Chief Justice Robert's Formal Rebuke of Trump

[Perknose]

WASHINGTON — Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. defended the independence and integrity of the federal judiciary on Wednesday, issuing a statement rebuking President Trump’s criticism of a judge who had ruled against the administration’s asylum policy.

The chief justice seemed particularly offended by Mr. Trump’s assertionthat Judge Jon S. Tigar, of the United States District Court in San Francisco, was “an Obama judge.”

Chief Justice Roberts said that was a profound misunderstanding of the judicial role.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” he said in a statement. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

^^^ My comment? Our President is a willful ignoramus who is a clear and present danger to our institutions and the rule of law in our country.

 

[Mai72]

My guess is Trump will be attacking Roberts soon in a slew of idiotic tweets.

What strange times.

 

[Maxima1]

Roberts is also a danger. I would love to hear what he thinks of Kavanaugh. It's just fake bullshit for easy points.

 

[JSt0rm]

this is good for trump because...

 

[MomentsofSanity]

this is good for trump because...

MAGA MF'ER!!!!!

That's why!

 

[VRAMdemon]

If we all go back to thinking that the judiciary is non-partisan and independent, maybe someday it will actually be true.

Partisanship is a vicious circle; if you start thinking that every decision is politically motivated, then everything actually does becomes politically motivated.

The notion that Roberts is a centrist, I dunno. Even if the content of his statement may ring hollow, the spirit of it is a slap at Trumps extreme ridiculous partisanship. Fine by me

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Roberts is correct but Trump is too caught up in his vanity and twisted ego to begin to comprehend what Roberts says.

Come on January!

 

[Maxima1]

Roberts is correct but Trump is too caught up in his vanity and twisted ego to begin to comprehend what Roberts says.

Come on January!

How is this correct, especially on the conservative side? We're pretending that Bush v. Gore didn't happen. We're pretending that conservative justices aren't making a mockery out of the 1st Amendment. We're pretending Kavanaugh isn't a probable sex offender and definite political operative and perjurer. Etc. Etc.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” he said in a statement. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

How is this correct, especially on the conservative side? We're pretending that Bush v. Gore didn't happen. We're pretending that conservative justices aren't making a mockery out of the 1st Amendment. We're pretending Kavanaugh isn't a probable sex offender and definite political operative and perjurer. Etc. Etc.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” he said in a statement. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”

The judiciary may make errors for many reasons however Trump is not the master of all, nor was Obama, but the latter wasn't under the illusion that he was. Is ideology a factor? Of course for the Left and Right because that's why people were appointed to begin with. But in the past, there was a hoped-for standard of competence and the Constitution over a President.

 

[Maxima1]

The judiciary may make errors for many reasons however Trump is not the master of all, nor was Obama, but the latter wasn't under the illusion that he was. Is ideology a factor? Of course for the Left and Right because that's why people were appointed to begin with.

Errors? How was Bush v. Gore an error? Conservatives hate equal protection, yet they used it in that case, and somehow came to the conclusion stopping the count overrode someone's vote counting at all. And of course, they're trying to sweep it under the rug (i.e. it only applied to that specific case -- can't use as precedent) because of its obvious implications in making elections fairer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15tues4.html

 

[Viper1j]

Roberts is correct but Trump is too caught up in his vanity and twisted ego to begin to comprehend what Roberts says.

Come on January!

To hell with January..

Come on Mueller!

MAGA Mueller Ain't Going Away!

 

[Jaskalas]

Trump slams Chief Justice Roberts, insists there are ‘Obama judges’

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country,” Trump tweeted. ​

President is feeling peppy today. There's a video on that page of Trump's comments regarding "activism" on the 9th Circuit. Interesting, Republicans should be quite agreeable to that one.

 

[Sonikku]

I'm going to have to disagree with Roberts here. I think we do have Democrat and Republican judges. Mitch didn't sit on Garland's nomination for over a year for an impartial judge. Garland WAS an impartial judge. But republicans didn't want that. They wanted a Republican judge. Judges that would bless and rubber stamp their unconstitutional laws for the sake of advancing their minority rule.

And now Democrats would have to do the same just to break even. If Dems only nominated moderates while they hold power while Repubs nominated nothing but ultra partisan hacks while they hold power then the courts would inevitably always lean more right then left.

 

[interchange]

A chef justice and President openly feuding. Sometimes you have to take a step back and just realize how insane this is regardless of the content.

 

[VRAMdemon]

A chef justice and President openly feuding. Sometimes you have to take a step back and just realize how insane this is regardless of the content.

