The crux of the issue is, according to Roberts, that Judges are above the will of The People. He points out, by his own admission, though perhaps not by his intention, a fundamental flaw in our judicial system.
This is what Trump said that elicited the response by Roberts:
This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President - He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING! I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY. I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!
Emphasis mine.
Trump is saying here, or at least implying, that We The People have no recourse when a judge is evil. Note I am talking about the Judge, not their decision. We can't impeach a judge. We can't do anything against a judge. They are the law (literally) and are, at least in our current system, above the will of the people.
Roberts agrees:
The court has obviously made mistakes throughout its history, and those should be criticized, so long as it is in terms of the decision, really, and not ad hominem against the justices
You can agree with a Judge's decision, but only through a ludicrous and expensive process chock full of cronyism and self-protection. You can criticize only the decision itself, never the person (equal human being) we call "Judge," no matter how bad of a person they are, or how powerful their decisions are.
This systemic flaw has always been that way, from the very beginning of our historical record. In the Code of Hammurabi, for example, they had laws for almost everyone, even the King. The only people who were (legally) above reproach were the Priests, the very same people who wrote the laws. Of course at the time, the Priests were the Judges. This system of laws created (by intention) this class of people at the top of the hierarchy. Importantly, the King was said to be the most important person in their society, but in reality it was the Priests, controlling behind the scenes.
The more I look into things the more that nothing has changed since that Mesopotamian culture (in more ways than one).
For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,
"The normal appellate review process" (a system of cronyism) is the ONLY "appropriate response to [a judges] disagreement". WE HAVE NO CAPACITY TO GET RID OF THEM, NO MATTER HOW EVIL THEY MAY BE.
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.
Who are you not allowed to criticize? Judges.
Who rules over you? Judges.
Who wrote the law? Judges.
What can we do about it?
Nothing.
At least nothing Constitutional.
Scripture states "judge not lest ye be judged" Accordingly, justices should be fair and objective otherwise there is a penalty to be paid and it appears that this penalty can be exacted by earthly governments as well as spiritually. MAJA; Make Activist Judges Accountable.
This makes sense, but there needs to be a slight correction.
In our society, judges dont write laws, congress does. Judges do interpret laws and the problem is that the interpretation of law can be skewed.
What we need is a truly impartial judge. Some have suggested that AI can come into play here, but as we've seen, that means the judge becomes those who program the AI. So the problem will persist unless the programmers have direct oversight by an impartial auditor.
Congress writes Legislative Law. Judges write Common Law. Common law used to called "tradition." That power was given to the Judges by a formal system a few centuries ago.
Even though a political body (like Congress) writes some of our laws, judges adjudicate (define the meaning of and/or allow) those laws. The Judges have the ultimate authority of all laws.
There is no such thing, nor should there be. What we need is a way for We The People to have the capacity (systemically) to have all the power in our government, including the power over the judges.
On the part of all the power, even systematically, to the people I disagree. That would be another opportunity for mob corruption in my opinion.
I can't really parse your premise (first sentence), but to the second sentence, your "problem" is a false problem. At the least, it is a supposition without support.
The system is 100% already corrupted. The entire judicial system was created by Rockefeller in 1931. The "mob" is just another branch of that System, all controlled by Rockefeller et al. Please see my report on the Monopoly.
Giving the power to the People in it's entire, is the only viable path to eliminating systemic corruption..
I just spent the last couple of hours reading that report. Here is my take for anyone in the audience.
Slyver's report presents extensive material on who owns what and does, in fact, support Slyver's claim.
Since the premise of my claim was difficult to parse, I will clarify. When I think of the phrase, "All power to the people," I picture a society dictated by mob rule. The problem with mob rule is that wealthy interests can buy the minds/hearts of the people. This idea is the main counter-argument to the 17th Amendment, which, in my opinion, should never have been ratified.
However, after weighing my argument against Slyver's, I will say that his claims carry more weight than mine in the current political climate because Slyver ties them directly to influencing entities, whereas my claim is based on theory.
But... Let me be precise with these words, both of our claims can still be true. My claim will only prove true if "Power to the People" is meted out by our current application of democracy.
