Ignoring the Supreme Court
January 1, 2025 by Martin Armstrong
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts came out strong against what has been encroaching upon the very foundation of our tripartite government. Mainly, the Democrats have been attaching the court for overruling Roe vs Wade’s abortion ruling, which was clearly outrageously unconstitutional. The Democrats have no problem discriminating against anyone who has money they want to get their hands on. Suddenly, there is no Equal Protection of the Law. But somehow Due Process includes the right to have an abortion? Never has such a ruling ever been applied to any social program.
Even Justice Ginsberg said when she was on the Court that Roe vs Wade was all about eugenics – not women’s rights. Chief Justice Roberts warned what he described as “dangerous” talk by some officials about ignoring federal court rulings, using an annual report stressing the importance of an independent judiciary.
Roberts wrote about officials “from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings,” in the report just released by the Supreme Court. “These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.” The chief justice didn’t detail specific politicians.
In all fairness, Trump has repeatedly argued the federal judiciary is rigged. There is no question that is the case. The point is not to ignore the Supreme Court, the circuit courts already do that. In my own case, the Supreme Court had ruled in Grupo Mexicano de Desarrollo, S. A. v. Alliance Bond Fund, Inc., 527 U.S. 308 (1999) on June 17th, about 3 months before my case began. My lawyers raised the case that clearly said there was no such authority whatsoever to even bring the case against me since we were buying portfolios in Japan and issued 10-year notes that were UNSECURED, and all accounts in New York were in my name – not clients.
Constitutionally, both the Sixth Amendment and Due Process of Law require court proceedings to be open to the public. The judge took my lawyers aways, closed the courtroom, threw the Associated Press Out, and then the Second Circuit claimed the lost the appeal THREE TIMES and then refused to hear the issue.
Judge Richard Oweb was altering the transcripts, and a made a motion to recuse, forcing him to admit that he was committing a felony. Again, the Second Circuit court of appeals knew what was taking place and in a public opinion claimed it did not have the power to order judges to comply with the law.
“According to counsel, the Southern District is somewhat unique in this practice. See Leiwant Decl. at 2.
Courts do not have power to alter transcripts in camera and to conceal the alterations from the parties.11 Given the issues that arose in this case as a direct result of this practice, there appears to be little justification for continuing the practice in its present form. To be sure, a procedure that corrects obvious mistakes in transmission is useful, and the parties have little interest in closely monitoring such a procedure so long as the alterations are cosmetic. Monitoring by the parties, however, provides some assurance that only cosmetic changes will be made or, if not, that changes will correctly reflect what transpired in the particular proceeding. Moreover, there is little cost in informing the parties of cosmetic changes or at least of directing court reporters to give parties access to the original transcript when they request it.
Nevertheless, whether we have the power to order a change in such a practice is unclear.12 We review judgments, and our review of the convictions and sentences here may not be an appropriate vehicle for the fine tuning of this practice. However, we invite the judges of the Southern District to consider revision.”
UNITED STATES v. ZICHETTELLO 208 F3d 72 (2d Cir 2000)
18 U.S.C. § 1506 states:
“Whoever feloniously steals, takes away, alters, falsifies, or avoids any record, writ, process, or other proceedings, in any United States court, whereby any judgment is reversed, made void or does not take effect; or whoever acknowledges, or procures, in any such court, any recognizance, bail, or judgment, in the name of someone, not privy or consenting to the same, shall be fined or imprisoned up to five years, or both.”
This hatred of Trump and his agenda is putting us on a collision course next year with a Supreme Court as they try not just to prevent him from taking office using the 14th Amendment if they dare. Still, they will try to challenge many issues, and if they lose, they will retaliate against the court.
The likelihood of ignoring the Supreme Court has often been a problem. Even back in 1957, for instance, President Dwight Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to integrate its schools after officials sought to defy Supreme Court decisions that found segregated schools unconstitutional.
