U.S. Chief Justice Roberts rebukes Trump's attack on judge

Roberts better be prepared to execute new controls over the completely lawless administration.

Roberts' statement followed Trump's call in a social media post on Tuesday for the impeachment of a federal judge. Washington-based U.S. District Judge James Boasberg ordered the administration on Saturday to halt the removal of alleged Venezuelan gang members, which Trump has argued is authorized by an 18th-century law historically used only in wartime.

Trump saying that a federal judge has done enough in his job to warrant impeachment is like the pot calling the kettle black.

Imagine being so utterly lawless that Chief Justice Roberts has to publicly rebuke you...

Roberts should have never injected himself into the executive branch and enter the political fray and open himself up for a can of worms and I like Roberts, but it’s not his call. If he wants to opine, then take up the case, rule on it and then issue an opinion

bass4funk

Roberts should have never injected himself into the executive branch and enter the political fray and open himself up for a can of worms and I like Roberts, but it’s not his call. If he wants to opine, then take up the case, rule on it and then issue an opinion.

It’s totally Robert’s call. If you don’t like the decision of a judge, don’t have a tantrum, call them an activist judge, and call to have them impeached.

The judge is just doing their job, stopping the president from doing illegal things.

bass4funkToday  07:08 am JST

Roberts should have never injected himself into the executive branch and enter the political fray and open himself up for a can of worms and I like Roberts, but it’s not his call.

I think he knows his own job better than you do.

When the Executive Branch is constantly violating the US Constitution and doesn't realize that there are laws to protect people in the US from abuse of power by the executive branch, then it is both Congress and the Judicial branches DUTY AND RESPONSIBILITY to hold the Chief Executive accountable.

Trump doesn't have the authority to violate US laws.

Part of the US Constitution is to protect individuals from the tyranny of the majority.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

The 3 branches of the USGovt was setup to prevent straight tyranny as well

https://www.usconstitution.net/constitutional-protections-against-tyranny/

It’s totally Robert’s call.

But the left were outraged when he said this…

If you don’t like the decision of a judge, don’t have a tantrum,

Well, the left had a tantrum then as well, a very big one

https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/supreme-court-chief-justice-roberts-warns-of-daunting-consequences-of-trump-ballot-ban-5584046

call them an activist judge, and call to have them impeached.

Which has nothing to do with the highest judiciary system in the land, we are talking about local courts trying to impede the powers of the executive branch.

I think he knows his own job better than you do.

I’m not so sure, the three branches are co-equal and independent from each other, if Roberts knew this (and I know he does, then stay out of it) now he can give an opinion, but that’s it, he can’t stop this President, but sure, he can opine, but was it good for him to do so? I think not.

Is Roberts now a ‘radical left activist’ too?

Is Roberts now a ‘radical left activist’ too?

Not at all, not sure why you even would say that, that’s like me questioning if Bernie Sanders is a conservative.

We need more sensible Republicans like Roberts to push back against the radical campaign to undermine Rule of Law and replace it with an obese man-child's whims.

bass4funk

Which has nothing to do with the highest judiciary system in the land, we are talking about local courts trying to impede the powers of the executive branch.

They are just doing their job. It’s not their fault that Trump is doing illegal things.

but it’s not his call.

Uh, it is. That's his job. His job is to judge. Sure, some calls go your way; sometimes it doesn't. You just have to accept and live with it. Look, when the Supreme Court decided to get rid of Roe v. Wade, I was against it, but in the end I accepted it and moved on. I never once called the removal for any of the judges. Although Clarence Thomas is one judge who I think is a bit corrupt based on his list of scandals. I even liked and accepted the decisions of some of the most conservative judges in the past, such as Scalia.

Not at all, not sure why you even would say that, that’s like me questioning if Bernie Sanders is a conservative.

Give it a week. If he rebukes 47 once more you’ll change your tune.

Give it a week. If he rebukes 47 once more you’ll change your tune.

That won’t happen so…

Uh, it is. That's his job.

No, it’s not in theory, he can do so once they take the case

His job is to judge.

Which is a separate branch, co-equal

Sure, some calls go your way; sometimes it doesn't.

Absolutely, but the thing is, Trump campaigned on getting rid of illegals and in particular the most violent as his highest priority, they’re not going to stop him, he will push this and continue doing this, so I understand what you are saying, you make a good point, but all in its proper time and place and this will be in Roberts hands soon enough, no need to jump the gun and bring more scrutiny on the highest court in the nation

I’m not so sure, the three branches are co-equal and independent from each other, if Roberts knew this (and I know he does, then stay out of it) now he can give an opinion, but that’s it, he can’t stop this President, but sure, he can opine, but was it good for him to do so? I think not.

And if the President knows that the three branches are co-equal and independent, shouldn't he also stay out of it? The President should leave the lawyers to do their jobs and interpret the law.

It seems that you apply a very different standard to the head of the executive branch when he comments on the judicial branch than you do to the head of the judicial branch when he took comments on a matter of the judicial branch.

And if the President knows that the three branches are co-equal and independent, shouldn't he also stay out of it?

