS, et al. 
This is called a TYPICAL TOP SECRET clearance required of millions of other USG employees.
I hope that in time Roberts will resign from the court as well as other members who are too old and too compromised,  for it’s not their futures that I am concerned about.
It’s the future of the REPUBLIC.   Roberts has already demonstrated a LACK OF WISDOM; JUDGEMENT; or MATURITY as evidenced by his whimsical RULINGS ON OBAMA CARE;  Foreign Intelligence Secret Advisory Board [FISA]; BRIBERY; CORPORATE FINANCING.
As we enter the 21st century of a CYBERNATION [please see Tom Clancy’s Net Force series], we will need to amend the structure and practices of the Supreme Court.
Free the American Public from Judicial Tyranny!


  1. A MD I knew at Harvard told me in 1985 that Rhenquist was addicted to opiates and that he was "impaired." Rhenquist was a minor character from Arizona who was a physical wreck and a mental "bantam weight" as one of my Harvard Law co-students called him. He although said he had a friend who shared a ride with him on a trip to Scottsdale or someplace and that he was a surprisingly pleasant fellow.

    As for Roberts he's just another Republican hack judge. None of those guys have any brains, and him a Aleto and "Clarence" are three stooges of limited mental ability and would have accomplished nothing if it weren't for their political allegiance to the idiotic Republican agenda of strong governmental power and denial of any civil guarantees. These guys love government, and expect the public to trust and worhip it's grandeur and majesty. They love to watch John Wayne movies, and considier "The Green Berets" to be an accurate depiction of the Vietnam conflict. They are toads, and fall into the "Grover Norquist" syndrome of shy and bashful nerds who were shunned by girls in school [if there were any girls in their schools] but didn't have the intellect of the technical nerds who had perfect 1400 SAT scores so they went to law school instead!!

    As for going to Malta I can't find any particular fault in that. It's a tiny island and all the islands there such as Corsica and Sardinia are havens for criminals, but of the best kind. The Corsicans and Sardinians are criminals of the old school, and I admire them greatly. I've told my Italian friends that they should round up all the north African immigrants seeking entry to Italy and put them on landing craft, give them weapons, and land them on Sardinia in a "gladiator style" war on the beach! The Arabs and negros can spill out of the landing craft while the criminal Sardinians seek to pin them down on the beach as the whole spectacle is televised for our amusement.

    The dayz of the Colossium, or the "Flavian Ampitheater" as it was actually known, can be here once more.

    1. MIT will you please contact Don King Productions so Showtime can get this to us on pay per view? Lol. Brings the show Survivor to the next level.

    2. For a "bantam weight " Rehnquist did ok for himself, as class valedictorian during graduation ceremonies from Stanford law school. And Mit, you'd be proud to know he argued against federal court - ordered school desegregation, while the court was deciding Brown V. Board of Education.
      Rehnquist was addicted to Placidyl, a drug prescribed for insomnia, and he took that for back pain from about 1970 thru 1981 and this came out in an FBI Freedom of Information Act after Rehnquist's death in 2005 from anaplastic thyroid cancer. I think Roberts is the bantam weight imo.

  2. If the Obama health scam had been struck down by the Supreme Court, Obama’s henchmen would not have restricted themselves Constitutional arguments about the Commerce Clause, the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Tax Power. Obama’s political history is ugly- the trash dumpster of sex, scandal, innuendo, and planted stories.

    The trash dumpster, including adoption records, was about to be dumped on Chief Justice Roberts head. Whatever had to be done would be done.

    Obama was in a lose/lose situation. The priority for Obama, as usual, was himself. Obama did not want to suffer a personal loss even if he took whatever is left of the Democratic Party with him on his “victory”.

    Obama did understand that a “victory” in the high court would provide more propulsive power to the opposition. But Obama also knew that a ruling of “unconstitutional” would have finished off his presidency and ruined him personally as a loser.

    This does not mean that Obama would have gone quietly into the darkness if the Supreme Court red-stamped “unconstitutional” on the health scam. The Barack Obama henchmen would have gone nuclear against the Supreme Court.

    Firebombing Roberts and the Court might have salvaged his miniscule reelection chances & vengeance would be served. The left would join Obama in the destruction of Roberts and the court at least in fear of what Roberts has planned for the next term of the court.

    John Roberts had his own calculations to make.

    .....Roberts wrote the majority opinion with the conservatives then at the last minute “switched” sides:
    “Bargaining” - what Supreme Court justices do. Roberts wanted to destroy ObamaCare but he also wanted to preserve the integrity of the court in the public’s eyes. But how to get liberals and conservatives of the court on the same page? How to get sharply divided liberals and conservatives to vote 6-3 or 7-2 on the outcome? Roberts came up with a “brilliant” plan:

    “Five justices saw the Medicaid expansion as either constitutional as written (Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor) or salvageable by making it voluntary on the part of the states (Kagan, Roberts and Breyer). If Roberts (or Breyer) was unwilling to endorse such a result, he could have crossed over and voted with the dissenters to make a five-vote majority to strike down the expansion entirely and maybe even the whole law. [snip]

    Kagan’s vote may have been a strategic concession to save the whole law and/or the Medicaid expansion, rather than see it all struck down.

    Some liberals and conservatives believe Kagan signed onto the Roberts-Breyer Medicaid position to avoid a defection by Roberts (or, less likely, Breyer) that could have struck down the Medicaid expansion entirely. [snip]

    “That was kind of a compromise that saved ‘Obamacare,"
    “That would be quite a horse trade if Kagan* and Roberts did that secretly,” ....

