Judiciary

Hail to the Chief!

We really should, as Chief Justice Roberts suggests, be thankful for the "independent judiciary" on this Thanksgiving Day.

|The Volokh Conspiracy |

"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. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for."

Chief Justice John Roberts, 11/21/18.

Amen. I didn't want this Thanksgiving to pass without someone here on the Volokh Conspiracy giving a shout out to the Chief Justice for his statement yesterday, responding to President Trump's criticism of "Obama judges" in the 9th Circuit.

Nothing about the Trump presidency has been as disturbing as his unrelenting attack on the federal judiciary—starting all the way back at least as far as his comments during the campaign about the "Mexican judge" who was presiding over the Trump University lawsuit, up to his recent tirades against the 9th Circuit's "Obama judges." He is not the first President to get publicly angry at actions taken by the federal courts. But he is the first President to so relentlessly characterize judicial decision-making as an overtly partisan political act, where "Obama judges" issue their (politically-motivated) rulings—Boo-o-o!—and "Trump judges" issue their (politically-motivated) rulings—Ya-a-ay!. It's all just politics, played out in a courtroom.

His words have real consequences, and the consequences here are very serious and very troubling, even frightening. If Americans come to believe that federal judges are nothing more than partisan politicians wearing robes, that there are Democratic judges issuing Democratic decisions and Republican judges issuing Republican decisions, we are one step away from a very frightening precipice, one where Democrats believe they are entitled to disregard Republican decisions and Republicans believe they are entitled to disregard Democratic decisions.

Judicial systems can crumble, leaving nothing but power and might, force and terror, as ruling principles; they have done so, repeatedly, throughout human history. We should perhaps accept Chief Justice Roberts' invitation on this Thanksgiving day to be thankful that ours has not done so, and to speak out against, and resist, efforts to make it do so.

And Happy Thanksgiving to all!

***************

And PS [added 11-22 @ 930AM]: In case you were wondering, as I was, where the rather curious phrase "do equal right" in Roberts' statement comes from, it is from the judicial oath that all federal judges must take. See 28 USC 453:

"Each justice or judge of the United States shall take the following oath or affirmation before performing the duties of his office: "I, ——, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

NEXT: This Thanksgiving, Here Are 6 Ways the Government Suppresses Charity

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Nothing about the Trump presidency has been as disturbing as his unrelenting attack on the federal judiciary

    Not even Trump’s supporters?

    1. Didn’t Mr. Obama severely criticize the supreme s over I believe the Citizens United decision during a state of the union address? Where was Justice Roberts then? Why does the media call the court the Roberts Court? Why did the left fight so hard against Judge Kavanaugh? Justice Roberts must think all political observers are stupid, they are not. Saying Judges do not carry a bias is blatantly false.

      1. I move for admission of kjohn as Exhibit 1.

      2. Didn’t Mr. Obama severely criticize the supreme s over I believe the Citizens United decision during a state of the union address? Where was Justice Roberts then?

        That wasn’t divisive, apparently.

        I love this “There are no Obama judges” mentality. Because Sotomayor and Kagan’s votes on the SCOTUS are often such utter mysteries.

      3. ” Why does the media call the court the Roberts Court? ”

        Because he is the Chief Justice.

  2. Sorry, but Trump completely pawned him with his response, “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 are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) cases filed there, and why are a vast number of those cases overturned. Please study the numbers, they are shocking.”

    1. And to be fair, and further prove Trump’s point, while Obama was in office the 5th Circuit was where most lawsuits against his imitates were filed.

      And don’t get me started on nation injunctions by District Court judges…

    2. If you think telling the Chief Justice — who has forgotten more about judicial administration than Trump knows about anything he didn’t learn from peeping into beauty contest locker rooms or scamming retirees out of their life savings — to “study the numbers” is pawning, I suggest you take a break from Hannity and Lou Dobbs.

      Just a few of the reasons Trump’s response is false and misleading:

      1. SCOTUS reverses most decisions it reviews from all Circuits.

      2. The decisions reviewed by SCOTUS account for roughly 0.1% to 0.25% of the terminated cases from each circuit. Irrespective of reversal rates, that’s a woefully insufficient sample from which to draw useful conclusions about the quality of any Circuit’s jurisprudence.

      3. That said, the Ninth Circuit doesn’t even have the highest reversal rate. Some years it’s even lower than average.

      If you believe Trump knew any of that, or that John Roberts doesn’t know all of it, I’d like to sell you a full course of study at Trump University.

      1. I’d like to sell you a full course of study at Trump University

        Joke’s on you, elitist. Guys like AustinRoth tend to have diplomas from Trump University already.

        1. Ka ching – rim shot!

        2. Nah.

          They paid the tuition, and once the check cleared they were flunked out.

      2. 2. Limited time and limited docket. What a weird assertion to make.

        3. It has the highest number of reversals. It is a large district. Ussc has to take on a lot of cases from the 9th. Let’s not pretend reversing 13 out of 18 is better than reversing 2 out of 3. The latter had less questionable cases so didn’t end up at the USSC in the first place.

        1. You would expect the Ninth Circuit to have the largest number of cases taken by the Supreme Court, and the largest number of reversals, solely because of the size of the Circuit. The data that I’ve see suggest that the Ninth Circuit accounts for about 20% of the total caseload of the Circuit Courts as a whole, and also about 20% of the caseload of the Supreme Court. If the Ninth Circuit was prone to questionable decisions, you’d expect their share of the Supreme Court cases to be much larger than 20%.

          1. I remind you of Judge Reinhardt’s “They can’t catch ’em all,”; He was, openly, engaged in a strategy of spamming the Supreme court with more decisions contrary to their precedents than they had time available to reverse, so that some of them would get through just from lack of hours available to spend reversing them.

            The 9th circuit would doubtless rack up more reversals, but the Supreme court has other work to do besides reversing the 9th circuit.

            1. You’re a good example why it is simply impossible to have a civil, rational debate with a Trumpeteer. If the facts don’t line up with your chosen narrative, you nonetheless find a way to act as though they do.

              1. Try to look at the bright side, SimonP: Our children will have the opportunity to compete economically with Trump-supporting families.

              2. Simon, I’ve never seen you actually use facts. You’re basically Arthur with more words.

          2. So… You’re bad at math?

        2. @Jesse

          2. “Limited time and limited docket.” That’s right. How does that make the one in a thousand cases selected for review any less exceptional and thus unrepresentative?

