Posted on 04/26/2023 8:39:56 AM PDT by lowbridge
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts told Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Dick Durbin (D) on Tuesday that he will not testify before the committee.
What is the background?
After ProPublica raised new allegations of impropriety against Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, Durbin wrote Roberts requesting he come to a committee hearing on Supreme Court ethics reform.
The letter claimed there is a "crisis of public confidence" in the judiciary and warned the "status quo is no longer tenable."
"The time has come for a new public conversation on ways to restore confidence in the Court’s ethical standards," Durbin wrote.
How did Roberts respond?
The chief justice told Durbin in a letter on Tuesday that he will not attend the hearing to honor the Constitution's separation of powers.
"I must respectfully decline your invitation," Roberts said. "Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States is exceedingly rare as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence."
Roberts explained that Library of Congress records show that Supreme Court justices have only testified before Congress for reasons other than nominations or appropriations on two occasions, Chief Justice Howard Taft in 1921 and Chief Justice Charles Hughes in 1935. He also explained that his predecessor, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, testified before House committees on two occasions.
Additionally, Roberts noted that "congressional testimony from the head of the Executive Branch is likewise infrequent."
"According to the United States Senate website, no President has ever testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee, and only three Presidents (in 1862, 1919, and 1974) have testified before any Congressional committee," Roberts wrote.
(Excerpt) Read more at theblaze.com ...
IOW, go pound sand.
-Joe Biden, on the US Constitution.
LOL!
After they closed shop, the men who left the Constitution of future concerns...No. 1...There is no check on the courts No. 2. The electoral college was wisdom at its best...but they had a concern with what would happen when the have nots outnumber the haves...and that is where we are....and why Obama won....and Biden won.
Good for the real conservative, CJ John Humphrey Roberts.
Exactly. The best way to understand the Electoral College is to look at a map of the U.S. showing who won the county-by-county voting. It's overwhelmingly red. The Founding Fathers wanted the President to be someone who had WIDESPREAD support.
Another way to explain it, to get people to (hopefully) think about what and why “democracy” is an exceedingly bad idea.
Imagine for the sake of argument there were global elections. Would everyone else want India and China alone to decide everything for the rest of the world?
California and New York have far too much influence on the rest of the country as it is.
The various states are running into huge problems as well, at the county level. “One man one vote” was how an important US supreme court decision was described, that states formerly used in a similar way to prevent one or two cities from dominating the rest of the state. Each county had representation in the state legislature, typically.
Leftists decry such mechanisms as “Anti Democratic” and they are absolutely correct about that. This was on purpose, it isn’t some glaring oversight. The founders were smart. Democracy is an idiotic form of government, history is clear on that, it always leads to agitation, license, and discontent. Mobocracy. Then a dictatorship. You can vote your way into “free &$it” socialism, but you can’t vote your way out.
Funny, that.
In his confirmation hearing, justice Bork destroyed Ted Kennedy on this. The Swimmer was blathering on about one man, one vote. Bork told that, if the people of this country wanted that, they can enact it through legislation and then the Senate will be illegal.
Who writes these headlines? What “facts?”
Biden did not win. He was appointed by the deep state. And I suspect Obama of the same as well.
“John Roberts” was all over Epstein’s flight logs.
“Another way to explain it, to get people to (hopefully) think about what and why “democracy” is an exceedingly bad idea.”
————
Democracy is two wolves and one sheep voting on what’s for dinner. What we have is a representative republic with a Constitution, which protects the right of not just the 49% who might be in the minority on any given issue, but even a single individual against everyone else in society. At least in theory it does that. With democracy, there is no chance whatsoever that either an individual or a minority of any size will be protected against the whims of the majority. An unfettered democracy, despite how good it sounds on the surface, is really nothing more than mob rule.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.