Roberts stated that some “public officials” had “regrettably” attempted to intimidate judges by “suggesting political bias in the judge’s adverse rulings without a credible basis for such allegations.” Those attempts, he warned, are “inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.” Indeed, the press reports who appointed them when they render a decision imply that they are not interpreting the Constitution but politics. This is the very source of the problem that the press suggests that a decision they do not like should not be followed.
If Roberts had more of a backbone, more often he wouldn't be in a position of being ignored. His fondness for glorification hasn't worked because the democrats still despise him and the American patriots don't trust him. Unfortunately, he has taken Coney-Barrett with him along making it 5-4 democrats at least...on most issues.
Justice Roberts is wrong. And a liar. And an active hand in the dismantling of our Constitution. His "Report" is an act of intimidation, is inappropriate and should be vigorously opposed.
I know many writing about his threat - and his report is a threat - view his threat through the prism of the decision to overturn Roe and stalking and harassment of the conservative justices that followed. But that's not really what is behind his threat. Remember, the SCOTUS leak came from his own staff. And nothing was ever done about it. For reasons that only a cover-up can explain his "investigation" wasn't able to officially determine who was responsible. In this day and age of complete tech surveillance that's impossible. No consequences for the biggest act of sabotage on the SC in history = cover-up.
The courts ARE worthy of scorn and contempt by both the American public and their elected representatives.
Maybe we don't agree with the faction of vocal opponents to it because we disagree with their agenda. But that begs the question, why weren't/aren't those who disagree with how the institution of marriage was destroyed by the courts - over the will of the people and against the Constitution, precedent itself - more vocal and angered about it?
Mask mandates? Vaccine mandates? Genital mutilation transinsanity? Forcing women to compete against men in athletic competition? Violations of voting integrity laws, precedents? Censorship of Americans by their government? The complete destruction of our Bill of Rights decisions and non-decisions (standing?) that are decisions themselves. Denial of equal protections and constitutional rights, the right to fair trials for defendants suffering political prosecutions and sentences while true criminals walk free. And all done by both partisan and bipartisan judges sworn to uphold the Constitution.
We SHOULD be angry and protest these judges, express our disdain and contempt for judges who violate their oath. They ARE acting in bad faith to achieve political agendas. They ARE politicians, donning black robes. Not independent jurists.
Faith and trust in the judiciary, respect for jurists cannot be demanded. It must be earned. Judges in this nation today, including Justice Roberts, are not worthy of respect, faith or trust. Demands that we back off from expressing our righteous contempt and indignation of them are threats. Revealing that THEY believe themselves to be above the law itself. Above reproach. As though they are high priests.
Their black robes have gone to their heads. They are politicians. If they weren't then confirmation hearings wouldn't be partisan, political battles. That fact negates all claims to the contrary. They are chosen based on their political beliefs and confirmed if the entrenched political system trusts they will uphold The System itself, not the US Constitution. They are not the same master.
And the timing of it is no accident. If one is inclined to believe the Roberts Report is a pushback for the abuses justices suffered under the Biden administration and the Roe decision then it would've been most appropriate in his 2022 Report. No. It's a threat to MAGA, Trump, populists, a threat for Constitutional Patriots to heed, not truly intended for progressives and Rino's. Remember Roberts chastised Trump for stating the obvious about how political judges are. While he stayed mute when Obama and Biden lecture and threaten conservative judges. His own top aide is married to high-level Democrat activist lawyer, primary author of lawfare against Trump and MAGA, Mary McCord. Not joking, for real. You can't make this stuff up. And Roberts has lone oversight of the blatantly anti-constitutional FISA court of secretive, unaccountable, deprivation of rights political persecution weapon given faux legitimacy for the weaponization of law against political dissent.
Roberts IS the problem of a politicized judiciary that IS worthy of our contempt and scorn, our vocal opposition, the vocal opposition of our representatives. Now he demands our silence and obedience to the edicts of high priests in black robes. No. He and his political hack court malevolent colleagues engaged in the systematic destruction of Constitutional liberty, protections are the biggest threat to our free republic we face. They give the imprimatur of legitimacy to the politicians, bureaucrats and oligarchs destroying the best system of governance ever created. My middle finger to him is my reply.