          3. Thank MarkW201 for disposing of your false assertion more ably and less snarkily than I would have.

          1. Except he didn’t. He just proved he was bad at math. Hint… .2 is greater than 1/9. My god some of you..

            1. Yes, Jesse, 2 is greater than 1/9, black is darker than white, and your insult is incoherent to anyone not privy to the super intelligent conversation you must be having with yourself in your head.

    3. completely pawned him

      When eighty-something pieces of stale white bread try to get hip . . .

      1. He didn’t get much for Roberts at the pawn shop…self-righteous Chief Justices aren’t considered very valuable.

      2. Arthur, you just completely pwnd Austin! (submitted to help Austin understand what he was trying to say, because he was probably just puzzled by your comment).

        Austin—for a little further help, it rhymes with ‘owned’ not ‘pawned.’

        1. It is just as much fun to mock the yahoos when they can’t understand it.

  3. “If Americans come to believe that federal judges are nothing more than partisan politicians wearing robes, that there are Democratic judges issuing Democratic decisions and Republican judges issuing Republican decisions, we are one step away from a very frightening precipice, one where Democrats believe they are entitled to disregard Republican decisions and Republicans believe they are entitled to disregard Democratic decisions.”

    When I read critiques about an activist judiciary – including from US Supreme Court justices criticizing each other – these critiques are a bit more nuanced than Republican v. Democrat. It’s a clash of judicial philosophies or ideologies or whatever term you want to use.

    I think that the Federalists of 1798 and the Democrats of 1857 have won – they have persuaded the public – for the moment that not only must the Supreme Court be obeyed, but that their word actually is law.

    1. The political battle is no longer the courts vs. other branches, but it’s a battle over who appoints the judges. Each side wants its judges obeyed, and they (so far) don’t want to set a bad example by ignoring the other side’s judges. Plus the U. S. Marshals are there to escort the disobedient to prison.

      1. The difference is that conservatives want judges who will not make policy-based decisions, and liberals want such judges.

        1. And what such conservatives and liberals fail to understand is that judges cannot be classified as conservative or liberal.

        2. Good point, SKofNJ. Another good point: Conservatives tend to be stale-thinking, credulous bigots.

        3. “The difference is that conservatives want judges who will not make policy-based decisions, and liberals want such judges.”

          This has not been true for several decades.

    2. I do believe that the justices are just partisan politicians. And that no one else on the Net would have written this silly piece of loyalty to a myth.

  4. I would have much more respect for Roberts if he hadn’t carried the art of deference to such low levels as his “penaltax” contortions, and I would have much more belief in the existence of independent non-political judges if past judges hadn’t gutted Slaughterhouse, or caved in to FDR, or gone out of their way to find other contortions for whatever political beliefs they wanted to advance.

    Federal judges at least are more independent than many countries and most states. There is that.

    1. What about judges that pre-judge cases, openly advocate for candidates, or write rulings based on the power of love?

      Roberts and his “Switch in Time that Saved Nothing” is one of the least embarrassing things to come out of the Supreme Court in the past few decades.

    2. Based on the dissents against his majority opinion, the other 4 dissents heavily inferred Roberts changed his ruling decision based on political pressures. The comments from Roberts here seem almost a way to reassure himself that he doesn’t bend to political pressure when it is clear he does.

      1. Based on the dissents against his majority opinion, the other 4 dissents heavily inferred Roberts changed his ruling decision based on political pressures.

        Get an education.

        Start with standard English.

        Backwater religious schooling doesn’t count.

  5. Someone bring me my waders, because it’s getting deep.

    Seriously; I have been paying attention to politics since the mid 1970’s, and the media has been referring to judges as belonging to th President who appointed them since the mid ’80’s at the latest. So why are we hearing that this is an awful thing to do now? Because somebody desperately wants to focus criticism on Trum, rather than deal with the substance of his remarks.

    An ‘independent’ judiciary might be nice. I wouldn’t know from experience, since we haven’t had one for decades. The Democrats are whining about Trump’s appointments and their bias because they are accustomed to a judiciary stacked in THEIR favor, and the idea that politics can go both ways upsets their tummies.

    This is like the myth of the objective journalist; it was made up by the Progressive Left to disguise what they have done to bring the judiciary into line with their political agenda, and to vitiate any efforts to push back. I am disappointed to see people I otherwise respect buy into such transparent hogwash.

    1. Lefties are scared that there is a major conservative shift coming to the SCOTUS soon.

      RINO justices like Roberts are trying to keep the illusion alive that the Court just has some minor disagreements on the finer points of law but everything is fine.

      ITS NOT. Lefties dont like the US Constitution and its enumerated power limitations and strong protection of rights. They are literally trying to dismantle the Constitution decision by decision.

      Justices like Gorsuch are trying to protect the Constitution as much as possible.

      The shift is that Trump got Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS and will be replacing Thomas, RBG and likely Breyer too. This will tip the SCOTUS 7-2 for decades.

      1. Trump got Gorsuch and Kavanaugh on the SCOTUS and will be replacing Thomas, RBG and likely Breyer too.

        Is that a prediction of three vacancies before the next presidential election or, instead, a prediction that there are enough half-educated, superstitious, economically irrelevant bigots in America to enable Trump to pull off another four-cushion bank shot in the Electoral College?

        What makes right-wing goobers believe Democrats would not enlarge the Supreme Court before accepting a conservative-dominated Court? Other than credulity, I mean.

        1. They do that, and they’ll get a second amendment remedy

          1. If your aim with a firearm is as sharp as your skill with debate, they got nothing to worry about.

            1. These guys have been all talk (and all loser) for the entirety of my lifetime.

              If enlarging a court were cause for militia action, where were the bigoted yahoos when the Arizona Supreme Court was enlarged recently.

              They talk — more accurate, mutter bitterly — and lose, and that’s about it.

              1. All 2 decades in your parents’ basement, Arty? And, your typically ignorant arguments show that there are indeed ‘liberal’ judges and conservative judges, or you wouldn’t be so keen to pack courts to continue the ugly trend of judicial advocacy over justice.

                1. All 2 decades in your parents’ basement, Arty?

                  I left home the day of high school graduation and never went back, Hank. I understand intolerant, backward right-wingers — the depleted human residue that remains in our shambling backwaters after generations of bright flight — far better than do most of my current neighbors because I was raised among the dysfunctional, unattractive goobers in a declining community.

                  After watching those superstitious, half-educated losers stumble through life, I couldn’t wait to get out of that town and pursue education, opportunity, reason, and modernity elsewhere.

                  Other than that, though, great comment, you bigoted right-wing rube.

            2. My firearm skills are very sharp, but such remedy won’t come from me. It’ll come from those much younger and with more to lose from liberals destroying society.

