Trump tweet-bombs Chief Justice Roberts

LizKat

macrumors 603
Original poster
Aug 5, 2004
5,323
29,836
Catskill Mountains
Honestly, there's no limit in Trump's head on what or to whom he can afford to tweet some riff that occurs to him. Especially when he hears that someone has disagreed with him in a public venue. And more especially if they take issue with some remark of his that was critical of someone or something Trump has blamed on Barack Obama.

Trump hits back at Chief Justice Roberts, escalating an extraordinary exchange

Excerpts:

Roberts said Wednesday morning there are no “Obama judges or Trump judges” after the president attacked the judge who ruled against his attempt to restrict asylum seekers at the border earlier this week.

“We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement. “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.”

Later in the afternoon, Trump hit back with two posts on Twitter.

“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.....,”

the president wrote, followed by:

“.....are so many opposing view (on Border and Safety) 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!”

Sheesh. So tired of Trump still and forever sounding as though his official Twitter account is just a campaign rally podium.

 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
But is he wrong? If he wasn't, then there wouldn't be such an outcry over Kavanagh or worry over RBG dying.
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
That's not what I asked. Of course his style has a lot to be desired but the content of what he said is true.

Even the Saudi comments were ridiculous but true. I would argue that any president over the last 40 years would have done nothing against Saudi either.

At least Trump doesn't mince words.
 

dogslobber

macrumors 68040
Oct 19, 2014
3,476
4,669
Apple Campus, Cupertino CA
But is he wrong? If he wasn't, then there wouldn't be such an outcry over Kavanagh or worry over RBG dying.
Trump is trying to assert authority over independent judges by interfering in the judicial process. If he will get away with it then this shows that this country is just as corrupt as those dictatorships who have a despot in charge. Trump is a crazy out of control individual.
 

LizKat

macrumors 603
Original poster
Aug 5, 2004
5,323
29,836
Catskill Mountains
That's not what I asked. Of course his style has a lot to be desired but the content of what he said is true.

Even the Saudi comments were ridiculous but true. I would argue that any president over the last 40 years would have done nothing against Saudi either.

At least Trump doesn't mince words.
No he doesn't mince words. He doesn't think he needs to mince words.

Quite often he's wrong. About that, and about the facts of the matter. In the cited piece, for instance. The Politico reporter noted that Trump was using numbers for the wrong aggregation of decisions when remarking on percentage of rulings being overturned.

Cohn spent months trying to brief Trump on how wrong Trump is on his assumptions about trade deficits. Trump won't listen when he has made up his mind and acquired some numbers to throw out there that he thinks support his view even when they don't. He made up his mind about trade deficits like 30 years ago, and even at that he's inconsistent in how he behaves given his theory, e.g., his own businesses...

In Woodward's book there are places where principals are quoted as saying it's not hard to have a sensible discussion with Trump as long as you don't hit up against one of those places where he's made up his mind decades ago and stops listening when you try to explain how his policy view is flawed: stuff like immigration and trade in particular. And anything involving bias against him. If a court ruling doesn't go his way, the ruling is messed up, biased, unjustifiable, next stop = unconstitutional so the judge has to go.
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
He definitely isn't right on the details but are you saying that judges aren't partisan? Of course they are. That's the point is making.
 

mac_in_tosh

macrumors 6502
Nov 6, 2016
351
4,553
Earth
He definitely isn't right on the details but are you saying that judges aren't partisan? Of course they are. That's the point is making.
You give the idiot too much credit by saying he is making a "point" rather than just venting because something happened to him that he doesn't like.

Trump is wrong to imply that just because a particular judge was appointed by Obama his ruling is wrong, as he previously implied a judge's Mexican heritage was the reason for a judgement against him. The guy is the most divisive president I have ever lived under. He makes zero attempt to bring people together and to heal the partisan divide in the country. What he is saying is basically that all judges appointed by a Democrat cannot be qualified to rule on his actions, similar to how he implies that any member of Mueller's team who is a Democrat cannot be depended on to impartially investigate him. This is simply unprecedented.
 

Rigby

macrumors 601
Aug 5, 2008
4,741
3,689
San Jose, CA
He definitely isn't right on the details but are you saying that judges aren't partisan? Of course they are. That's the point is making.
And then he stacks the courts with the most hyper-partisan judges he can find. Have we ever heard angry rants like the ones from Kavanaugh in a confirmation hearing before, who claimed that there was some kind of conspiracy "on behalf of the Clintons" against him and was unbelievably disrespectful toward Democrats such as Sen. Klobuchar?

