Who is right and who is wrong, Chief Justice Roberts or Trump?

The position I have taken since day one is that Trump is never to be believed and is a troublemaker who could start a fight in an empty house.

King Trump is wrong AS USUAL!

Trump likes owning things including Judges.
Because you never know when a Supreme Court Judge will come in handy. Just saying.

Thank goodness for Justice Roberts responding as he did. He is correct. It something that goes to the very core of our democracy.

Now, Trump seems to be trying to convince conservatives that Roberts is wrong, will they follow Trump along even on this? I purposely watch Fox for a few minutes this morning and they seemed to say now maybe Roberts would have to recuse himself in some court cases? What? I couldn’t stay tuned in, I should have recorded it this morning. I’m interested to follow this Q to know what conservatives and republicans are saying about this.

Trump is right that the 9th Circuit court often rules on ideology instead of law. But it was not professional for him to blast it out that way. Roberts was correct in his admonishment of the comment, but he is somewhat hypocritical since he let Obama have a pass when, during his 2010 State of the Union address, he blasted the SCOTUS over the Citizens United ruling….basically the same sort of thing Trump said.

^Ah, you almost had me until you had to shift it back to Obama. <shakes head>

Obama Complex Disorder. Proposed for inclusion in DSM-6 and described as follows:

1. Recurrent and persistent thoughts, urges, or impulses that are experienced, relating to ex President Barack Obama.

2.The individual attempts vainly to ignore or suppress such thoughts, urges, or images, or to neutralize them with some other thought or action (i.e., by performing a compulsion).

3. Repetitive behaviours (e.g., hand washing, ordering, checking) or mental acts (e.g., praying, counting, repeating words silently)or constantly evoking the name Obama when discussing completely unrelated topics that the individual feels driven to perform in response to an obsession or according to rules that must be applied rigidly.

4.The behaviours or mental acts are aimed at preventing or reducing anxiety or distress, or preventing some dreaded event or situation; however, these behaviours or mental acts are not connected in a realistic way with what they are designed to neutralize or prevent, or are clearly excessive.

It is of course only ever the ‘other side’ that “rules on ideology”.

Ha ha ha ha @flutherother!

I can not believe that is how he is spending Thanksgiving day.

Why is it that when a question is asked about the correctness of something and a precedent is brought up, it suddenly is ridiculed? It is normal to see a situation and ask…what is normal? What has been done before? The question here was who was right or wrong….Trump or Roberts. In this case, there is precedence that exists. A previous president slammed a justice for his decision. The Chief Justice of the SCOTUS did nothing about it. Now, another president slams a judge for his decision, and the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS takes a shot at him. Same Chief Justice in both cases. So was it right or wrong? By precedent, taking a stab at Trump was wrong since it was not done to a previous president.
Or am I wrong? Is actually considering what has been done before taboo? Should we really only react to each situation like it is the very first time? If that is what you are saying, then anything you say about something Trump did in the past is off-limits. You can only address what is being done/said right now.
What I find telling, though, is that whenever the left screams about something Trump says or does and it is pointed out that a liberal president (Obama) said or did the exact same thing, they start into ridiculing. What that says to me is that it isn’t the actions it is the person. In other words, you are all hypocrites to try addressing something Trump did when you were silent about Obama doing it and you run from the comparisons now.

@seawulf575 There is a BIG difference, in that Citizens United was a settled case when Obama mentioned it. Many Presidents have criticized SCOTUS decisions.

Trump criticized not the decision, but the Court in a case in active litigation. That is what Roberts was speaking out against.

And, the Ninth Circuit is the largest in the country, handling the most cases, and a jurisdiction over 20% of the population, yet the rate of decisions overturned is consistent with every circuit in the country.

So there is a qualitative difference between Obama speaking out on adecided case, and Trump commenting on an active case, and one arguing the decision, the other threatening the judiciary.

Since the President appoints the justices, each justice might in fact be associated with the appointing president.
If that were not true, the appointment power would not be a campaign issue.
But it is.

The Trump “dictator in training” (is hoping to fire a all the Obama Judges and replace them with his choices.

They’re both wrong.

@zenvelo That is partially true. Yet the criticism from Obama was the same…that a judge(s) ruled based on a different ideology. Exact same complaint as Trump. Yet Roberts was silent on that one. As I said…I felt Roberts’ admonishment was justified, just a bit hypocritical and perhaps a bit naive. Want another consideration? Where was Roberts’ admonishment that there are no Trump judges or Obama judges (basically that there is no difference between the two since judges rule on law) when the Dems were screaming about Kavanaugh? If there is no difference, then why all the hoopla over confirming any justice?