              1. . . . because if there is anything right-wingers can count on, it’s the support of young people!

                And educated people.

                And accomplished people.

                And residents of modern, successful communities.

                Carry on, clingers.

              2. Oh, don’t worry, arwp, nobody thinks the bile and nastiness you spew daily I’ll ever be backed up by action. Heck, even in 2018 you’re too chcikenshit to come out of the closet. In real life, I mean. We’ve all considered you “out” for quite some time now. So just ke p up with your nonsense because, similar to your family and friends? probably just family ? nobody here takes you seriously either.

        2. Because stuffing the Supreme Court would result in a voter backlash — and the result would be that the next time Republicans were in power across the board, they would simply expand the court again (after all, at that point any decision that such a move was not Constitutional would also strip all the Justices off the court that the Democrats stuffed it with).

          Each party shifts as it needs to in order to win – principles be damned. The fantasy that the Democrats will seize power and keep it forever is as much of a fantasy as the similar declarations were over at DailyKos after Obama’s first Presidential victory.

        3. How do democrats enlarge the SCOTUS when the barely control the House and the dont control the Senate. Plus President TRUMP would ha e to sign legislation enlarging the SCOTUS.

          More pipe dreams from the Lefties. Man, you socialists sure are desperate.

          1. It is a shame that you aren’t a law professor, lc . . . you’d be a natural as a Volokh Conspirator!

    2. Legal scholars have always opposed that approach to framing the judiciary. Until recently the average person barely knew that the Supreme Court existed so such criticisms were not worth publishing in popular outlets. Just because we get 5-4 alignments on pop culture issues like guns and abortion does not mean that judges have a tendency to favor any political outcomes. You seem to have fallen into the trap set by MSM to view the court strictly through their tunnel vision rather than as a discrete institution.

      1. Judicial appointments went largely uncommented upon, despite considerable criticism of specific justices and rulings, for a long time. Then Republicans decided that opposition to Roe v. Wade should be part of their judicial appointment playbook during the Reagan admin. That led them to put Bork up for nomination, and be rejected for not having… er, opinions in the judicial mainstream. That set off the current tit-for-tat sniping currently passing for debate on judicial appointments.

        1. RBG will be replaced by Trump soon. Haha

          1. I don’t think Trump could get confirmed, even by a Republican Senate.

    3. The Democrats are whining about Trump’s appointments and their bias because they are accustomed to a judiciary stacked in THEIR favor

      When did the Supreme Court most recently have a majority of Democratic justices?

      Other than that, great comment, you uninformed right-wing loser.

      1. Must be stuck in the 60s like most Republicans.

        1. You’re agreeing with a known ignorant troll. Think on that.

          1. I’m an ignorant troll.

            You’re a deplorable, gullible, half-educated bigot.

            Where is the hope for America?

            1. My point is affirmed.

              1. Open wider, Jesse. Your betters aren’t done shoving progress down your bigoted, ignorant, Republican throat.

                And be nicer, or we might decide to start positioning that progress sideways before shoving it down your throat.

                1. I’m curious, Mr. Education, where did you go to law school?

  6. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

    Roberts has the best judges. They’re simply great. They’re awesome judges doing a wonderful job.

  7. Amen. I didn’t want this Thanksgiving to pass without someone here on the Volokh Conspiracy giving a shout out to the Chief Justice for his statement yesterday, responding to President Trump’s criticism of “Obama judges” in the 9th Circuit.

    Nothing about the Trump presidency has been as disturbing as his unrelenting attack on the federal judiciary – starting all the way back at least as far as his comments during the campaign about the “Mexican judge” who was presiding over the Trump University lawsuit, up to his recent tirades against the 9th Circuit’s “Obama judges.”

    Dont be corrupt judges then.

    People dont like lawyers for multiple reason too. Your field is filled with shibags.

    If its okay for Roberts to say anything as stupid as he did, then its okay for the president to say whatever he wants too.

    The media is full of Leftist propagandist assholes and the judiciary is full of biased corrupt assholes.

    Roberts is a piece of shit for having the nerve to say that the US Constitution allows the government force people to buy health insurance.

    1. “The media is full of Leftist propagandist assholes and the judiciary is full of biased corrupt assholes”

      OR

      The Internet is full of trolls with wildly distorted views of reality.

      “Roberts is a piece of shit for having the nerve to say that the US Constitution allows the government force people to buy health insurance.”

      He didn’t say that. He said that the Congress could impose a tax for not having one. If only there were some way to determine if the U.S. Constitution allows Congress to lay and collect taxes, so we could settle this point once and for all.

      1. Amusing, except for the fact that Congress specifically used the term “penalty” in lieu of “tax” because they did not want to have it considered to be a tax.

        Which makes Roberts’ justification in upholding the law in direct violation of the design of Congress.

        Hrm.

        1. Amusing, except that calling a tax something other than a tax doesn’t make it not a tax.

          1. That’s funny, because their excuse for upholding the NFA, way back in the day, was that if Congress chose to call something a tax, it wasn’t for the Court to dispute that, even if it walked and quacked like a penalty.

            Now we arrive at the point where it can walk and quack like a penalty, AND Congress calls it a penalty, and it’s still a tax. Because otherwise Roberts couldn’t have upheld it. So much for deferring to what Congress calls something.

            1. “Now we arrive at the point where it can walk and quack like a penalty, AND Congress calls it a penalty, and it’s still a tax.”

              It’s always been a tax. Calling something by a euphemism doesn’t change it’s essential nature.

              Q: How many legs does a sheep have, if you call the tail a leg?
              A: 4.

              “So much for deferring to what Congress calls something.”

              So much for something that never happened. It continues to not happen, and can be expected to continue doing so. If courts deferred to what Congress called something, they could do anything they wanted, by claiming it was something within their authority. Are you SURE that’s the end result you’re looking for? “What? This isn’t a firearm confiscation bill. It’s just condemnation by eminent domain, of deadly weapons, with just compensation for all affected property-owners…”

              1. It wasn’t “scored” as a tax by the CBO. Try again.

    2. Pollock the volkoh troll.

      1. The beauty of that comment is that right-wingers such as those who operate the Volokh Conspiracy are the trolls of legitimate academia.

      2. “Pollock the volkoh troll.”

        Who, unlike SOME trolls, is not afraid to use his own name.

    3. I’ve got to agree with that.

  8. This is an echo of Trump’s criticism of journalists, and the criticism of his criticism.

    If we had “an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them” or an extraordinary group of dedicated journalists doing their level best to uncover and report the news without fear or favor we should all be grateful for both. But we don’t. And so we aren’t.