Judges are of course opinionated and lean in a certain idealogical direction like everyone else, but so far most weren't perceived as being outright partisan. E.g. even supposedly conservative judges often decided against against the GOP (see e.g. the Supreme Court judgement on Obamacare a few years ago). If Trump has his way, all that is changing. The courts are becoming just another arena for partisan politics. And with every judge Trump tries to undermine, he also undermines the public trust in the judiciary as a whole.
 

GermanSuplex

macrumors 6502a
Aug 26, 2009
963
9,910
Roberts has been a true swing vote. A voice of reason. Screw Trump. Gorsuch hasn’t been bad either.

We need them. Screw Trump.

*Did i day screw Trump? His record on trying to dictate these things is quite awful.
 
  • Like
Reactions: arkitect

linuxcooldude

macrumors 68020
Mar 1, 2010
2,470
4,185
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35117174/ns/politics-white_house/t/justice-openly-disagrees-obama-speech/#.W_Y-85NKimk

The president ( Obama ) had taken the unusual step of publicly scolding the high court, with some of its members in robes seated before him in the House. "With all due deference to the separation of powers," he said, the court last week "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections."
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,610
35,008
USA
More lies from a wannabe dictator.Simple fact checking shows that the 9th hasn't overturned the most. But we know facts don't matter to him. But "fake news."

Screen Shot 2018-11-22 at 8.39.51 AM.png
 
  • Like
Reactions: millerj123

Thomas Veil

macrumors 68020
Feb 14, 2004
2,435
5,515
OBJECTIVE reality
LOL. He’s still keeping it up this morning.

Seriously...is there anybody that moron isn’t fighting with? Everybody else is wrong, everything is always someone else’s fault. Only he is right all the time.

:p He just doesn’t see it.

When I was growing up, I remember hearing that only true lunatics are convinced that they can’t possibly be the one who’s crazy. Whether it’s true or not, damn if Trump isn’t the living embodiment of it.
 

mudslag

macrumors regular
Oct 18, 2010
139
9,922

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,371
UK
So Obama points out concerns he has over a specific ruling, Trump points out issue with Judges and who appointed them.....one of these things is not like the other. Im not sure what's worse, that you tried to use that as an example that somehow Obama did it too or that it needs to be pointed out that it's not the same.
If Trump was treated fairly they’d have to accept a black man and a woman would have been better presidents than Trump.
 

Carnegie

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2012
600
1,242
President Trump is wrong to suggest that the reason Judge Tigar ruled against the administration's new asylum rule is because he was appointed by President Obama or is otherwise a partisan.

Yes, judges have partisan or ideological leanings which may factor into their decisions. And there are some cases which can be reasonably argued on both sides, and where the ideological leanings of the particular judges hearing the cases have a lot to do with the outcomes. That reality cuts both ways. There are cases that likely would have gone differently if a Democrat-apponted judge had heard them just as there are cases that likely would have gone differently if a Republican-appointed judge had heard them.

There are also cases which are pretty clear from a legal standpoint, and would only have been decided to the contrary by a hyper-partisan judge. The recent asylum case is one of those. I wouldn't say that no federal judge in the country would have decided for the administration (with regard to a TRO), because we sometimes get hyper-partisan - and wrong - rulings. But I would say that the vast majority of the federal judges in the country would have decided against the administration in that case, to include ones appointed by President Obama, by President Bush (II), by President Clinton, by President Trump and so on.

In short, President Trump lost that case (at the TRO stage) because his administration was wrong. Regardless of whether the new rule it put place makes sense from a policy standpoint, that rule is in clear conflict with existing law. I don't see a reasonable basis on which one can argue to the contrary on that legal point. I think the administration knew it couldn't do what it tried to do and that it would almost surely lose a court challenge. What it did was for show, not for practical effect.
[doublepost=1542901558][/doublepost]
What President Obama did in that instance was inappropriate also. I say that in part, but not only, because he was trying to mislead people about what the Citizens United decision did. That decision remains one of the most misrepresented and wrongly-understood Supreme Court decisions in recent memory.
 

vrDrew

macrumors 65816
Jan 31, 2010
1,317
11,834
Midlife, Midwest
But is he wrong? If he wasn't, then there wouldn't be such an outcry over Kavanagh or worry over RBG dying.
The issue over Brett Kavanaugh wasn't over the fact that Donald Trump nominated him. It was because there were plausible (if not necessarily provable) allegations of serious sexual misconduct in his past.

