[ad_1]
ANALYSIS / OPINION:
The greatest jurist of the world's largest democracy has published an absurdity of monumental proportions.
"We have no Obama judges, no Trump judges, no Bush or no Clinton judges," said US Supreme Court President John G. Roberts Jr. on Wednesday. His words were supposed to be a reproach. to President Trump for calling an Obama-appointed Liberal jurist in San Francisco "Judge Obama" after being pronounced against the Trump government on migrants' asylum. The case should probably be brought before the court of appeal of the 9th circuit, which is notoriously liberal and the creeping leftist partisanship that Mr. Trump described as "disgrace".
Taking advantage of the absolute virtues of the federal judiciary as a whole, Mr. Roberts described it as "an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their best to make an equal right to those who appear before them." This independent justice is something for which we should all be grateful. "
"Roberts has clearly never met any of the judges of the 9th circuit. Good luck! Said Holly Turner, lawyer and head of the Small Business Administration. "And since when do the judges send press releases?"
Chief Justice Roberts' statement undermined the credulity of federal election law lawyer Cleta Mitchell.
"I have the greatest respect for the Chief Justice," she said. "But he lives in a fantasy world when he describes the judicial branch of government as a collection of impartial, independent and constitutionally minded arbitrators who only follow the law."
As noted by Mathew Staver, lawyer and founder of the Liberty Council, there has always been reference to judges citing the chair who appointed them. The reason is obvious to all but, apparently, Chief Justice Roberts.
"Judges have too often left their political ideology obscure their objective interpretation of the law," Staver said. "If the judges were neutral and interpreted the law, rather than creating it, people would stop referring to them by the president who appointed them."
On Tuesday, US District Judge Jon S. Tigar, in San Francisco, ordered the Trump administration to continue to accept asylum applications no matter where and how the migrants crossed our southern border.
Judge Tigar interpreted the law to mean that the president can not invoke his powers of national security to protect the integrity of our borders. Absurd.
By reprimanding Mr. Trump for calling Judge Tigar, Chief Justice Roberts makes a ridiculously stupid assertion that American judges are neither Democrats nor Republicans nor Liberals nor Conservatives when they interpret the law and the Constitution.
This should undoubtedly – and most likely – surprise the eight other judges of the Supreme Court as well as the 179 judges of the US courts of appeal, the 673 US district courts and the nine judges of the International Court of Justice. Trade.
Like every sensitive human being, every jurist has a personal world view that shapes the perception of reality and the reading of the law, regardless of the degree of each jurist's determination to be objective. It is not the fault of intrinsically bad or good forces; it is the irresistible force of human nature.
James Madison made the difference between an independent idealistic judiciary – which every candidate for the judiciary swears to defend – or anything independent of government and the reality of the unique intellectual filter of every human being.
"What is government, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature," wrote the father of the Constitution and the Charter of Rights. "If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If the angels were to govern, no external or internal control of the government would be necessary. "
He also had the most difficult: "In defining a government that should be administered by men rather than by men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first allow the government to control the governed; and then force him to control himself.
It is not even possible that Chief Justice Roberts does not recognize that, as Alabama lawyer James Porter notes, "our presidents tend to appoint judges with a legal philosophy that is compatible with the philosophy of each president ". Nor is it possible for the Chief Justice to know badly that Democrats and Republicans are fighting over whether to appoint Liberals or Conservatives to various courts. Some jurisdictions usually make liberal decisions, while others usually do the opposite. It's a matter of minutes.
The president of the Union of American Conservatives, Matt Schlapp, said he thought "it is the chief justice who needs a public blame for the damage caused by the judges' destruction of judges. As for President Trump, he seems well aware of the damage. "
"All the controversy invented by Brett Kavanaugh has taken place because the biggest national threat to our Constitution is the gnawing of its foundation by radicalized judges and their allies at the American Bar Association," Schlapp said. . "We all fought for Justice Roberts and more recently for Judges Neil Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, precisely because they seemed aware and ready for an honorable death match against Madison's legacy."
Appointed in 2005 by President George W. Bush, Chief Justice Roberts seeks to occupy a prominent place in the pantheon of liberal and compassionate Republican jurists. Think Liberal Justice David H. Souter, nominated by Republican President George H.W. Bush, provider of a "gentler and gentler nation" than that left by what he considered his left predecessor, Ronald Reagan. And remember the decisive vote of Chief Justice Roberts, based on the prosecutor Obamacare, based on his assertion that he would have uncovered a mysterious constitutional legitimacy underlying his "mandate" manifestly unconstitutional.
It is a fact of life – and a good thing for the Conservatives – that Mr. Trump tries to bend the "independent" federal courts to his conservative image. Yes, they will be independent of his influence or whoever, but they will not be neutral philosophically or ideologically.
As Ms. Mitchell notes, "President Obama has shifted federal justice to his philosophical image and the left has done an aggressive job as umpire over the past two years to find sympathetic judges. Too many judges consider that their role is to thwart President Trump every turn, thus canceling the results of the 2016 election.
She is right that the independent judiciary described by Chief Justice Roberts simply does not exist.
That is why, while Democrats control the House of Commons for the next two years and are sure to wreak havoc on Mr. Trump, it is important that the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, keeps the Senate in session in December, until each district court appointments are confirmed this year.
"We are witnessing the tyranny of unelected judges, guided by their political views rather than by law," said Ms. Mitchell. "It sows the seeds of the destruction of our democratic republic and it must be changed."
It looks a bit like the falling sky? Maybe that's it.
The Washington Times Comment Policy
The Washington Times appreciates your feedback on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our comments policy before commenting.
[ad_2]
Source link