    We have quite a few of the right kind of judges, but a depressing number of political hacks. And rather few of the right kind of journalists, and a lot of political hacks. So pointing out the fact of the widespread hackery is not an attack on the ideal of an fair and independent judiciary, or a free press, it’s highlighting the gap between the ideal and the reality.

    The judicial hacks are disproportionately Democrat appointments, partly because the Republicans came late (and incompetently) to the game of “stack the courts with political allies” but more because legal academia is split between a small minority of conservatives who espouse a judicial philosophy of “calling balls and strikes” as the ideal, and a large majority of liberals and further left than liberals who espouse a judicial philosophy of freestyle interpretation – “call it the way that seems a good policy to you.” If the judicial philosophy is that political hackery is good, not bad, then you’re going to get more of it.

    1. “But we don’t. And so we aren’t.”

      OR

      But some people don’t like the facts as they are, and wish they’d be reported to be different. So they tune into news sources willing to distort facts to suit their preferred outcome, and then get angry at the news sources that continue to report news.

      1. Actually, while almost all news sources do distort the facts to suit their political preferences, the most effective means of distorting the news is simply not reporting what you don’t want to report. Very few news stories are impossible to ignore and so if they’re inconvenient, they just get ignored.

        This is the explanation for Trump’s constant yelling on Twitter. He’s worked out that he can make hostile media outlets cover stories that they’d otherwise ignore by emitting a Presidential tweet. It doesn’t matter so much that they’re going to cover the story from an anti-Trump angle, he selects stories that he wants to be in the public domain.

        1. The media hates that Trump can speak directly to the American public via twatter.

        2. “He’s worked out that he can make hostile media outlets cover stories that they’d otherwise ignore by emitting a Presidential tweet.”

          He’s worked out that when he issues idiot tweets, the media spends time talking about it, instead of what he’s actually doing. Or not doing. “Hey! Look over there!”

    2. +100

  9. I certainly agree with Chief Justice Roberts.

    On the underlying case, my own view is that an advocacy or service group shouldn’t have standing just because an adverse law causes it to advocate more or provide more services.

    But this is a controversial, uncertain area of the law, and the Supreme Court has sometimes allowed it. The 9th Circuit’s liberal position on this is therefore not completely out of line with existing Supreme Court precedent, and a 9th Circuit district judge is of course bound by 9th Circuit precedent.

    So there’s nothing lawless about the decision. And if you get to the merits, I agree that the plaintiffs win hands down, as a statute flatly prohibits restricting asylum claims to ports of entry. And whether the statute is right or wrong is neither the Courts’ business nor the President’s; it is the President’s job to take care that the laws, including the ones he disagrees with, be faithfully executed.

    1. And whether the statute is right or wrong is neither the Courts’ business nor the President’s; it is the President’s job to take care that the laws, including the ones he disagrees with, be faithfully executed.

      Just so. So it is indeed fortunate that we have an extraordinary, dedicated President doing his level best to faithfully execute the laws and to wield the Executive power to protect the equal rights of all Americans without fear or favor 🙂

      But back in the real world, we’re revisiting territory that Mr Horowitz visited in his report on the Clinton email investigation. The investigators and the prosecutors made a string of individual calls that Mr H could not say, on an individual basis, were so clearly wrong that they must have been tainted by bias, even though he did find plenty of evidence that some of then harbored strong personal biases in favor of Mrs Clinton. In the end it comes down to statistics. If your calls always go one way, the odds are against those calls always being bias free.

      The fact is, you can make pretty reliable preditions about who appointed the judge, from the decision handed down,. Now, the predictions don’t work 100%. If the judge rules in favor of the Trump administration, it’s nearly 100% that the judge was not a Dem appointee. if it goes against Trump, then it’s more like 75% odds on a D appointed judge; the R appointed judges being more like 50-50 shots.

      1. ” it is indeed fortunate that we have an extraordinary, dedicated President”

        Lucky you, wherever you are. We got stuck with Trump.

        1. What, you mean there might be a difference between the ideal President of constitutional theory and flesh and blood one we’ve actually got ?

          Why ? How ? From an engineering point of view, how can we mint perfect judges, conforming exactly to the constitutional design…but the machine won’t work for manufacturing Presidents ?

          1. “you mean there might be a difference between the ideal President of constitutional theory and flesh and blood one we’ve actually got ?”

            I’m afraid you’ll have to confront that possibility, on the way to determining that they guy we got stuck with has approximately 0.00% interest in Constitutional limits on his authority.

  10. Shame on Trump for speaking the truth. More shame on the chief justice of our independent non-political judiciary for making a blatantly political statement and thus proving Trump’s poiint.

    1. Hard to believe that right-wingers have lost the culture war (and operate hundreds of colleges and universities that are fourth-tier goober factories, while the liberal-libertarian mainstream operates our strongest schools) with insightful analysis at this level.

      Carry on, clingers. To the extent the vanquished are able, anyway.

  11. Getting rid of this judge wasn’t political?
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Kozinski
    I liked the guy and his thought process. Got caught up in a political movement to get him off the court.

    1. He was a quitter.

  12. With judges, as with politician and journalists, we should set high expectations, assume they meet those expectations, and punish the ones who prove us wrong. Sophomoric cynicism just keeps moving the bar lower and enabling the behavior we don’t want. Good for Chief Justice Roberts for voicing that expectation with regards to federal judges. And good for President Trump for continuing to provide proof about himself.

  13. I hope you feel better for having endorsed CJ’s pablum. A turkey of a post for Turkey Day.

  14. There is certainly an argument that those in positions of authority (e.g., presidents, judges, influential commentators) should maintain the hypocritical pretense that judges are non-partisan and that law is different from politics. But I am hard-pressed to come up with an argument that judges and commentators on the left are allowed to launch attack judicial decisions as the product of partisanship, but those on the right are not. Anger at that sort of inconsistency and hypocrisy, frequently espoused by the Conspirators, is a good part of what motivates Trump supporters.

    Or maybe there’s an argument that anyone else can attack judicial decisions as the product of partisanship, but the president is sort of like a constitutional monarch, and is the one person who isn’t allowed to say those things? That would be an interesting idea, but it isn’t what Roberts is saying.

  15. Sorry David. But we do have “Obama Judges”. They are usually just called liberals and even though some of those liberal judges are appointed by Republican Presidents usually out of necessity or idiocy most appointments currently on the bench of liberal judges are because Obama picked them.

    And yes there is a reason why liberal lawyers choose the 9th Circus as their preferred jurisdiction. It is because it is packed full of Obama judges.

