The Chief justice is wrong -- Obstruction is the plan

President Trump and his team have been obstructed by multiple federal judges while trying to implement his agenda. The team has expressed frustration with a number of activist judges, and they have been vocal about that frustration.

Chief Justice John Roberts tried to post support for the independence of the judiciary. But his post is belied by the facts.

Senator Chuck Schumer told us the plan last fall was obstruction, and he reaffirmed that this week. So, if Democrats are counting on activist judges to slow the MAGA agenda, then they are not acting according to Article 3 authority, and therefore impeachment is the proper remedy.

We have repeatedly witnessed activist judges utilizing Democrat talking points, including a Supreme Court justice in a hearing.

If Supreme Court justices are allowed to use Democrat talking points and effectively flag that it is okay to be partisan, then it is no wonder that the Chief Justice is trying to protect other judges who are using progressive/Democrat talking points, i.e. being partisan.

If you want to protect the independence of the judiciary, you must not only fend off calls for impeachment, but you must chastise judges who appear to be blatantly partisan. Until that happens, there will be unnecessary tension between the judiciary and conservatives.

If these judges are following orders rather than following the Constitution, then President Trump and his supporters calling for impeachment is completely justified. I think that before the Chief Justice calls out against impeachment talk, he should look at the full picture that we are documenting. Conservatives are not guessing. He should not ignore the leadership of the opposition who is signaling this is the plan. I personally think he should reconsider his position, and he should try to move faster to reign in

Chief Justice John Roberts tried to post support for the independence of the judiciary.

I REJECT that characterization because it implies Roberts was moved to speak out in support of some principle of "independence."

Roberts and principle do not belong in the same sentence.

Roberts was desperate.

He was attempting to stop Trump's criticism of the judicial branch by giving Elite Stream Media a talking point.

Such a attempt was mere folly.

Roberts is desperate because he knows that those crying wolf with the cry of constitutional crisis will soon be witness to a constitutional crisis if he and Barrett do not have the balls to defend the constitutional separation of powers supported by Alito, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh and Thomas.

Roberts by nature is a people pleasing mouse who avoids confrontation at all costs.

But punting is not an option on this decisive issue which will determine if we can keep the constitutional republic referred to by Franklin.

It looks as though Roberts faces the same split in the court that he faced in overturning Roe v Wade.

I'm still not sure what his position was other than he tried to cut the baby in half and failed.

Barrett ends up being the deciding vote and she appears shaky.

I think in long run Roberts may advise her to vote with the four constitutionalists as that would bring immediate closure.

Trump going Andy Jackson brings about a scenario he doesn't have the stomach for just as Schumer didn't have the stomach for a gubmint shutdown.

Roberts contention that Trump ride out the Boasburg verdict and then appeal may be the time honored tradition but fails to recognize the very real consequences of delay. Roberts way allows illegals to continue preying upon innocent Americans that Trump has sworn to protect and to do so with the sense of urgency required. And Roberts made no mention of Boasburg’s intentional lack of consideration of Supreme Court case law that already decided that the President is rightfully within his jurisdiction to remove these illegals without Judicial revue.

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.