Chief Justice John Roberts Criticizes Trump For 'Obama Judge' Asylum Comment

[Faygo Kid]

Source: Huffington Post

Chief Justice John Roberts is pushing back against President Donald Trump’s description of a judge who ruled against Trump’s new migrant asylum policy as an “Obama judge.”

It’s the first time that the leader of the federal judiciary has offered even a hint of criticism of Trump, who has previously blasted federal judges who ruled against him.

Roberts said Wednesday the U.S. doesn’t have “Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges.” He commented in a statement released by the Supreme Court after a query by The Associated Press. . .

Read more: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/john-roberts-trump-obama-judge_us_5bf597f4e4b0eb6d930af693

---

As a retired lawyer, I hope and pray that Justice Roberts understands his historical importance. This is a good sign.

[exboyfil]

1. You wonder when he looks in the mirror

whether Judge Taney is looking back.

I don't hold out much hope though.

[rurallib]

18. I have said almost that exact thing to Mrs. Lib on occasion

[ret5hd]

50. Honest question:

I wiki'd Taney and read what was there but I could not determine what you mean by that statement in this context. Maybe (maybe? you said maybe?) I am dense, but just not getting it.

Honest question, no snark.

[exboyfil]

51. He is usually the most reviled of the Chief Justices

I think one statement in particular comes to mind.

[African Americans] had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit. He was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it.

Roberts could be party to basically establishing an imperial Presidency where the President is above any law. That will be a future precedent or even potentially destabilize the country.

[DownriverDem]

59. Some Hope

I don't expect to count on Robert's to save us. I do think that he will surprise us at times though.

[jpak]

2. Trump's response - "Roberts is a loser"

[PeeJ52]

7. OMG...

I hope so... Wouldn't that be great? Or call him Little Johnnie Roberts...

[Kahuna7]

14. ...

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

40. Let's see if Tiny now tries to "fire" Roberts, which, of course, he can't do.

[sdfernando]

55. Loser? a lifetime appointment to a high paying job

that the orange pustule cannot fire. the orange one will be gone soon...Roberts will still be influencing the countries direction for decades. t-rump is the loser and always has been.

[jpak]

56. (it was a joke)

[sdfernando]

61. Yeah, I got that.

Was responding to the hypothetical t-rump response.

[SWBTATTReg]

3. This is a good sign. Perhaps when they are nominated to this office for life, something changes...

in them, realizing that they have nothing to worry about, e.g., running for office/judgeship/etc. again, working at a commercial law firm, so forth. They'll concentrate on just pure constitutional matters relating to state and / or US laws and political and/or any other bias disappears?

[Lucky Luciano]

6. LOL!

[SWBTATTReg]

9. Not sure, but sarcasm? nt

[Lucky Luciano]

11. No way their bias disappears.

They are highly partisan.
Of the conservatives, Roberts is the most respectable though.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

43. Read about Earl Warren - a Republican, appointed by a Republican president.

He was even Thomas Dewey's running mate in 1948, and tried to get himself nominated as the Republican candidate for president in 1952. After the election Eisenhower appointed him to the Supreme Court, but by the '60s Warren had done a full ideological 180, and wrote a number of landmark opinions in civil rights and civil liberties cases. He registered as a Democrat in 1962, having privately supported JFK for president in 1960. The John Birch Society branch of the GOP hated his guts and tried to get him impeached. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earl_Warren

In other words, although it's rare, sometimes they do change.

[Lucky Luciano]

47. That was then...this is now. These guys are real ideologues. nt

[Xipe Totec]

70. Ideologues or not, Trump is managing to piss them off. That's not good for him. nt

[demosincebirth]

72. I agree, they don't change.

[enough]

13. You can be sure.

We haven’t seen any evidence so far of right-wing ideologues changing their approach when they end up on the Supreme Court.

[DrToast]

24. Stevens?

[Faygo Kid]

48. Souter?

[SWBTATTReg]

16. Maybe you're right. I was perhaps expressing a very optimistic view of the court in their ...

handling of issues. We haven't (I am assuming here IMHO) any significant dealings from the court yet, since Kav joined.