    And yes many of these cases are just politics played out under the guise of the rule of law in a courtroom. That is because liberals decided to use the courts to promote their social change agenda beginning post WWII starting mostly with Brown v. Board (a crackpot decision largely supported by pseudo-science that had absolutely no foundation in constitutional law) and that “tradition” continues on today.

    Yeah it is a little more nuanced then what I have stated but that is largely the truth. I for one won’t be sad when the liberals get a taste of their own medicine and Trump continues to pack the courts with conservatives over the next two years. They have it coming and turnabout is fair play.

    1. I for one won’t be sad when the liberals get a taste of their own medicine and Trump continues to pack the courts with conservatives over the next two years.

      Two years of judge installations against winning the culture war?

      The liberal-libertarian mainstream wins, as is customary in America.

      Consolation prize is muttering bitterly from the sidelines about all of this damned progress.

      1. Keep on smoking whatever it is you it is you smoke.

        Times they are a changing. Media goes full tilt making up fake news left and right, Dems push as hard as they can, and what do they have to show for one of the lamest mid-terms ever? A scant majority that will probably only hold for two years in the House and lost seats in the Senate. Pretty much all their fake “celebrity” candidates lost and really who are they going to run against Trump in 2020 who has much of a chance? Hitlery again? Biden? That fat lesbian from Georgia? Come on. Liberalism is a joke and Americans outside of a few cities are tired of it.

        1. The liberal-libertarian mainstream has been shoving progress down whimpering right-wing throats throughout our lifetimes, and is positioned to continue.

          America’s electorate is becoming less white, less religious, less bigoted, less rural, and less backward, and the predictable consequences include making it more difficult for Republicans to maintain a viable coalition for ignorant, superstition, and intolerance.

          Educated, tolerant, modern Americans should not become overconfident, though. If conservatives perfect a machine that mass-produces poorly educated, easily frightened, superstitious, gullible, disaffected, gun-fondling, economically inadequate, rural, elderly, stale-thinking, selfish, southern white males — and Republicans figure a way to register the newly minted malcontents to vote — Democrats could have a real problem on their hands.

          Carry on, clingers. So far as your betters permit, anyway.

  16. Question – Where was the Chief Justice when Barack Obama was using the bully pulpit of the State of the Union Address to lie his ass off about the Citizens United Decision?

    1. He outsourced that to Alito,

  17. Can we stop with the ignorant attitudes that judges are incorruptible and immune to political vices? Look at the feeder undergrad degrees to law school, Poli sci is a huge feeder. Judges, to advance, have to garner political connections. Claiming the judiciary is pure and independent is a child like assertion built on naivete. Just stop it already. It’s sad.

    1. Judges don’t want you to think that they are just essentially another legislative branch because then they might be held accountable either through impeachment, constitutional amendments requiring term limits and/or elections, and when being appointed being expected to actual answer questions like “will you vote to overrule Roe v. Wade?”

    2. I think Robert’s was abiding by the old order where liberals used to get passes on things like that. Like how they could have a member of the Klan in the US Senate and that was OK but if a Republican made an off-color joke that Jessie Jacksome found offensive he was run off the reservation in 2.5 seconds. That all changed when Trump blew up the establishment.

      The post WWII quasi-libera, globalist agenda that was drawn up by the allies is no longer the “rule of law”. It is still sticking around but give it another 5 years or so and there is going to be a new World Order.

      1. Trump blew up nothing. He hit a half-court buzzer-beater to give the backward and bigoted a one-point victory likely to constitute their last gasp as a demographic wave capsizes the Republican electoral coalition.

        The liberal-libertarian mainstream has been effecting progress against conservative wishes and efforts for the entirety of our lifetimes, Jimmy, and that seems destined to continue for the rest of our lifetimes.

        There just aren’t enough half-educated, diffusely intolerant, gullible yahoos to keep the Republicans afloat for much longer, at least not with respect to national elections. They’ll continue to be kings of the goober jurisdictions, but they are on the wrong side of practical, political, and moral history in America.

      2. Trump blew up nothing. He hit a half-court buzzer-beater to give the backward and bigoted a one-point victory likely to constitute their last gasp as a demographic wave capsizes the Republican electoral coalition.

        The liberal-libertarian mainstream has been effecting progress against conservative wishes and efforts for the entirety of our lifetimes, Jimmy, and that seems destined to continue for the rest of our lifetimes.

        There just aren’t enough half-educated, diffusely intolerant, gullible yahoos to keep the Republicans afloat for much longer, at least not with respect to national elections. They’ll continue to be kings of the goober jurisdictions, but they are on the wrong side of practical, political, and moral history in America.

        1. The problem there Rev is that the goobers are remarkably resilient, still control the vast American hinterland and southern swamps, and we all are as susceptible to grifters and gadabouts as we ever were. And the damage done and being done now is either irreversible or will take a long time to reverse.

          In the long term, I think you’re correct and progress will win out over ignorance. But getting to that long term is going to be tricky at best. If we ever get there.

      3. Nicely put jimmy the dane.

  18. It would indeed be very bad if the general public were to come to believe that all or most judicial decisions are not really based on the law but on the partisan preferences of the presiding judges. Sadly, however, this belief has already become widespread because for at least the last 30 years too many judges have in fact been politicizing their decisions. Some of these judges have been conservatives, but the vast majority of them have been liberals who think advancing their own personal political ideology is more important than ensuring respect for the legal system. And the Ninth Circuit’s Judge Reinhardt was the worst offender.

  19. I’d give more credence to Robert’s pushing back against Trump if he publicly rebuked RBG for criticizing Trump publicly 2 years ago.

    Or publicly rebuked Obama for criticizing the Supreme Court when they were a captive audience at the State of the Union.

    The truth is that a significant segment of the judiciary has joined the resistance, and Trump would have to be an idiot not to notice. If they want to be treated like impartial oracles of the law then they should start acting like it.

    1. “Trump would have to be an idiot not to notice.”

      So… there’s an outside chance he’ll still notice?

    2. +1000

  20. Erwin Chemerinsky agrees with Trump, not Roberts. https://bit.ly/2DE5D2r

    “Supreme court justices are not like umpires at all. Umpires apply rules and have relatively little discretion in determining their meaning. The supreme court creates the rules and justices have enormous discretion in interpreting the law. How a justice votes is very much a result of his or her ideology and views. Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagree in virtually every major case entirely because of their differing ideologies, not because of anything inherent in the constitution.

    This is not new; it always has been the case that supreme court decisions are a product of those sitting on the bench. “

    1. I don’t think they’re like vampires, either. At least not most of the time.

    2. “Clarence Thomas and Ruth Bader Ginsburg disagree in virtually every major case entirely because of their differing ideologies, not because of anything inherent in the constitution.”

