Roberts Hands U.S. to Antifa

Last Friday’s ruling by the Supreme Court not to take up the Texas lawsuit against other states regarding election problems defied belief. All legal experts felt the case had merit and the all important “standing.”


Yet the Court refused. Is this why?

Then Becker, an independent journalist and former Fox News writer,  adds, “Let me add a bit more context about what I meant by “here’s why.” Roberts obviously was rationalizing his pre-disposition not to take the politically controversial Texas case. This report is a plausible puzzle piece that fits that obvious explanation.

Do we know for sure that this is fact? No. Does it sound plausible? Yes.

Roberts has not distinguished himself as a fair justice. Something or someone has gotten to him. Threatened, blackmailed, coerced? How else do you explain his rulings? They don’t make sense.

Before the election Roberts threw out the objections Pennsylvania legislators had to the overriding of their laws by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court on mail in ballots. The court ruled 4-4 (pre ACB) and that left it to Roberts as Chief Justice to toss it.

Some have cast doubt on this scenario, saying that the justices might have used Zoom instead of meeting in person. Again, meeting together sounds plausible to me. The elites have different sets of rules for us and for them. They would meet together if they wanted to. Given the ages of some of them, I doubt they could handle a Zoom call.

Do I believe Roberts would have a screaming match? Yes. As top judge, who is there to correct or criticize him? As a result,  elites like him would let it rip.

I can also see some of them as cowards who would fear mobs of Antifa coming to their neighborhoods and attacking their homes. For the other 330+million Americans, it’s OK if they come to our houses, though.

His lifetime appointment is supposed to keep him from public opinion, but Roberts wallows in it.  Read this apt analysis from Josh Blackman at Reason:

“I am, admittedly, very tough on the Chief Justice. Not because I disagree with his decisions. I routinely disagree with decisions from all nine Justices. No. I am tough on Roberts because of his arrogance. He entered this position fifteen years ago with a master plan: if there were fewer 5-4 right-left decisions, the Court will function better as an institution. And Roberts would cast decisive votes to reduce the number of right-left 5-4 decisions. Congratulations. But the means he chose to accomplish those ends have broken the Court, and the way it is perceived.

“Shortly after Blue June (an earlier decision), I wrote ‘Roberts’s self-professed humility depends on everyone being too dumb to see what he is really doing.’ I firmly believe Robert’s transparent Machiavellianism has done far more damage to the Court than Scalia’s acerbic barbs or Kennedy’s vapid prose. I can firmly disagree with a Ginsburg or Sotomayor opinion, but I know, and respect, why they reached the result they reached. For Roberts, every decision has to refracted through some bizarre political lens. His jurisprudential lodestar is the Gallup poll.”

None of this bodes well for America.

Roberts has become the epitome of the Deep State American. It’s all about him. It’s all about power. It’s all about money. Justice is an after thought, if a thought at all.

So, yes, this scenario of a screaming Roberts rings all too true.

The rest of us Deplorables can go hang or get destroyed by Leftist mobs. Why should he care?

... Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.