hasslichhog

Another judicial hypocrite is Chief Justice John Roberts

Chuck Grassley to Chief Justice John Roberts: You Rebuked Trump — but Sat Silent Through Obama’s Abuse

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts offered rare public criticism of the President of the United States on Wednesday when he pushed back against President Trump’s claim Tuesday that an “Obama judge” had blocked his effort to deny asylum to those entering the country illegally.

But as outgoing Senate Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) later noted, Roberts was silent when President Barack Obama attacked the Court during the State of the Union address in 2010:

"Chief Justice Roberts rebuked Trump for a comment he made about judge’s decision on asylum I don’t recall the Chief attacking Obama when that Prez rebuked Alito during a State of the Union."

— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) November 21, 2018

Likewise, Roberts said nothing when Obama bullied the Supreme Court on numerous occasions — and even appeared to yield to Obama’s pressure.

In 2010, President Obama used his first State of the Union address to denounce the Court’s January 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case, which struck down restrictions on corporate political speech under the First Amendment.

With six of the nine justices sitting silently in the House of Representatives, Obama told the nation their ruling “will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”

Democrats leapt to their feet in applause. Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words, “Not true” — and never attended another State of the Union address.

But Roberts said and did nothing to defend the Court from Obama’s unprecedented assault on its independence.

In April 2012, when oral arguments in the Obamacare case (NFIB v. Sebelius) appeared to go against the administration, Obama warned the Supreme Court against overturning the law, attacking the very idea that “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” His aides later scrambled to explain that the president — once a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago — certainly accepted the idea of judicial review.

But Roberts did not defend the court’s prerogatives. In fact, Roberts buckled, effectively rewriting the law to save Obamacare — perhaps even reversing his original vote.

On Monday evening, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, an Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from implementing President Trump’s November 9 proclamation that asylum requests would no longer be granted to those arriving in the U.S. illegally. In speaking to reporters, Trump criticized the decision of the “Obama judge,” adding that he considered it a “disgrace.”

On Tuesday, in response to queries from the Associated Press, Chief Justice Roberts said in a statement: “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” His views were widely reported as a rebuke to the president himself.

In response, Trump tweeted — with unusually restrained language — that Roberts was wrong, and that President Obama’s appointees, along with the courts of the Ninth Circuit more generally, were reliably opposed to all of his immigration policies. That made those courts the forums of choice for radical left-wing groups favoring amnesty — and they were frequently wrong, he implied, as judged by how frequently they were reversed.

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. It would be great if the 9th Circuit was indeed an “independent judiciary,” but if it is why……

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2018

…..are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers, they are shocking. We need protection and security – these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2018

Trump later added:

“79% of these decisions have been overturned in the 9th Circuit.” @FoxNews A terrible, costly and dangerous disgrace. It has become a dumping ground for certain lawyers looking for easy wins and delays. Much talk over dividing up the 9th Circuit into 2 or 3 Circuits. Too big!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 21, 2018

Though Trump has often criticized judges, raising concerns during the election about his commitment to judicial independence, in practice he has arguably shown greater deference to the courts than Obama, even earning praise from the judge who stopped the family separation policy at the border.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

I’m surprised you can type while choking on a huge turkey drumstick!!!
Could you repeat that, I didn’t read it!!! LoL
SS

hasslichhog

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

hasslichhog

Gotcha! LOL

jcboy3

And the difference is...

Obama was criticizing specific decisions that were likely to have bad results.

Trump was claiming political bias in the judiciary.

The Trump approach is just plain bad for the country. Trump is just plain bad for the country. Even Republican judges can see that. But then, they are still known to be intelligent.

pendennis

Liberal judges, and not just those appointed by Obama (there are still numerous judges appointed by Clinton) issue temporary injunctions on Presidential Executive Orders, even those which have been previously recognized as Constitutional. Liberal groups like the ACLU "judge shop" in Federal districts where they're sure to get a judge who will grant temporary relief, causing the Executive Branch to have to engage in costly proceedings which they know will result in overturning of the original injunction. The 9th Circuit rulings are overruled in 79% of all cases heard by them upon further appeal.

There's absolutely no reason for a judge sitting in San Francisco to rule on a case which has implications for the southern California border areas around San Diego, or that his/her ruling would have an effect on any district outside the current district. At the appellate level, Circuit Court decisions only affect that Circuit. The same should hold for the Federal District Courts. The peers of the President are the Supreme Court Justices, not a district court judge.

Chief Justice Roberts is either naive, which I doubt, or he's attempting gain public support for the Federal Courts.

jcboy3

The Supreme Court reversed about 70% of the cases it heard between 2010 and 2015. That is not surprising, since there has to be some reason for them to hear a case, and conflicting rulings from lower courts, or a likelihood of reversal, would bias the cases they select to hear.

The 9th Circuit Court is third in ranking for reversal:

6th Circuit - 87 percent;

11th Circuit - 85 percent;

9th Circuit - 79 percent;

3rd Circuit - 78 percent;

2nd Circuit and Federal Circuit - 68 percent;

8th Circuit - 67 percent;

5th Circuit - 66 percent;

7th Circuit - 48 percent;

DC Circuit - 45 percent;

1st Circuit and 4th Circuit - 43 percent;

10th Circuit - 42 percent.

See https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/apr/26/donald-trump/does-ninth-circuit-have-overturn-record-close-80/

Also, the 9th circuit covers Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington, Guam and Northern Mariana Islands. Certainly seems like San Diego is covered by that court. So it's not clear that "judge shopping" is an issue.