US does have 'Obama judges': Trump responds to Supreme Court Justice John Roberts'

[GMDino]

Trump is a sad little man.  

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/11/21/john-roberts-trump-statement/2080266002/

Quote:Normally restrained Chief Justice John Roberts took issue on Wednesday with President Donald Trump's characterization of a federal judge who ruled against his administration as an "Obama judge." 


"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts said in a statement. "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."


Roberts issued the statement in response to a request from The Associated Press after Trump's comments about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar in San Francisco, who on Monday blocked the Trump administration's effort to keep migrants trying to enter the U.S. from applying for asylum. 


The president, who is spending time in Florida for the Thanksgiving holiday, disagreed and posted a response on Twitter Wednesday afternoon detailing his complaints with the court. 


"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 posted on Twitter. 


He continued in another post, asking if the 9th Circuit was an “independent judiciary,” why so many border cases were filed in that circuit and why were the "vast number of those cases overturned."


"Please study the numbers, they are shocking," the president said. "We need protection and security - these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!"

Quote:
[/url]Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump




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,” but if it is why......

49.6K
3:51 PM - Nov 21, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Tigar's ruling stated the administration's new policy of cutting off asylum to immigrants who enter the country illegally appears to run afoul of U.S. law that specifically allows them to do so. 



"Whatever the scope of the President’s authority, he may not rewrite the immigration laws to impose a condition that Congress has expressly forbidden," said Tigar, who was nominated by then-President Barack Obama in 2012. 


"This was an Obama judge," Trump said Tuesday after a reporter asked him about Tigar's decision. 


The statement rejecting Trump's label was surprising coming from Roberts, a President George W. Bush appointee who has been reluctant to respond to Trump's bellicose comments about the judiciary.

Roberts has previously been a target of Trump's criticisms; in 2016, the then-candidate called the chief justice a "disaster because of his rulings in favor of the Affordable Care Act. 


His statement comes as many legal experts have stressed the need for judicial independence in the Trump era. Others have worried the divisive confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh damaged the court's reputation as being above the political fray.

"I think especially in this time when the rest of the political environment is so divided, every single one of us has an obligation to think about what it is that provides the court with its legitimacy," Justice Elena Kagan said last month. 

Wednesday's statement was not the first time Roberts has called a president out. In 2013, Roberts wondered why President Obama continued to enforce the Defense of Marriage Act if he supported same-sex marriage.


"I don't see why he doesn't have the courage of his convictions," Roberts said.


In addition to his attack on Tigar, Trump on Tuesday called the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals a "disgrace" and vowed to "put in a major complaint," although he did not offer specifics. 


More: Federal appeals court rules against Trump administration effort to end DACA program


"Every case that gets filed 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," Trump said, referring to his administration's struggle to implement restrictions on travel from a group of predominantly Muslim countries.


The appeals court has been a target of Trump's since that ruling, and the president has suggested breaking up the 9th Circuit, which is the largest appeals court in the U.S.


Its jurisdiction includes nine western states, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands –altogether comprising about 20 percent of the nation's population. And its 29 full-time judges hear more than 12,000 appeals a year – almost twice as many as other appeals courts.


"It just shows everyone how broken and unfair our Court System is when the opposing side in a case (such as DACA) always runs to the 9th Circuit and almost always wins before being reversed by higher courts," Trump tweeted in January. 

Quote:
Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump




It just shows everyone how broken and unfair our Court System is when the opposing side in a case (such as DACA) always runs to the 9th Circuit and almost always wins before being reversed by higher courts.

102K
9:11 AM - Jan 10, 2018
Twitter Ads info and privacy

Trump has long railed against judges, justices and courts that have issued rulings against him.


In 2016, Trump questioned the impartiality of Judge Gonzalo Curiel – a U.S.-born federal judge – because of his "Mexican heritage" after Curiel  ruled against him in a lawsuit against Trump University


And after a ruling against his travel ban by Judge James Robart, Trump denounced the "ridiculous" opinion of "this so-called judge." 

Quote:
Donald J. Trump

@realDonaldTrump




The opinion of this so-called judge, which essentially takes law-enforcement away from our country, is ridiculous and will be overturned!

