Connect with us

FUFB

Was Justice Roberts A Deep State Sleeper Cell? After He Stabs Conservatives In the Back, Must Be Considered Lefty Vote Now [Opinion/ICYMI]

Kirsters Baish’ Opinion & Speculation | ICYMI 6/19- This decision was handed down last month but the possible effect on the ideological makeup of the court, we thought it important to revisit.

Chief Justice Roberts has got to go. DavidHarrisJr.com has reported that “Just as he did for Obamacare, Justice Roberts threw the law aside and joined the four liberal judges in killing the citizenship question. There will be no such question on the 2020 census forms, and US taxpayers will continue to send vast amounts of cash to states with huge illegal populations. They will also not lose representatives to the disadvantage of conservative states. SCOTUS is sending the case back to the lower courts, and it is doubtful that the case will return before the questionnaires have to be printed.”

Via CNN:

The Supreme Court has blocked a citizenship question from being added to the 2020 census for the time being in a major setback for the Trump administration.

The bitter controversy centers around whether the administration can ask all recipients a citizenship question on the 2020 census for the first time since 1950 — a move that could impact the balance of power in states and the House of Representatives, which are based on total population. Adding the question, critics say, could result in minorities being undercounted.
Writing for a 5-4 majority, Chief Justice John Roberts concluded that there was sufficient reason for concern about why the Commerce Department wanted to add the question. Roberts had the support of the four liberal justices.
Rulings were issued by Supreme Court justices in two major cases on the last day of the current term. Both rulings dealt with partisan politics. According to CNN, “Roberts split his votes, siding with conservatives on a major decision allowing severe partisan gerrymandering, and then crossing ideological lines to side with liberals on the census case.”
“If judicial review is to be more than an empty ritual, it must demand something better than the explanation offered for the action taken in this case,” Roberts explained.

The Washington Examiner reports, “Chief Justice John Roberts drives conservatives crazy with his habit of split-the-difference jurisprudence. But his final, short paragraph in one opinion today at least gave constitutionalists solid reasons for hope. Roberts disappointed constitutionalists by refusing to overturn the doctrine known as ‘Auer deference,’ via which courts defer to executive agencies’ interpretations of their own rules. He did signal, however, that he is quite open to re-examining a related doctrine called ‘Chevrondeference,’ via which courts defer to the agencies’ interpretation of statutory language passed by Congress.”

“Issues surrounding judicial deference to agency interpretations of their own regulations are distinct from those raised in connection with judicial deference to agency interpretations of statutes enacted by Congress,” penned Roberts. “See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). I do not regard the Court’s decision today to touch upon the latter question.”

Follow Illicit Info on Spreely, the social media site for Patriots

Visit Illicit Info's homepage for more stories

National Review further reports:

While Justice Roberts tried mightily to downplay the difference between the weakened version of Auer and Gorsuch’s call to overturn it entirely, the differences are still important. They go to the heart of the constitutional separation of powers. Under the Kagan/Roberts formulation, when an agency meets the new Auer preconditions, deference is still mandatory. Indeed, as Justice Roberts notes, “there is a difference between holding that a court ought to be persuaded by an agency’s interpretation and holding that it should defer to that interpretation under certain conditions.” Under the Gorsuch formulation, courts should consider agency arguments and agency evidence, but they do not have to defer to agency conclusions.

Loading...
Continue Reading
Click to comment

You must be logged in to post a comment Login

Leave a Reply

Loading...

Trending On Illicit Info

To Top