Roberts second guesses policy making decision on census, violates separation of power doctrine

Sep 2015
14,302
5,087
Brown Township, Ohio
Roberts is a Bush 2 appointee. Bush 2 was in the Texas Air National Guard but never saw combat. "Mission Accomplished", Bush 2.
 
Jul 2015
2,720
1,150
USA
Roberts knows something about the constitution and history and is concerned with his place in history.
He did what he did so that scholars will say he was a good Chief Justice, and a not a hack.

It’s irrelevant if Justice Roberts believes adding the question “appears to have been contrived.” He is being a "hack" by second guessing the wisdom and/or legitimacy of a policy making decision as opposed to whether or not it is allowed by our Constitution.


It is not a Justices’ job to second guess the wisdom or legitimacy of legislative acts and policy making decisions. Its only job is to decide if such acts are within the four walls of the Constitution.


In regard to this assumption of power by Justice Roberts [second guessing legislative acts and policy making decisions], Justice Stone reminds us that:


”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)


Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:


”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”


And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:


……we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.


And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violated the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction by interfering with a legitimate question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”


JWK


Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: imaginethat
Jul 2018
2,389
603
Earth
Which has nothing to do with this, but you didn’t know that.
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment bases Congressional representation on the number of citizens in each State. If the dummies working for PODS trump knew anything about the Constitution they would tell the SCOTUS to go F___ off on this issue and include the citizenship question.
 
Jul 2014
15,274
9,380
massachusetts
It’s irrelevant if Justice Roberts believes adding the question “appears to have been contrived.” He is being a "hack" by second guessing the wisdom and/or legitimacy of a policy making decision as opposed to whether or not it is allowed by our Constitution.


It is not a Justices’ job to second guess the wisdom or legitimacy of legislative acts and policy making decisions. Its only job is to decide if such acts are within the four walls of the Constitution.


In regard to this assumption of power by Justice Roberts [second guessing legislative acts and policy making decisions], Justice Stone reminds us that:


”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)


Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:


”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”


And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:


……we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.


And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violated the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction by interfering with a legitimate question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”


JWK


Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.
See that's the thing that Roberts is s trying to avoid, spouting the fucking nonsense that you do, and looking like some internet moron.
And the thing is, he is Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and you are an internet moron.
 
Jul 2008
18,951
12,790
Virginia Beach, VA
Section 2 of the 14th Amendment bases Congressional representation on the number of citizens in each State. If the dummies working for PODS trump knew anything about the Constitution they would tell the SCOTUS to go F___ off on this issue and include the citizenship question.
Not even close

Here is the text of section 2 of the 14th Amendment

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Representation is based on “the whole number of persons” in the state. Not citizens.

What it does have is a stick to insure that the states allow each person to vote. If a state does not allow someone to vote then the number of persons shall be reduced by the number of people they are not allowing to vote.

So if KY has 1,000,000 people living in the state (citizens and non citizens) but they decide not to let women vote and the number of voting age women in the state is 250,000 then the state will only be counted as having 750,000 people thus (possibly) reducing the number of Representatives they have in the House.
 
Jul 2018
2,389
603
Earth
Not even close

Here is the text of section 2 of the 14th Amendment

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

Representation is based on “the whole number of persons” in the state. Not citizens.

What it does have is a stick to insure that the states allow each person to vote. If a state does not allow someone to vote then the number of persons shall be reduced by the number of people they are not allowing to vote.

So if KY has 1,000,000 people living in the state (citizens and non citizens) but they decide not to let women vote and the number of voting age women in the state is 250,000 then the state will only be counted as having 750,000 people thus (possibly) reducing the number of Representatives they have in the House.
The penalty is based on the number of citizens. You can't impose the penalty unless you know how many citizens there are.

"...the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State."
 
  • Like
Reactions: johnwk
Jul 2015
2,720
1,150
USA
Which has nothing to do with this, but you didn’t know that.
So, once again you show your complete and utter ignorance.


The bottom line is, Justice Roberts has exercise a power not granted to our judicial branch of government, the power being, to scrutinize and second guess the wisdom of legislation and policy making decisions.


"In Chief Justice Roberts’ majority decision Thursday tentatively rejecting a citizenship question on the 2020 census, he rejected the Trump Administration’s “voting rights” argument as “contrived,” saying executive branch officials must “offer genuine justifications for important decisions, reasons that can be scrutinized by courts and the interested public.” LINK


It is not the courts job to “scrutinize” policy making decisions and legislative acts. The courts only job is to determine if policy making decisions and legislation does not violate the provisions of our Constitution. To allow Roberts to second guess policy making decisions and legislation when they do not violate the provisions of our Constitution, is to allow our courts to violate our system’s separation of powers doctrine.


But just to confirm what I state above, here is a number of legitimate sources commenting on our judicial branch of government second guessing the wisdom of policy making decisions and legislation:


”The power of courts to declare a statute unconstitutional is subject to two guiding principles of decision which ought never to be absent from judicial consciousness. One is that courts are concerned only with the power to enact statutes, not with their wisdom. The other is that while unconstitutional exercise of power by the executive and legislative branches of the government is subject to judicial restraint, the only check upon our own exercise of power is our own sense of self-restraint. For the removal of unwise laws from the statute books appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)


Additionally, the court in Hillis v. Department of Ecology, 131 Wash. 2d 373, 932 P.2d 139 (1997) pointed out:


”Just because we [the courts] do not think the legislators have acted wisely or responsibly does not give us the right to assume their duties or to substitute our judgment for theirs.”


And, in ELDRED et al. v. ASHCROFT, ATTORNEY GENERAL (2003) the court unmistakably confirmed:


……we are not at liberty to second-guess congressional determinations and policy judgments of this order, however debatable or arguably unwise they may be…The wisdom of Congress’ action, however, is not within our province to second guess.


And finally, Justice Black, quite eloquently addressed the issue as follows:


"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968


The bottom line is, Justice Obamacare-Roberts has repeatedly violated the most fundamental cannons and principles of our constitutionally limited system of government and the fundamental rules of constitutional construction and now he is interfering with a legitimate and constitutional question being replaced on our census form . . . “Is this person a citizen of the United States?”


Why do you support our Supreme Court usurping a power not granted?


JWK


Without a Fifth Column Media and Yellow Journalism [ourMSM], the crisis at our southern border would never have grown to what now amounts to an outright invasion and threatens the general welfare of the United States.
 
  • Like
Reactions: FrostKing