      The words “major case” are doing a lot of work in Prof. Chemerinsky’s formulation. Because Ginsburg and Thomas agree quite a lot, including in some cases that are highly contested and even in some split decisions.

      People treat the Supreme Court as if they only decide 10 or so highly politically charged cases a year.

    3. “Erwin Chemerinsky agrees with Trump, not Roberts”

      The quoted passage is a non-sequitur. Trump isn’t complaining about the Supreme Court*, he’s complaining about the judiciary in toto whenever his lame-brained legal strategies turn out to not be very good.

      *For all I know, he HAS moved on to complaining about the Supreme Court by now. Like a petulant child, he considers anyone not immediately doing his bidding to be an enemy.

  21. Sorry, but Trump is right. If the judiciary truly were independent, it would not find that the Due Process Clause creates a right to stick one’s penis into another man’s tuchis, with the Equal Protection Clause creating a right of those men to “marry.”

    1. Your endless fascination with gay folks continues to… fail to astound. Just come out of the closet, already.

      1. There are several reasons right-wingers are obsessed with gaiety. They’e prefer not to discuss them.

    2. The left attacks natural rights and constitutionally listed protected rights all the time which pushing non traditional ‘rights’ that the public has not accepted as a right.

      1. I call them the pelvic rights. If it doesn’t involve someone’s genitals, they’re not interested.

        1. Yeah. That Ed Meese… what a leftist HE was…

  22. Its funny watching the media and and talking heads suddenly take this break from the past 30 years or so of unprecedented OCDing over evil conservative judges like Bork, Thomas etc and with the acrid odor of the witchhunt against Kavanaugh still lingering in the air to pretend that they’ve always equally respected all judges and don’t think that the judiciary isn’t at all time partisan levels. This is kabuki at an unprecedented level.

    1. isn’t=is

      1. Yeah. All that media attention to the torpedoing of Gorsuch’s nomination proves that they always oppose the nomination of justices by Republicans. That poor guy never had a chance, once the reporters dug into his past and found all that dirt.

        1. The majority of Democrats in the 21st century have not been accused of off people left and right and molesting children at pizza parlors. Therefore the claim that Clintons are killing people and Pizzagate must be 100% true.

        2. The Democrats did attempt to filibuster Gorsuch. It is why there was no filibuster remaining to use on Kavanaugh. Democrats certainly viewed Gorsuch as a Trump nominee, not an impartial jurist.

  23. “His words have real consequences, and the consequences here are very serious and very troubling, even frightening. If Americans come to believe that federal judges are nothing more than partisan politicians wearing robes, that there are Democratic judges issuing Democratic decisions and Republican judges issuing Republican decisions, we are one step away from a very frightening precipice, one where Democrats believe they are entitled to disregard Republican decisions and Republicans believe they are entitled to disregard Democratic decisions.”

    If that happens, it’s on the judiciary, not Trump. If judges don’t want people to think that they are unelected politicians in black robes, then they should rule in ways that don’t lead people to think that. The justices ought to stay out of politics. But if Roberts is going to rebuke Trump like this, he ought not to do it when Trump is, in fact, correct.

    1. “If that happens, it’s on the judiciary, not Trump. If judges don’t want people to think that they are unelected politicians in black robes, then they should rule in ways that don’t lead people to think that.”

      It might be possible to take this seriously, if conservatives hadn’t switched gears from demanding that judges not be activist to demanding the judges be activists in their favor.

      1. Trump nor the conservatives are wanting an activists judge. Just look at how many things that the democrats have taken to the courts to stop and then have Trumps action upheld in higher court. That the judge or court that blocked Trump’s actions ruled more in line with party that brought the court case and not the constitution.

        1. “Trump nor the conservatives are wanting an activists judge”

          Meanwhile, over in ACTUAL reality…

      2. “It might be possible to take this seriously, if conservatives hadn’t switched gears from demanding that judges not be activist to demanding the judges be activists in their favor.”

        That’s not the point. Heck, maybe the conservative appointees are the activists and the liberals are unbiased. Maybe it’s the other way around. But what policies the political branches are permitted to enact depends a great deal on which president appointed the judges who decide. Maybe it shouldn’t be that way, but it is, and Roberts looks foolish when he tries to claim it’s not.

        1. “That’s not the point. Heck, maybe the conservative appointees are the activists and the liberals are unbiased.”

          The vast majority of judges… regardless of who appointed them… are, if not unbiased, able to set their biases aside when the law requires this. One way of saying this is that their first loyalty is to law, and secondary loyalty is to party or ideology.

          Some judges appointed by one side, and some judges appointed by the other side, are… let’s say willing to adjust the legal reasoning to obtain the outcome that they would prefer. Neither side has anything remotely like a monopoly on this, and partisans on both sides have been known to advocate for the person making nominations to nominate partisans who will rule based on party or ideology first, with no other consideration.

          I think we all lose when candidates for the judiciary get confirmed based on party or ideology. But we’re LONG past the time when conservatives wanted judges to avoid “judicial activism”. The absolutely love the idea of activist judges… unless they’re activist the wrong way. We can get by if Presidential appointments to the cabinet and bureaucracy are political. Politicizing the judiciary is a long-term mistake.

          There’s a REASON the USSC has substantially higher approval ratings than either the President or Congress, and that reason is respect. President Trump respects nobody. I can’t recommend following his lead.

          1. I need examples of constitutionalist judges having ruled from emanations and penumbra.
            The left fears that those judges appointed by Conservative Presidents discover the “living constitution” the left dreams of.

            1. I see. You’re unfamiliar with Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence.

              1. I’m sure you’ll find a way to distort it. Which blog will you link me to? Media matters? TPM?

              2. There is quite a lot of Scalia jurisprudence. You failed to recite from memory a synapses of one of his opinions and why it is an example that I asked for.
                You don’t really know how debate works do you? Cite objective material to prove me wrong.
                You failed.

                1. “There is quite a lot of Scalia jurisprudence”

                  Yes, there is. Odd that you never came across any before.

                  “You failed to recite from memory a synapses”

                  Yes.

                  “You don’t really know how debate works do you?”

                  Snicker. You made a claim. The burden of proof is yours, not mine.

                  My claim is this:
                  You don’t WANT to see evidence that proves you wrong. You will ignore it, or attempt to excuse it. I think you’ve provided enough evidence that this is correct.

                  1. So, uh, still no examples it seems.

                    1. “So, uh, still no examples it seems.”

