If You Think About It, Not Really
Chief Justice John Roberts Looks The Other Way Amid Obama FISA Scandal: Should Anyone Be Surprised?
Justice is supposed to be blind. But a Justice turning a blind eye? Not so much.
Chief Justice John Roberts’ inaction in dealing with the obama admin’s glaring abuse of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC), government’s most secretive court, has been frustrating and troublesome.
Frustrating because Americans deserve to have the 44th president and his administration held accountable for the blatant corruption and crimes committed during and after the 2016 Presidential campaign.
Troublesome because Roberts is considered a conservative judge. At one point in his career, he was even considered a non-political judge. When Sotomayor, Ginsburg, or Kegan turn a blind eye to criminal behavior, it is still troublesome, but the frustration is alleviated somewhat. We expect unprincipled left-wing nonsense and disregard for the constitution from leftists. From conservative judges we expect principled decisions in accordance with the Judeo-Christian values that America was founded upon.
A Basic Biblical Standard For Judges
In the OT, God expected unparalleled integrity in humans appointed to judge humans. In fact, the uniqueness of the OT in contrast to pagan nations is most apparent in its legal code. For example, the OT judiciary were strictly forbidden to engage in bribery, whereas it was a common practice and an accepted part of the court systems among the Mesopotamian nations.
An OT judge’s most important characteristics was to judge righteously and equitably. What that means is stated succinctly here:
You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s. Deuteronomy 1:17
This longstanding system of judicial ethics was still alive and well in the 200 B.C. writings of Ben Sira, a devout man of wisdom who lived in Jerusalem.
Do not seek to become a judge, lest you be unable to remove iniquity, lest you be partial to a powerful man, and thus put a blot on your integrity. Sirach 7:6, RSV
Being “partial to a powerful man” describes “intimidation” well.
John Roberts Is Chief Justice Of The Supreme And FISA Courts
So what’s up with Chief Justice John Roberts disregard for corruption in the FISA Court? Has he been intimidated? Bullied? Threatened? Does this reveal a potential blot on his integrity? No one knows a person’s heart except for God. But Roberts’ passivity in this matter has been bizarre to say the least.
Not bizarre all at once, but gradually, like puzzle pieces randomly scattered over the last 10 years beginning to come together. As with all jigsaws, doing the edges first helps frame the rest. Especially since it shows the true colors of the middle pieces.
The rampant and well-documented FISA abuse within the obama admin, and the fact that NO investigation has been done nor has anyone been held accountable (or even called out for it!), forms the outer edges and a partial image. Sadly, and frighteningly, this effigy illustrates why no one should be surprised about Justice Roberts’ lethargic attitude towards obama’s FISA corruption.
A Judge By Any Other Name
Since November 21, 2018, Americans have remained shocked that Chief Justice John Roberts stated, without breaking into laughter, that the U.S. does not have “obama judges.”
Precluding Roberts being born yesterday, how could he make such a stunningly clueless statement? The chief magistrate has heard countless appeals from federal courts—including the 9th circuit. Evidence does not support his claim.
Of course, America has “obama judges.” Everybody knows this, especially leftists (Google “Merrick Garland”). Roberts is more than aware of the perversion of justice by activist judges and their unscrupulous practice of bench legislation. Not only has he cited many of FDR’s appointments, he’s been sitting with Sonia Sotomayor for years.
In response to President Trump’s criticism of an “obama judge” who ruled against revisions to federal asylum rules, Justice Roberts issued a unicorn-rare statement:
We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.
Commenting on Roberts’ curious statement, Paul Mirengoff of Power Line Blog writes:
If one can predict with a high degree of accuracy how a judge will rule in a highly controversial case, or in a case challenging a Trump edict the left doesn’t like, just by knowing which president appointed that judge, then Roberts’ defense of the federal judiciary fails.
This is possibly the only statement the left and right would agree on. And it has pretty much always held true except for the conservative side’s dubious “swing vote.” Why is it that conservatives always have the “swing vote”?
In June 2015 SCOTUS decisions made up what Andrew McCarthy called a “Fundamental Transformation trifecta” for socialism: saving obamacare for the second time, finding the “constitutional” right to same-sex marriage, and applying “disparate impact” to the Fair Housing Act.
It is not hard to imagine the pre-decision pressure on conservative judges and the post-decision giddiness of drive-by media in June 2015. But only McCarthy pointed out the following:
Yet, for all the non-stop commentary, one detail goes nearly unmentioned — the omission that best explains this week’s Fundamental Transformation trifecta.
Did you notice that there was not an iota of speculation about how the four Progressive justices would vote?
There was never a shadow of a doubt. In the plethora of opinions generated by these three cases, there is not a single one authored by Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, or Sonia Sotomayor. There was no need. They are the Left’s voting bloc. There was a better chance that the sun would not rise this morning than that any of them would wander off the reservation.
