Posted on 12/02/2018 6:17:22 AM PST by Kaslin
Remember way back?
Those days when we actually trusted and respected the judiciary?
When we actually thought that a law degree indicated a modicum of intelligence rather than memory?
Then came Bubba.
And the Hillabeast.
And Dorkbama the Muslim eunuch quota baby and wife.
And the liberal jokes on the Supreme Court.
Sorry, but we don’t respect the courts and very soon we’ll tell the same thing to the courts that they’ve been telling us.
And there are more of us than them.
I read of the Papuan New Guinea word, "Mokita," which means:
"The truth we all know but agree not to talk about."
It applies here. The courts have become political; Roberts wishes to pretend it is not so and pretend they adhere to their original but long gone ideal.
Roberts is a partisan justice, even though he rails against partisanship. I still wonder what they ‘have’ on him that he would vote for that abomination of Obamacare. I keep going back to the argument, in front of SCOTUS that the ‘fee’ is not a ‘tax’, but Roberts ruled it is a TAX and that is why it passed? The mind boggles. Why is it that so many Republican nominated Justices turn to the dark side?? I suspect they get drunk with power and want their ‘new friends’ on the Left to ‘like them’. Pathetic. RULE BY THE LAW PLEASE!
Plus the forum shopping is only possible because each answer every federal judge is believed to have geographical jurisdiction over the entire United States. How can anyone live in a scenario where thousands of others each have 100% binding jurisdiction over him with very little hierarchy among the thousands? Five levels, maybe? That’s just an invitation to chaos and caprice, yet we’re all required to sit around and pretend it’s legitimate.
All speech is political. Anyone who does not understand that precept is either a child or, if an adult, a moron.
The idea of an “independent judiciary” basically means a judge could apply whatever filter or foundation he wishes, chooses or is so influenced ( so much of independence) towards.
The only thing that should influence a judge is the written law of the US and the founding documents starting with the Declaration of Independence. International law, public opinion and political conniving be damned.
If a judge cannot stand to that criteria, he ought to , out of duty and honor, resign.
You mean before FDR and his Court kicked the Constitution to the curb? Judges have not been deserving of respect of constitutional matters since then.
Agreed. Chief Justice Roberts has acted more like a partisan Democrat than an independent judge interpreting the constitution. It has happened in the past that an appointee to the Supreme Court by a Republican turned out to be a liberal, for example, Sandra Day O’Connor. Hopefully, President Trump will get at least one more appointment. His first two appear to be true constitionalists.
Yep - Roberts was speaking in an ideal he doesn’t believe in....ideally his statement would be true but reality says Trump is right.
So the author believes Roberts is “rightfully” upset that Trump is telling the truth. He blows his argument at the end of the article.
I also don’t understand went the administration doesn’t fight fire with fire. Do some forum along of their own, if the only hierarchy among judges at the same level is who rules first on something. Set up someone, supposedly opposed, to sue over a policy in a selected court and have it upheld. Or, do the lib trick and get someone to sue top have a policy mandated.
Right. The idea of a single judge issuing an immediately effective order doesn’t sound like our country. The executive branch is where emergency actions are supposed to come from. Not unlike appealing to the Governor, the top State exec, to stay an execution at the 11th hour.
If a federal judge is over ruled at the appellate or Supreme Court level 3 times they should be removed from office.
The have demonstrated a complete failure to understand and apply the US constitution.
This would quickly put an end to this judicial nonsense.
It all comes down to accountability and right now these is none.
The pot calling the kettle black ...... Justice Roberts hypocritical? Yes. He let himself be bullied Obama and gang into finding a way around the unconstitutional obamacare rather than do the correct and constitutional thing, strike obamacare down.
So if Obama-appointed appellate judges overrule a Trump-appointed district court judge three times he Trump judge should be removed? That creates some perverse incentives for appellate judges.
The only quibble I would have is that SCOTUS sometimes reverses its own prior rulings - so a lower court judge might in all good faith think that (in the classic example) Plessy v. Ferguson should and might be overruled. The lower court judge is thus in a bind, knowing he might be vindicated by SCOTUS - or not - whether he rules with or against the Plessy precedent.. . . and, knowing that, justices of SCOTUS might thereby be biased to stick with a bad precedent which otherwise they might overturn. Could that be finessed somehow, by having the justices of SCOTUS critique the lower judge’s objectivity? I kinda doubt it. Maybe you could modify your rule - and get support from SCOTUS for the idea - if you said that the lower judge is protected if the SCOTUS verdict is not unanimous .
Morrison v. Olson is a terrible example of what you would hate to see happen - SCOTUS ruled 8-1, and Scalia famously dissented (and early in his SCOTUS career, at that). Scalia didn’t think it was even a close call - “this wolf comes as a wolf” - and it is generally accepted now that Scalia alone was correct. How would you like to have been a lower court judge, subject to your rule, and to have had to decide that case! Worse, Scalia himself could have been that lower court judge, a couple of years earlier - and have been overruled by SCOTUS 9-0!
I seem to be losing my enthusiasm for your idea . . .
The Supreme Court simply needs to rule that District Court rulings only apply in their District, just as appeals court rulings only apply in their circuit (such as the Ninth Circuit).
I know its not a perfect plan but there needs to be some consequences when judges accept and then rule on cases that clearly have no constitutional foundation.
Ping
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.