                      So, uh, still ignoring the example given, it seems.

                    2. Still nothing. Got it.

        2. Nobody takes Roberts seriously. Hes a hack.

          1. Sure. Look who appointed him.

  24. One has to admit that which ever party the president that appoints the Supreme Court justice that justice is more like to vote to uphold the presidents (or his party) when it is brought before the federal courts.

    1. Not true.

    2. +1

  25. Although I don’t think Trump should be making these statements, he appears to be doing it for political reasons sort of like “If you like your health care plan, you can keep it”. As he is subject to voter review every four years, his statements are not very alarming. The inappropriateness of these statements is at about the same level of demonizing statements that a President Sanders surely would have made about the backbone of our free market economy.

    Robert’s response was on the fringe though. He is a lifetime appointee and is not supposed to be political — it’s best for those in such positions not to counter what are effectively campaign statements (for 2020 in this case) made by politicians. Of course, Robert’s statements were nowhere nearly as egregious as Ginsburg’s open broad criticism of Trump. Ginsburg’s statements were, I believe, the most inappropriate ones I’ve heard a sitting Supreme Court Justice make in my lifetime. Robert’s should have openly spoken out against Ginsburg’s statements if he’s going to speak out against Trump’s statements as the former did far more to confirm to the public that the court is a politically driven institution and Robert’s is on the same bench as Ginsburg. I guess, though, there’s an unspoken rule that the elites don’t criticize the other elites.

  26. David Post hasn’t made a meaningful contribution to this blog since November 2016. His brain was zapped after Hillary lost.

    1. This is unfair. Prior to Nov 2016 he was a gay rights monomaniac. Trump’s election has given him another subject to write about. Two subjects is an advance on one, regardless of the quality of the arguments offered.

  27. Judges get involved in things they should ignore. Gay marriage for instance. That is a decision for the people through their elected state representatives. There was no emergency that needed immediate attention.
    Judges in the last elections were granting time extensions. The constitutions of the states had no provisions for court ordered extensions.
    The famous Bush v Gore was launched by a Florida Supreme court that ordered a state wide recount that no one asked for, and the Supreme court had no jurisdiction to demand. In Wisconsin a judge attempted to stop a piece of legislation from becoming law. Something the judiciary cant act on until after the law takes affect.

    I could keep going, but all of these examples are leftist judges running wild. I dont have examples of the same happening from conservative judges.

    1. Not to mention that the very “Obama” judge Trump is complaining about ruled 2 years ago that there is an constitutional right (the eighth amendment!) right for prisoners to have sex change operations at taxpayers expense.

      I don’t have an opinion about the asylum/port of entry ruling, because I haven’t looked at the law, but the eighth amendment right to sex change operations in prisons is nuts. A sex change operation is never medically necessary.

      1. ” A sex change operation is never medically necessary.”

        Is that your professional opinion, doctor?

        1. Instead of the ad hominem, provide the instances in which a sex change operation is a medical necessity. Not psychological, medical.

          1. The maker of a claim has the burden of proof, not the person pointing out the naked assertion.

        2. Its Johns Hopkins medical centers opinion. Despite being sex reassignment pioneers they quit performing the surgery because the because they couldn’t document any increase in wellbeing to the patients.

          1. That’s the medical opinion of John Hopkins teaching hospital, that stopped doing sex re-assignment surgery. Their decision was made by doing followup examinations of their patients and finding their mental health, measurably worse than before the surgery.

            1. Are you referring to the Johns Hopkins here in the United States, that does gender reassignment surgery? Or to some other Johns Hopkins?

              https://www.washingtonpost.com/ national/health-science /long-shadow-cast-by-psychiatrist -on-transgender-issues-finally -recedes-at-johns -hopkins/2017/04/05/e851e56e -0d85-11e7-ab07-07d9f521f6b5 _story.html?noredirect=on

              (Link broken by spaces because the filtering on this site considers it “too long a word”

    2. Justice delayed is justice denied. Every day a gay man is not given a marriage license to celebrate the fact that he is in an anal-sex based relationship is a day he is being persecuted, no different than Hitler really.

      1. Just come out of the closet, already.

    3. “Judges get involved in things they should ignore. Gay marriage for instance. That is a decision for the people through their elected state representatives. There was no emergency that needed immediate attention.”

      The problem was that the people, NOT acting through their elected state representatives, voted to strip away the marriage rights from some people but not others, and then couldn’t explain how doing so served a compelling government purpose, which is supposed to be present when taking rights away from people.

      “The famous Bush v Gore was launched by a Florida Supreme court that ordered a state wide recount that no one asked for”

      In their defense, it’s been kind of traditional in this country to wait until all the votes are counted before declaring a winner. Since the Florida secretary of state wanted to declare a winner, then stop counting ballots before they were all counted…

      ” I dont have examples of the same happening from conservative judges.”

      Because you don’t WANT any.

      1. “The problem was that the people, NOT acting through their elected state representatives, voted to strip away the marriage rights from some people but not others, ”

        This grossly misstates what actually went down, which is that the judiciary suddenly up and decided to extend marriage rights to SS couples, and the people moved to stop them.

        It was the judiciary that was changing the long standing status quo, not the people.

        1. Could it be that gays are people too! And thus have all the rights of anyone else. You know like getting married so that they can have the rights inherent in that affirmation, things like having spousal health care benefits for example. That is the status quo discriminated against a certain group of people illegally.

        2. “This grossly misstates what actually went down, which is that the judiciary suddenly up and decided to extend marriage rights to SS couples”

          Ah. You’re using that meaning of the word “extend” where it means that they noticed that nothing said the people who wanted to marry someone of the same sex, couldn’t… and when someone asked them about it, they said so.

          “It was the judiciary that was changing the long standing status quo”

          Now you’re offering a new defintion for “changing”. The long-standing status quo was that neither the state constitution nor the state statutes included a provision that people who wanted to get married had to be of different genders. So the judiciary “changed” that long-standing status quo to… neither the state constitution nor the state statutes included a provision that people who wanted to get married had to be of different genders.

          1. Are you seriously claiming that “marriage” was always considered to be a legal union of two people rather than a legal union between a man and a woman?

      2. There is no defense of judges acting outside of their jurisdiction. That you defend that proves the point that judges are no more moral than the average person. The LAW gives the Secretary of State the LEGAL power to declare the winner. Precincts that fail to meet the time restraints deserve no relief. That’s what the LAW lays out.
        No person was stripped of rights that don’t exist. Marriage, per the 10th amendment is limited to control by the state. And getting married is not a problem, the problem is seeking govt goodies due to that status.
        You say persons were denied, but the self governed populace disagree with you. Again you are OK with judges acting outside their jurisdiction to get the result they desire even if the law isn’t on point.