There were, as you may recall, very few objections to the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.
 

Carnegie

macrumors 6502a
May 24, 2012
600
1,242
More lies from a wannabe dictator.Simple fact checking shows that the 9th hasn't overturned the most. But we know facts don't matter to him. But "fake news."

View attachment 805853
In absolute numbers, the Ninth Circuit is the most overturned circuit in the country. But that's mostly because it, by far, handles more cases than any other circuit.

In percentage terms, which is what he was suggesting, you're right... he's wrong. The Ninth Circuit regularly has a fairly high overturn rate (among cases heard by the Supreme Court), but over the last 10 years the 6th, 8th, and 11th all have a higher overturn rate.

By my calculations, the Supreme Court has an overall 72% overturn rate over the last 10 years. For the 9th Circuit, the overturn rate is 77%. For the 6th Circuit, it's 89%.

But if we consider all the cases which circuits decide, and not just those which the Supreme Court agrees to hear, the reality is that less than 1 in 1,000 cases get overturned by the Supreme Court. The rate for the Ninth Circuit is a little higher than average but, again, it isn't the highest.
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,371
UK
President Trump is wrong to suggest that the reason Judge Tigar ruled against the administration's new asylum rule is because he was appointed by President Obama or is otherwise a partisan.

Yes, judges have partisan or ideological leanings which may factor into their decisions. And there are some cases which can be reasonably argued on both sides, and where the ideological leanings of the particular judges hearing the cases have a lot to do with the outcomes. That reality cuts both ways. There are cases that likely would have gone differently if a Democrat-apponted judge had heard them just as there are cases that likely would have gone differently if a Republican-appointed judge had heard them.

There are also cases which are pretty clear from a legal standpoint, and would only have been decided to the contrary by a hyper-partisan judge. The recent asylum case is one of those. I wouldn't say that no federal judge in the country would have decided for the administration (with regard to a TRO), because we sometimes get hyper-partisan - and wrong - rulings. But I would say that the vast majority of the federal judges in the country would have decided against the administration in that case, to include ones appointed by President Obama, by President Bush (II), by President Clinton, by President Trump and so on.

In short, President Trump lost that case (at the TRO stage) because his administration was wrong. Regardless of whether the new rule it put place makes sense from a policy standpoint, that rule is in clear conflict with existing law. I don't see a reasonable basis on which one can argue to the contrary on that legal point. I think the administration knew it couldn't do what it tried to do and that it would almost surely lose a court challenge. What it did was for show, not for practical effect.
[doublepost=1542901558][/doublepost]

What President Obama did in that instance was inappropriate also. I say that in part, but not only, because he was trying to mislead people about what the Citizens United decision did. That decision remains one of the most misrepresented and wrongly-understood Supreme Court decisions in recent memory.
I wish more conservatives had your integrity.
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
The issue over Brett Kavanaugh wasn't over the fact that Donald Trump nominated him. It was because there were plausible (if not necessarily provable) allegations of serious sexual misconduct in his past.

There were, as you may recall, very few objections to the nomination of Neil Gorsuch.
Completely untrue. They hated his policies, especially with regards to Roe vs Wade. They didn't have the votes so they brought up these misconduct allegations.

How about RBG? Why all the worry if all justices are non-partisan?
 

Eraserhead

macrumors G4
Nov 3, 2005
10,300
10,371
UK
Completely untrue. They hated his policies, especially with regards to Roe vs Wade. They didn't have the votes so they brought up these misconduct allegations.

How about RBG? Why all the worry if all justices are non-partisan?
I think most liberals would have preferred Amy Coney. Even though actually having her on the court might have led to a repeal of Roe vs Wade.

Amy Coney would also have ruled well on other stuff as she has integrity.
 

Dmunjal

macrumors 65816
Jun 20, 2010
1,488
1,201
I think most liberals would have preferred Amy Coney. Even though actually having her on the court might have led to a repeal of Roe vs Wade.

Amy Coney would also have ruled well on other stuff as she has integrity.
She'll be Trump's next nominee! Give it a year or two.