Not when the judiciary interferes with the process of the executive

It seems that you apply a very different standard

I don’t, seriously

A common thread seen in all countries that slide from democracy to autocracy is the undermining and ultimately defenestration of the independent judiciary.

Trump can't do it with just words alone, but through intimidation and the use of appointments to select puppets, and even potentially impeachment of those he disagrees with, he wants to make the judiciary just another arm of his power.

Many MAGA fanatics would endorse this because they want an authoritarian strong man in place to rule them. But for others, it should be recognised as part of an attempt to undermine the constitution and concentrate power in the hands of the president.

Not when the judiciary interferes with the process of the executive

It hasn't. It has applied the law as it interprets it. There is an appeals process that goes ultimately to a very pro-Trump Supreme Court.

DJT has understandable 'angst' at radical judges, but the process needs to play out.

Nobody serious in legal circles believes a low-level District Court Judge has any "standing" to weigh in on ongoing national security matters with terrorists.

Next, he'll try to tell US Generals not to bomb Houthis!

US citizens FIRMLY in Trump's corner, fed up with radical left putting terrorist legal rights ahead of their SAFETY

HopeSpringsEternal

DJT has understandable 'angst' at radical judges, but the process needs to play out.

And means that judges stop his illegal actions.

Nobody serious in legal circles believes a low-level District Court Judge has any "standing" to weigh in on ongoing national security matters with terrorists.

Firstly, there is no evidence that they are terrorists.

And everyone knows that the District Court has authority to determine the legality of the president’s actions and adjudicate appropriately.

I choose a judge that will not be corrupt, will be experienced and knowledgeable in the Constitution and the laws within it, and will respect the rule of law. Whether or not they are liberal or conservative, as long as they live by and abide by the law, I will respect that.

Trump and many conservatives; especially the MAGA radicals don't care if a person has respect for the law. As long as that person, even if they are a felon, agrees with everything they think, they will like that person. They don't care with what evil acts that person has done in the past. As long as that person pledges their loyalty to them, they will like and respect that person. Of course, it's not all conservatives. I know a few who I respect, even if they have different views from my own. The basic thing we share is that we want to have a good quality of life, but accomplish it by respecting other people's lives and the laws.

Higher courts will determine if this judge standing to weigh in on ongoing national security matters and operations now underway by the Executive Branch, regarding known and dangerous illegal alien terrorists.

Will this Judge also weigh in on Generals, FBI, CIA, etc. and their ongoing activities to protect US National Security?

There's a line, a jurisdictional limit. Most experts believe this Judge lacks standing to weigh in on this matter.

Not when the judiciary interferes with the process of the executive

That is highly debatable. But what isn't is that the executive is actively interfering with the independence of the judiciary. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the highest representative of said judiciary to publicly intervene.

I choose a judge that will not be corrupt, will be experienced and knowledgeable in the Constitution and the laws within it, and will respect the rule of law.

Oh, the left have short memories…

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2024/01/04/house-democrats-want-clarence-thomas-to-recuse-from-trump-ballot-case/

Whether or not they are liberal or conservative,

Should be…

Democrats and ethics experts have widely criticized Thomas’ participation in election-related cases, with some lawmakers on the left calling for him to recuse himself or even resign. 

as long as they live by and abide by the law, I will respect that. 

Uh-huh….

Trump and many conservatives; especially the MAGA radicals don't care if a person has respect for the law.

https://www.studentnewsdaily.com/editorials-for-students/pa-democrats-defy-two-pa-supreme-court-rulings/

As long as that person, even if they are a felon, agrees with everything they think, they will like that person. They don't care with what evil acts that person has done in the past.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/joe-biden-student-debt-forgiveness-supreme-court-0c5204fe

As long as that person pledges their loyalty to them, they will like and respect that person. Of course, it's not all conservatives. I know a few who I respect, even if they have different views from my own.

I feel the same about some liberals.

The basic thing we share is that we want to have a good quality of life, but accomplish it by respecting other people's lives and the laws.

I agree, so we need to be fair and not hypocrites, the left have a long, long way to go to achieve that.

You have previously said that perjury is not a crime

You took that out of context

Roberts should have never injected himself into the executive branch

So if I understand your logic correctly:

The executive calling for the removal of judges that rule against it = “Totally fine”

The head of the judiciary simply saying “you can’t do that” = “egregious breach of separation of powers (clutches pearls)”

If he wants to opine, then take up the case, rule on it and then issue an opinion.

SCOTUS cannot “take up a case” at its discretion. The case has to be appealed by one of the parties to it. Which is literally what Roberts is saying Trump should do, and what you are criticizing him for saying,

Trump can't get all of his ducks in a row.

Hope...wasnt the matter BOUGHT before the Judge who made the interim findings re deportation ?

Judges dont "select " what cases they "want " to hear.

They rule on Law on the matter before them.

Sheesh....so stuff is basic...posters dont have much of an understanding...

And Trump is more versed in Bankruptcy Law .

So judges can’t be impeached?

Im quite sure there is a process for it.

what about the Supreme Court justices?

Democrats wanted to impeach Clarence Thomas, didn’t they?

So judges can’t be impeached?

Of course they can. But not for making the President upset.