        Yes I do want examples of conservative justices stepping outside their jurisdiction, I was hopping you would provide them. But even you have never heard of any.

        1. “There is no defense of judges acting outside of their jurisdiction. That you defend that proves […]”

          Logically, if I accept your first premise, then the second premise proves that judges aren’t acting outside of their jurisdiction.

          “Yes I do want examples of conservative justices stepping outside their jurisdiction”

          No, you clearly don’t. Because of that, your brain will either A) find a way to excuse it, or B) ignore it.

          I’m not doing homework just so can make excuses. (Especially because I no longer have a Westlaw account). Do your own homework (and develop some intellectual honesty while you’re working on it.)

  28. “I suggest that, as a conclusive demonstration of the nonpartisan neutrality of judicial craft, all Obama-appointed judges should step down to be replaced by Trump appointees.”

    – Adrian Vermeule

    An unexpected take from a Harvard law professor on Twitter.

    1. Vermeule was a diversity hire.

      1. I’m sorry he got the job instead of you, you’re obviously better qualified.

        1. Diversity is a qualification (at least at strong schools), one so important it seems to be the sole reason right-wing professors get jobs at strong schools.

  29. The “equal right” phrase in the judicial oath likely is derived from Leviticus 19:15:

    “Ye shall do no unrighteousness in judgment; thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor favour the person of the mighty; but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.” (Jewish Publication Society translation)

    This does not comport with the philosophy of either side of today’s political spectrum.

  30. I think the Chief Justice is rather a tragic figure.

    My impression is that he really does believe in the impartial balls and strikes role of the courts, and desperately wants the nation to see the courts in that way, and not as a branch of politics.

    The tragedy is that he lacks the courage of his convictions. To protect the perception of the courts being outside the realm of politics, he abandons the actuality, by playing politics. His Obamacare decision (supported by none of the other eight Justices) was plainly an attempt to help the Court escape from the politically appalling prospect of having to strike down the signature political achievement of the sitting President. Had the Court struck down Obamacare, it would have been accused for evermore of being a GOP puppet. But if you actually believe in calling balls and strikes, independent of politics, then you don’t consider the politics. You just call the balls and strikes and let the crowd cheer or boo as they may.

    And ditto for his obsession with defining down the decisons to the narrowest possible point, in the hope of getting the least amount of controversy. On 5-4s he often picks himself to write the judgement, so the judgement often avoids the big issue and avoids any ringing new precedent, by deciding the case on a side issue. He saves his more emphatic judgements for times when he’s in the minority.

    His laudable project is betrayed by his moral weakness.

    1. He seems to operate from the assumption that perception is reality, which is a completely political way of seeing things, while insisting that the opposite is true. He is essentially a centrist politician whose highest priority is the preservation of the establishment that he represents.

    2. “the judgement often avoids the big issue and avoids any ringing new precedent, by deciding the case on a side issue.”

      Yeah. That’s how EVERY Supreme Court works. Roberts didn’t invent it.

      (We’ll skip over the irony that you’re complaining about judicial restraint as if it were a bad thing).

  31. I like Robert’s noble and idealistic statement. It is somewhat inappropriate, of course, but I won’t fault it much. Could be much worse, like RBG.

    However, Trumps statements are also irrefutable, even if verboten and taboo. Trump is a radically honest President, and a truth teller of uncomfortable and taboo truths you’re not supposed to acknowledge, no matter how many fibs he tells and no matter if the deranged media makes a list of a million “lies” which is mostly laughable nonsense.

    1. “Trump is a radically honest President”

      How about we meet at “you always know whether or not President Trump is lying”? Can we agree there?

  32. Lol. Schumer manages to get on both sides of the issue:

    “I don’t agree very often with Chief Justice Roberts, especially his partisan decisions which seem highly political on Citizens United, Janus, and Shelby.

    But I am thankful today that he?almost alone among Republicans?stood up to President Trump and for an independent judiciary.”

    1. His relative, Amy Schumer, has smaller boobs than him.

    2. In other words, Schumer endorses Trumps view of the judiciary. But we already knew that just in the last 2 years based on how he handled the Gorsuch and Kavenaugh nominations.

  33. I always love it when AK goes off on one of his “this country is becoming more liberal, less white, and more tolerant nations….Trump supporters are dumb knuckle draggers….” rants.

    Is he really a cartoon character auto-posting bot? In the same post he will accuse his disfavored side of the political spectrum of bigotry, hatefulness, and racism, while in the next one spewing the exact same trash he was supposedly calling out but just this time favoring his political views.

    AK – here is an example of something that is racist which you usually say “white people need to die off”.

    AK – here is an example of some anti-religious which you usually say “people who believe in religion are superstitious idiots”

    AK – here is an example of something bigoted you always say “liberals are all smart because they spent 100K to go to a college to hear a left wing professor parrot the party line while all conservatives are hicks from the sticks who barely graduated from high school”

    Get where I am going here? You are basically exactly what you accuse others of being. The only difference is you don’t like their brand of politics.

    1. Dude, AK is a parody account run by ARWP.

    2. “In the same post he will accuse his disfavored side of the political spectrum of bigotry, hatefulness, and racism, while in the next one spewing the exact same trash he was supposedly calling out but just this time favoring his political views.”

      If it’s wrong when a guy on the other side does it, it’s wrong when a guy on your side does it, too.

      If you’re accused of doing something wrong, and your defense is “oh, yeah? Well, this guy does the same thing, and he’s on YOUR side!”… you aren’t really defeating the criticism.

      1. If some guy goes on about how the Democrats/progressives are better politicians and better people than Republicans/conservatives because the Republicans/conservatives are demagogues and bigots, then it’s quite relevant to provide examples of Democrats being demagogues and bigots.

      2. If it’s wrong when a guy on the other side does it, it’s wrong when a guy on your side does it, too.

        A point the Rev AK does not understand.

  34. “Nothing about the Trump presidency has been as disturbing as his unrelenting attack on the federal judiciary.”

    I find his kidnapping children and infants more disturbing.

    1. Separating children from their criminal mestizo parents who are attempting to invade our border is not “kidnapping.”

  35. Once again though – people are jumping on his comment as if he is the first person to ever suggest that who appointed the judge has some sort of affect on the outcome. All you have to do is read pretty much any news article in the last 20 years on a court ruling, and you will see that the majority of them will reference who appointed the judge. Why would the media include this piece of information if nobody believed it were important?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.