Share This Article with a Friend!


Is Chief Justice John Roberts Naïve Or Disingenuous?

Earlier this month, President Trump signed two Executive Orders intended to block phony asylum claims by illegal aliens who cross the border between designated ports of entry and then disappear into the interior of the United States.

Trump tweet RobertsWhen U.S. District Judge Jon Tigar issued a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting the Administration from implementing his lawful order, the President blasted the activism of “Obama judges.”

Responding to a query by The Associated Press, Chief Justice John Roberts issued this startling statement:

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.

The President, however, remained unchastened by Chief Justice Roberts’ pushback.

“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,” the president tweeted Wednesday.

Mr. Trump took to Twitter Thursday morning again in response to Chief Justice Roberts’ rebuke.

“Justice Roberts can say what he wants, but the 9th Circuit is a complete & total disaster. It is out of control, has a horrible reputation, is overturned more than any Circuit in the Country, 79%, & is used to get an almost guaranteed result. Judges must not Legislate Security and Safety at the Border, or anywhere else. They know nothing about it and are making our Country unsafe. Our great Law Enforcement professionals MUST BE ALLOWED TO DO THEIR JOB! If not there will be only bedlam, chaos, injury and death. We want the Constitution as written!” Mr. Trump tweeted.

A Washington Times analysis of court decisions on immigration cases over the last 22 months, reported by our friend Stephen Dinan, shows a striking lack of success for Mr. Trump in front of Democratic-appointed judges.

This covers a variety of cases, including: the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, detention and separation of immigrant families crossing into the U.S. illegally, ending humanitarian protections for migrants from disaster-stricken countries, sanctuary cities, the 2017 travel ban, allowing government-facilitated abortions for immigrant teens living in the U.S. illegally. Judges appointed by Democrats — and particularly by Mr. Obama — have ruled against him. The only exception is Mr. Trump’s border wall plan, which an Obama-appointed judge allowed to continue.

What’s more, Fox News reports Federal Judge William Orrick III, who last Tuesday blocked President Trump's order to withhold federal funds from sanctuary cities, reportedly bundled hundreds of thousands of dollars for President Barack Obama.

Orrick, of the Northern District of California, issued an injunction against the Trump administration after the city of San Francisco and county of Santa Clara sued over the president's plan to withhold federal funds from municipalities that harbor illegal aliens.

The same judge, reported Fox, issued a restraining order in 2015 against the advocacy group responsible for undercover videos purporting to show Planned Parenthood employees plotting to sell baby organs.

Our friend Mollie Hemingway, writing for the The Federalist found that Orrick raised at least $200,000 for Obama and donated more than $30,000 to groups supporting him.

As for Judge Jon Tigar, the judge who blocked President Trump’s Executive Order on asylum claims by illegal border crossers, Open Secrets lists five donations from him to political candidates, all of them Democrats, including $1,000 to Barack Obama’s campaign.

Justice Roberts can’t possibly be so naïve as to believe that most judges appointed by former President Obama are not liberals, and so ill-informed as to not recognize that many are indeed Far Left political activists.

That leaves us with a very unsettling conclusion: Justice Roberts’ claim that “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges” was a disingenuous defense of the role liberal activist judges have played in undermining the results of the 2016 presidential election.

Share this

John Roberts

Roberts IS NOT "naïve", he is a traitor. Even though appointed by Bush he has turned out to be one of the worst appointments to the SCOTUS. He deliberately played like a "conservative" when all along he was a liberal. His assisting of the Obama administration in rewriting ObamaCare was his showing that he would be an "activist" judge. He should have been "impeached" immediately after that act of treason against the American people. He is the poster boy for why lifetime appointments need to be abolished.

Roberts

Yes, this man is a traitor. When the Left causes the civil war they seem bent on he will be on the same list as the hildebeast, Obumer, and many others to hang for treason.

Justice Roberts naive or disingenuous?

Probably a bit of both. It is curious that he would get into this discussion at all, given the pathetic dicisions on record from the 9th. But the fact that he did seems to point to his defense of these decisions as not being political. Really? Remember Roberts defended Obamacare when it came through and there was talk that the left made him an offer he could not refuse. It would be very, very good to get Ginsburg replaced so the SCOTUS does not defend cases that are opposed by most Americans.