Why Has SCOTUS Chief Roberts Abandoned Conservatism?


Does Judge Roberts Enjoys His Dalliances With the Strumpet Liberalism?

Kelly OConnell image

Re-Posted from the Canada Free Press By  —— Bio and ArchivesAugust 2, 2020

Why Has SCOTUS Chief Roberts Abandoned Conservatism?

Why can’t Republican presidents count on their Supreme Court picks to be reliably conservative? And, how was previously “conservative” Chief Judge John Roberts bamboozled into switching sides? Or did he just slump into compromise? Is Roberts proud of himself or merely insensate to his devolving circumstances? Maybe Roberts is the Caitlyn Jenner of SCOTUS, proving O’Sullivan’s Law – that all institutions degenerate into liberalism except those founded as strictly conservative.

Recall, during Roberts’ nomination he told the Senate he had no explicit judicial philosophy, adding: “It’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.” This is an existential view of judging. Roberts’ main interest is preserving SCOTUS’ reputation and power. 

Obamacare & Nine Unelected People

Roberts chief problem was highlighted in 2012 when President Obama threatened SCOTUS, warning the ‘unelected’ supreme court to not strike down his healthcare law. Why didn’t Chief Roberts bristle at this outrageous manipulation? Instead, Roberts was cowed, realizing Obama had the ability and will to destroy the Courts’s reputation through countless media hit pieces by his enablers. As years pass, in an unsavory example of Stockholm Syndrome, Roberts is now a liberal convert. But Roberts pantomimes anger towards much less Trump provocation as he knows Donald is much less ruthless than Barack.

Roberts Folds in Eye of Storm

Roberts had a chance to teach the left a lesson about bad laws. Rejection might have caused Obama to lose his next election. But, instead of dumping the badly flawed Obamacare, Roberts folded in the eye of the storm arguing a convoluted, nonsensical trick for saving it by turning the insurance mandate penalty into a tax. Justice Scalia wrote Roberts saved the law through “somersaults of statutory interpretation.” Yet, he did save his and the Court’s reputation from an unholy, scorched earth propaganda attack by Obama’s media minions.

Natural Law 

Natural Law claims a “law above the law” exists as a model for human laws. The Natural Law itself became a medieval proximate model for societal instruction, invading every topic of study. The Natural Law then gave birth to Anglo-American Common Law. From this came the crown jewels of Western jurisprudence – the Constitution and Bill of Rights. But inevitably, Natural Law lost favor, stripping the Common Law of it’s cache and majesty.

Positive Law
In it’s place came “Positive Law” or “man-made law.” Consider Kelsen’s Pure Theory of Law tasked to eject any superstition or morality. And yet, the challenge of driving morality or religion out of law was doomed to fail. Ronald Dwarkin’s Judge Herculus in Law’s Dominion, brings a kind of Natural Law back by claiming there is always one best answer for a case than all other options.

Roberts & Legal Realism

In telegraphing his fixation with politics and court stability, Roberts reveals his philosophy as Legal Realism, which states law should be composed as how it actually exists. In other words, Roberts can rule however he likes then claim he was pragmatically ruling as should be which then achieves the greatest good. So, Roberts believes SCOTUS is at the center of society and is unafraid to play politics to save his beloved Court. For instance, in rejecting Louisiana’s demand for abortionists to have hospital privileges in case of emergencies, a common sense idea, Roberts prefers court stability over the lives of unborn babies.

Will to Power
So where does this leave us? Roberts has unwittingly accepted Nietzsche’s Will to Power, claiming that whoever has the power can use it without any explanation, as long as claiming it is pragmatic – for the greatest good. Law becomes transactional, not representing any deep truth, but just another tool in the work bench of modern society. And so Roberts waves his wooden hammer and sends countless kids to the grave as being too inconvenient to save.

CONCLUSION
Roberts rules as a Progressive, believing law exists to make society better.  In this view, there is no deeper meaning or ultimate right or wrong. Roberts thinks he is chief judge to protect SCOTUS’ legitimacy. But, if America is to survive even a few more decades, we must find better qualified justices willing to honor the Natural Law which gave rise to the Constitution. And they must believe a firm right and wrong do exist, and great judges take big risks to fight for truth, even when unpopular.