Posted on 11/25/2018 6:24:57 AM PST by george76
For someone trying to demonstrate that the judiciary is not political, getting into a political fight with the president sure is a funny way to do it.
...
Even Roberts's fellow justices know there is a difference. If there were no Obama judges or Trump judges, then why did Anthony Kennedy wait for Trump's election to announce his retirement? And why doesn't Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg just retire now and let Trump nominate her replacement? Because they both want a president who would appoint a successor who shares their judicial philosophy. (And, lo and behold, Trump appointed a former Kennedy clerk, Brett Kavanaugh, to succeed him).
The American people know that Roberts is wrong. In the 2016 election, exit polls showed that 70 percent of voters said Supreme Court appointments were either the most important or an important factor in deciding their vote. And polls show that Republicans expanded their Senate majority in 2018 in large part because conservative voters were angered over the left’s brutal campaign of character assassination against Kavanaugh.
Roberts is correct that we should not have "Trump judges" or "Obama judges." It would be better for the country if every judge, regardless of which president nominated him or her, strictly interpreted our laws and the Constitution. But the reality is that not all do. While conservative presidents tend to nominate judges who exercise a philosophy of judicial restraint -- follow our laws as written -- liberal presidents tend to nominate judicial activists who legislate from the bench and shape the law to reach their preferred outcomes. The left believes in a "living Constitution," which can be interpreted to mean whatever they want it to mean without being formally amended.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
If this were true, why would a Trump Judge have ruled against Trump? I hold McConnell responsible.
Since judges may broadly interpret the Constitution as they see fit and can in effect make policy, only a fool would believe that their personal values, politics and personalities do not affect their judicial pronouncements. You can believe Roberts or you can believe what you have seen.
If a single Federal District Judge can issue a decree that stops an action by Trump, then why can’t another Federal District Judge issue a decree that allows the action?
Remember : the wise Latina woman would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male. -Sotomayor.
Deep State on the bench.
CJ Roberts lives in the beltway bubble: news from CNN, newspapers Wapo, NYT, WSJ, associates only with likeminded.
Ignorant by choice.
Roberts only had to look at his own judges. He must not realize Sotomayor and Kagan always vote in favor of the far left and guess who appointed them?
Roberts’ comments were aimed at the Beltway crowd to enhance his social standing, he is clearly motivated by approval from these folks.
My post from another thread:
Ahem. Hey! Chief Justice Roberts! Should a Supreme Court Justice EVER be ruling on the basis of policy differences? Thought that wasn’t in your purview.
CJR, you may be technically correct that a SCJ is not beholden to the President who nominated them, the most recent example is the “Trump” judge who let Acosta back in the White House. But you must concede that there are activist judges, liberal judges, conservative judges, strict constructionists ... I’ll bet you could make a list. Try this, CJR: after you make that list, put the name of the President who appointed them next to their name.
What you have done, Chief Justice Roberts, is to repeat the common mistake of interpreting President Trump’s remarks literally. Hey, he wasn’t talking to YOU, he was talking to US. And we knew EXACTLY what he meant.
The President who made the appointment is a good (albeit not perfect) indicator of whether or not a judge will be wont to legislate from the bench. We see it all the time in articles and even posts on forums, blogs, etc. “Appointed by President ____” is almost always present in the text. Name the President and we know from which philosophy came the ruling. And, yeah, it’s not supposed to be that way. BUT IT IS.
“Ignorant by choice.”
And ignorant by convenience. There is no way Roberts doesn’t know this. You don’t get to be a SC Judge by being this clueless. So since we know Roberts knows exactly what Trump was talking about that begs a big question. Why did Roberts make such a naive statement? When obongo attacked the SC at the SOTU address Roberts said nothing. But Trump points out the obvious bias by the Rat hacks on the 9th and that gets Roberts to break silence?
In this latest back and forth, Trump was highlighting the 9th Circuit, which is as reliably crazy left as Ms Nancy.
Some Trump appointed judges are squishes picked by their senators, plain and simple. The legal community tends left, and judge picks are nationwide on average center right at best. Many are elitist uniparty.
R/B/G made a whopper of an error.........not retiring when Obama could have named her leftist successor.
Yet, it underlines the flawed thinking.....that Hillary was a “shoo-in” and would serve out Obama’s third term.
R/B/G would bow out as Hillary announced her far left replacement.
Now R/B/G is stuck in a time warp........having to pretend she’s up for the taxing job of a USSC judge.
Otherwise why would there have been any objection to Gorsuch and Kavanaugh? If judges were interchangeable we’d have Merrick Garland (just to pour salt in that wound).
My experience in court has been that knowing a judge’s politics is a better predictor of how he’ll rule than the law is. It’s just a fact.
“Ignorant by choice.”
I don’t know what happened to Roberts. But we certainly didn’t get what we thought we were going to get.
That man is going to be trouble for constitution-loving Americans. Already has.
“Why did Roberts make such a naive statement?”
That’s what I’d like to know.
If Roberts was intent on reading what was written for him, why didn’t he insist on it being written in a way to make it sound intelligent. The left has people that could write something for him that sounds at least plausible.
Any judicial system that relies on appointments is inherently political. That’s because politicians appoint them. When they are appointed their established record within the justice system is scrutinized and they have a history that clearly indicates whether or not they are excessively political.
Today, the American justice system is as political as it gets... Thankfully, the Supreme Court has remained solidly conservative for several generations. If the United States ever finds itself with a Supreme Court occupied by Democrat appointed Justices in a majority situation then America will rue that day.
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.