Chief justice rebuts Trump on criticism of judges

[Nickyjo]

I concur!

If money from corporations for political campaigns can be considered “speech”, then what’s wrong with money charged one by the government being called a “tax”. I get tax deductions for my action (buying a house, having kids) why not call a fee paid for my lack of action a tax. We are worse off for the former decision, better off for the latter. Win some, lose some. Unless you are the idiot Trump nominated AG, Marburg v Madison applies, the Supremes decide.

This is faux outrage is by people who don’t like the idea of government insurance, or rather the first three syllables of Obamacare.

 

[Perotista]

So, the right to keep and bear "arms" can only be understood by also adopting the what the founders considered "arms" at that time, which means of course a single shot flintlock! So the 2A protects only our right to bear single shot rifles and pistols, right?

I don't know whose constitution you are reading, certainly not ours.

 

[JANFU]

In theory, Chief Justice Roberts may be right. But you sure do have activist judges and those who believe the Constitution is a living document and those who go by original intent. Those judges who amend the Constitution via their rulings instead of going the amendment route the constitution itself proscribes.

Myself I look at our Constitution/Charter of Rights as a living document.
Changes to a Constitution are messy. I know that from our own fights up north.

 

[JasperL]

Using that 'logic' the 1A does not apply to television, radio or the internet.

Of course - original intent!

I was being sarcastic, obviously, but the point is this harking back to "original intent" doesn't impress me a whole lot. Of course we have to interpret the Constitution to address all kinds of situations that the founders didn't or couldn't consider at that time. So in that sense of course it's a living, breathing document.

We've been talking about birthright citizenship. It was intended at that time to apply to former slaves - grant them citizenship. Well, does that mean that because those writing the amendment were only considering slaves that it therefore only applies to former slaves, and really that as soon as the Amendment was adopted and all the former slaves were granted citizenship that it is now dead law, irrelevant? I wouldn't think so...

 

[JasperL]

I don't know whose constitution you are reading, certainly not ours.

Well, why not? If we restrict the Constitution to "original intent" then their "intent" at that time was to protect 'arms' of that day, not the modern day AR-15 or even my Remington 1100. Those "arms" didn't exist, so how could the founders have intended to protect "arms" that they didn't consider because they didn't exist at that time? On what basis can you know they also intended to protect my right to carry a semi-auto shotgun except to consider the 2A to be living and breathing?

Does the Constitution protect a modern day SAM? Why or why not? The founders certainly couldn't conceive of a surface to air missile or even a flying machine like a plane or helicopter? So the 2A is silent on that, right! Original intent certainly cannot be a basis for any decision related to SAMs We need a new amendment to consider SAMs? Or do we treat the Constitution as a living, breathing document?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

Unfortunately the judiciary is full of activist judges... and it is a big problem

The usual definition of "activist judge" is ""a judge that makes decisions that I don't agree with".

 

[maxparrish]

Interesting that Roberts make a political decision to call the individual mandate of the ACA a "tax" so that it could be put into action. Guess he was an "Obama judge" that day.

Actually he was. It's been widely noted that Roberts was highly skeptical of the Obamacare mandate during questioning, and the assumption was Kennedy would be the swing vote. The opinions were orginally drafted as if the majority were striking down the mandate - however, Obama's public lecturing of the court about the damage to their reputation if they decided against him intimidated the weasel and he found a way to fold.

Sounds like an Obama judge "that day".

 

[celticwar17]

The usual definition of "activist judge" is ""a judge that makes decisions that I don't agree with".

No, it's a Judge that doesn't prioritize a literal interpretation of the law..... doesn't matter if one agrees or disagrees with it.

An activist judge ignore's or makes up a vague interpretation of a law for their version of "The greater good".

A judges job is to check whether something broke the law or not. Not whether a law should be enforced or not. They are are also not arbitors of morality, they are arbitors of the law.

 

[poweRob]

I dare Trump to attack Chief Justice Roberts.

Better yet..I DOUBLE DOG DARE him.

Make that a TRIPLE DOG DARE!!!

You know it's coming. How he is a W appointee and all that.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Interesting that Roberts make a political decision to call the individual mandate of the ACA a "tax" so that it could be put into action. Guess he was an "Obama judge" that day.

Good point. Obama and the democrats had been publicly assuring the republicans for months that it was "not a tax". then Roberts in order to preserve it, on his own declared it a tax. He in effect legislated from the bench. Since that day, I have never trusted him.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Perhaps Roberts should have a little sit-down with those 9th Circuit pukes. Tell them to get off their liberal horse so he doesn't have to slap their decisions upside their heads.

As on occasion, previous justices have done. The 9th circuit was long ago politicized. They have been slapped down by the Scotus on many occasions, just not by Roberts.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Perhaps that might be relevant to what Roberts did in Happy Backwards Upside Down World, but it's not here.

Trump happens to be right . The 9th circuit is a politicized **** hole.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Ever since Roberts "re-wrote" some of the Obamacare law, he has become a politician and I no longer consider him a justice.

