Skip to comments.Trump: I respect Roberts but 'everybody knows' 9th Circuit 'totally out of control'
Posted on 11/22/2018 9:52:21 AM PST by yesthatjallen
President Trump said Thursday he respects Chief Justice John Roberts amid a dispute over the president's rhetoric against a federal judge, though Trump maintained he was right to criticize the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
I know that Chief Justice Roberts, John Roberts, has been speaking a little bit about it and I think - I have a lot of respect for him, I like him and I respect him. But I think we have to use some common sense," Trump told reporters in Florida.
"The Ninth Circuit - everybody knows it, it's totally out of control, he added, referring to the San Francisco-based court that has repeatedly ruled against the administration.
Trump has repeatedly rejected criticism from Roberts over the past 24 hours after the top justice rebuked the president's rhetoric about a federal judge in California.
The president blasted the judge's ruling against his administration's asylum policy on Tuesday, referring to him as "an Obama judge." The judge was appointed by the former president to the federal bench in 2012.
"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts responded in a statement released Wednesday. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.
Trump railed against U.S. District Court Judge Jon Tigar after he ruled against the White Houses policy prohibiting immigrants who entered the country illegally from requesting asylum. Appeals from Tigars court go to the Ninth Circuit for a hearing.
"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," the president tweeted Wednesday afternoon.
"It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an 'independent judiciary,' Trump added.
If you can't take a hit or hit back you're not a fighter and not worthy of running with the big boys.
Can’t stand Roberts. Like Trump.
"Blasted" = told the truth.
Trump is saying exactly what every patriotic father has been saying for 30years !
He respects Roberts? Why? Roberts schit on the constitution when it came to the Obamacare scam. I got no respect for John Roberts and I refuse to call him a judge.
Trump never simply “states” according to the enemies of the American people. He always: “lashes out”, “strikes back”, “rails at”, “raves”, etc.
To your point. Trump has respect for Pelosi because he sees her as a fellow warrior and a worthy opponent. He has never given her a nickname that I can remember. Not so for Crooked Hillary, Cryin Chuck or Pocahontas. He knows they are weak
I don’t blame Trump for roasting Roberts and the 9th Circus. They have both proven themselves to be a clown circus act for the left.
Paleolosi is what savage calls her
And she is very respectable
I know several who know her personally and say she truly does care for the poor unlike the liars in her party who to them are just pawns
Actually, I think Teumps response to Roberts was respectful and measured. May his tweets tend more and more in this direction.
I gave Roberts a second chance in this new administration. He blew it. He gets zero of my respect.
The 9th Circuit is definitely ‘something’. If it’s not ‘out of control’ then it is ‘controlling and statist’ and bends the law to fit its political ideology. It has been overwhelmingly left tilt - though a few seats have opened up and Trump may push it a little more in balance.
A few years back, the case Peruta v San Diego County - Peruta sued saying that SD’s discretionary concealed carry permit rules were unconstitutional. California bans open carry statewide (with some exception in wide open undeveloped areas). You can only get a CCW permit in CA through your local police or sheriff. Most big city sheriffs refuse to issue CCW unless you can prove a need “above and beyond” the typical person. Self defense is not adequate reason.
The USSC ruled in DC v Heller that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right. Peruta sued saying CA has a defacto ban. If the 2A is an individual right to keep and bear it must allow some form. Since the state bans open carry but allows concealed carry, that means the only way to exercise the 2A right is concealed. Peruta argued the sheriff must issue to all who are not prohibited, otherwise it is a defacto ban on carry.
Sounds logical, right? But the 9th found a way to decide the case without deciding the case. They ruled (paraphrasing) that Heller did not specifically say open carry is legal, so CA is allowed to ban it. AND, Heller also ruled states can issue some limitations, so they ALSO ruled that San Diego is allowed to deny permits to qualified applicants.
The purpose of an appeals court is to resolve conflicts like these. They should have ruled either that the Open Carry ban is illegal, or that SD must switch to “shall issue”. But they basically let the conflict stand and ruled nothing. The USSC has thusfar refused to hear Peruta’s appeal.
There is some irony that followed. Originally the 9th Circuit’s 3-judge panel that did rule that SD’s policy was unconstitutional. But the state appealed (in a weird legal maneuver since they were not a party to the case, and did not argue the case in lower courts) to the full en banc court, and the 3-judge panel was overturned by vote of all the judges. A couple years later an open carry case, Young v Hawaii, came up. Hawaii has a ban on concealed carry, but does allow some open carry - the opposite of California. Young argued that if CCW is banned the state must allow open carry. The case, by sheer luck of the draw, landed on the desk of the judge who issued the original ruling in favor of Peruta! In a legal form of revenge against his peers who overturned him, he ruled that Hawaii must allow open carry because it bans concealed carry - the opposite of the Peruta case, but to the same pro 2A effect and putting the full court in a box. Now the 9th faces a conundrum. If they let the ruling stand, open carry will be legal in CA. If they overturn it, it will almost certainly go to the USSC because an open carry ban creates a conflict between 2 or more circuits, and the make-up of the USSC is thought to be more pro 2A now than a few years. The thinking is that the 9th will probably rule the same way they did in Peruta, allowing the state to ban and limit carry - but also that the USSC ideological make-up is likely to overturn it. If they do, CA and HI will be forced to choose between open carry or shall issue CCW carry. They want neither.
But the point of this post is, the 9th is politically & ideologically motivated. They shirked their duty in the Peruta case with an absurd justification in order to keep in force a distinctly anti 2A policy in California (most of the other states in the 9th already allow shall issue or open carry or both). It was pretty clear from the Heller case that the USSC affirmed an individual right to “keep and bear” but the 9th didn’t like that, so they employed circular logic to deny the right in Peruta. And now they face being overturned again via Young. Maybe soon Californians will enjoy their rights without fear of being arrested. As a Californian I’ve been following CCW related issues for 20 years. I will be an old(er) man by the the time it is decided. Justice moves slow in the 9th.
What Trump is trying to say is: The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals are the Deep State’s bitches.
Respect is earned. I’ve seen nothing of Roberts to respect.
And according to the rat media the President typically does so “without evidence.”
So break it up, Mr. President.
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.