149K
8:12 AM - Feb 4, 2017
Twitter Ads info and privacy

But even one of Trump's own appointees to the highest court in the land has questioned the criticisms. As he sought confirmation last year, Justice Neil Gorsuch told Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., that he found Trump's attacks on judges "demoralizing" and "disheartening." 

[url=https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/08/supreme-court-neil-gorsuch-trump-judges/97664846/]

[Belsnickel]

I think it is naive to say that judges and justices are impartial. There is obviously partisan bias and political concerns injected into their rulings and we have seen more of that over the past 30 or so years thanks to the efforts of some specific actors. All of that being said, the biases are most often a factor in more difficult rulings that aren't too cut and dry. This specific instance was one in which Trump was attempting to go against law in a pretty obvious way. His commentary is a surefire way to ensure that more moderate judges and justices, like Roberts, where they may lean more to the right but not as far right as some others, aren't going to be ruling in his favor as often. Those jurists do hold the independent judiciary as a sacred thing and won't take kindly to his shenanigans.

[GMDino]

(11-22-2018, 08:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I think it is naive to say that judges and justices are impartial. There is obviously partisan bias and political concerns injected into their rulings and we have seen more of that over the past 30 or so years thanks to the efforts of some specific actors. All of that being said, the biases are most often a factor in more difficult rulings that aren't too cut and dry. This specific instance was one in which Trump was attempting to go against law in a pretty obvious way. His commentary is a surefire way to ensure that more moderate judges and justices, like Roberts, where they may lean more to the right but not as far right as some others, aren't going to be ruling in his favor as often. Those jurists do hold the independent judiciary as a sacred thing and won't take kindly to his shenanigans.

And we all know/think that certain judges lean a certain way politically.  That's why we laugh at the hearing when they say they will not let their personal politics/feeling affect their decisions.  They are human.

But leave it to Trump to getting in a p****** match with a Supreme Court Justice.  And it's no surprise that when he loses that Trump throws a hissy fit that its unfair or rigged, or someone is out to get him.

That's what happens when you give a four year old the reins.

[Goalpost]

Trump is very partisan and opinionated, no doubt. But I think on the issue, I believe most polling supports him on this. That is the rub. Congress is lousy fixing the law, Trump wants to act, and what happens is an Appeals Court keeps a lousy policy in place.

[Belsnickel]

(11-22-2018, 10:54 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Trump is very partisan and opinionated, no doubt. But I think on the issue, I believe most polling supports him on this. That is the rub. Congress is lousy fixing the law, Trump wants to act, and what happens is an Appeals Court keeps a lousy policy in place.

So then you are saying the court acted appropriately. If the executive's actions are not in line with the legislature's laws, then the judiciary should be saying the executive cannot act in that way without the legislature changing the law. Public opinion or not, that is how it is supposed to work. So Trump is arguing for bias, he just wants bias in his favor instead of in favor of the law.

[*wildcats forever*]

(11-22-2018, 10:54 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Trump is very partisan and opinionated, no doubt.  But I think on the issue, I believe most polling supports him on this.  That is the rub.  Congress is lousy fixing the law, Trump wants to act, and what happens is an Appeals Court keeps a lousy policy in place.

I prefer the procedure in place of changing the law over any individual taking it upon himself to change the law, bad law/bad Congress or not.

[Goalpost]

(11-22-2018, 11:03 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So then you are saying the court acted appropriately. If the executive's actions are not in line with the legislature's laws, then the judiciary should be saying the executive cannot act in that way without the legislature changing the law. Public opinion or not, that is how it is supposed to work. So Trump is arguing for bias, he just wants bias in his favor instead of in favor of the law.

That doesn't mean the situation is right.  And Trump is not the 1st to use executive actions.  As long as the laws have loop holes, they are there to exploit, which I would guess the law was not intended to have happen.

[Belsnickel]

(11-22-2018, 11:12 AM)Goalpost Wrote: That doesn't mean the situation is right.  And Trump is not the 1st to use executive actions.  As long as the laws have loop holes, they are there to exploit, which I would guess the law was not intended to have happen.

If the judiciary says it's a no-go, then there is no loophole to exploit. That's how this works.

As for polling on this issue or whether it is right or wrong, if the public actually polls that way it is most unfortunate that the fear mongering tactics that mislabel the migrants moving through Mexico has been successful in their propaganda efforts.

