Sen Tom Cotton is calling on Chief Justice Roberts to resign after what can only be described as one of the worst decisions ever handed down by the Supreme Court.
By avoiding on ruling whether DACA was constitutional and whether Barack Obama even had a legal right to grant benefits to illegals, the court ruled DACA must continue to exist, citing the hardship it would create for illegals that should not even be in this country.
If that’s the rule of thumb, shouldn’t the court outlaw convicting people of first-degree murder because the death penalty would cause even more hardship for killers?
Now, let’s look back at one of Roberts’ other terrible decision on Obamacare. Roberts did some fancy footwork in that case as well. The only way he could justify upholding Obamacare was by ruling the individual mandate was a tax. Obama’s lawyers never made that argument to the court and the Obama administration actually denied it was a tax.
Fast forward to early May of this year. The SCOTUS ruled unanimously that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals erred when they decided the Sineneng-Smith case. The court ruled that charging her with harboring illegal aliens was invalid because it interfered with her freedom of speech.
Sineneng-Smith earned more than $3.3 million off of her clients, legal affairs outlet Jurist reported.
In a challenge to the decision, Sineneng-Smith argued that the law violated her right to free speech. The Ninth Circuit reversed her conviction, finding that the entire law was invalid as an overbroad restriction of speech.
The Ninth Circuit’s reversal, however, was not based on arguments presented by her defense, but by third-party, arguments submitted to the panel of judges.
The Supreme Court ruled that the Ninth Circuit overstepped its authority by injecting an argument not made by the defendant herself. The decision ultimately reaffirms that parties — not the courts — shape issues in a court case.
The case is now to be sent back to the Ninth Circuit “for reconsideration … bearing a fair resemblance to the case shaped by parties.”
The same John Roberts who decided those two cases based not on the case presented to the court also ruled that courts cannot rule based on third party arguments. Strikes me as a little hypocritical.