| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| Did Chief Justice Roberts just urinate on my leg? |
| 2018-11-24 |
| [American Thinker] Chief Justice John Roberts recently wrote, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges." The chief justice knows that this is not true, and I find it extremely insulting that he believes that I am stupid enough to believe it. As he relieved himself on my leg, he told me it was raining. Roberts's statement was a response to President Trump's criticism of "Obama judges" who ruled against the administration. The president replied, "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'[.]" Dov Fischer at the American Spectator claimed, "[I]t sounds ridiculous ‐ even borderline delusional ‐ to deny that today's federal judiciary is chock-full of Obama judges and Clinton judges on a mission to stop President Trump's agenda." Justice Roberts is not delusional. Justices do not have the name of the president who nominated them in their titles. In this respect only, Justice Roberts is correct. However, they generally reflect the philosophy of the president who nominated them. Robert Barnes of the Washington Post remarked, "[S]tudies show there are clear ideological differences between judges nominated by presidents of different parties." Do we actually need studies to illustrate this? Yet the pool of potential judicial nominees is dominated by progressives, and even "conservative" nominees can turn out to be quite liberal. U.S. district judge Timothy Kelly ‐ a Trump appointee ‐ ruled against the administration in its attempt to revoke CNN reporter Jim Acosta's White House press credentials. Judges are human beings. They reflect a wide range of personality types and philosophies. There are "wise Latinas," "wise Yentas," and even "wise old Crackers." Their core responsibility is to make decisions free of bias using the U.S. Constitution as a guideline. This is not always the case. Justice Thurgood Marshall is famous for saying, "You guys have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it's our turn." |
| Posted by:Besoeker |
| #5 I still believe Brennan or someone in the 'O' WH has something on Roberts which resulted in his rollover on O'Care. Conspiracy, maybe. Convenient, possibly. Odd based on his former rulings, yes. |
| Posted by: Mullah Richard 2018-11-24 12:48 |
| #4 Justice Roberts is probably now part of the swamp. |
| Posted by: jvalentour 2018-11-24 10:50 |
| #3 If Trump gets to place another justice on SCOTUS, John |
| Posted by: M. Murcek 2018-11-24 10:15 |
| #2 Kelly ruled against the WH due to a prior ruling by his circut court which he had to follow. Only a higher court can overturn a lower court ruling, so Kelly was stuck between a rock and a hard place. |
| Posted by: Chomosh Whusose7479 2018-11-24 07:35 |
| #1 Do we actually need studies to illustrate this? See - who do they judge 'shop' for Progressive agendas? Betcha there's a tight corollary. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2018-11-24 06:58 |