Donny Antagonizing the Chief Justice of the United States. Not sure if this will go tremendously well for you.

 

[Viper1j]

MAGA MF'ER!!!!!

That's why!

MAGA

M ueller
A in't
G oing
A way!

 

[kage69]

I'm going to have to disagree with Roberts here. I think we do have Democrat and Republican judges. Mitch didn't sit on Garland's nomination for over a year for an impartial judge. Garland WAS an impartial judge. But republicans didn't want that. They wanted a Republican judge. Judges that would bless and rubber stamp their unconstitutional laws for the sake of advancing their minority rule.

And now Democrats would have to do the same just to break even. If Dems only nominated moderates while they hold power while Repubs nominated nothing but ultra partisan hacks while they hold power then the courts would inevitably always lean more right then left.

I agree with some of your points here, but in the spirit of fairness didn't Roberts just ask 10th circuit to investigate Kavanaugh? Found it

"More than 12" ethics complaints. Might be for show. Might be Roberts sees a difference between a loyal pub like Gorsuch and a guy like Kavanaugh, who bombed his interview with flying colors yet still got confirmed via partisan zeal and the lowest number of votes ever. Roberts previous ACA stance favoring the court, not the GOP, sticks in my mind.

"The complaints were not made without legal basis. More than 2,400 law professors have determined that Kavanaugh has “displayed a lack of judicial temperament that would be disqualifying for any court.”


How sweet would it be to find more reasons sufficient enough to have Kavanugh removed? Sorry Sonia, but as the Trump admin likes to do, families get broken up around here.

 

[s0me0nesmind1]

Roberts is correct but Trump is too caught up in his vanity and twisted ego to begin to comprehend what Roberts says.

Come on January!

He is correct in a sense that IDEALLY the judicial system is impartial.

Reality tells us we all know the truth.

There is a reason why we have so many 5-4 decisions in SCOTUS....

 

[Jhhnn]

Trump slams Chief Justice Roberts, insists there are ‘Obama judges’

“Sorry Chief Justice John Roberts, but you do indeed have ‘Obama judges,’ and they have a much different point of view than the people who are charged with the safety of our country,” Trump tweeted. ​

President is feeling peppy today. There's a video on that page of Trump's comments regarding "activism" on the 9th Circuit. Interesting, Republicans should be quite agreeable to that one.

Poor Donnie. He thought he could be King.

 

[HomerJS]

Errors? How was Bush v. Gore an error? Conservatives hate equal protection, yet they used it in that case, and somehow came to the conclusion stopping the count overrode someone's vote counting at all. And of course, they're trying to sweep it under the rug (i.e. it only applied to that specific case -- can't use as precedent) because of its obvious implications in making elections fairer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15tues4.html

Conservatism = we put our principles aside as a means to an end.

Alt definition - hypocrite

 

[HomerJS]

translation for John Robers...

Hey Trump, shut the fuck up, douchebag!!

 

[Jhhnn]

Errors? How was Bush v. Gore an error? Conservatives hate equal protection, yet they used it in that case, and somehow came to the conclusion stopping the count overrode someone's vote counting at all. And of course, they're trying to sweep it under the rug (i.e. it only applied to that specific case -- can't use as precedent) because of its obvious implications in making elections fairer.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/15/opinion/15tues4.html

Why drag that out now, 18 years later, other than as an attempt to discredit the Judiciary?

 

[Maxima1]

Why drag that out now, 18 years later, other than as an attempt to discredit the Judiciary?

It is discredited. We need to pack it at first chance.

It's strange to me that you want to sweep it under the rug too, even as the conservatives on the present court are hellbent on making the elections more unfair for the party they don't agree with, despite their previous use of equal protection. What is your reasoning for looking the other way? Being a "centrist"?

 

[Perknose]

Why drag that out now, 18 years later, other than as an attempt to discredit the Judiciary?

It was a thoroughly disgraceful decision.

 

[Jhhnn]

It is discredited. We need to pack it at first chance.

It's strange to me that you want to sweep it under the rug too, even as the conservatives on the present court are hellbent on making the elections more unfair for the party they don't agree with, despite their previous use of equal protection. What is your reasoning for looking the other way? Being a "centrist"?

I'm not sure your characterization is accurate at all. I'm not sure that tearing down the judiciary is a smart move when Trump is doing the same thing, either. Quite the contrary. They're the only force currently standing up for the rule of law at all.

The only justices remaining on the court from that era are Ginsberg & Thomas, anyway. The other seven were yet to be appointed.