Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Admonishes His Inferiors, “Because I said so.”

December 30, 2021 in Columnists, News by RBN Staff



By Je suis Spike



Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts Admonishes His Inferiors, “Because I said so.” 


Ok, to be fair, Chief Justice Roberts’ actual thinking is, “Because WE said so.” Or so I heard it.

Supreme Court Justice John Roberts has opined about the Texas legislature’s attempt to save more babies from abortion. It doesn’t matter that S.B. 8 is about saving babies from murder; any of his screw ups explain what a numbskull the Bush II appointee is.  With his commentary on S.B. 8, he again proves himself to be a numbskull as he attempts to assert the dominance of the legal process where it doesn’t belong; I will use this excerpt of his recent lunacy to make my case.

“The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to

nullify this Court’s rulings. It is, however, a basic principle

that the Constitution is the ‘fundamental and paramount

law of the nation,’ and ‘[i]t is emphatically the province and

duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.’

Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). Indeed, ‘[i]f

the legislatures of the several states may, at will, annul the

judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy

the rights acquired under those judgments, the constitution

itself becomes a solemn mockery.’ United States v. Peters,

5 Cranch 115, 136 (1809). The nature of the federal right

infringed does not matter; it is the role of the Supreme

Court in our constitutional system that is at stake.”


First, there are no “federal rights,” no “civil rights,” no “states’ rights,” (but states’ powers, granted), no “Constitutional rights,” just rights.  Rights are not acquired under court judgments; they come from God, and just governments recognize them.  Simple.

Second, if the Constitution is the “fundamental paramount law of the nation,” then the Supreme Court and Justice Spiccoli Roberts should read it, learn it, know it, live it, obey it.  Can we agree on that?

The Marbury v. Madison case to which Justice Roberts alludes is, if memory serves from Political Science 101 in 1979, often referred to as “The Leadingest Case,” a clever turn on wording, refers to that which allows the US Supreme Court to refer to itself as the final authority in such matters legal.  (Because they said so.)

It is no small accusation I make saying that the Supreme Court claimed authority for itself. In fact, the smarter men of the Declaration of Independence already told us that we, you, I, the people, don’t have to obey even the Constitution. Government has no authority- maybe short of when acting with the Natural Law- unless we, the people, as individuals, consent to it. If we don’t consent, government doesn’t matter.  Or at least that government is unjust that asserts power over us, you, me without our, your, my individual consent.

Well, that aside, Chief Justice Marshall, who arguably should have recused himself, being a party in the matter of Marbury v Madison, while expanding the court’s power admonished the legislature, “The powers of the legislature are defined and limited; and that those limits may not be mistaken or forgotten, the constitution is written.”

Concluding, Marshall wrote, “the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.”

Physician, or, rather, Justice, examine thyself; healing is not your concern.   I do not speak to merely Marshall, I speak also to Chief Justice Roberts. As Roberts contends, “The clear purpose and actual effect of S. B. 8 has been to nullify this Court’s rulings.” Well, then, Chief Roberts, citing Marbury v. Madison, can you claim both that a law repugnant to the constitution is void, and that Roe v. Wade should remain in effect?  Clearly Roe is not law; Congress and the Executive are to cooperate/contend to make law. Clearly, Roe v. Wade, though, a decision by black-robed dufurati, is repugnant to the Constitution’s demand that no person should be denied, “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” as it clearly denied states their just power to protect life. Certainly it is within the right of any American, born or pre-born to be represented by a legislature that is comprised of people decent enough to attempt to retain for any- and every- American that for which the constitution is written and the Declaration of Independence argued while animating the fight against governmental tyranny which would disregard rights, including to life.

John Robert’s has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but he doesn’t have the right to deny the unborn their day in court. Roe is bad “law,” a bad decision for more reason than that the slaughter of innocents is anathema to the precepts of the Constitution.

But that is reason enough.

But Roberts is not done with his pout.   He cites US v. Peters, “If the legislatures of the several states may at will annul the judgments of the courts of the United States, and destroy rights acquired under those judgments, the Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery, and the Nation is deprived of the means of enforcing its laws by the instrumentality of its own tribunals.”

A mockery? If one believes AND contends that rights are acquired by judgment of the court(s) then one should not be sitting in judgment over anybody not their own child, and probably only while that child is very young.   Rights are not acquired by court decision; rights are inherent in human beings, an imprimatur of the Creator, Himself. (Yes, HIMself.)

A mockery?

A strawman!  I speak not only of Roberts’ non sequitur; I mean he has a head filled with straw.

I would suggest that the legislatures of the several states at will annulling the judgments of the courts of the United States is a bad idea. Attempting to undo worse law- and with inarguably much worse outcome- than the Dredd Scott decision is not a cavalier act to be summarily dismissed as though the court never errs. At will annulment of laws regarding the placing of advisory stop signs and speed bumps on private property might arguably be a bad idea. Defending the right to life of someone who committed no crime? If we cannot get judicial redress for that, the courts are a mockery, just as is any Justice who would support the Dredd Scott decision, Plessy v. Ferguson and Roe v. Wade because “It’s already law.”  If the courts may at will deny the Constitution, it is the duty of the legislatures to reign in the judiciary’s acts of pretended oversight.

Question Roberts!


I am reminded of a Non Sequitur cartoon dated only 1-19 which I have not been able to locate online, a hardcopy sitting beside me. Let me describe it.



A character I presume to be representing the Creator is sitting, looking at a tele-screen when “an angel” approaches and asks what is on the screen.

“Angel” is told, “Homer’s getting a lesson in political logic.”

Angel replies, “Ah, yes…Futility 101.”

Cut to the action on the screen.

A man, presumably Homer, tied to a stake by a throng chanting “Burn the Blasphemer!!” explains himself, “But all I did was save a girl…who says that’s Blasphemy?

The throng replies, “The Bishop! And to question him is the same as questioning the infallible word of God!!”

The man tied to the stake asks, “Uh…who told you that?”

The throng, maybe thinking a little bit, replies, “Hmmm…Now that you mention it, that decree was made by the Bishop.”

The man tied to the stake recognizes an opportunity to get the people to question authority, “Didn’t that make any of you a little suspicious about his motives?”

The people, about to light a fire to burn the man tied to the pole get real quiet, apparently thinking about the absurdity of obeying a man who made a law saying that he must be obeyed, as though that law is on a par with the word of God…



…suddenly one of the burners shouts, “Well now, that would be questioning the Bishop, wouldn’t it…” The chant goes up, “BURN THE BLASPHEMER!”



Replace “Bishop” with “President,” “Justice Roberts,” or any dufus/authority you like; no matter how you look at it, none of them and none of their acts of pretended legislation or decrees or judicial pronouncements is on a par with The Word/Will of God, so none of their claims to authority over you, or unborn babies, means anything without your or their consent.


Remember, always, the words of John Adams, 2nd US President under the present Constitution:  “[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights derived from the Great Legislator of the universe.” 

I would add that this Great Legislator is also the only perfect Judge.

Thank you,