In a remarkable and unconstitutional display, Chief Justice John Roberts–a globalist Bush appointee, was the only Supreme Court justice to rule against free speech.

Save up to 66% on MyPillow products. Use promo code FedUp, and save up to 66%.

Ever since his jaw-droppingly left-wing decision on Barrack Obama’s healthcare plan, Constitutional Americans have understood without any doubt that John Roberts is dishonest.  In the past, however, he hid it better using constitutional language and more convoluted arguments to subvert the constitution.  Now, the mask is completely off.  Roberts, today positioned himself as the sole dissenter against free speech in a clear-cut case of discrimination based upon religious beliefs.

Trending: “I feel amazing!”...Trump Supporter Wins Appeal to Allow Anti-Biden Signs On Her Lawn After State’s Supreme Court Ruling

The Federalist Reports:

Chief Justice John Roberts was the only dissenter in the U.S Supreme Court’s most recent ruling favoring a couple of Christian students who challenged their university for restricting when, where, and how they could speak about their faith and disseminate materials on campus.

Uzuegbunam et al. v. Preczewski et al. first materialized after Chike Uzuegbunam, a student at Georgia Gwinnett College, was stopped by campus police for handing out religious materials on campus, a reported violation of the school’s “Freedom of Expression Policy,” which limited distributions and other expressions to free speech zones only with permission from the administration. Even after Uzuegbunam moved to the designated areas with permission, however, campus police attempted to stop him from speaking and handing out religious literature, prompting him and another student, Joseph Bradford, to take legal action against the university for violating their First and 14th Amendment rights and seek nominal damages.

The students’ attempts to sue the school, however, were shot down by both a district court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit after Georgia Gwinnett College changed its “Freedom of Expression” policy to remove barriers on when and where students could speak on campus and filed a motion to dismiss the case as moot. The Supreme Court took up the case after Uzuegbunam and Bradford noted that their rights were still violated no matter what the university modified its policy to reflect and still required a ruling on nominal damages.

Justice Clarence Thomas authored the opinion of the court, agreeing with the students’ case.

“Applying this principle here is straightforward. For purposes of this appeal, it is undisputed that Uzuegbunam experienced a completed violation of his constitutional rights when respondents enforced their speech policies against him. Because ‘every violation [of a right] imports damage,’ Webb, 29 F. Cas., at 509, nominal damages can redress Uzuegbunam’s injury even if he cannot or chooses not to quantify that harm in economic terms,” Thomas concluded.

Thomas, as usual, is right.  This is a straightforward simply case.  But, Justice Roberts wants to virtue signal to globalist elites that he will play ball in their destruction of constitutional rule of law.  And, he is letting American’s know, when even the easiest cases are brought before him by the ‘peasant’ class, he has no interest in concerning himself with such ‘moot’ trifles.  Elites like Roberts are annoyed that normal people would believe they could ever have standing to step foot before him.

“Roberts, however, in his first solo dissent, wrote that the court was acting as “a moot court” in deciding this case and their ruling.

“When plaintiffs like Uzuegbunam and Bradford allege neither actual damages nor the prospect of future injury, an award of nominal damages does not change their status or condition at all. Such an award instead represents a judicial determination that the plaintiffs’ interpretation of the law is correct — nothing more,” Roberts stated.

Even the far-left justices like Sotomayor and Kagan still find some lawful truth in the First Amendment of the US Constitution.  But, not Justice Roberts.

Roberts’ dissent amounts to a dodges.  He seems to be putting the country on notice that he does not wish to rule on even the simplest cases when it does not suit him or a globalist agenda.  So, he simply labels them ‘moot.’

This happened during the 2020 election as well.  In order to dodge a controversial court decision, Roberts and several other SCOTUS justices ruled that neither Trump nor states–nor anyone else–had standing to challenge elections, even though both would have been affected by the allegedly fraudulent results if fraud occurred.

Is Roberts labeling this case moot, or the Constitution, the American Republic, and the people who still believe in them?

What do you think, readers?

Join The Conversation. Leave a Comment.


We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.