@seawulf575 Confirmation is exactly the time when a potential justice must be questioned and challenged, because afterwards they cannot be removed except through the impeachment process.

And Kavanaugh was questioned over his previous decisions and on his opinions, although the administration refused to submit much of his previous work. And he lied during his confirmation, but the Republicans refused to confront or charge him on that.

But Obama never attacked the independence of the judiciary as Trump has. That is why. The Chief Justice spoke up. Trump cannot argue over the merits of the case as Obama did, he just complains about the judges.

@zenvelo Yes, the confirmation process is the place to question and challenge. But the Dems went WAY overboard on Kavanaugh. They asked for more documentation on him than on the previous 5 justices that were confirmed combined. That is the perfect example that at least some in our government believe there is a difference between an Obama judge and a Trump judge. And that is exactly what Roberts said against Trump…there are no Obama judges and Trump judges…there are just judges that support the law.
Trump attacked the impartiality of the judges of the 9th circuit, stating they are ideological instead of impartial. His term was that they were Obama judges. He wasn’t attacking the independence of the judiciary. And the impartiality is exactly what Obama attacked as well with the Citizens United case. He took a swipe at Scalia for being the author of the dissenting opinion.

@seawulf575 they had concerns about him on so many different levels. They were concerned about the attempted rape allegations. They were concerned about his stance on charging sitting presidents with a crime.

@Dutchess_III please….you can’t really believe all that crap. If they really worried about the “rape allegations” they would have brought them up way earlier in the proceedings. And the idea of his stance on charging sitting presidents is a farce. It is a hysterical liberal scare at best. There is zero charges against Trump, no obvious evidence of any wrongdoing, nothing to impeach him with and certainly nothing to incarcerate him for. And one SCOTUS justice is not enough to block action if there were. AND, there is nothing in his professional history to indicate he would go against the law to play partisan politics. There is absolutely nothing there. They went through his confirmation process, asking for 5x more information than they needed to make a decision, they grilled him at length and found absolutely nothing to hold against him to stop his confirmation. The “rape allegations” were manufactured at best. There was zero evidence that any of it was true and it was only a last ditch effort to create something out of nothing. The Dems real problem with Kavanaugh is that the mid-term elections were coming up and they had to put on kabuki theater for their psycho supporters. They had to show they were willing to fight Trump no matter what and that they would create stuff if they had to. They did that, alright. But they certainly didn’t get the huge wave they expected because the American public is fed up with this sort of partisanship from both sides.

I know you don’t want to believe a Supreme Court Justice is a disgusting, vile man. I don’t want to believe it either, but he is.

Based on what? Unfounded accusations? Made up stories? Blasey-Ford’s story was entirely unfounded and totally unsupported in any way. A vague party, at an unknown location, sometime during the summer of the year 30+ years ago and that is supposed to be convincing?
She might be a great actress, or maybe people just wanted to believe she wouldn’t make things up. But she was a vocal liberal activist and would have felt Kavanaugh was a horrible thing for her ideology…much as you do. Even her dear friend could not confirm the events she described, nor that they were ever at a party with Kavanaugh, nor that she could remember EVER being at a party with Kavanaugh. But she was supposed to be there with Ford. Sorry….it is not believable, and certainly not a story that would hold up in court anywhere in this country. None of this makes Kavanaugh anything other than a target.

And if you care to go to the other accusations, they get even more bizarre and vague. One accuser even came out and admitted she made the whole thing up. At least she came clean. Not really anything that makes Kavanaugh vile, but does reflect really badly on his accusers AND on the Dems, especially Feinstein, for their handling of the entire thing.

Judges are suppose to be impartial. Trump believes all justices can be bought, like he bought Kavanaugh. Justices are suppose to be impartial but they are human too and the law isn’t perfect, so they sometimes have to use personal life values and morality edge a vote one way or another when the issue isn’t clear cut. After all. If it was clear cut then it wouldn’t make it’s way all the way to the supreme court. Usually it requires a human factor. I do not always agree with them but in cases where I don’t, but I can usually see both sides of most issues even if I don’t agree. But putting in a drinker like Kavanaugh who has been purchased by Trump won’t help.