Im quite sure there is a process for it.

There is. None start with "Made the President upset".

what about the Supreme Court justices?

Yes, though a very high bar must be proven. "Made the President mad" does not clear this bar.

Democrats wanted to impeach Clarence Thomas, didn’t they?

I'm sure some did and still do.

More than ever, we need these judges. With the illegal removing of people from their jobs, many without justification or evidence, with several immigrants being deported with no court or proof that each and every one of them being rounded up are indeed gang members, with funding for necessary benefits for the disabled and veterans being taken away without any justification or evidence, the sheer number of cases being brought forth will need to be heard.

With the overstepping of due process and laws, it has gotten to the point where some actual legal immigrants are being rounded up and deported. It has also come to the point where hard working people are being fired, and not only those who should be let go. It has gotten to the point where women, minorities, and the disabled are being discriminated against because of the actions of Trump.

Democrats wanted to impeach Clarence Thomas, didn’t they?

Yes, because he's corrupt. According to the Constitution judges can be removed for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, and doing so requires both houses of Congress.

where some actual legal immigrants are being rounded up and deported

proof?

Blacklabel

So judges can’t be impeached?

No. Not because you disagree with their ruling.

Democrats wanted to impeach Clarence Thomas, didn’t they?

Yes. For corruption.

Yes, because he's corrupt.

Because you say so? Give me a break, stop listening to msnbc

According to the Constitution judges can be removed for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, and doing so requires both houses of Congress.

Well, you just made my point for me.

Because you say so? 

No, because he accepts expensive gifts from people whose cases he is trying and because he refused to recuse himself in cases that directly involved his wife, a clear conflict of interest that even the most dim-witted of observers could understand.

So how was Clarence Thomas found to be “corrupt”?

wasnt it just he made Democrats mad?

This judge could be corrupt based on his family ties to this nonsensical verdict.

So how was Clarence Thomas found to be “corrupt”?

I'm glad you asked. Here's an article on the subject. Be warned: it has big words in it.

https://gijn.org/stories/propublica-exposed-ethics-scandals-us-supreme-court/

wasnt it just he made Democrats mad?

No.

This judge could be corrupt based on his family ties to this nonsensical verdict.

Go ahead, talk me through your latest conspiracy theory.

This judge up for impeachment:

refused to recuse himself in cases that directly involved his daughter and his sister and her husband, a clear conflict of interest that even the most dim-witted of observers could understand.

Just to be clear, the allegations in the impeachment against Clarence Thomas were:

1. Failure to disclose financial income, gifts and reimbursements, property interests, liabilities, and transactions, among other information.

2. Refusal to recuse from matters concerning his spouse’s legal interest in cases before the court.

3. Refusal to recuse from matters involving his spouse’s financial interest in cases before the court.

In contrast, the allegations in the impeachment against James Boasberg are:

1. He made a ruling Trump didn't like.

[Citation needed]

I'm glad you asked. Here's an article on the subject.

Debunked and he is not stepping down, now had he ruled against Trump, you guys would praise him, we know that.

No.

Oh, but it did, watch the video.

So how was Clarence Thomas found to be “corrupt”?

Tons of unreported private plane trips and yacht excursions provided by Republican billionaires like Harlan Crow in a bid to keep him on the bench after he complained about his low pay. It's been out there for a couple of years.

"Roberts should have never injected himself into the executive branch and enter the political fray and open himself up for a can of worms and I like Roberts, but it’s not his call. If he wants to opine, then take up the case, rule on it and then issue an opinion."

That's very true, but there is a process set in place to remove a judge from the bench. Perhaps that's what Roberts is referring to but as long as President DJT and or Roberts argue in public it only benefits the gotcha games media.

bass4funk

"You do you, I'm not worried, the man is not going anywhere, but not that you brought it up, let's hope during these 4 years that a liberal justice doesn't retire."

I hope President DJT, get the chance of nominating on more great man or woman.

This judge up for impeachment:

refused to recuse himself in cases that directly involved his daughter and his sister and her husband, a clear conflict of interest that even the most dim-witted of observers could understand.

Still waiting for evidence on this, buddy.

He was found to have accepted numerous 'gifts'

So did RBG Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2018 took a trip to Israel compliments of billionaire Morris Kahn, who had business before the court just a year earlier.

There is a reason why judges and justices, at least those who are not corrupt, try to not align themselves with the extremely rich and influential.

Ok, so that means both sides do it and yet they both will stay until the end.

This judge up for impeachment:

refused to recuse himself in cases that directly involved his daughter and his sister and her husband, a clear conflict of interest that even the most dim-witted of observers could understand.

Still waiting for evidence on this, buddy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2QgnkF2QuY

Wouldn’t you love to be a fly on the wall in the U.S. Supreme Court chamber listening to the high court justices discussing Trump’s actions.

Illegal aliens are not citizens and not afforded the protections a citizen are, especially those finally being evicted from being in the country illegally.

Good riddance.

More to Come

Fair play to Justice Rovers standing up to the wannabe dictator in chief.

Hope he'll be able to withstand the inevitable attacks on him now.

They already after Amy Coney Barrett .

Bunch of rabid dogs