Yesterday Chief Justice John Roberts spoke up and defended the political independence of the judiciary against Trump’s bullying tactics. He thinks the only judges he can trust are those appointed by Republican presidents or, most especially, by himself. No doubt he calls them “my judges” and counts on their personal loyalty to him.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. directed a rare and pointed shot at President Trump on Wednesday, defending the federal judiciary in the wake of Trump’s criticism of an “Obama judge” who ruled against the administration’s attempt to bar migrants who cross the border illegally from seeking asylum.
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement released by the court’s public information office. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”
The Thanksgiving eve statement added: “That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.”
Supreme Court justices, and the chief in particular, hardly ever issue statements on news events. But it appeared Roberts was eager to counter Trump’s criticism when asked to comment by the Associated Press. The statement did not mention the president.
CNN added information about how Trump has slammed Chief Justice Roberts in the past:
Roberts’ comment came in response to an inquiry from The Associated Press. On Tuesday, Trump slammed the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals again, this time after a judge from the Northern District of California — where cases get appealed to the 9th Circuit — issued a temporary restraining order blocking the Trump administration from barring migrants who cross into the US illegally from seeking asylum.
“It’s a disgrace when every case gets filed in the 9th Circuit,” Trump said as part of a lengthy criticism of the court. “That’s not law. Every case in the 9th Circuit we get beaten and then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court like the travel ban and we won. Every case, no matter where it is, they file is practically, for all intents and purposes, they file it in what’s called the 9th Circuit. This was an Obama judge. I’ll tell you what, it’s not going to happen like this anymore.”
Roberts, who then-President George W. Bush tapped to lead the Supreme Court, is the highest authority in the federal judiciary, and his remark was a rare direct response to the head of the Executive Branch.
Speaking at the University of Minnesota Law School in October, Roberts emphasized the Supreme Court’s independence and differences from the other branches.
“I will not criticize the political branches,” Roberts said. “We do that often enough in our opinions. But what I would like to do, briefly, is emphasize how the judicial branch is — how it must be — very different.”
Trump has been a frequent critic of the 9th Circuit, and just a few months into his presidency, he said he was considering breaking up the circuit that covers a slew of Western states and Guam.
Several of his most controversial policies have been held up by judges there, and the temporary block on his attempt to rewrite asylum rules marked the latest such instance.
In addition to his criticism of the 9th Circuit, Trump has previously attacked Roberts as well.
While he was a presidential candidate, Trump in 2016 called Roberts a “nightmare for conservatives” in an interview on ABC. He also said in the interview that “Justice Roberts could’ve killed Obamacare and should’ve, based on everything — should’ve killed it twice,” a reference in part to Roberts casting the deciding vote in June 2012 to save President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement, the Affordable Care Act. Roberts voted again in 2015 in favor of supporting Obamacare.
More concisely, Trump tweeted after Roberts’ first vote in favor of Obamacare in 2012, “Congratulations to John Roberts for making Americans hate the Supreme Court because of his BS.”
Trump tweeted a rebuke to Justice Roberts, attacking the federal judges of the 9th Circuit as “Obama judges” who thwart his will.
Our leader is a tyrant who would destroy the Constitution if he can.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
History will point to Trump, as the destroyer. (if the US, in fact, survives his presidency,
he is destroying our trade allies and our security lies around the world, chichis going to devastate production in America. Already the healthy stock market he inherited from Obama has taken a hit.
and there is this.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/02/president-trump-has-made-false-or-misleading-claims-over-days/?utm_term=.f4edc0da4b45&wpisrc=nl_fix&wpmm=1
Fact Checker track everything Trump publicly says or tweets. Their ongoing analysis found that as of Oct. 30 he’d made 6,420 misleading or false claims since the beginning of his presidency, with a particularly robust tear right before the election as he rallied voters around the country.If President Trump’s torrent of words has seemed overwhelming of late, there’s a good reason for that.
In the first nine months of his presidency, Trump made 1,318 false or misleading claims, an average of five a day. But in the seven weeks leading up the midterm elections, the president made 1,419 false or misleading claims — an average of 30 a day.
Combined with the rest of his presidency, that adds up to a total of 6,420 claims through Oct. 30, the 649th day of his term in office, according to The Fact Checker’s database that analyzes, categorizes and tracks every suspect statement uttered by the president.