[Gore1FL]

39. They take it more seriously, I think. Of course they should be more serious jurists to begin with.

I think John Roberts would like the Roberts court to be looked upon favorably in the history books.

[flibbitygiblets]

42. Too late. Beert Kanthavenough is in the house.

Look out, everybody, I think he's going to hurl!

[treestar]

65. some of these posts are overly cynical

much too much. The reason they have the lifetime appointment is so they don't have pressure to decide as their appointer wants them to, because they are to write based on the law, not personal opinion.

[Fullduplexxx]

12. It's called the weight of responsibility

It's one thing to look at the bench and say "when i get there im gonna ..." but when you finally sit there things change .

[SWBTATTReg]

17. This is kind of what I was thinking. However, a little skepticism is healthy. nt

[Pepsidog]

23. I wonder if Whitaker feels that weight. He could screw Trump Bigly

[yardwork]

19. I'm afraid it's just that Trump was not supposed to let this out.

The Republicans are absolutely a tribal bloc. But they're not supposed to admit it.

[at140]

27. Not quite...any justice can be impeached and removed.

But that is not usually done.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

32. It has never been done successfully to a Supreme Court justice.

It has only ever been attempted once, and that was in 1804. That justice, Samuel Chase, was impeached by the House but was acquitted by the Senate.

[watoos]

37. Maybe the new Congress

should investigate if there were any shenanigans going on between Trump/Kennedy/ and Kennedy's son? Wouldn't that be a mess if there was collusion over Kennedy resigning?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

38. But it would be exactly the same situation as the possible impeachment of Trump.

You'd need 67 votes in the Senate to impeach, and that won't happen.

[disndat]

49. Chief Justice Warren was unique.

He was conscience stricken because as Governor of California and was instrumental in moving the Japanese
in Calif. to camps immediately after the attack on Pearl harbor because of anti-Japanese hysteria and fear. Precious Calif. land and farm lands were confiscated by real estate developers and war profiteers. The Japanese owners were compensated after the war but given a fraction of the original value.

[0rganism]

52. iirc from civics classes, that was the founders' goal with the lifetime appointment

the idea was the judges for the highest court would become free from any prior obligations and concentrate solely on upholding the constitution with their decisions.

[marybourg]

54. That's why the founders settled on life appointments

for S. C. Justices. And one adverse ruling should not be the basis for clamoring for term appointments, but it will be.

[treestar]

64. That has happened

They may be conservative or liberal, but the law is the law. When appointed to such an honor, they will want to excel in writing legal opinions. Don't know about the new guy, as he is sort of Trumpian and might be absurd, but they have some system for who writes the opinions.

Roberts voted to uphold the ACA - he felt it was the law. Being against it as a matter of politics is not sufficient and you may have to rule in a way you don't politically agree.

[pangaia]

80. Surely you jest.

[Chakaconcarne]

4. Hmm... let's hope for a critical Trump tweet in response.

[Leghorn21]

28. "Sloppy John is a lightweight Loser, many People are Saying"

OMG, the thought of it

DO IT DONNIE!!

[wryter2000]

5. I cautiously agree

Roberts has shown evidence of independence from RW BS in the past.

[richdj25]

8. Really?

Voting rights was gutted by Roberts and the conservative court. How does he go about fixing that, instead of offering empty words towards Trump?

[LittleGirl]

15. Agreed and

welcome to DU.

[PeeJ52]

25. ... and I hope

Kemp and Kobach have embarrassed the hell out of him. His misguided assumption that discrimination is a thing of the past has been proven wrong in the public court of human rights. Now fix voting rights to be the same throughout the nation and put an end to this endless gerrymandering...

[DallasNE]

46. This Is The Most Egregious Example

Of legislating from the bench. If the Congress deemed that it was time to end key parts of the Voting Rights Act they could have passed a bill to do just that. They didn't meaning they felt it was still necessary. Ever since Gore V Bush the Supreme Court has assumed a role as a Legislative branch. Along the way they have watered down the 1st Amendment.

[Honeycombe8]

10. Yes, a good sign. He foresees that some of them will be thought of as Trump Judges...

when they rule in favor of Trump, as I fully expect to happen. The fix is in. Kavanaugh is indeed very much a Trump loyalist. Unclear about Gorsuch. Clarence Thomas will be a Trump loyalist, as I expect Alito will be.