All that aside, I concede to Slyver in the argument, but I have to address something unrelated to the discussion, which is important to me.
So if you're happy with everything, you don't need to keep reading. If you're curious about what has got my panties in a wad, then please proceed.
Some quick background about myself for context:
I work in a highly technical profession that requires me to read dense, lengthy documents filled with multiple types of "jargon languages." These documents include policy, law, acquisitions, economic reports, SEC filings, trade studies, etc.
In addition, I write technical documents for many audiences, including my corporate superiors, DoD civilian contractors, military command, and congressional representatives.
In my spare time, I write stories. Currently, I'm writing my 5th full-length novel. I've assisted in managing three blogs and have developed and executed complete copywriting campaigns for other companies.
In short, I eat, sleep, breathe, and live writing. It is my sole passion in this life. While others are researching facts to put into reports, I have intense arguments with myself about whether I should include a trailing clause in a sentence.
So why on earth did I give all that background?
I will tell you.
If you share a profile of interest similar to the one I presented above, then by all means, read Slyver's report. You will learn A LOT!
However, if you don't resonate with the profile I presented, then under no circumstances should you ever read Slyver's report. There is a strong likelihood that you will gouge your eyes out while attempting to slog through it.
To Slyver: I can see that you have a lot, and I mean a lot of potential in academic research or written discourse, but damn! For the love of all that is sacred, you have got to take a step back and work on your prose. I say this without an ounce of animosity.
I have two things I want you to do:
Get your most trusted friend. Then ask them to read as much of your report ALOUD as they can in 5-10 minutes. I want you to count how many times they stumble with the words in that time, and then take an average of that value. This exercise will give you a direct measure of your writing fluency. Afterwards, buy your friend a drink.
Go to a library and find a writer's critique group. Of the many groups I've attended, the best are filled with women whose average age is above 50. They give zero shits about whether or not someone's feelings get hurt when they critique the work.
Spend time with them to get an accurate and unbiased measure of the quality of your writing, and then take the necessary effort to improve your craft.
This practice will dramatically improve your ability to reach broader audiences.
Again, this critique comes from a place of interest, not enmity. I genuinely think you can be a force to be reckoned with when it comes to written discourse, but that will all go to waste if you don't improve. Good luck.
When we stopped tarring and feathering shit bags, we lost.
It is a remarkably effective consequence for shitty (but not necessarily criminal) behavior.
Decisions and two sided arguments are for courtrooms jury's and judges with blinded jurisprudence in which lye's the problem it's all become party Biased and is a literal Oxymoronic statement made by Justice Robert's ,it's like blaming the Act of a Criminal and not the Criminal itself,WHAT A FUCKIN MESS WERE IN.
There needs to be a standard for being on juries, voting or holding public office.
No foreign ties, no criminal record, civics test, critical thinking test, certain age.
At the time of the war of independence 1/3 were patriots 1/3 were apathetic and 1/3 were quite happy to lick the kings boots as long as it meant a big salary with a fancy title so they could convince themselves they were better than everyone else when their only skill was a being a royal ass-wipe.
So then they let everyone vote. The 1/3 patriots are cancelled out by the 1/3 of the kings bitches so basically you give control of the government to the 1/3 that is apathetic. This explains the October surprise.
WTAF.
Now we have a new version of the kings men, the corporate sell outs and CEOtards.
The real problem is that liberal judges do not follow the law. They make it up to achieve their political objectives. They treat defendants dramatically differently and often blatantly violate their rights. Defendants should not have to go through the appeals process because the initial judge did not follow the law and appropriate precedent.
Judges that don’t follow the law repeatedly or egregiously should be removed from the bench.
Judges can and have been impeached. Same process as any other criminal politician, more or less.
Only against criminal actions. You can only get rid of a judge if they are proven to have committed a crime. But there is plenty of evil done legally (or extralegally). We need to be able to get rid of judges regardless of crimes.
Judges are supposed to be advisors, not enforcers, their decisions should be acted upon by our representatives. who are supposed to be representing us, not making their own decisions.