Did Justice Roberts commit perjury?

"There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter....
 
 —William Jennings Bryan, in his address to the
Ohio 1912 Constitutional Convention"

http://www.afj.org/resources-and-publications/films-and-programs/a_quest...

Did Justice Roberts commit perjury? He testified during his Supreme Court nomination Senate hearings: "there is nothing in my personal view based on faith or other sources that would prevent me from applying the precedents of the court faithfully in accord with the principles of stare decisis."

In the Citizens United case, Justice Roberts actually appears to have proactively expanded the scope of that case, retroactively reaffirming the unquestioned 1886 "precedent" that the 14th Amendment applies to Corporate Personhood. This judicial activism effectively reversed all regulatory precedents set since Theodore Roosevelt's presidency. Yet somehow he stopped short of verifying the J.C. Bancroft Davis summary of the 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case? This 1886 summary stated that corporations were persons rather than artificial persons, with an equal footing under the Bill of Rights as humans. This was NOT a formal ruling of the court!

This 1886 Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case transitioned The United States of America away from the Progressive Corporate Charter precedent set by Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 (1837):
 
"If charters granted monopolies to corporations, then these sorts of transportation improvements would not be able to flourish. If this were the case then, the country would be thrown back to the improvements of the last century, and obliged to stand still"  ~ Chief Justice Roger B. Taney

This Corporate Personhood precedent was established solely on the court reporter J.C. Bancroft Davis’ head notes, who based his summary solely on the opinion of Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite. Davis’ summary ONLY acknowledged the opinion of Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite, who had NEVER before been a judge in ANY court. He was appointed by Ulysses S. Grant, whose administration was embroiled in a railroad bribery scandal. Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite previously specialized in defending railroads and large corporations.

“For reasons that were never recorded, moments before the Supreme Court was to render its decision in the now-infamous Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case, Chief Justice Waite turned his attention to Delmas and the other attorneys present.

As railroad attorney Sanderson and his two colleagues watched, Waite told Delmas and his two colleagues, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are of the opinion that it does." He then turned to Justice John M. Harlan, who delivered the Court's opinion”  - "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann”

There were NO noted deliberations of this critical constitutional subject. This procedurally unverified “assumption” of the Santa Clara case transitioned The United States of America away from that of the Corporate Charter precedent, whose deliberations are well documented with all of the sweat and sincere logical toil of our forefathers, to this Corporate Personhood precedent which was established on the basis of an 1886 head note secretly inserted by a special interest (the former president of the Newburgh and New York Railway Company). i.e. J.C. Bancroft Davis appears to have fraudulently represented that this case deliberated ANY valid counterpoint to the well deliberated Corporate Charter precedent set by our forefathers.

In my view, this fraudulent precedent was PROACTIVELY reinstated to it's fullest by Justice Roberts. The only precedent that Justice Roberts would’ve actually been justified in (if not legally obligated to) reversing "in accordance with the principles of stare decisis" would be that of the 14th Amendment applying to corporations set by J.C. Bancroft Davis in 1886. To reaffirm: His written statement, that “corporations were persons rather than artificial persons, with an equal footing under the Bill of Rights as humans,” was not a formal ruling of the court!

Justice Roberts, despite his sworn senate confirmation testimony PROACTIVELY expanded the scope of the Citizens United case by re-applying the 14th Amendment to corporations reversing ALL relevantly deliberated precedents (undoing Theodore Roosevelt's legitimacy) but somehow stopped short of verifying the initial Southern Pacific Railroad deliberations? This MUST be explained!

During his testimony Judge Roberts was specifically clear on the scope of his testimony:
 
 "Chairman SPECTER. But there is no doctrinal basis erosion in Roe, is there, Judge Roberts?
 
 Judge ROBERTS.
 
 "Well, I feel the need to stay away from a discussion of particular cases. I’m happy to discuss the principles of stare decisis, and the Court has developed a series of precedents on precedent, if you will. They have a number of cases talking about how this principle should be applied. And as you emphasized, in Casey they focused on settled expectations. They also looked at the workability and the erosion of precedents. The erosion of precedent I think figured more prominently in the Court’s discussion in the Lawrence case, for example, but it is one of the factors that is looked at on the other side of the balance.

.... I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and even handedness. It is not enough—and the Court has emphasized this on several occasions. It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided. That really doesn’t answer the question. It just poses the question. And you do look at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the Court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments. All of those factors go into the determination of whether to revisit a precedent under the principles of stare decisis"
 
Justice Roberts' testimony specifically prioritized stare decisis over precedent. My dispute of the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case is not a case of "not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided" but one that specifically pertains to Justice Roberts' clear emphasis on verifying the "legitimacy of the Court", in terms of ensuring that precedent is established according to the principles of stare decisis. What other non deliberated precedents were EVER established via a brief statement by a non qualified Chief Justice and the stroke of the quill of a biased Court Reporter?...where's the headcount of the other justices and the deliberations? ... "legitimacy of the Court"..... J.C. Bancroft Davis, ...Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite... two Railroad executives.   :/ Seriously?
 
Regarding Justice Roberts jurisprudence, he initially assured the senate:
 
"Mr. Chairman, I come before the Committee with no agenda. I have no platform. Judges are not politicians who can promise to do certain things in exchange for votes. I have no agenda, but I do have a commitment. If I am confirmed, I will confront every case with an open mind. I will fully and fairly analyze the legal arguments that are presented. I will be open to the considered views of my colleagues on the bench, and I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability, and I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat."
 
 How does he justify Citizen's United? What principle of stare decisis justifies reversing all deliberated precedents yet fully reaffirms the non deliberated precedent set by the quill of  J.C. Bancroft Davis? :/
 
 This MUST be answered before things really get out of hand!
 
 *Paul Revere mode*

The "Big Government" collective bargaining and environmental regulation the Right complain about, in my view are inefficient backend attempts to curtail the externalities of this fraudulent 1886 precedent. We were diverted from the extremely Progressive precedent set by the Charles River Bridge v. Warren Bridge, 36 U.S. 420 case of 1837. This precedent is a wonderful example of Montana Supreme Court-esque local sovereignty. I wish the Gulf Coast fisherman had been empowered to Charter BP before they drilled. Betcha we would've found that valve!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_River_Bridge_v._Warren_Bridge

Oh those silly Socialism labels. Corporate charter is as American as Apple Pie! Corporate Charter – So local citizen’s, economists, and scientists actually have a say!

Supreme Court Impeachment hearings anyone?
 
http://www.truthout.org/unequal-protection-the-deciding-moment68397
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_are_the_origin_and_history_of_corporations
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Roberts_Supreme_Court_nomination