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?
Deep State on the bench.
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?
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.
In this latest back and forth, Trump was highlighting the 9th Circuit, which is as reliably crazy left as Ms Nancy.
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.
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.
President Trump should not comply with this terrorist in a black robe and tell him he will see him in the SCOTUS.
Too many Judges that don’t agree? No problem, do what FDR did, add a couple more.
Roberts is giving cover to some very bad future judicial decisions.
Trump will need to issue EOs for the military and some leftist judge will try to stop him. Then, they can point to the Roberts doctrine of absolute judicial supremacy (tyranny).
Roberts is a globalist judge.
True but, from the POV of the judiciary, irrelevant. No court wants to admit that any other court is biased - for the simple reason that such admission delegitimates the judiciary as a whole.The most famous example of what I’m talking about is the Bush v. Gore decision. The Supreme Court of Florida was putting its thumb on the scales to give Florida’s electoral votes to Gore, and the SCOTUS majority knew it. But that is not what the majority’s decision said.
The SCOTUS majority bent itself into a pretzel to get the right result without stating that the Supreme Court of Florida was acting corruptly. And concluded by saying that no one should ever cite that pretzel - the Bush v. Gore decision - as precedent in any argument before any court.
It is no accident, comrades, that the journalism Establishment behaves similarly - just as all judges claim that all judges are objective, in the telling of any journalist all journalists in good standing with the Establishment are objective. And if you are not in good standing with the Establishment, why then you are “not a journalist, not objective."
. . . and indicating that the journalistic Establishment itself is not objective is the surest way to not be in good standing with the Establishment.