American Dictatorship: Watch what the Supreme Court does, not what it says

Chief Justice Roberts likes baseball. It's time he gets on the field, and stop watching the Constitution getting trashed.

If he doesn't want to do his job, we can impeach him.

* * *

You can tell alot about someone by what they do, not just what they say.

And three other court members, including Chief Justice John Roberts, said that they would be watching to ensure Padilla receives the protections "guaranteed to all federal criminal defendants."Click

This comes after they rejected an appeal on the case. This was on top of three other justices who wanted to review the case:

Three justices said the court should have agreed to take up the case anyway: Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.Ref

The rest of the commentary points to a speculative outcome, also ignoring the habeas corpus issue:

"In light of the previous changes in his custody status and the fact that nearly four years have passed since he first was detained, Padilla, it must be acknowledged, has a continuing concern that his status might be altered again," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy wrote for himself, Stevens and Roberts. "That concern, however, can be addressed if the necessity arises."

Oh, please: How is this going to happen -- is the DoJ going to bring the case? No, someone else is going to have to go through the entire process. Why does the Supreme Court not issue some specific guidance and orders right now so we don't have to go through that process?

Hay, no answer from this Supreme Court, "Trust us." The courts say you can't rely on speculative outcomes to adjudicate; it's clear that's just what the court is doing to justify inaction. "Maybe this government that violates the law might turn around on it's own -- who knows, it's all a mystery to us. Pass the hot dogs!"

* * *

Recall what then-nominee Roberts said during his confirmation hearing for Chief Justice of the United States: Judges decide cases.

It makes little difference whether the Court does or does not say anything or merely watches.

If six of the Justices -- three who wanted to hear the case, and the other three who are going to watch to "make sure" that the Constitutions is preserved -- what didn't they hear the case?

It doesn't really matter right now. They would have us believe that they're for the Constitution. That's fine. Their job is to hear cases, not simply watch and have us believe otherwise.

* * *

A Supreme Court justice protects the Constitution by deciding cases, not simply watching. Anyone can watch.

Do we need to start talking about impeaching Supreme Court justices who say that they're going to protect the Constitution, but are simply going to "watch" while it's destroyed?

We can issue a state proclamation on that and combine it with a New Constitutional phrase, "Supreme Court justices may not credibly say they're going to protect the Constitution when they refuse to hear cases, but say they’re going to watch from the sidelines."

In order to be an umpire, you have to be on the field, not in bleachers with the crowds.

Chief Justice Roberts, you spilled mustard on your umpire's uniform.