All errors should be reported to

Saturday, October 29, 2016

Supreme Court becomes hall monitors

Chief Justice John Roberts is an embarrassment to the nation who should resign immediately because he just allowed the court to beclown itself by taking up a school bathroom case.

From CNN:
The Supreme Court agreed on Friday to take up a case concerning a transgender high school student in Virginia who is seeking to use the boys' bathroom at school.
The case, which should be heard this term, marks the first time the Supreme Court has considered the controversial issue playing out across the country, most notably in North Carolina, where the Justice Department has filed a civil rights suit against the state's so-called bathroom law.
This is the Dumbest Case of the Century.

Are they justices or are they hall monitors?

Where in the Constitution does it say the Supreme Court decides who uses which bathroom?

If a principal in Virginia wants to decide, well, that's his job. Let's not make a federal case out of this.

And what happened to science? A girl in boys clothing is still a girl, and a boy in girls clothing is still a boy. Cosmetic surgery will not change that, either.

Nothing in the 14th or 15th amendments grants John Roberts or any other federal employee the power to usurp nature and science like this.

President Trump should replace Roberts at the first opportunity. I am thinking a rubber plant would do a better job.


Please read "Trump the Press," a fun romp through the Republican nomination that uses the deadliest weapon to skewer the media experts: their own words. "Trump the Press" is available as a paperback, and on Kindle.


  1. Very unfair to Roberts, Don.

    From numerous sources "The Supreme Court decides to hear a case based on at least four of the nine Justices of the Supreme Court agreeing to grant the Petition for Certiorari. If four Justices agree to grant the petition, the Supreme Court will consider the case. A Petition for Certiorari is granted in very, few selected cases—fewer than 100 a year, by the Supreme Court of the United States."

    Taking the NC case was not the Chief Justice's decision. Since there are 4 pretty liberal justices and one flip-flopper on the court I suspect CJ Roberts was out-voted. If you can find out how the 8 justices voted, and Roberts turns out to have voted "yes" then your attack on him is justified. Otherwise, no.

    Folks in NC might disagree with you that this is a trivial case. They don't want their daughters and wives subjected to mentally disturbed perverts using the wrong facilities, and for that temerity the state has been sued by the freaking DOJ. THAT is where your anger would be more suitably directed.

    1. Roberts upheld Obamacare.

      He is dead to me.

    2. And Roberts is by law the head of the secret FISA court, which has allowed the NSA to violate our civil rights with impunity, which makes him doubly dead to me. Unfortunately, I don't think there's a way for the next president, if it's Trump, to remove Roberts as CJ and replace him with whomever he might select to fill Scalia's empty seat. The Constitution's lifetime appointment clause for judges and justices doesn't specifically mention the CJ position (the CJ is only referred to as an afterthought), but I think it would be politically difficult for Trump to force a switch. He'd never get his nominee confirmed by a divided Senate.

  2. Roberts eagerly put a shiv in American medicine because he wanted to be liked by the then owners of Wapo. The law he said then was "bad" is now collapsing so he is getting off the hook for destroying it himself, giving him added incentive to wreak more mischief. Is this all there is to being a judge, avoiding blame, being liked? Sounds like a politician to me.
    The Wise Porker said even before she was elevated from her dreary Bronx tenement surrounded by flat dead black cats to green lawns and white marble rooms, where she couldn't even understand what was being discussed, "We make the laws". Under Trump neither she nor Roberts will have a free hand any more. He will find it harder to be liked and she will have less of the Constitution to brag about reforming, especially number 2.

  3. This is a case brought not by private litigants, but by the Federal DoJ against a State. By the time this case gets to oral arguments before the Court, the election may give us a new AG. If Trump is elected president, his AG could decline to press the matter before the Court. At that point, the legal issue would be moot and the Court would remove the case from its calendar.

  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

  5. Don't be so hard on Roberts.

    He may be the impetus for term limits for the Federal judiciary.

  6. Look, I say, let those who are pathologically unable to make up their minds go crap in the woods.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.