LikeLike
Diane Trump is confused and showing his ignorance again. He wants to be king, and not the president of a real democracy–or what actually Makes American Great.
First, Trump confuses loyalty to someone (like himself OR Obama) with loyalty to upholding the law and judges’ oaths of office. Thus, if the ruling happens to be in Trump’s favor, then he assumes the judge MUST be loyal to Trump, and vice versa with Obama and “the democrats:” If the ruling happens to go against Trump, then the judge is an “Obama judge.” The man is impenetrable to new learning aka: disabled.
ALL judgments have political implications and outcomes. But that doesn’t mean those outcomes are identical with the judge’s motivations. Trump confuses political outcomes, which ALWAYS occur, regardless, with biased political intentions, which can be, but need not be directed related to those outcomes. He cannot see that a judge’s or person’s identity with the rule of law intercedes between their political foundations or “sway,” and the residual political outcomes of any ruling.
Whereas, Chief Justice Roberts is rightly saying that the political implications and outcomes flow from arguments about the law, and not necessarily from judges’ political foundations.
Second, I would wager that Trump has never actually read the nuanced arguments put forward in the Supreme Court briefs. These are not judgments-in-a-vacuum (like his own), but are developed and reasonable arguments, put forth in the context of a history of general and specific laws, leading to those judgments. It’s in these nuanced briefs that you find the emphases or de-emphases of judges’ political arguments.
And it’s WHY we need a balance of judges on the Court. Those who want to “pack the Court” and destroy a reasonable balance are the ones who ultimately do a disservice to our Democracy (like Mitch McConnell and the cronies in some of the organizations that surround him and the presidency).
As usual, Trump’s over-simplification, and his tribal dogmatic attitude that Trump’s opinions are the measure of all things run interference for any reflective thought he might otherwise do as a mature person, or even thinking about reading the interpretations and reasons put forth in those briefs.
Trump cries to be King, not a president of a democracy. He hates everything that actually Makes America Great. But ultimately, CONGRESS HAS GONE MISSING for two years. We wouldn’t be in this awful position if Congress would fulfill its function. CBK
LikeLike
Sadly Trump is unfamiliar with the Constitution and its Amendments
LikeLike
He can’t read.
LikeLike
The idea that Chief Justice John Roberts of all people is anything that can remotely be called “independent” is quite a hoot. I’m thankful (I guess) that he still has a sense of humor, even if a twisted one.
LikeLike
It will come as no surprise that Fox “FAKE and always misleading” News is taking Trump’s side in this debate.
“In a remarkably inappropriate and blatantly political statement Wednesday, U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts chastised President Trump for the president’s quite accurate criticism of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and its rogue district and appellate court judges.”
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/justice-roberts-attack-against-president-trump-was-blatantly-political-and-wrong
No president has bullied and attacked rivals, critics, judges and the media like Trump is doing, yet to Fox claims it is wrong for Robert’s to critics Trump.
The inference is easy, only Trump can bully and troll anyone he disagrees with or doesn’t like and everyone else should just take it and shut up.
Tick-tock, tick- tock, tick-tock!
As long as no one stops DT from his abusive, serial lying, tyrannical behavior, the hands on clocks around the world move closer and closer to a civil war. If Muller and/or both Houses of Congress do not stop Trump, there will be a bloody civil war that might destroy US as a country and a civilization.
In 1945 before his suicide said, According to the intelligence brief, Hitler then went on to say: “Everyone has lied to me, everyone has deceived me… the SS has left me in the lurch. The German people have not fought heroically. It deserves to perish… it is not I who have lost the war, but the German people.”
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4297329,00.html
Let’s hope that the day doesn’t come that Trum, deep beneath the earth in his bunker, says, “Everyone has lied to me, everyone has deceived me… the GOP has left me in the lurch. The American people have not fought heroically. They deserve to perish … it is not I who has lost the Civil War, but the American people.”
LikeLike
Judges appointed by Republicans, even by Trump himself, have reversed his ignorant orders.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2018/11/22/trump-judicial-fantasy-what-chief-justice-roberts-could-have-told-him-didnt/
He has a stupidity problem.
LikeLike
Trump doesn’t care if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. He wants blind loyalty without question. To hell with the U.S. Constitution, Trump thinks isn’t the same value as soiled TP.