John Roberts’ plea regarding the superfluous use of presidential adjectives to describe “judge” is about as convincing as his insistence that “an exchange established by a state” means “an exchange established by a state or federal government” (See King v. Burwell). Maybe “obama judge” means “an obama judge when appointed by obama or Bush 2”?
Another Puzzle Piece—Progressive Decisions From A Conservative SCOTUS
Roberts is theoretically a “Bush judge” who has a solid conservative voting record in his 13 years on the Supreme Court. That is, except for one glaring stain.
In 2012, for the first time ever, he joined with the far-left liberal judges in a majority opinion to uphold the disaster known as obamacare. In a statement unchallenged by Roberts or anybody else, CBS News said “that Roberts originally voted to overturn obamacare, but then performed a high-stakes, eleventh-hour backflip.” (what?)
At the time, citizen Donald Trump called Roberts’ vote in favor of the affordable care act an “absolute disaster” foreshadowing one of Candidate Trump’s favorite commentaries on the lie “you can keep you doctor…” etc.
American Thinker’s Daniel John Sobieski sums up the Chief Justice’s ACA atrocity 6-years after the out-of-character ruling and in response to Roberts’ absurd “obama-judge” comment:
Roberts capitulated and said ObamaCare was constitutional because it was a tax, a gross distortion that injected into the law the false notion that government could legally force people to buy a product they did not want. He knelt before the power of the state and not before the Constitution, the document that is supposed to limit government power that he was sworn to uphold and protect. In this instance at least, John Roberts became a judicial activist aiding and abetting a community organizer. He became an Obama judge.
Was Roberts Intimidated By The Anti-American Community Organizer?
Prior to the bewildering 2012 SCOTUS decision and Roberts’ unruly “judgislature” hoop jump to declare the ACA individual mandate a “tax” (way back when Roberts was a non-politial judge), the communist organizer-in-chief made the following April 2 Rose Garden statement:
I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.
Prior to this veiled Rose Garden threat, Roberts had attended Heil Hussein’s 2010 SOTU where the ill-qualified Hussein made disparaging remarks about the SCOTUS decision in the Citizens United case. Later that same year, Heil openly touted searching for a judge who would rule against Citizens United. Further criticism for Roberts arose from the Democrat Judiciary Committee Chairman, Arlen Specter, who criticized Roberts for promising not to “jolt the system” during his SCOTUS confirmation hearing. “Well, there have been quite a number of jolts in the system with his key vote [in the Citizens United case],” Specter said—a statement indicative of far-left liberal expectation that the court is obligated to pass idiotic policies the Dems can’t get through Congress.
As a side note, the Chief Justice made no unicorn-rare statement about “the independent judiciary” that we are fortunate to have when obama and Specter made these unprecedented statements about a Supreme Court decision.
The constant criticism in 2010, the 2012 Rose Garden intimidation, and who knows what else, combined with the mainstream media worship of obama, the pressure and threats of scathing rebuke aimed at the high court—mostly from the oval bully pulpit—are not difficult to imagine. NRO’s Deroy Murdock wrote:
Rather than an entity that reputedly is blind to everything except the written briefs that its members read and the oral arguments that they hear, the Supreme Court suddenly seems responsive to public-opinion surveys, menacing political rhetoric, and the tirades of nationally syndicated columnists.
From all accounts, Roberts caved to pressure from the former 1/2 African-Kenyan 1/2 White-American president, mainstream media, and far left liberals in general.
Some have naively reasoned that the Chief Justice didn’t want to be the one to decide against “the first black president’s signature legislation”—what? Are these less than stellars saying that SCOTUS votes are required to meet affirmative action quotas too? And this because of obama’s 1/2 Kenyan black muslim and 1/2 American white communist heritage (which means he is technically not African-American at all)? Bull Hockey! Leftist judges think that way, not conservative ones. With Roberts the law has always been the law regardless of color, quotas, mutts, or “signature legislation.”
Was Roberts Intimidated By obama Thugs?
Roberts’ decision to side with the far left was sudden and about face. Some have speculated that Roberts received unwarranted nudging from obama admin thugs DNI James Clapper and CIA director John Brennan regarding the dubious adoption of Roberts’ two sons. Oh yes, obama and his minions are that ruthless. Benghazi and golf come to mind.
In fact, evidence exists that John Roberts was surveilled by an obama admin Deep State operation overseen by Brennan and Clapper. This is the same type of deep state connivance used to spy on General Michael Flynn, Carter Page, Candidate and President Donald Trump, etc.
On tapes released by Federal Judge G. Murray Snow, preserved on a Whistleblower Soundcloud page, individuals can be heard discussing the obama admin surveillance program. The whistleblower tapes are corroborated by 2 independent sources—the Wikileaks “Vault 7” release and comments from former CIA and NSA contractor Dennis Montgomery who worked on the operation for Brennan and Clapper (!).
