JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS – YOU REBUKED TRUMP BUT SAT SILENT THROUGH OBAMA’S ABUSE

[pipedreams]

"U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts offered rare public criticism of the President of the United States on Wednesday when he pushed back against President Trump’s claim Tuesday that an “Obama judge” had blocked his effort to deny asylum to those entering the country illegally.

But as outgoing Senate Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) later noted, Roberts was silent when President Barack Obama attacked the Court during the State of the Union address in 2010:"

https://rickwells.us/grassley-roberts-silent-obama-abuse/

 

[Dric902]

Obama attacked the SCOTUS itself and the Judicial branch. Trump attacked a particular judge as biased because of who appointed him. 

People aren’t cut and dried, black and white, cookie cutter decision makers based on who named them to the court.

Their political worldview on original intent, reconstructionism, strict interpretation, will obviously shadow their decisions. Presidents don’t appoint people who disagree with them on Constitutional beliefs. But that doesn’t mean that they make decisions based on party.

plenty of decisions went “our way” with judges appointed by “the other side”

 

 

my two cents, worth exactly what you paid for it.

 

.

[Paul53]

Can't expect every human being to act just the way you hope they would.

[steve4102]

Roberts is letting America know that he is the New Justice Kennedy Swing Voter.

The Liberals are all sleeping better tonight knowing that the court is not a solid 5-4 as predicted when Kavanaugh was sworn in but back to the 4-4-1 as it was before Kennedy retired.

I just hope that those all geared up to petition the Court to hear Second Amendment cases are smart enough to see what Roberts has become and will hold off until Old Ruthy takes a powder.

[jame]

Assuming that any appointed justice will vote strictly party line with the POTUS that appointed them is idiocy.  They hold those positions because they understand law.  They're good at what they do.

Any given present doesn't hold office because he's good at what he (or she) does.  They hold office because they understand politics.

 

[fortyofforty]

13 hours ago, jame said:

Assuming that any appointed justice will vote strictly party line with the POTUS that appointed them is idiocy.  They hold those positions because they understand law.  They're good at what they do.

Any given present doesn't hold office because he's good at what he (or she) does.  They hold office because they understand politics.

 

Except we can predict, with near-100% certainty, that RBG, SS, SB, and EK will vote exactly as the presidents who appointed them would hope.  They were appointed to maintain the leftist line, and they hold it reliably.  How can half the Supreme Court--all masters at understanding the law--reach opposite conclusions most of the time?  Could it be, perhaps, that they are ideologues, not pure, objective jurists?

[Suspect Unknown]

Justice Roberts was stupid to utter a comment, one way or the other. But when he did utter it, he was wrong, and he had no business getting caught up in that Tar Baby.

[Dric902]

1 hour ago, Suspect Unknown said:

Trump was stupid to utter a comment, one way or the other. But when he did utter it, he was wrong, and he had no business getting caught up in that Tar Baby.

FIFY

 

.

[fortyofforty]

At least he proved that Ruth Buzzi Ginsburg isn't the only one who can make patently stupid remarks while serving as a Supreme Court Justice.

Edited November 25, 2018 by fortyofforty

[Suspect Unknown]

20 hours ago, Dric902 said:

FIFY

I say tomato and you say tamahto. 

.

 

[Dric902]

59 minutes ago, Suspect Unknown said:

 

‘Mater

[Suspect Unknown]

Just now, Dric902 said:

‘Mater

MATER! I will bet that that movie had kids saying mater for 2 years. And I will bet that the parents let it ride.

Edited November 25, 2018 by Suspect Unknown