LikeLike
I clerked for two Republican federal judges. They were ideological (like all judges, and all people), but they were not partisan on the bench. They approached every case the same: What are the best arguments in all directions, and what is the correct result? They were wonderful men and I admired each deeply for different reasons. But all federal judges are egomaniacs, and independence is their religious creed.
LikeLike
Sounds correct. “But all federal judges are egomaniacs, and independence is their religious creed.” I think this is doubly true of judges appointed for life.
Trump is an egomaniac doing battle with other egomaniacs (those judges) and DT is at a disadvantage when he is up against judges appointed for life. Trump, unless he gets what he wants, total power, is going to run out of time in two years.
LikeLike
Lloyd Lofthouse A good example of the principle at play is when, years ago, my husband, who coached my son’s soccer team, ended up refereeing an official game (no one else could, and the ref didn’t show up–no ref, no game).
As a coach and father he WANTED our team to win, but (as was obvious to all) those wants were superseded by his identifying with the rules and with putting the principles of good soccer into play in the game as fairly as was possible (he had a FIFI license).
Of course, he COULD have done otherwise, as our judges can and do sometimes where implementing the law is concerned; but it can also be the case, AND IS AS A GENERAL RULE, that judges identify closely with the tenets of their profession. Even then, clearly, the “weeds” and nuances are difficult to get through.
Trump doesn’t even think such an identity with principle, beyond our other even heartfelt desires and fears, can be done, much less be bothered by the tensions that it brings to one’s life. CBK
LikeLike
There is a huge difference between refereeing a kids’ soccer game and making decisions affecting the whole country possibly for decades.
Even in soccer, they would never let a player’s father ref a just somewhat higher stakes game like rounds in a high school state championship.
On the other hand, the Constitution allows a few people with known political bias referee our daily games of life. How is this OK? And why do we pretend in any way that it is?
LikeLike
Presidents and political leaders have occasionally put political pressure on the Supreme Court. Roosevelt proposed his court packing plan against the backdrop of a group that consistently found his New Deal policies unconstitutional. What is remarkable, and Roberts did not comment on this, is the ideological shift of his own court to the distant right. Correspondingly, republican compaints against judicial activism have become more muted.
LikeLike
It seems that judicial activism is okay if the courts are ruling the way you want.
Remember when Republicans were against deficits?
LikeLike
Judicial activism is only judicial activism if the other side has the majority.
If your side has the majority, it is called judicial independence
LikeLike
Chief Justice Roberts defends an idempotent* judiciary
*from mathematics: denoting an element of a set that is unchanged in value when multiplied or otherwise operated on by itself.
LikeLike
“What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”
A strange claim, especially in light of the appointment of K.
LikeLike
What do you mean?
They bent over backwards to give K his equal right to be a pathological perjurer.
LikeLike
What I mean is that K is now part of this supposedly extraordinary group of people. The statement I quoted sounds more political than reality based, and I think the same thing can be said about our Supreme Court.
In general, I think it’s a mistake to trust a small group of people to make extraordinary decisions, affecting the lives of millions.
LikeLike
But as Carl Sagan noted, Extraordinary decisions require extraordinary eminence.
LikeLike
Special K is not just a cereal, you know.
LikeLike
Lloyd Lofthouse That’s “FIFA.” CBK
LikeLike
Mate Wierdl Of course there is a difference between soccer and governing (duh). The analogy holds, however: that judges like referees can think, judge, and act in terms of their professional identities and higher obligations, not to mention their oaths of office, rather than their political bent.
Also, aren’t you forgetting the Constitution and the rule of law? . . . and judges’ long apprenticeship and sworn identity with them? It’s not just a bunch of people making arbitrary decisions. In a democracy as ours is, where we broke from kings and religious rulers, judges are neither, nor appointed by God, nor fascist-oligarchs (like Putin and others). There are centuries of philosophy of law behind the whole idea and their appointments to the bench–where have you been?
The courts are where the GENERALITIES of the Constitution, the rule of law, and the history of the laws as worked out in the past (precedent), are mediated into specific concrete events with real persons in those events, not only by schooled and experienced judges, but by juries and lawyers. Can they be biased? Yes. Can they make mistakes? Yes. Are they always perfect? No. But the alternatives are hardly acceptable. I assume you know what those are, e.g., Trumpism?
It’s an experiment, Mate. And its survival depends on those who live in a democracy understanding what it’s about and setting the stage for everyone’s better angels to win out. CBK
LikeLike
Catherine “The analogy holds, however: that judges like referees can think, judge, and act in terms of their professional identities and higher obligations, not to mention their oaths of office, rather than their political bent.”
