Posted on 11/21/2018 5:37:29 PM PST by Mariner
Chief Justice John Roberts rebutted President Donald Trump's recent criticism that the recent ruling against the administration's asylum policy on migrants was issued by an "Obama judge".
“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts, who originally responded to the Associated Press, said via a statement issued from the Supreme Court's press office. "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.”
The president responded directly to the comments in a pair of tweets Wednesday afternoon. "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," Trump said.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
That’s a damning statement coming from Grassley — because he’s a laid-back, genteel Midwesterner who isn’t nearly as confrontational as Trump.
Yes, more than we’re ever likely to know.
Roberts crossed that Rubicon when he decided to write law from the bench regarding Obamacare. He should keep his pie hole shut.
Swore in under a false ideology.....
“....Trump needs to use to get him to resign. He is compromised and should not be on the S/C....”
Exactly. Find out exactly what DS and the libs have on this jerk and use it to force the traitorous POS to resign from the court. It’s a 2-edged sword that needs to be used asap.
Yes, the problem is there are no negative repurcussions for lawfare conducted against Trump by crazy leftist judges or regular people like a slimeball porn star and her creepy lawyer. Or for people who conspire in a criminal enterprise against the US and Donald Trump, like George Soros and his RICO organization, or Steyer and Bloomberg and their loony antics. They only get praise, more attention and their businesses prosper. They need to develop some fear, because I guarantee everyone who supports Trump now has fear of the left, and our opinions are suppressed as a result.
And yet the law asserted it wasn’t. If the law as written contradicts the only way for it to be constitutional, then the law is by definition unconstitutional.
Grassley has really impressed me as of late.
I’ve had several private conversations with Sen. Grassley and challenged him on support for unConstitutional federal spending. His response is basically an appeal to realpolitik. He’s ultimately on the right side, but is going to ensure Iowans a place at the trough as long as the trough is there.
It’s maddening.
I doubt his replacement in 2022 will be as rooted.
The place where no one gets caught, Fantasyland.
I notice since twitter came out there are replies here like yours that are bare childish insults, proudly ignorant.
Are you a twitter user?
“law asserted it wasn’t [a tax]”
Don’t remember that (remember Dems saying it wasn’t (”something for nothing!”) ). Does seem that would be a problem.
I was just pointing out the custom- which arises from the Judicial Branch respecting the Constitutional authority of the Legislative Branch.
Nuke ‘em from space, only way to be sure. ( then it’s time for close combat mop up, to get rid of any survivors. )
The law called it a fee, but the lawyer a tax. The court was an ass, in this case.
The law called it a fee, but the lawyer a tax. The court was purchased, in this case.
Fixed it for you.
Purchase implies money. My statement encompasses all roots of the egregious behavior. We agree to agree, FRiend!
Another pox on the record of Globalist Dubya. But the worst thing he ever did was make a loser like Obama electable.
He might as well have stuck with Harriet Myers. How much worse could it have been?
I notice that since our politics have become more rough and tumble, there are needy, naggy, weepy little hausfraus that are struggling more and more.
Do you use therapy?
Roberts comment is obtuse. Normal folks know president Trump was pointing out liberal appointed judges are more likely to lean liberal. Roberts statement is an insult to the intelligence of people by claiming that judges have no bias. It’s frustrating that coverage of this is never unbiased, that judges should be true to the constitution, not their own wishful thinking of what they believe the law should be. And only conservative judges seem to be able to set their bias aside to perform this constitutional duty.
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.