[fredtoast]

In this case Trump is correct, but the scary part is the pattern he is creating.

Now that Trump followers can not trust courts, media journalits, and the CIA/FBI there is NO ONE they can trust other than Trump.

So if the FBI/CIA were to claim that Trump was guilty, and a court agreed, and the media reported facts to support those claims his followers will still believe it is all "rigged".

[Dill]

(11-22-2018, 12:46 PM)fredtoast Wrote: In this case Trump is correct, but the scary part is the pattern he is creating.

Now that Trump followers can not trust courts, media journalits, and the CIA/FBI there is NO ONE they can trust other than Trump.

So if the FBI/CIA were to claim that Trump was guilty, and a court agreed, and the media reported facts to support those claims his followers will still believe it is all "rigged".

That is the central issue for me--once again Trump is undermining an institution whose authority and credibility are necessary for the functioning of democracy.

There is no way, for the foreseeable future, that Federal judges and others appointed to government office can be anything other than people appointed by Democrats or Republicans. Yet accusations of the "He/she's Obama's man" type have been the mainstay of Trump's criticism following any reasonable check on presidential power.  He, with help from Hannity, Pirro, and Levin, then throw out an elaborate system of linkages--X's wife contributed to a Dem campaign, Y's husband worked for a Dem governor, Z's daughter went to Aspen on a skiing trip with Chelsea--so the government is constricted in a spider's web of more or less open deep-state Dem/RINO operatives bent on stopping Trump's POLICIES. All the complaints about his misogyny, his inability to understand rule-of-law/checks and balances, and his foreign policy missteps are just a distraction from the real worry, which is that under Trump/Fox America is becoming great again.

Almost all presidents have criticized SCOTUS decisions; what is different in this case, what led Roberts to speak out, is Trump's pushing the idea that party appointments, not Constitutional law, are sufficient to explain their decisions--nevermind that Republican appointed judges have stepped forward to check his power. Part of this is deliberate, on his part, but it also speaks to his lack of understanding how the U.S. government actually works. That his tactic works speaks to a similar lack in his base.

[Dill]

(11-22-2018, 11:03 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So then you are saying the court acted appropriately. If the executive's actions are not in line with the legislature's laws, then the judiciary should be saying the executive cannot act in that way without the legislature changing the law. Public opinion or not, that is how it is supposed to work. So Trump is arguing for bias, he just wants bias in his favor instead of in favor of the law.

That's why I don't use the term "bias."  It has become a short cut, or better yet a short circuit, in political analysis. Everyone is biased and it's everywhere and explains any position one doesn't like.  Plus it seems mostly used by people whose views appear most partisan/biased/one-sided.

Your first two points speak to another interesting issue. Judicial checks on law should not be responding to polls. They should, rather, be aligning law with the Constitution, and enforced by people whose position no longer depends on the favor of either party.

Trump's complaint about judicial checks, taken collectively, amount to a complaint that he cannot simply dictate policy.  He is complaining about the checks and balances which submit presidential action to rule of law--a problem Kim, Putin and MBS don't have to put up with.

[jj22]

This is a reflection of how Trump views his judges. That's why the Kav's nomination and confirmation hearing was so eye opening. Attacking Hillary , Soros, the Fake News Media, and Dems under oath at his hearing was outrageous to many watching, but you can expect his judges to be biased and political. Just how he thinks they are supposed to be.

[Benton]

(11-26-2018, 10:51 AM)jj22 Wrote: This is a reflection of how Trump views his judges. That's why the Kav's nomination and confirmation hearing was so eye opening. Attacking Hillary , Soros, the Fake News Media, and Dems under oath at his hearing was outrageous to many watching, but you can expect his judges to be biased and political. Just how he thinks they are supposed to be.

That's not just him, though. And it's part of the issue the right has with Roe v Wade. They don't see it as a legal issue of judges determining who has rights or when someone has rights, they (by and large) saw it as Christian judges versus non-Christian judges. And the party leaders have capitalized on that to turn it into liberal judges versus conservative judges.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

Trump is wrong with his attacks, I don't think anyone here disagrees with this. I do find it interesting that many decrying his statements have also commented on how Kavanaugh is in Trump's pocket and was appointed to prevent Trump from ever being indicted. So, is Kavanaugh no longer a "Trump judge?"

