Posted on 11/21/2018 8:22:33 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
Republican Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa said he had reservations about Chief Justice John Roberts' response to President Donald Trump's controversial characterization of a federal judge and the 9th District court, and suggested it was a hypocritical move based on Roberts' previous interactions with Trump's predecessor.
"Chief Justice Roberts rebuked Trump for a comment he made [about a] judge's decision on asylum," Grassley said in a tweet on Wednesday. "I don't recall the Chief attacking Obama when that Prez rebuked Alito during a State of the Union."
Grassley, the Judiciary Committee Chairman, appeared to be referencing a State of the Union address Obama gave in 2010, where Obama criticized the Supreme Court's 5-4 landmark decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. The decision eased restrictions that blocked corporations and unions from funding political campaigns without limits.
But Obama did not single out Justice Samuel Alito during that State of the Union address. Obama referred to the Supreme Court broadly, without mentioning any names.
"With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said at the time.
Alito appeared to have a visceral reaction to Obama's remarks during the speech, which were captured on video. He was seen shaking his head and mouthing some words as Obama commented on the court's decision. Alito voted in favor of the ruling, and also joined concurring opinions from Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Antonin Scalia.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
IMO Senator Grassley is the best Senator in Washington. He is still whip smart and solid as a rock on the issues.
Not a defense of Roberts, but it was the AP who ran to Roberts for a quote, and this was his response to a question
But he made a purely political comment, masked as a judicial one
...
Thanks for bringing that up. I wonder why the fake news didn’t make that clear?
The AP was out to get ammo against Trump, now it’s backfiring on them.
Because Roberts is Deep State, as are most on the Supreme Court, in Congress, and in the Executive Branch. They work to subvert America and agreed with Obama's "fundamental transform[ation]" of America.
Homosexuality is used by the Deep State to control people like that. Mutual guilt, perhaps blackmail pictures and video of the subject in compromising positions, all this are used to keep control of the subject, and make sure he/she/it always spouts the party line.
Yep. Owned.
Absolutely.
Roberts is the worst appointment since Earl Warren.
At least there was no question about Ginsberg’s, Kagan’s et al’s position when they were appointed.
He is a stealth liberal appointed by one of the dumbest men to hold the Presidency.
Not only that, as you point out, Roberts DOES have external “handlers”.
I think he and his handlers concocted this comment DELIBERATELY to generate an EXCUSE for him to recuse himself from this case when it comes before SCOTUS, virtually assuring a 4 - 4 decision which would let stand t h e 9th circuit’s opinion!!!
Absolutely.
Only Thomas, Alitto, Gorsuch and possibly Kavanaugh are not.
It was inappropriate for Roberts to respond as he did.
He is an intelligent man and knew exactly what he was doing.
He SHOULD have responded that it was inappropriate for him to respond on the subject as he might be involved in reviewing this case.
He KNEW very well what he was doing, and what he was doing was to set the grounds for a recused on his part, assuring a 4 -4 decision which would let the 9th circuit decision stand.
Bergoglio???
Gay background, illegal adoptions...
Glad to see Grassley is stepping up his game in the past couple months.
I know some have criticized the way he tweets, but I love it!
Grassley's a good man ... tough - tied to reality... nice having him on our team.
Just don’t forget, when things flip around, and they WILL at some point, those rules can and will be used against patriots.
No. Trump asking for something he has no right to would be a sign of weakness, IMO.
“Universal injunctions are legally and historically dubious. If federal courts continue to issue them, this Court is duty bound to adjudicate their authority to do so.” —Justice Thomas
No need to wonder why SCROTUS hasn’t tackled this issue or slapped down these lower court’s unconstitutional edicts-—> Chief ‘Justice’ John Roberts
“He is a stealth liberal appointed by one of the dumbest men to hold the Presidency.”
Exactly. So was the dumbest man.
Grasshole is a rino who, like linda graham, spent the last year and a half protecting sessions and mueller from being fired. IOW, protecting the mueller coup against Trump
I’d have to study that more, but it sure does provide food for thought.
I’d need to see what constitutes this bad behavior.
Who would make the call and remove said judge?
I’m referring to the Ninth Circuit court tha gets over-ruled at an astonishingly high rate. In some years it has been more than 90%.
As a rule of thumb, you are on the right track though.
I believe impeachment is still the only way to remove judges, however, the standard is not the high crimes and misdemeanors as for other officials including the president. As with anything involving impeachment, Congress is the body to define the terms. In my opinion, usurping the authority of other coequal branches of government clearly constitutes bad behavior. That is especially egregious when any one of the over 800 district judges takes it upon himself to overrule and/or dictate action by either the executive or legislature. The fact that such judge or judges would compile a record of repeatedly being overturned by the Supreme Court would reaffirm the ideal of bad behavior in office.
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.