Chief Justice John Roberts said he isn’t bothered “at all” by the criticism of the Supreme Court — which is good, because there’s plenty of it. Heading into the 2015-16 term, public disapproval of the Court had never been higher. And with a stack of social issues before the bench this spring, last year’s numbers may look good come June. Religious liberty, ObamaCare mandates and abortion regulations are awaiting their turn before nine justices who haven’t been winning popularity contests for their impartiality these days.

Chief Justice Roberts, whose double betrayal on ObamaCare has made him few friends among American constitutionalists, tried to tamp down the criticism of his Court during Law Day at New England Law-Boston. In a Q&A with the school’s dean, Roberts insisted that the ideological divides in Congress are what’s coloring people’s perceptions of the Court — instead of the real problem: the justices’ themselves. The gulf between Americans and the Court isn’t Congress’s fault — it’s the fault of the unelected men and women in his courtroom who’ve taken it upon themselves to rewrite the Constitution.

“It’s usually discussed as, ‘Oh, you’re in favor of this, or you’re in favor of that,’” Roberts pushed back. “In fact, our ruling is that whoever does get to decide this or that is allowed to do it, and that’s not unconstitutional, that it’s consistent with the law. But we often have no policy views on the matter at all, and that’s an important distinction.” What do you call Elena Kagan’s, Sonya Sotomayor’s, and Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s actions officiating same-sex marriages if not “policy views?” And Kagan’s involvement in ObamaCare was hardly the stuff of objectivity when she not only defended the law as solicitor general but celebrated its passage as “amazing.”

Still, Roberts blames the process — not his people — for the country’s frustration. Party-line votes have determined the fate of the last four justices, suggesting to Roberts “that the process is being used for something other than ensuring the qualifications of the nominees.” If anything is being used contrary to its purpose, it’s the Court itself, which insists on inserting itself into policy issues where it has no business being. The American people don’t need law degrees to understand the limited role the Constitution gives the Court.

And while Roberts blames his controversial opinions on a desire to shrink the judiciary’s influence, his tenure has had the exact opposite effect. If the justices are wondering who’s to blame for the country’s disdain, look in the mirror. The majority of this Court has taken it upon themselves — not to interpret laws, but write them. Don’t be fooled by this political sleight of hand. Regardless of what Roberts says, ideology has always played a part in the Courts’ configuration — especially as constitutionalism becomes less of a universal value and more of a conservative one.

This is nothing more than Washington elites trying to downplay the issue of the Court in an election year where it has never been more important. Roberts, who at 61 is the second youngest, presides over the oldest justices in American history. That means the next president will nominate two — if not three — Supreme Court replacements and dozens of lower court judges. Considering what the courts have done in trampling the political expression and self-determination of the American people, the judiciary issue should be front and center in 2016. It may very well be the last opportunity to break the destructive grip of this oligarchy on America.

Originally published here.

Minding Euro Business

In years past the United States was known for leading, not following. Unfortunately, that’s the position the Obama administration has put us in after months of ignoring the most sweeping attacks on people of faith in a generation. While ISIS burns its way through the Middle East, major world powers have condemned the acts as “genocide” — including, most recently, the European Parliament. [Thursday], the body unanimously passed a resolution calling the atrocities against religious minorities what it is — a systematic extinction of certain faith-based communities. And while Europe rarely leads the way on human rights, it has done so here, clearing a path for others — namely, America — to follow suit.

For Parliament, this is new territory. As several noted on Thursday, it’s the first time members have recognized a conflict as genocide. But, the group was firm: “those who intentionally commit atrocities for ethnic or religious reasons should be brought to justice for violations against international law, crimes against humanity, and genocide.” A member of the Swedish delegation celebrated the EP’s decision to get off the sidelines and start using its influence to stop the suffering. “It’s really important that the Parliament passed it,” he told Newsweek, “on a political level and a moral level. The significance is the obligations that follow by such a recognition. The collective obligation to intervene, to stop these atrocities and to stop the persecution in the ongoing discussion about the fight against the Islamic State.” Also important, he notes, is that it “It gives the victims of the atrocities a chance to get their human dignity restored. It’s also a historical confirmation that the European Parliament recognized what is going on and that they are suffering from the most despicable crime in the world, namely genocide.”

FRC’s Travis Weber, who’s commented widely about the president’s shameful silence, ticked off some of the evidence that led to Parliament’s decision. “[O]n the night of 6 August 2014 more than 150,000 Christians fled the advance of the so-called ‘ISIS/Daesh’ over Mosul, Qaraqosh and other villages in the Nineveh Plains, having been robbed of all their belongings, and to date they remain displaced and in precarious conditions in northern Iraq; the so-called ‘ISIS/Daesh’ captured those who were unable to flee from Mosul and the Nineveh Plains, and non-Muslim women and children were enslaved, with some being sold and others brutally killed and filmed by the perpetrators.”

Not surprisingly, the press is anxious to know when the administration will stop looking the other way and intervene. Asked why the president is virtually alone in his decision not to designate the mass killings as “genocide,” White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest replied that the designation has “legal ramifications” — which is exactly the point. The United States can help bring the moral and legal weight of the international community to bear on ISIS. It’s possible, Travis suggests, that President Obama doesn’t want to be on the hook for acting seriously to prevent genocide or that he doesn’t want to be seen as a Christian apologist on the world stage. “Either way,” he laments, “to prioritize such petty political considerations over truth, facts, and the law will be to our everlasting shame. Sadly, I suspect history will bear this out.”

Originally published here.

Texas Can’t Stop Pioneer

David Daleiden is used to fighting for others. Now, thanks to what appears to be a politically motivated witch hunt, the man who exposed Planned Parenthood is being forced to fight for himself. Indicted by a Texas grand jury through the work of a district attorney with ties to Planned Parenthood, David continues to insist that the real wrongdoers walk free.

Facing as many as 20 years in prison for using a fake ID during his undercover investigation, David spoke out [Thursday] after turning down a plea deal. “I think we all know that every day that goes by that the Texas authorities do not prosecute Planned Parenthood for their illegal trade in baby parts, they are sending a message to the entire country,” he told reporters. “The state of Texas right now is open for business in baby body parts.”

While CBS’s “60 Minutes” saluted another hidden-camera sting on Sunday’s show, pro-lifers continue to be outraged by the double standard applied to Daleiden. “If we’re going to be prosecuting undercover journalists, we are sending ourselves down a very, very dark path. This is fully in the tradition, a long storied tradition, of undercover journalism.” Not to mention, attorney Alexandra Snyder pointed out, “If David’s investigation had revealed evidence of criminal conduct in a meatpacking plant, his freedom would not be threatened. The videos would be seen as providing a valuable public benefit and prosecutors would act on the information.” She’s right. If David had gone undercover to expose a puppy mill, he’d be hailed a hero. But because he unmasked the darker side of the nation’s largest abortion group, people want to put him in jail!

And who are those people? A district attorney who raked in more than $25,000 for her reelection campaign from a donor who works for a late-term abortionist. But Harris County DA Devon Anderson isn’t the only one. Another prosecutor in her office is an actual Planned Parenthood board member! None of it passes the smell test. And while it may be a grand jury who indicted, it’s time for Texans to appeal to state attorney general Ken Paxton for a special prosecutor — preferably one without a conflict of interest.

Originally published here.