The Chief Justice is probably the only somewhat impartial Republican on the S.Ct. bench, IMO.

[Cheviteau]

21. Re: John Roberts

This court will be known in history as "The Roberts Court". Roberts is a serious student of the role the courts have played in our history. He understands the influence historians will have on his court's legacy. I believe he will become the swing vote. Lordy, I hope I'm right.

[DrToast]

26. Another thing...

Roberts is a brilliant guy. Very conservative, but you can’t deny he’s very smart. You gotta think it bothers him that his party is basically the “stupid” party.


There’s no way Roberts likes Trump. They are complete opposites.

[LakeArenal]

36. I've said many times on DU,

John Roberts is the one who can save America. Whether he will or not, gawd help us all.

[Honeycombe8]

68. I hope so, too. But his rulings have almost 100% of the time...

been the same as Alito's and other conservative Republican judges.

There was one that I recall, where he was the deciding vote...I think it was on the so-called penalty in the mandatory provision of the ACA. His ruling meant that the penalty could remain. Republicans were apoplectic over that decision. There may have been other times, but that's the only one I recall where he ruled on the side of the Democrats.

He generally takes a softer, more reasoned view, but arrives at the same conclusion as the other Republicans.

I do think that out of the Republicans on the bench, thank goodness Roberts is the Chief Justice. I think he does have a sense of the role of the Court and thinks it should be politically blind. Still, he cannot help that his brain sees things from a right-tilt view.

There is hope, though, in that he has issued a ruling or two that is not lockstep with the strict Republicans on the Court. That's a small thing to hang a hat on, but that's all we have.

[Hassler]

20. Chief justice of the illegitimate SCOTUS tries and fails to legitimize it.

[Hekate]

22. My understanding is that Roberts really cares about the institution of the Court...

...which in the Era of Strongman Trump is a damn good thing.

[DrToast]

29. Agree. See ACA repeal vote

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

33. Yes, he clearly does care about the reputation of the court that has his name attached to it.

I don't think he wants "the Roberts Court" to go down in history as partisan or corrupt.

[kairos12]

30. Book it now.

Roberts will say Mueller can’t touch Drumpt.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

34. I really doubt that will happen.

Roberts is a by-the-book justice, and although I don't care for a lot of his pro-corporate decisions he's not a crazy partisan.

[JudyM]

45. Maybe it was a shot across the bow to Kavanaugh.

Or just an attempt to publicly legitimize him.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

53. It could be either, but I'm guessing Roberts wants to remind Trump and his minions

that the judiciary is a branch of the government whose power is equal to that of the presidency as well as Congress, and that it will deal with matters before it according to the law and not with reference to how or by whom a particular judge was appointed. The fact that some judges are labeled "conservative" and others as "liberal" in most cases refers more to how laws are interpreted than to party bias. The conservative judges on the Supreme Court are more likely to rule in favor of corporate or business interests not so much because they are Republicans but because they favor a literalist interpretation of statutes, which are often drafted or supported by moneyed interests, or an originalist interpretation of the Constitution, which allows for little consideration of social change. Sometimes, however, a literalist approach can come in handy when dealing with the likes of Trump, who doesn't think the laws, even as written, apply to him. I fully expect a few hard slap-downs by the court, including by Gorsuch and maybe even Kavanaugh, when Trump tries to argue that some law unfavorable to him says something other than what is written in black and white and needs no interpretation.

[JustAnotherGen]

31. Justice Roberts

I believe - is by the book.

[caraher]

35. Of course, he left out one president

The SC does have one Trump judge (maybe two, but I'm thinking mainly of Kavanaugh, whose mission is pretty clear - watch the Donald's back).

[watoos]

41. Clarence Thomas is a Tea Party judge,

and Alito is a piece of shit. Sad that we have to rely on Roberts keep justice blind.

[ut oh]

44. I would argue though

we have at least one 'Trump Judge' if not 2 in Kavanaugh and Garbage... er Gorsich (sp?).....

