johnwk
07-09-2019, 07:09 PM
Just for the record, the Administrative Procedure Act, (APA) which was used to justify Roberts’ opinion, is a clever device created by our Washington Swamp Creatures to undermine our representative system of government, and allow unelected activist judges and Justices to second guess and overturn policy making decisions and legislation which rightfully rests with Congress and our Executive branch of government, that is, unless Congress itself, our elected representatives, decide to intervene and strike down a policy judgement made by the Executive branch.
In this case, the APA was used to overturn the consequences of an election and a policy making decision made by our President which is objected to by those who lost the election.
This is not rocket science to figure out. Just read the entire Court OPINION (https://www.debatepolitics.com/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopi nions%2F18pdf%2F18-966_bq7c.pdf) which documents the whining and frivolous objections of those who ran to the Court over a question which is admitted by all parties does not violate the terms of our Constitution.
Justice Thomas, in his dissent, identifies the can of worms opened by Justice Roberts:
"Now that the Court has opened up this avenue of attack, opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them. Moreover, even if the effort to invalidate the action is ultimately unsuccessful, the Court’s decision enables partisans to use the courts to harangue executive officers through depositions, discovery, delay, and distraction. The Court’s decision could even implicate separation-of-powers concerns insofar as it enables judicial interference with the enforcement of the laws. In short, today’s decision is a departure from traditional principles of administrative law. Hopefully it comes to be understood as an aberration—a ticket good for this day and this train only"
Because the Secretary’s decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census was legally sound and a reasoned exercise of his broad discretion, I respectfully dissent from Part V of the opinion of the Court."
The bottom line is, the Roberts’ decision is an outright attack on our democratic system and attempts to overturn the consequences of our last election.
This whole case is summed up as follows:
"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968
In this case, the APA was used to overturn the consequences of an election and a policy making decision made by our President which is objected to by those who lost the election.
This is not rocket science to figure out. Just read the entire Court OPINION (https://www.debatepolitics.com/redirect-to/?redirect=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.supremecourt.gov%2Fopi nions%2F18pdf%2F18-966_bq7c.pdf) which documents the whining and frivolous objections of those who ran to the Court over a question which is admitted by all parties does not violate the terms of our Constitution.
Justice Thomas, in his dissent, identifies the can of worms opened by Justice Roberts:
"Now that the Court has opened up this avenue of attack, opponents of executive actions have strong incentives to craft narratives that would derail them. Moreover, even if the effort to invalidate the action is ultimately unsuccessful, the Court’s decision enables partisans to use the courts to harangue executive officers through depositions, discovery, delay, and distraction. The Court’s decision could even implicate separation-of-powers concerns insofar as it enables judicial interference with the enforcement of the laws. In short, today’s decision is a departure from traditional principles of administrative law. Hopefully it comes to be understood as an aberration—a ticket good for this day and this train only"
Because the Secretary’s decision to reinstate a citizenship question on the 2020 census was legally sound and a reasoned exercise of his broad discretion, I respectfully dissent from Part V of the opinion of the Court."
The bottom line is, the Roberts’ decision is an outright attack on our democratic system and attempts to overturn the consequences of our last election.
This whole case is summed up as follows:
"For the removal of unwise laws [and in this case a policy making decision] . . . appeal lies, not to the courts, but to the ballot and to the processes of democratic government.” U.S. v. Butler, 297 U.S. 1, 78-79 (1936)
JWK
"The public welfare demands that constitutional cases must be decided according to the terms of the Constitution itself, and not according to judges’ views of fairness, reasonableness, or justice." – Justice Hugo L. Black (U.S. Supreme Court Justice, 1886 - 1971) Source: Lecture, Columbia University, 1968