Attention

The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not represent our advertisers

Saturday, November 24, 2018

Grassley to Chief Justice: You Rebuked Trump — but Sat Silent Through Obama’s Abuse

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts offered rare public criticism of the President of the United States on Wednesday when he pushed back against President Trump’s claim Tuesday that an “Obama judge” had blocked his effort to deny asylum to those entering the country illegally.

But as outgoing Senate Judiciary Committee chair Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) later noted, Roberts was silent when President Barack Obama attacked the Court during the State of the Union address in 2010:

Chief Justice Roberts rebuked Trump for a comment he made abt judge’s decision on asylum I don’t recall the Chief attacking Obama when that Prez rebuked Alito during a State of the Union

— ChuckGrassley (@ChuckGrassley) November 21, 2018

Likewise, Roberts said nothing when Obama bullied the Supreme Court on numerous occasions — and even appeared to yield to Obama’s pressure.

In 2010, President Obama used his first State of the Union address to denounce the Court’s January 2010 ruling in the Citizens United case, which struck down restrictions on corporate political speech under the First Amendment.

More here

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

Roberts has been a profound disappointment.

Anonymous said...

Robert's is being blackmailed and will do anything the left wants so the truth about him won't come out. What he doesn't seem to understand is the Truth will come out soon because President Trump and others know the truth...

'Oh what webs we weave when we practice to deceive'...

Anonymous said...


Thank you, Senator. Pertinent observation.

Roberts should have kept his piehole zipped. Most of the crazy decisions continue to come from the 9th Circus (sp).

CJ Roberts is the chief administrative judge for all Federal courts. He knows the President's comment was accurate and on target.

A public reminder to all federal judiciary to interpret the law, regulation or executive order as they were written would have been a better use of his time, and could have been a bit reassuring to the public at large.