You can also talk about professional integrity and various oaths of a ref at a, say, soccer World Cup. Stiil, they would never allow a ref with any kind of association with one of the teams playing.
So, again, the question is, why we allow a judge with obvious political bent to be a member of the Supreme Court? Much more is riding on the opinion of these judges than a World Cup victory, and still, our system allows K a v a n a u g h and friends to be appointed and reinterpret laws.
It’s hard to talk about a democratic process when it comes to membership in the Supreme Court. They are appointed, they are not elected. The same can be said about members of the cabinet.
How much will you or any of us here trust that K a v a n a u g h will do a nonbias, respectable job? Is anybody here worried about abortion rights? Apparently, twice as many of Americans support abortion than oppose it, yet we are afraid that things will turn bad in the next few years. How come we have this fear in such a supposedly high functioning and lawful democracy?
How about the secretary of education or chief of the EPA? Do they do what most Americans want or somehow they can play the system and do their own and their appointer’s bidding?
LikeLike
Mate Wierdl Don’t the courts have a mechanism by which judges recuse themselves (like jurors are eliminated before trial) when they have a stake or interest in their cases, or even a possible perception of having a stake?
Also, judges are appointed, and for lifetimes, precisely to lessen the political elements of their work. Those elements cannot be erased–we all are human and have histories; but they can be systematically lessened through tenets, statutes, laws, and principles.
But the soccer analogy was to show the way anyone can identify with a higher set of principles than their team or family or, in the courts, than their party. They begin with the rule of law, the Constitution, historical precedent, their professional tenets of the legal field, and their character. And in their briefs, they explain what they are doing, and have small-group consent. Any of those can be breached; but If -any ARE breached, including character, then the democracy enters bad waters; but it doesn’t mean you throw out the principles. Or maybe you think it should . . . ?
Also, in my view, Kavanaugh, and Trump himself, along with many in the GOP Congress, are examples of that breach of the principles and practices of a vibrant democracy and the courts.
Finally, the courts are different than sports games because the courts deal with all sorts of cases, and not just one kind of game. The analogy still holds, however. It’s about being able to identify with a higher set of principles–it’s what is expected of our president, Congress, and our judges–and with what is stated and sworn to in our oaths of office; and not merely to a party or person (like a guru, a king, a dictator, a priest, or some sort of religious dogma). We identify with principle, which is written down, and not with a particular person or family.
If not that, however, what’s left is exactly that: a guru, bloodlines with a king, a dictator who arbitrarily makes the rules, a priest or an equally dogmatic and sin-prone religious institution, or anarchy? . . . and the loss of not only our tri-part government but our freedoms? Is that what you want? CBK
LikeLike
Recusal Law and Legal Definition
Recusal is the act of a judge or prosecutor being removed or excusing one’s self from a legal case due to conflict of interest or other good reason. Recusal is governed by federal laws and state laws and codes of ethics, which vary by state.
The U.S. Code provides:
“Any justice, judge, or magistrate of the United States shall disqualify himself in any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned.” ,,,
There’s more at:
https://definitions.uslegal.com/r/recusal/
The problem with any law has been exposed through the GOP dominated states where they control the legislature, state attorney general’s office, and governors mansion and ignore the law. Even if a judge is independent and is willing to uphold the law, someone has to file a court case that lands in front of that judge to stand a chance and we have also seen states controlled by the GOP that have ignored judges rollings.
We have also witnessed both Houses of the US Congress when the GOP controls them ignoring laws that Trump breaks where it isn’t the courts but the Congress that is supposed to support those laws and protect them: Trump vs. the Constitution: A Guide
Trump has stomped on the 1st Amendment, the 8th Amendment, the 14th Amendment, Desperation of Powers, and I’m sure a lot more and he gets away with it because the branch of government responsible to stop him has ignored everything he does. The Republican Party is no longer upholding the oath of office ever elected Republican had to take. In my book, that means every elected member of the GOP is a criminal guilty of rebellion and/or seditious conspiracy.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/08/2016-donald-trump-constitution-guide-unconstitutional-freedom-liberty-khan-214139
But Trump’s reckoning may arrive on January 6th, 2019 when the new Congress convenes and the Democrats take over the majority of the House of Representatives. If they do little or nothing, they will be just as guilty as the GOP has been for the last few years.