[GMDino]

(11-26-2018, 11:41 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Trump is wrong with his attacks, I don't think anyone here disagrees with this.  I do find it interesting that many decrying his statements have also commented on how Kavanaugh is in Trump's pocket and was appointed to prevent Trump from ever being indicted.  So, is Kavanaugh no longer a "Trump judge?"

That's part of the problem with Trump's statements...he picked a guy for very specific reason so he assumes everyone else is in their respective party's pockets.

Kavanaugh's ranting about "Hillary supporters" and "attacks from the left" put him in a situation where he seems very partisan compared to most other nominees/judges.  Not that any Trump supporter would admit that.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-26-2018, 11:46 AM)GMDino Wrote: That's part of the problem with Trump's statements...he picked a guy for very specific reason so he assumes everyone else is in their respective party's pockets.

Kavanaugh's ranting about "Hillary supporters" and "attacks from the left" put him in a situation where he seems very partisan compared to most other nominees/judges.  Not that any Trump supporter would admit that.

Ahhh, so when you call Kavanaugh a "Trump judge", you're merely stating a fact, but calling someone an "Obama judge" is undermining our faith in the judiciary.  Quite the neat little package you've created for yourself.

[GMDino]

(11-26-2018, 11:50 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahhh, so when you call Kavanaugh a "Trump judge", you're merely stating a fact, but calling someone an "Obama judge" is undermining our faith in the judiciary.  Quite the neat little package you've created for yourself.

Ahhh...so you can't read.

Kavanaugh specifically said partisan things.  Very specifically.  Not just his judgements in cases.

Maybe he won't defend Trump....but he certainly sounded like Trump during his hearings.

Trump saying "obama judges" when he loses a case is what is wrong.  In addition to his not thinking that there might be "trump" judges.  He would consider them the "fair ones".  

Throw in that when he says Obama judges some of them were appointed by Republicans.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-26-2018, 11:53 AM)GMDino Wrote: Ahhh...so you can't read.

Kavanaugh specifically said partisan things.  Very specifically.  Not just his judgements in cases.

Maybe he won't defend Trump....but he certainly sounded like Trump during his hearings.

Trump saying "obama judges" when he loses a case is what is wrong.  In addition to his not thinking that there might be "trump" judges.  He would consider them the "fair ones".  

Throw in that when he says Obama judges some of them were appointed by Republicans.  

Ahhh, so you can't listen.  Kavanaugh responded to purely partisan attacks against him by attacking the attackers partisan motivations.  When you're nominated and not a single hearing has been held and the Minority Leader in the Senate says they will stop your nomination "with everything I have" you're permitted to complain about the partisan nature of the attacks against you.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/09/senate-democratic-leader-schumer-vows-fight-trump-nominee-everything-have/769930002/

Quote:“I will oppose Judge Kavanaugh’s nomination with everything I have, and I hope a bipartisan majority will do the same,” Senate Democratic Leader Charles Schumer of New York said in a statement. “The stakes are simply too high for anything less.”

You'll note that this statement was made in July.  But maybe you're right, maybe there was nothing partisan about that?

[GMDino]

(11-26-2018, 11:58 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Ahhh, so you can't listen.  Kavanaugh responded to purely partisan attacks against him by attacking the attackers partisan motivations.  When you're nominated and not a single hearing has been held and the Minority Leader in the Senate says they will stop your nomination "with everything I have" you're permitted to complain about the partisan nature of the attacks against you.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/07/09/senate-democratic-leader-schumer-vows-fight-trump-nominee-everything-have/769930002/




You'll note that this statement was made in July.  But maybe you're right, maybe there was nothing partisan about that?

Oh, you poor baby.

Ok...you just believe that Kavanaugh talking about Clinton supporter revenge over the election and leftists attacks was just a "response".

Still doesn't change that Trump is wrong and that your little foray off into whether Kavanaugh is a Trump guy or not is wrong.  

[jj22]

GMDino is correct. Trump is picking the most biased and partisan judges because that's how he feels it's done and he has no respect for the idea that law enforcement (his attacks on "his" FBI) and judges should be unbiased.

It's only hard to those desperate to defend it

Common sense to anyone else paying attention to how Trump thinks and then seeing his judges in hyper political action (during live televised hearings).