Inserting himself in politics now confirms my belief.

Until then, I though Roberts was a great choice. Since then, I wonder what the democrats or the Obama administration had on him. According to fellow justices he was all against the ACA until the 11th hour.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Three seats on the 9th are open right now, Feinstein and Harris are desperately trying to "bargain" with Trump on who gets the seats, apparently they don't like at least on of the people on his short list. IF I were McConnell I'd wait until the new Senate is seated and Friggin' Flake is just a distasteful memory, then put a solid conservative as his replacement on the Judiciary Committee, confirm the nominees Trump wants.

Agreed. Jeff Flake looks like a dumb ass with his threats to vote against any Trump nominee. He will not matter late in January.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Trump happens to be right . The 9th circuit is a politicized **** hole.

Nah, he's not right. It's not something I'd expect a political partisan to understand.

 

[LetsGoBrandon]

Nah, he's not right. It's not something I'd expect a political partisan to understand.

And which party do you think I belong to? Anyone who cannot admit that the 9th circuit is politicized is purposely and intellectually dishonest.

 

[RobertU]

Well, why not? If we restrict the Constitution to "original intent" then their "intent" at that time was to protect 'arms' of that day, not the modern day AR-15 or even my Remington 1100. Those "arms" didn't exist, so how could the founders have intended to protect "arms" that they didn't consider because they didn't exist at that time? On what basis can you know they also intended to protect my right to carry a semi-auto shotgun except to consider the 2A to be living and breathing?

Does the Constitution protect a modern day SAM? Why or why not? The founders certainly couldn't conceive of a surface to air missile or even a flying machine like a plane or helicopter? So the 2A is silent on that, right! Original intent certainly cannot be a basis for any decision related to SAMs We need a new amendment to consider SAMs? Or do we treat the Constitution as a living, breathing document?

A piece of paper is alive and breathing? Did someone give the document to a mad scientist?

 

[Perotista]

Myself I look at our Constitution/Charter of Rights as a living document.
Changes to a Constitution are messy. I know that from our own fights up north.

I always thought any changes to the Constitution should be done as stipulated in the Constitution under Article V. That any changes to the Constitution without going through the Constitutional procedure in Article V makes those changes unconstitutional. But ultimately, what I think or believe is irrelevant if the SCOTUS thinks differently.

 

[Perotista]

Well, why not? If we restrict the Constitution to "original intent" then their "intent" at that time was to protect 'arms' of that day, not the modern day AR-15 or even my Remington 1100. Those "arms" didn't exist, so how could the founders have intended to protect "arms" that they didn't consider because they didn't exist at that time? On what basis can you know they also intended to protect my right to carry a semi-auto shotgun except to consider the 2A to be living and breathing?

Does the Constitution protect a modern day SAM? Why or why not? The founders certainly couldn't conceive of a surface to air missile or even a flying machine like a plane or helicopter? So the 2A is silent on that, right! Original intent certainly cannot be a basis for any decision related to SAMs We need a new amendment to consider SAMs? Or do we treat the Constitution as a living, breathing document?

Wow...

 

[Cardinal]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/21/chief-justice-john-g-roberts-rebut-trump-criticism/


How often does a Chief Justice rebuke a President?
Good on him, and I am sure all Justices approved of this statement
Cue the Trump defenders.

See, here's the thing about Trump's tactic. By insulting somebody, he's automatically creating the perception that that person can't be unbiased because he was insulted by Trump.

"How can you do your job in an unbiased way after I've demeaned you publicly?"

The tactic is more Trump than Trump.

 

[poweRob]

A piece of paper is alive and breathing? Did someone give the document to a mad scientist?

Maybe you should dig up Thomas Jefferson and ask him:

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” -- Thomas Jefferson​

 

[RobertU]

Maybe you should dig up Thomas Jefferson and ask him:

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” -- Thomas Jefferson​

If someone dug up Jefferson and he started to talk, my first question would be "What does it feel like to be a zombie?"

 

[Sam_Troy]

Breaking Update!

Our glorious leader responds to Chief Activist Justice John Roberts:


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......
2:51 PM · Nov 21, 2018 ·

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
.....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. We need protection and security - these rulings are making our country unsafe! Very dangerous and unwise!
3:09 PM · Nov 21, 2018

Our magnificent pure natural born Citizen president is so correct!

 

[Tanngrisnir]

And which party do you think I belong to? Anyone who cannot admit that the 9th circuit is politicized is purposely and intellectually dishonest.

You're a rabid, far-right frothy conservative with no genuine interest in rationality nor intellectual honesty.

You don't have to belong to any party to be that.

 

[mrdeltoid]

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/nov/21/chief-justice-john-g-roberts-rebut-trump-criticism/


How often does a Chief Justice rebuke a President?
Good on him, and I am sure all Justices approved of this statement
Cue the Trump defenders.

To marginalize all that disagree before they even respond. Nice touch.