John Roberts Only Cares About Public Perception
The Per Curiam decision by the United States Supreme Court, preventing the Governor of New York from imposing the 10 and 25 person capacity limitations on attendees is a welcome reprieve, not only to people of faith, but the First Amendment. Gov. Andrew Cumo’s (D-NY), rule is completely arbitrary, anti-religious, and flies in the face of the First Amendment — not to mention common sense; St. Joesph’s in Brooklyn, for example, can hold up to 1,500 people. The imposition of such restrictions on such a large church flies in the face of even the most strenuous COVID-19 measures, short of a complete lock down — at least to date.
If there is any ideology to which he subscribes it is of personal vanity and the politics of public perception.
Refreshing as the majority’s opinion was, Chief Justice Roberts’ dissent was breathtakingly tone deaf for a man who told the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2005, “my job is to call balls and strikes.” I suppose he is doing his job, that is if we are looking for an umpire with blinders who only has a line of sight for the perceptions of the court in the leftist dominated media.
“I would not grant injunctive relief under the present circumstances. There is simply no need to do so. After the Diocese and Agudath Israel filed their applications, the Governor revised the designations of the affected areas. […]
Numerical capacity limits of 10 and 25 people, depending on the applicable zone, do seem unduly restrictive. And it may well be that such restrictions violate the Free Exercise Clause. It is not necessary, however, for us to rule on that serious and difficult question at this time. ” -Chief Justice John Roberts
This is a typical Robert’s evasion, if the issue is in, any way, a third rail issue he will punt in the case of this opinion or issue evasive and politically motivated opinions, as to best appear to be in the middle and avoid substantive media criticism. Examples such as in Obergefell v. Hodges (Gay Marriage Decision) or National Federation of Independent Business v. Secretary of Health and Human Services (2012 Case Upholding Obamacare), highlight this particular arc in his approach to jurisprudence.
When our fundamental freedoms are under assault, those exercising authority must not get a mea culpa Cumo.
Furthermore, the Chief Justice is sending up smoke signals that can be seen from the International Space Station that if a governmental entity temporarily reverses course about, what even he suggests is a circumscription of fundamental freedoms, he won’t stand for temporary injunctive relief while the court decides to grant certiorari. When our fundamental freedoms are under assault, those exercising authority must not get a mea culpa Cumo.
Roberts is more dangerous than the far-left of the court; he is married to how he is publicly perceived, rather than any specific ideology. If there is any ideology to which he subscribes it is of personal vanity and the politics of public perception.
Such a man not only has no business on the bench, but most certainly not as Chief Justice of the United States.
