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.
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.