John Roberts Is The Judicial Supremacist The Founders Warned Us About

[mystery-ak]

John Roberts Is The Judicial Supremacist The Founders Warned Us About
Shawn Fleetwood


It’s a sad day in America when the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court ignores the basic framework of the Constitution he’s supposed to interpret.

That’s what happened on Wednesday, when Chief Justice John Roberts took it upon himself to subtly thumb his nose at President Trump and conservatives during a rare sit-down interview in his hometown of Buffalo, New York. In addition to rebuking calls to impeach activist lower court judges for overstepping the confines of the Constitution, the chief justice had this to say about the subject of “judicial independence”:

    In our Constitution … the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president. That innovation doesn’t work if … the judiciary’s not independent. Its job is to, obviously, decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or of the executive. And that does require a degree of independence.

To quote Vice President J.D. Vance, does John Roberts hear himself?

The chief justice begins by claiming that the judiciary is a “co-equal” branch of government. Then, in the very next breath, he asserts that the courts can “strike down … acts of Congress or acts of the president.”

If the courts can unilaterally “strike down” actions by the legislative and executive it believes to be unlawful or finds unfavorable, as Roberts maintains, then that isn’t “co-equal.” It’s judicial supremacism.

What Roberts is conveying is his apparent belief that the Supreme Court and judicial branch writ large are wholly supreme to the other branches of government. That is, regardless of the will of the people as expressed through their elected representatives, it is judges who have the final say on matters of law and public policy.

more
https://thefederalist.com/2025/05/09/john-roberts-is-the-judicial-supremacist-the-founders-warned-us-about/

[IsailedawayfromFR]

We all know what it is the remedy to Judicial supremacy.

It will not be pleasant for those exercising it.

We fought a war against lifetime unelected authorities who imposed tyranny against us.

[Free Vulcan]

But nowhere can I see where Roberts talks about what the law and Constitution actually says. Rather he seems to believe far more in judicial power than actual truth and facts. 'They' will 'interpret' for us what things say and rule like Kings.

[Bigun]

But nowhere can I see where Roberts talks about what the law and Constitution actually says. Rather he seems to believe far more in judicial power than actual truth and facts. 'They' will 'interpret' for us what things say and rule like Kings.

I've been screaming about this for years!

[Fishrrman]

Bigun wrote:
"I've been screaming about this for years!"

Then you can keep on screaming (perhaps at me) after you've read my solution to this issue.
I've posted it several times before but will repeat:
==================================
There needs to be proclaimed (yes, proclaimed) "The Trump Doctrine" on the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary.

It must re-define how much power the federal courts have to exercise against the president and his powers.

No individual federal judge anywhere should have the power to overturn executive action.
At the district court level, when and where federal/nationwide policies are impacted, judges should have no more power other than to issue an opinion (strictly an "opinion", not a "ruling").

It will be up to the president as to whether to accept or reject such an opinion.

If rejected, then it can be appealed upwards to the next level. The president should declare in his proclamation that only a judgment by the full appellate court (NOT a 3-judge panel) will be binding -- and ONLY within the confines of that district -- AGAIN, IF the president chooses to accept the ruling.

And after that, we're left with the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, this is going to carry more weight, but I've come to the (very personal) conclusion that even the 9 justices in their black robes should not be entrusted to dictate final decisions before the American people.

Rather, in matters of national social and cultural importance, any U.S. Supreme Court decision should be "annullable-cancelable" by a vote of the U.S. Congress and Senate.

Frankly, I don't even trust most of our "elected leaders" (do YOU?).
I'd rather see such matters put up to a national vote -- much like the Swiss people do RIGHT NOW.

It's time to toss Marbury v. Madison onto the trash heap, and start over.
"The Trump Doctrine" is the first step on this journey.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

John Roberts Is The Judicial Supremacist The Founders Warned Us About
Shawn Fleetwood


It’s a sad day in America when the chief justice of the U.S. Supreme Court ignores the basic framework of the Constitution he’s supposed to interpret.

That’s what happened on Wednesday, when Chief Justice John Roberts took it upon himself to subtly thumb his nose at President Trump and conservatives during a rare sit-down interview in his hometown of Buffalo, New York. In addition to rebuking calls to impeach activist lower court judges for overstepping the confines of the Constitution, the chief justice had this to say about the subject of “judicial independence”:

    In our Constitution … the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president. That innovation doesn’t work if … the judiciary’s not independent. Its job is to, obviously, decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or of the executive. And that does require a degree of independence.

To quote Vice President J.D. Vance, does John Roberts hear himself?

The chief justice begins by claiming that the judiciary is a “co-equal” branch of government. Then, in the very next breath, he asserts that the courts can “strike down … acts of Congress or acts of the president.”

If the courts can unilaterally “strike down” actions by the legislative and executive it believes to be unlawful or finds unfavorable, as Roberts maintains, then that isn’t “co-equal.” It’s judicial supremacism.

And Congress can strike down USSC decisions by passing amendments. So I don't intepret what he said as "supremacy".

[rustynail]

Somewhere there is some video that needs to be released.

[Wingnut]

Roberts might be the guy who was right.  You all just dont see it.   Just saying.  There is a lot of horse shit floating around.

[Bigun]

Bigun wrote:
"I've been screaming about this for years!"

Then you can keep on screaming (perhaps at me) after you've read my solution to this issue.
I've posted it several times before but will repeat:
==================================
There needs to be proclaimed (yes, proclaimed) "The Trump Doctrine" on the relationship between the Executive and the Judiciary.

It must re-define how much power the federal courts have to exercise against the president and his powers.

No individual federal judge anywhere should have the power to overturn executive action.
At the district court level, when and where federal/nationwide policies are impacted, judges should have no more power other than to issue an opinion (strictly an "opinion", not a "ruling").

It will be up to the president as to whether to accept or reject such an opinion.

If rejected, then it can be appealed upwards to the next level. The president should declare in his proclamation that only a judgment by the full appellate court (NOT a 3-judge panel) will be binding -- and ONLY within the confines of that district -- AGAIN, IF the president chooses to accept the ruling.

And after that, we're left with the U.S. Supreme Court. Of course, this is going to carry more weight, but I've come to the (very personal) conclusion that even the 9 justices in their black robes should not be entrusted to dictate final decisions before the American people.

Rather, in matters of national social and cultural importance, any U.S. Supreme Court decision should be "annullable-cancelable" by a vote of the U.S. Congress and Senate.

Frankly, I don't even trust most of our "elected leaders" (do YOU?).
I'd rather see such matters put up to a national vote -- much like the Swiss people do RIGHT NOW.

It's time to toss Marbury v. Madison onto the trash heap, and start over.
"The Trump Doctrine" is the first step on this journey.

I won't argue with you @Fishrrman. In fact, I agree with much of what you said but the fact is that if Trump did that he would be impeached, tried and convicted immediately. Not because he is wrong but because the vast majority of both houses of congress are, first and foremost, lawyers. They've won and the republic is lost because of it.