- Who better to respond if not Chuck Grassley
- Johnny, lets at least agree that Ted Kennedy, Richard Durbin, Charles Schumer, Joe Biden and Dianne Feinstein in voting against your ascension didn’t think you were John Kerry enough
A remarkable response to an injudicious criticism…Iowa can be proud
Justice Roberts seems to prefer not being called a Constitutional judge either, rather than a Bush or Obama judge. We only wish we knew what to truly call him before his appointment
Senator Grassley’s response to Chief Justice Roberts’ curious and ill-considered rebuke of President Trump was not only remarkable for its appropriateness. But rather in the fact that a member of Congress was willing to take on the sanctimonious and hypocritical jurist, and, at the same time, defend President Trump against the hideous hypocrisy of the elite cowards!
Can you imagine a Marco Rubio or even the feisty Lindsey Graham risking a criticism of Roberts to take up for Trump? I can’t. But probably Louie Gohmert (R,TX) would.
(If you are one who prefers the big words Justices like to use (like, say, “penumbra”) that demonstrate to laymen how ‘shallow and uneducated’ they are, you might prefer to describe Chief Justice Roberts’ remark as “temerarious”.)
YOU GO, CHUCK! DLH
Breitbart article: (excerpt)
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:
Likewise, Roberts said nothing when Obama bullied the Supreme Court on numerous occasions — and even appeared to yield to Obama’s pressure.
In 2010, President Obama used his first State of the Union address to denounce the Court’s January 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case, which struck down restrictions on corporate political speech under the First Amendment.
With six of the nine justices sitting silently in the House of Representatives, Obama told the nation their ruling “will open the floodgates for special interests, including foreign corporations, to spend without limit in our elections.”Democrats leapt to their feet in applause. Justice Samuel Alito mouthed the words, “Not true” — and never attended another State of the Union address.
But Roberts said and did nothing to defend the Court from Obama’s unprecedented assault on its independence.
In April 2012, when oral arguments in the Obamacare case (NFIB v. Sebelius) appeared to go against the administration, Obama warned the Supreme Court against overturning the law, attacking the very idea that “an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” His aides later scrambled to explain that the president — once a lecturer in constitutional law at the University of Chicago — certainly accepted the idea of judicial review. (scroll down for more)
But Roberts did not defend the court’s prerogatives. In fact, Roberts buckled, effectively rewriting the law to save Obamacare — perhaps even reversing his original vote.
On Monday evening, Judge Jon S. Tigar of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, an Obama appointee, issued a temporary restraining order blocking the administration from implementing President Trump’s November 9 proclamation that asylum requests would no longer be granted to those arriving in the U.S. illegally. In speaking to reporters, Trump criticized the decision of the “Obama judge,” adding that he considered it a “disgrace.”
On Tuesday, in response to queries from the Associated Press, Chief Justice Roberts saidin a statement: “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.” His views were widely reported as a rebuke to the president himself.
In response, Trump tweeted — with unusually restrained language — that Roberts was wrong, and that President Obama’s appointees, along with the courts of the Ninth Circuit more generally, were reliably opposed to all of his immigration policies. That made those courts the forums of choice for radical left-wing groups favoring amnesty — and they were frequently wrong, he implied, as judged by how frequently they were reversed. . . .