On the tape an individual can be heard explaining the surveillance program to a couple of investigators. While reading a list from a computer screen, the person is pointing out the who’s who of the spying operation: “You know who that guy is? That’s the head of the FISA court they hacked into, Reggie Walton.” Then he says “John Roberts, the chief justice of the Supreme Court, was hacked.” Listen to the tape here (around 18:00 minute mark for John Roberts’ name).
Interestingly, one of the investigators on the tape is former Arizona sheriff Joe Arpaio which explains perfectly why obama had such disdain for him.
Robert’s motives for siding with obama in the 2012 affordable care act have always raised considerable skepticism from SCOTUS colleagues, renown legal minds, and political commentators.
No evidence exists that Roberts was blackmailed. However, that he was “hacked” lends plenty of credence to the Chief Justice being threatened by obama goons at the least, if not outright blackmailed about his children. To Roberts’ defense, even the best of people will do almost anything unlawful for their children. To his betrayal, if that is what happened, he has broken an oath sworn to uphold The Highest Court of the land. If he was threatened by obama, the Chief Justice certainly had other options besides kowtowing.
As this puzzle comes together, Roberts’ uncommon public statement about “obama judges” is all the more enigmatic. Is he attempting to dissuade the public that such an animal exists? Did he resonate with the statement to such a degree that he felt compelled to deny any such atrocity on the SCOTUS? Did something more sinister squeeze the statement out of him—maybe Clapper and Brennan reared their very ugly heads again?
The puzzle is still not complete.
Here Come The Caravans ILLegally
In a proclamation issued on Nov. 9, 2018, in response to violent caravans of Central Americans storming the southern border, President Trump barred migrants from applying for asylum unless they made the request at a legal checkpoint. In other words, only those applying at a port of entry would be eligible. This is totally logical. If illegal aliens are truly seeking asylum, wouldn’t they go to the nearest port? The place where the appropriate personnel are stationed to hear asylum requests?
Of course, a low-level obama trial judge steps in and blocks the order. For the entire nation. But wait, America doesn’t have obama judges, right?
On December 21, 2018, the 5-4 Supreme Court refused to allow the Trump administration’s initiative barring migrants who enter the country illegally from seeking asylum. Oddly enough, Chief Justice John Roberts (shock!) joined the four-member liberal wing in turning down the administration’s request for a stay of the trial judge’s order blocking the program.
Roberts’ intermittent ideological colleagues Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh said they would have granted the stay. But that dastardly swing vote. The 5-4 court gave NO reason for the opinion.
Once again, Roberts goes rogue and joins liberals on a huge progressive agenda item. Was it vindication for Trump’s “obama judge” comment? Or did Roberts receive another dead fish wrapped in a newspaper?
We’ll never be certain.
Look At The Puzzle Image So Far
This overwhelming evidence surrounding Roberts’ causes the lassitude toward the obama admin FISA abuse appear purposeful. The FISC and its dealings, of which Roberts has direct oversight and responsibility, continue eerily on in their secretive court with secret handshakes, fake decoder rings, and fake documents accepted as evidence and used to break a cardinal rule of liberty—spying on an American citizen, much less a Presidential nominee (!).
Relevant to this inertia toward FISA crimes is the Deuteronomy 1:17 Biblical mandate cited earlier, Judges should not be “intimidated by anyone”—literally “not to dread, or be afraid of, the face of men.” “For the judgment is God’s” since He alone is the conferrer of a person’s inalienable rights. God judges righteously and equitably. “Let justice roll down like waters, and righteousness like an ever-flowing stream” (Amos 5:24). Diminution of fairness—for any reason—is an affront to God.
Though Democrats enjoy quoting this Amos Scripture for self-righteous posturing, curiously, they never use it in reference to judicial qualifications. For the record, their familiarity of it doesn’t stem from knowledge of OT prophecy or the works of MLK Jr., but from their incessant pandering to blacks, that is, non-conservative blacks
So why does the Bible mandate that judges should not be intimidated? Even invoking the “divine shall” in the legal code? Succumbing to intimidation, bullying, threatening, scare tactics, whatever you want to call it, negates a judge’s ability to judge equitably. By default, this is judicial partiality. Only those with the highest caliber of integrity should presume to sit as judge over another human being. Judges are required to do the right thing in all circumstances no matter what—or whom—so that all people are treated justly. Henchmen should not change judicial outcomes.
Surveilling American citizens? Crickets in the Chief Justice chambers. Surveilling American citizens as a ruse to surveil a Presidential campaign? More crickets in the Chief Justice chambers. An unelected, life-term, government official—and the American people are left helpless. Personally, I believe John Roberts to be a fundamentally good man who fell victim to a degenerate narcissist and his miscreant donors who want nothing more than to destroy America.
Nonetheless, good man or not, these matters should not be overlooked. In Justice Antonin Scalia’s scathing dissent in King v. Burwell, he famously wrote that Obamacare should be named “ScotusCare.” Maybe FISC should likewise be named OISC?
More to read:
Daniel John Sobieski’s What About Your FISA Judges, Justice Roberts?