A few days ago, CJ Roberts (Julia), joined inter alia by Mommy Barrett, slapped a district judge and remanded a case to the Fifth Circuit. It was another of those "who runs the country--Julia Roberts or Donald Trump?" cases.
Anyhow, PowerLine brings us an opinion on the matter from the Fifth, written by Justice Ho (who actually deserves the title "Justice" as opposed to the miserable little political hack Julia and his sidekick "Mommy" Barrett.
... As an inferior court, we’re duty-bound to follow Supreme Court rulings—whether we agree with them or not. We don’t have to like it. But we have to do it. So I concur in our order today expediting our consideration of this matter, as directed by the Supreme Court. But I write to state my sincere concerns about how the district judge as well as the President and other officials have been treated in this case. I worry that the disrespect they have been shown will not inspire continued respect for the judiciary, without which we cannot long function. See, e.g., In re Westcott, 135 F.4th 243, 250–51 (5th Cir. 2025) (Ho, J., concurring)....
You got that straight, Judge. (Exactly what a friend has in mind about the Dugan case; we both suspect that Adelman will spring that miserable lardbucket insurrectionist. But that's for another day.)
Justice Ho now proceeds to slap Roberts across the chops, contradicting one of Roberts' many conceits:
... It is not the role of the judiciary to check the excesses of the other branches, any more than it’s our role to check the excesses of any other American citizen. Judges do not roam the countryside looking for opportunities to chastise government officials for their mistakes. Rather, our job is simply to decide those legal disputes over which Congress has given us jurisdiction....
He also points out that "Mommy" Barrett is a hypocrite of the first rank:
... Recall the emergency relief sought in Does 1-3 v. Mills, 142 S. Ct. 17 (2021). Members of the Court expressed concern about the “use [of] the emergency docket to force the Court” to “grant . . . extraordinary relief” “on a short fuse without benefit of full briefing.” Id. at 18 (Barrett, J., concurring in the denial of application for injunctive relief). The amount of time considered too short in Does 1-3 was nine days. Compared to 42 minutes, however, nine days is a lifetime to decide a motion. So the district court reasonably assumed that the principle invoked in Does 1-3 to justify denying relief to law-abiding citizens concerned about their religious liberties in the COVID-19 era would likewise justify denying relief to illegal alien members of a foreign terrorist organization....
Barrett stiff-armed a religious liberty case because she didn't get a 'full briefing,' but made damn sure that some terrorist-criminal was treated much better. Thus "Mommy" Barrett's thinking about what's really important--to her.
There's another segment. "Mommy" and CJ Julia started the clock on the remand at 12:34 AM (!!)
Then this, remarking on the Court's snit-fit over Trump's thoughts on the case, mentioning three scofflaw Democrat Presidents.
...One former President tried to shame members of the Supreme Court during a State of the Union address by disparaging a recent ruling. See Barack Obama, Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the State of the Union, 1 Pub. Papers of the Presidents (Obama 2010) 75, 81 (Jan. 27, 2010). That same President also suggested that it would be illegitimate for the Supreme Court to declare an act of Congress unconstitutional—while a case challenging his signature legislative achievement was pending before the Court. See, e.g., Peter Wallsten and Robert Barnes, Obama’s Supreme Court comments stir debate, Wash. Post, Apr. 4, 2012. Another former President was disbarred from practicing law before the Supreme Court. See In re Clinton, 534 U.S. 1016 (2001). See also Editorial, Biden’s Student Loan Boast: The Supreme Court ‘Didn’t Stop Me’, Wall St. J., Feb. 23, 2024 (“American Presidents may not like Supreme Court decisions, but most since Andrew Jackson haven’t bragged about defying its rulings.”). Yet I doubt that any court would deny any of those Presidents the right to express their views in any pending case to which they are a party, before issuing any ruling. Our current President deserves the same respect....
As we all know, in the first of those examples, Julia wet his pants, lied like Hell, and declared ObozoCare to be "constitutional". Roberts acted like he was being blackmailed then--and now.
This is all prelude to a consolidation of the hundreds of Lawfare cases brought against the DULY ELECTED/LANDSLIDE President--which will test the validity of Article Two, Sentence One.
If Julia and Mommy fail that test, the Second Amendment (not Second Article) comes into play. And that play may be very rough play, indeed.
No comments:
Post a Comment