    *Kagan was Obama’s Solicitor General. Roberts managed to get Kagan to vote against Obama on the Medicaid expansion in order to “save” ObamaCare”. Roberts managed to get a 7-2 vote:

    Kagan voted for portions of Chief Justice John Roberts’s controlling opinion declaring unconstitutional a major provision in President Barack Obama’s health care law, namely the Medicaid expansion.

    To summarize:
    1. On the Commerce Clause Roberts gets his way whether ObamaCare is constitutional or unconstitutional.
    2. On the Necessary and Proper Clause (which was the ultimate “trump” card as far as leftist legal commentators), Medicaid expansion is crippled although an unconstitutional ruling would have removed it altogether and immediately. But do not doubt that Medicaid expansion is a central component of ObamaCare and without it the entire scheme falls.
    3. Roberts knows the battle over the Obama monstrosity is not yet over in the courts or the high court.

  3. "In 1803, the chief justice of the United States had a problem. His hated cousin, Thomas Jefferson, had won the last presidential election. But the outgoing Federalists opted not to go gentle into that good night. The one branch of government they controlled was the judiciary, and they meant to keep it. They had passed the Judiciary Act of 1801, which allowed for several new judicial appointments.

    President Adams did a remarkable job filling the appointments and getting them hastily confirmed. The so-called “Midnight Judges” by and large received their commissions. But not all of them did. Incoming President Jefferson then instructed his secretary of state not to deliver the remaining ones.

    Unsurprisingly, litigation ensued. One of those who was to receive a commission, William Marbury, filed a petition directly in the Supreme Court under a provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789. He requested a writ ordering the secretary of state to deliver his commission.

    But Chief Justice John Marshall was a staunch Federalist. The republic was young, the court’s legitimacy fragile, and the ability of the nation to endure the peaceful transfer of power between parties uncertain. It was also unclear how Marshall’s ordering the newly installed Jeffersonian Republican secretary of state to do something would go over.

    So the chief justice did something very clever. He found that Marbury was entitled to his commission, bestowing legitimacy on those Midnight Judges who had received theirs. But he didn’t stop there — to Marbury’s detriment. He then ruled that the Constitution only gave the court so-called “original jurisdiction” over a small number of cases. The provision of the Judiciary Act of 1789 bestowing the court with original jurisdiction over writs of the type Marbury sought was therefore unconstitutional.

    Jefferson had won, nominally. Madison didn’t have to deliver the commission, Marbury didn’t refile in the lower courts, and he never became a justice of the peace. But history remembers the case as a huge, perhaps decisive, blow against those Jeffersonians who viewed the Constitution as nothing more than a glorified Articles of Confederation.

    In depriving the court of original jurisdiction, Marshall had installed the Supreme Court as the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of laws. Jefferson hated the idea of what has become known as judicial review. But having won, he was powerless to act against Marshall. Over the course of his term, Marshall would use that power to increase vastly the powers of the federal government, and to diminish those of the states.”

    Sean Trende also hears mystic chords of Marbury played by John Roberts

  4. Roberts swing vote on Obamacare:

    "Obama wins on policy, this time. And Roberts rewrites Congress’ power to regulate, opening the door for countless future challenges. In the long term, supporters of curtailing the federal government should be glad to have made that trade.”

    "Many conservatives are feeling betrayed by the chief justice’s vote to uphold Obamacare. But there’s a counterintuitive case to be made that John Roberts’s decision is largely a victory for conservatives. [snip]

    It’s worth remembering that there are so many people who will be made worse off by the bill – seniors who lose their Medicare Advantage, employees who get dropped from their employers’ plans, families who will see their premiums increase, businesses that have to endure the employer mandate, the taxpayers who have to foot the bill for the whole thing – that it is far from difficult to forge a broad political coalition to kill off the bill. [snip]

    By explicitly and unequivocally limiting the scope of the Commerce Clause as well as the feds’ ability to coerce the states, he has done major damage to the century-long leftist project to do away with constitutionally limited government.

    Not only that, Roberts has forced the advocates of big government to grin and bear it! He gave Obama and the liberals a nominal victory while undercutting their long-term agenda, which reminds me of Marbury v. Madison. Yes, Chief Justice John Marshall sided with President Thomas Jefferson on the narrow specifics of that case, but he also dealt the Jeffersonian view of the Court a fatal blow. And more importantly, Marshall’s political craftiness set the stage for further Federalist victories, despite the political power of the Jeffersonians at the ballot box. Without Marbury v. Madison, there would have been no McCullough v. Maryland, no Fletcher v. Peck, no Gibbons v. Ogden."

    Jay Cost:
    "I believe that Obamacare in its current form is doomed:
    1. the bill is built on far too many questionable assumptions. If any one of them fails to hold, the entire thing could fall apart. [snip]
    2. the bill is nothing like Social Security and Medicare, which seem to be the political template the Democrats believed they followed. The political genius of these programs was that they were designed to benefit everybody. Indeed, this is why FDR stuck with a social insurance model for Social Security, despite the fact that its design was clunky. He understood, correctly, that it would inoculate the program from future political blowback.”

    1. Chief Justice John Roberts will be seen to have written a very brilliant decision. No trash dumpster can hurt him now. He can fulfill the items on his agenda for the next several decades. Meanwhile, he has given Republicans/conservatives a mighty arsenal with which to fight the battle.

    2. There is something deficient about Roberts' reasoning abilities. He disappoints me greatly. I have more admiration for his predecessor. In fact I hold Judge Judy in higher esteem than Roberts.

    3. It was an emotional decision, made with his wife about subjecting his children to scrutiny.

      He should never have been nominated in the first place.

      Too much baggage including homosexuality rumors.