18 U.S. Code Chapter 115 – TREASON, SEDITION, AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-115
LikeLike
“Even if a judge is independent and is willing to uphold the law, someone has to file a court case that lands in front of that judge to stand a chance and we have also seen states controlled by the GOP that have ignored judges rollings.”
Yeah, state governments and laws actually seem more significant in shaping our lives than the Feds.
LikeLike
Lloyd Lofthouse Thank you for doing the legwork on judicial recusal/excusal and of impartiality. The point is that it’s a matter of oaths of office and actions that flow from them that honor written law, and not personal whim or the use of arbitrary power. What we see now with Trump and a good number of GOPers is that they intentionally have tilted the moving balance that, under other circumstances, in the spirit of the Constitution, and in the “weedy details” of specific judgments, would be conditioned broadly towards justice under the law.
Unfortunately, with the degenerate actions of Trump, the GOP, and Kavanaugh the whole thing becomes off-kilter where even trying to right the balance can itself be distorting. CBK
LikeLike
“If not that, however, what’s left is exactly that: a guru, bloodlines with a king, a dictator who arbitrarily makes the rules, a priest or an equally dogmatic and sin-prone religious institution, or anarchy? . . . and the loss of not only our tri-part government but our freedoms? Is that what you want? CBK”
Why do you think, losing freedoms is the only other option? I have no idea how you got to this conclusion.
Experience shows that uncontrolled freedoms result first in chaos and then possibly dictatorship when the masses have had enough of chaos and they accept a dictator (king, etc) who promises to control chaos.
We can clearly see that the freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are not controlled: the Constitution doesn’t make sure freedoms are distributed evenly to us all. It may say it, but it doesn’t make sure; in fact, it may even enable an uneven distribution of freedoms.
What we need is a set of laws that make sure freedoms are distributed evenly.
As far as I can tell, the problems begin with allowing a few people to have too much power. Starting with the President: usually she/he is elected by about half of the population. But then by appointing the cabinet and key new members of the Supreme Court, much more than 50% of the power will serve the will and desires of the lucky one half of the population.
What I do not don’t trust is leaders and leadership. Laws can be made much more trustworthy and can lead us much more democratically than a few (elected or appointed) humans. But laws need to be made well.
I have no idea why anybody would trust the evolution of our laws, thinking this evolution well adopts to the changing times, and represents democratic values well. Just take the monstrous 70 thousand page long US tax code. Doesn’t it enable more and more the divergence of the 1% from the 99%? According to Piketty, that’s exactly what it does.
Reading Nancy MacLean’s Democracy in chains, one gets the definite impression, we are stirred away from democracy more and more by antidemocratic forces. What forces are these? Libertarians, people who believe in uncontrolled freedoms, and who know very well, this lack of control results in a country whose religion is the economy and is governed by people who collected and bought the most freedoms on the freedom market: the billionaires.
LikeLike
Mate Wierdl You write: “Why do you think, losing freedoms is the only other option? I have no idea how you got to this conclusion.” Then: “What we need is a set of laws that make sure freedoms are distributed evenly.”
History is littered with examples of the uncontrolled powerful using power arbitrarily and unjustly, even when laws are in place but they can ignore them. We have as examples today a Saudi king and a Russian “president,” and many many more. Our First Amendment freedoms are not a mandate for chaos or for “completely uncontrolled” freedoms. They rest on the assumption of a relatively civil culture and commonwealth with a modicum of communitarian habits. But does anyone doubt what Trump is after with regard to our freedoms? Like with Putin, who jails or kills dissidents, if you disagree with Trump, you are an “Obama supporter” and should be thrown in jail.
But to your question: an open and civil culture lives freely in the tension between those freedoms **as lived in a civil culture” and the laws which are the controlling factor. But the more the laws are tested by the people and the courts called upon, the more we need to write new laws (and provide their stringency) to keep order; and the more the people’s freedoms are encroached on. There is a sense that, if it makes it to court, something is already lost to what culture can mean.
Finally, to call for a law to “distribute freedoms evenly” is a call for Farenheight 451 robotronics. That we cannot do that adequately within a broad but acceptable level at the community/cultural level, without resort to law, is pretty damning in my view. The experiment is a good one, but we are in the process of failing in it. CBK
LikeLike