[elleng]

57. Very good news.

[macwriter]

58. A Warning Shot

I took this as Roberts reacting to the mad rush to get cases to the Supreme Court because Trump is convinced SCOTUS is in his pocket. I think Roberts is saying -- not so fast -- and hoping it gives Trump pause about ramming things through the courts.

At least, I hope this is what it means.

[radical noodle]

60. I've always thought he might be appalled by Trump

but I never thought he'd openly criticize him. I'm glad to see it.

[Marie Marie]

62. I also thought that he may have been appalled by Kannaugh joining the Supremes.

Or maybe, wishful thinking on my part.

[Liberty Belle]

63. Perhaps he will surprise, as Justice Earl Warren did:

Appointed by Eisenhower, a Republican, Warren had once run for President on the Republican ticket. He became Chief Justice and presided over many landmark opinions that disappointed conservatives, siding with liberals on cases such as Brown v. Board of Eduation (school integration) and the Miranda case.

[LiberalLovinLug]

66. I'll never forgive him for Citizens United

but the fact that he is Bush's boy, despite his Trump chastisement, and that Trump has insulted and demeaned the Bush family, might irk him somewhat. Enough to have pause at least and not rubber stamp every pro-Trump ruling.

[GulfCoast66]

73. And Stripping the voting rights act.

Although he gave us a way out. Apply it to all states equally which we should first thing when we gain all 3 branches.

But the right hates him for ACA and marriage equality. He has been a mixed bag. I can see trump pushing him more to the liberals side.

[Just a Weirdo]

67. Considering these two right wing judges

Robert's may just join the D side for the majority of the decisions quietly. Itll just piss off Trump so much.

[JohnnyRingo]

69. Donald Trump couldn't make a more powerful enemy.

Chief Justice Roberts is likely to be the new swing vote on the court. He was the deciding vote on the individual mandate a couple years ago. He even instructed the lawyers how to rephrase the plea.

While I fully expect him to rule by the constitution, he may go against Trump on a close call just to show Trump who's in charge of the judiciary.

[klook]

71. "Asylum." I thought for a minute that meant Trump had been committed!

[sharedvalues]

74. No. BS. Roberts just trying to avoid Federalist criticism.

Roberts is a smart Republican operator.

He realizes that now and for the next few decades, the large large majority of unqualified partisans on the courts will be Republican ideologues.

Roberts wants to avoid political criticism of judges because that would damage Republicans.

Gorsuch: Fed Soc, in bed with Anschutz
Thomas: wife is an insane conservative fascist
Alito: Fed Soc, climate change denier, invited /Janus/
Kavanaugh: Fed Soc, insane rant re “leftists”
Roberts: voter suppression activist in Reagan White House, worked for Rehnquist, voter suppression activist himself in AZ in 1970s

Here’s the GOP strategy that Roberts is executing:
Pretend Republican judges are just calling “balls and strikes” while the Republican Trump judges eviscerate rule of law, help billionaires, and harm average people.
Democrats will want to call out the Republican ideologue judges. And the rightwing media will say “Roberts defended an Obama judge!!”

[duforsure]

75. So trump's really saying other Presidential Justice picks for the court

Shouldn't be there , but his should, and if one doesn't agree with him or does as HE wants they're aren't fair, and should be classified as the enemy. Where did trump get his nominee's list from? He's trying to politicize all area's of the government to use as his personal weapons, and to serve only him, or he accuses them of being the enemy of the people. Sounds like Putin , and what he's done in Russia.

[bobGandolf]

76. A very good sign, if...

he stands behind his comments with his actions. Time will tell.

[calimary]

77. I can't help but suspect that he also meant this as cautionary advice to Kavanaugh.

Putting the cocky little new guy on notice: we don’t make decisions here based on political preferences, kiddo.

[TruckFump]

78. I'm also a retired lawyer and I also see this as a good sign.

When you have the CJ of POTUS releasing a statement to the press in the nature of Roberts' statement, it is a sign IMO that the CJ was insulted.

I am also thinking that the Roberts statement may in some manner work as a curb on Kavanaugh -- just a feeling about this.

[pangaia]

79. Roberts is a sneaky bastard. He is doing this as a set up-

for when fascist judges rain hell down on the rule of law (as they are already trying to do and often successfully) and dems go after them...