Chief Justice John Roberts Joins the Liberals to Block Trump Asylum Restriction in 5–4 Decision

slate ^ | 21 Dec. 2018 | Mark Joseph Stern

[DesScorp]

On Friday, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the liberal justices in a 5–4 decision to maintain the block on President Donald Trump’s new restrictions on asylum.

Trump issued a proclamation in November prohibiting refugees from seeking asylum if they entered the United States without authorization. U.S. District Judge Jon S. Tigar swiftly halted the policy, prompting Trump to dismiss him as an “Obama judge.” Chief Justice John Roberts then issued a rare rejoinder, telling the AP: “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.”

Then, on Dec. 10, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Tigar’s nationwide freeze on the new rule. In an opinion written by the conservative Judge Jay Bybee, a Bush appointee, the court explained that a federal statute expressly guarantees immigrants the right to apply for asylum—whether or not they come into the country lawfully. Indeed, the law was meant to implement a treaty which the U.S. had ratified that directed signatories not to “impose penalties [on refugees] on account of their illegal entry or presence.” Trump, the court held, cannot revoke Congress’ decision to extend asylum rights to unauthorized immigrants.

[Dante3]

It would be interesting to see some of the skeletons in Roberts’s closet. He is a devious character.

[Boomer]

Welp; most of us knew Roberts was a dem in disguise. A plant. A traitor.

The only thing lower than a dem pol is someone who claims to be a conservative but is really a leftist like a RINO.

[ontap]

Roberts is what rings call conservative.....one can depend on their treachery~!!!!

[ontap]

rings = rinos....damn auto correct!!!!

[SandwicheGuy]

The courts do not have jurisdiction over immigration. Trump should simply ignore the court.

Absolutely. President Trump at his next rally could explain to the electorate the division of power among the three branches of government, and the responsibilities of each. The courts have NO right on immigration. Just explain it and then ignore.

[WWG1WWA]

I do not understand why Ted Cruz put this guy forward for consideration. What on earth was he thinking

[maine-iac7]

BINGO

Jackson got away with it

[AnotherUnixGeek]

As predicted, John Roberts has moved into the all-important Anthony Kennedy squishy swing vote slot. Because no one can be sure how he'll vote on any issue, he will be assiduously courted by both sides and flattered by the media every time he disappoints conservatives with some outlandish bending of logic.

Note that the Democrats always nominate committed left-wing ideologues who never waver or disappoint liberals. Only conservatives must deal with this nonsense - judges deemed to be "strict constructionists" by some conservative legal foundation who then go on to relentlessly disappoint - Roberts, Kennedy, Souter, O'Connor, and on and on into the past mists of GOP futility.

Conservatives need activist judges of their own not only to counter and roll back the liberal campaign to legislate via the judiciary, but to advance the causes important to conservatives. Playing the "strict constructionist" game is simply an often useless attempt to delay defeat.

[Yaelle]

Wait til your beloved Kavanaugh does the same.

[Salvation]

Sad to see this happening to him.

[Yaelle]

They are 18 or 19 now, Roberts’s adopted kids.

[daniel1212]

Why is it that it seems that liberals are able to appoint one of their own to the SCOTUS, but Republicans are so often hit and miss?

[nobamanomore]

So far, he’s 100% Democrat!

[Impy]

He’s not a liberal but he’s a certainly a swing vote, far too often.

Gorsuch and Kav voted the right way.

[jmaroneps37]

And of course that makes a big difference- thanks for straightening me out.

[jmaroneps37]

So you think that since Roberts committed a felony and no one saw it or brought it up before it’s okay for the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court to have committed it? Really?

[Mr. Mojo]

There are 3 conservatives on the Supreme Court. (Kavanaugh is a precedentist, and Roberts is a full-fledged liberal). For a reliably conservative court, both Ginsburg AND Breyer need to be replaced by originalists. Long way to go.

[PapaBear3625]

So you think that since Roberts committed a felony and no one saw it or brought it up before it’s okay for the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court to have committed it? Really?

Show me the United States Code statute making adoption irregularities felonies.

As far as I know, an irregularity would AT MOST invalidate the adoption. Since both kids are now over 18, it would be moot, which was my point.

[jmaroneps37]

He committed a felony crime violating a foreign counties laws. No big deal for an ordinary citizen, but a very big deal if the criminal happens to be in consideration to become the highest judge in the country.

But hey, it’s Christmas so let’s just agree to disagree - you see nothing wrong with an illegal adoption which by its very nature REQUIRES transference of data via electronic or other means which automatically mean mail fraud; but I do.
End of story.

[Yaelle]

It doesn’t make a big difference. When you said they were of age, I went to see. That would mean perhaps that he’s no longer blackmailable on that issue. You were right in that they are over 18. They probably would be able to remain in the country now even if their adoptions were overturned. I wasn’t really trying to correct you, and I am sorry.