Well now, here we are, protecting the court's reputation vs. restoring individual liberty as is explicitly stated in numerous amendments to the US Constitution.
Agreed. If Roberts is concerned with protecting the Supreme Court's reputation, he's already erred. T
The Constitution itself, while provisioning for the Supreme Court, specifically states in Article. III. Section 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising
under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority..."
Clearly, this implies all such cases are subject to the Constitution, a concept hammered home, again, by the Constitution itself: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." - Article VI
Every time I find a 4/5 or 5/4 vote, it'll always along party lines, with the Demoncrap Justices siding with their political part and the rest siding with the Constitution.
Leaders do not lead by image. They lead by tirelessly doing that which is right while actively shunning that which is wrong. John Roberts may indeed be Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, but I have read a number of his opinions that veer significantly away from the simple, straightforward text, precepts, and principles clearly revealed in the United States Constitution itself.
When it comes to doing that which is right, there's only one cornerstone that should be on the mind of a United States Supreme Court Justice, and that's the Constitution.*
This mindset is exactly why the 2A is a second tier, (third tier?) guarantee.
No Amendment is "second tier," not even to the Constitution itself:
"Article. V. The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing
Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress." - United States Constitution
Our Bill of Rights and the other 17 Amendments hold equal status with the entirety of the main body of the Constitution itself.
John Roberts is WRONG. While he may not be as bad as the flaming liberals on the court, any action he takes to protect the image of the court actually tarnishes the court's image.
Roberts wrote: "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement."
Wow. Talk about self-delusion! YES, Roberts, when your court consistently and with a very high split vote correlation along party lines, that's
precisely when you have. It's not an Obama/Trump split. It is most certainly a Demoncrap/Republican split.
Roberts needs to pull his head out of the sand, stop snorting pixie stardust, and start doing what is right i.e. what holds true to the Constitution he swore to support and defend.
*Personally, I would argue that one cannot rightly govern without God and the Bible, and even though Providence is clearly mentioned in our Declaration of Independence, it was sanitized from the final copy of our Constitution.