An 'Independent Judiciary'
Reality Check
Chief Justice John Roberts's assertion that we have an
"independent judiciary" lacks credibility.
Let's set the record straight...
You may have heard that President Donald Trump is adamant
about defending our southern border.
Most recently, that defense has been focused on the migrant mobs attempting to breach our border
between Tijuana and San Diego.
In a setback to Trump's efforts, one of Barack Obama's appointees
on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, Judge Jon Tigar, blocked Trump's order
requiring that illegal alien asylum applications, the free ticket to America,
be processed at legal points of entry. (There's a reason that circuit is also
known as the Ninth Circus and the Nutty Ninth.)
Trump responded to the ruling, "You go the 9th
Circuit and it's a disgrace. And I'm going to put in a major complaint because
you cannot win — if you're us — a case in the 9th Circuit and I think it's a
disgrace. This was an Obama judge."
On that note, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts,
in an unprecedented rebuke of a U.S. president, chastised Trump for stating
the obvious: that an Obama-appointed federal judge "was an Obama
judge."
Roberts declared, "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."
It would have been proper for Roberts to say nothing
about Trump's remark, but, ostensibly endeavoring to protect the integrity of
the courts, he apparently felt compelled. Obviously, Justice Roberts knows full
well how highly politicized the federal courts are — and his assertion that we
now have an "independent judiciary" defies reality. The objective of
impartial "blind justice" is certainly what our Founders prescribed
for the judicial branch, but they knew that attaining equal justice under the
law was a high bar.
The most recent skewering of then-SCOTUS nominee and
now-Justice Brett Kavanaugh is an
airtight case in point. So one might conclude that Roberts was projecting what
he believes should be the nonpartisan nature of the courts. But as he
stated it, he's flat wrong.
Responding to Roberts, Trump said, "I have a lot of
respect for [Roberts] but I think we have to use some common sense. This 9th
Circuit, everybody knows it's totally out of control and what they're doing,
what they're saying, the opinions are very unfair to law enforcement, very
unfair to our military, and they're very unfair, most importantly, to the
people of our country because I'm keeping them safe."
Trump added: "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 there are so many opposing view 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! Judges must not Legislate Security
and Safety at the Border."
Rep. Trey Gowdy (R-SC), a former federal prosecutor and
a strong candidate for a Circuit Court nomination once he retires from the
House, declared, "I wish Chief Justice Roberts were right. I wish there
were not a politicization of the judiciary."
Gowdy, chairman of the House Oversight Committee, added,
"Every print article that you will go find ... refers to judges based on
the president that put him or her in office. And you see terms like
conservative and ultra conservative and liberal and moderate, which are
political terms. ... So I wish Chief Justice Roberts were right. I wish that we
did not refer to judges based on which president put them in office as if that
is somehow going to inextricably lead us to the conclusion."
The fact is, federal judges have proven to be partisan
for generations, and there is most assuredly a very distinct division and
partiality on the federal bench.
Judges nominated and appointed by Republican presidents
are partial toward Rule of Law and the Liberty enshrined in our
Republic's Constitution. In the
overwhelming majority of cases, they honor their oaths "to support and defend"
our Constitution.
Conversely, judges nominated and appointed by Democrat presidents are
clearly partial toward the so-called "living constitution"
embraced by those who reject Rule of Law in deference to the rule of men, the
irrevocable terminus of which is tyranny.
Of the latter, Thomas Jefferson warned they would
"make the Judiciary a despotic branch." As the venerable former Sen.
Sam Ervin (D-NC) once put it, these are judges who "interpret the
Constitution to mean what it would have said if [they], instead of the Founding
Fathers, had written it." Jefferson warned that such interpretation would
render our Constitution "a mere thing of wax ... which [judges] may twist
and shape into any form they please."
As James Madison cautioned, "There are more
instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent
encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations."
As for partiality on the Supreme Court, over the last 18
months, according to The Daily Wire, "The four left-leaning
judges on the Supreme Court are far more consistent about voting together as a
bloc than the conservatives on the court; Elena Kagan votes with Stephen
Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg an average of 89% of the time;
Breyer votes with his cohorts an average of 91% of the time; Ginsburg also
votes with her pals an average of 91% of the time, and Sotomayor joins them
90.3% of the time."
The assessment notes further, "By contrast, among
the four right-leaning judges, Neil Gorsuch, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, and
John Roberts, Gorsuch sided with them an average of 82.7% of the time; Thomas
86.3% of the time; Alito 85.7% of the time, and Roberts 80.7% of the
time."
As Cal Thomas concludes,
"If all judges thought the same, as Roberts seems to suggest, why are
there so many 5-4 rulings by the high court?"
And regarding significant immigration decisions by the
lower courts since Donald Trump took office, according to a Washington Times review, "53 of the 54
Democrat appointed judges who issued or signed onto opinions in immigration
cases ruled against the Trump administration's get-tough approach." The
Times study noted further, "By contrast, among GOP-appointees to the
federal bench, 15 judges have backed the administration in immigration cases
and 13 have not."
As I have noted, judicial opinions are not about
"Right" versus "Left"; they're about Liberty versus tyranny.
Thus, in 2016, when I voted for Donald Trump instead of his leftist opponent, Hillary Clinton, I voted for the Supreme Court.
And indeed, President Trump has consistently nominated constructionist judges
to both the upper and lower courts.
And finally, what debate about the Supreme Court would
be complete without Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) offering one of
his mind-numbing observations. In an opinion that sounded far more satirical
than senatorial, Schumer offered an affirmation of Roberts's assessment of
judicial independence, while in the same breath accusing Roberts of
partisanship in his decisions: "I don't agree very often with Chief
Justice Roberts, especially his partisan decisions which seem highly political.
... But I am thankful today that he ... stood up to President Trump for an
independent judiciary."
Yes, you heard that correctly: Schumer sided with Trump
about the Court's partisan nature, then laughably implied that he supports
"an independent judiciary."
But no sooner had he sucked up to the chief justice than
he was back to his old obfuscatory games. This week on the Senate floor,
Schumer, singing the Demos' midterm "rigged election" theme
song, declared, "Justice Roberts will go down in history as one of those
who worked to take away voting rights when he authored the Shelby
decision and stated that he didn't believe that ... more or less, he stated
that he didn't believe that discrimination existed any longer, so we wouldn't
need Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act."
Of course, Roberts never wrote that. In fact, quite the
contrary. In that decision, Roberts noted, "At the same time, voting
discrimination still exists; no one doubts that."
Never let it be said that Schumer allowed inconvenient
facts to get in the way of a partisan cheap shot.
