Tag: Chief Justice Roberts

In Praise of Notorious RBG

 

Yes, I am serious. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg reflected an older liberal center-left sensibility that is largely missing, or driven underground, in the current political fever. I offer in evidence three notable instances, while recognizing the last must be qualified. A Rolling Stone interview with the authors who created the Notorious RBG persona suggests they saw some of the same attributes I praise.*

Most recently, in February of this year, with politics already at fever pitch, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg shocked and discomforted the left at Georgetown Law School, as she participated in a program reflecting on ratification of the 19th Amendment. Recently, it became fashionable for Democrat-controlled states to claim they were now ratifying the 1972 Equal Rights Amendment. They expected to win by litigation, but Notorious RBG shot them down:

Speaking at Georgetown University Law Center at an event co-sponsored by the American Bar Association, Ginsburg poured cold water on the renewed hopes for the 1972 amendment becoming part of the U.S. Constitution after Virginia became the 38th state in January to ratify the measure that says “equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.”

Fencing Off an Attractive Nuisance

 

People have been choosing to take some risk and expense to come to this country, rather than others closer to their home country, in part because our federal government, with the collusion of both major party establishments, allowed access to our social welfare system. It took President Trump to finally uphold our written laws, finally getting the Department of Homeland Security and Department of Justice personnel in place who would not continue resisting American law and the policy preferences of a presidential electoral majority.

On Friday, a short statement from the Press Secretary thanked the Supreme Court for doing the right thing and noting the new DHS rule on immigrants’ access to welfare programs will go into force this Monday.

Statement from the Press Secretary

Roberts Robs Citizens of Crucial Information

 

There has been plenty of commentary, on Ricochet and elsewhere (see first and especially Amy Howe’s analysis), about the decision penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, joined by the four consistent leftists in relevant parts on Department of Commerce v. New York. One issue, and important consequence, seems unaddressed. By sending the matter back to the Federal District courts, without imposing a very accelerated calendar and requiring a decision back to the Supreme Court by the end of the summer, Roberts has effectively pushed back any actual count of the illegal alien population by a decade! He has kept the political process uninformed, except by competing guesses, presented as statistical models and sample data. This is the point on which President Trump should be hammering daily.

Roberts did not rule that a citizenship question is unconstitutional, but he did not need to, as his opinion, as written, runs out the clock nicely. Instead, he relied on insinuations that Wilbur Ross had racist motives and had lied to cover up these racist motives. By entertaining this smear job by the lower courts, Roberts diverted the conversation from the ultimate bipartisan elite goal, perpetuating their numbers racket.

The Numbers Racket:

Congress/Judiciary to POTUS: What Bill of Rights?

 

Two Obama-appointed judges have upheld the “most invasive Congressional subpoenas for private financial information in American history.” The judges refused to grant a stay for appeal, so banks have turned over to the US Congress financial records of private citizen Donald Trump (and, by extension, his family) before he became President. Democrats have made a power play that boggles the mind in its violation of some of the most basic freedoms granted US citizens in the Bill of Rights.

Attorney Robert Barnes penned a good brief, cogent summary of how and why the judges’ decisions were wrong. Barnes notes that Congress’ investigative subpoena power in the past has been “so sparingly employed,” the Supreme Court had “few cases” to review its use for most of our history (Watkins v. United States, 354 U.S. 178, 193 [1957]). There’s some strong language in previous decisions, however, which comes down heavily on the side of upholding citizens’ rights in face of Congressional subpoena power that stood out to me:

Member Post

 

“The Chief: The Life and Times of Chief Justice John Roberts” was recently released. I read the book in 24 hours. It was captivating and insightful. The author is certainly to the left of Chief Justice Roberts and myself, yet she played it straight. For example, the author hints that she agrees with Roberts upholding […]

Join Ricochet!

This is a members-only post on Ricochet's Member Feed. Want to read it? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Sailing the Magnanimous Sea

 

At night, Holland America’s Nieuw Amsterdam’s showroom hosts illusionists, concerto pianists, song and dance acts, and run-of-the-mill cruise entertainment. But it was during the day the real stage action occurred as the “O.N.T.P.’s of the Caribbean” (Original NeverTrump Pirates) sat on panels discussing what historically may have been the craziest election cycle of our lifetimes. The Weekly Standard’s post-election cruise included an impressive collection of conservative writers, editors, pundits, politicos, and a few non-Weekly Standard surprises.