Chief justice defends judiciary against Trump’s ‘Obama judge’ criticisms
The US Supreme Court chief justice John Roberts has taken the extraordinary step of rebuking Donald Trump over his disparaging remarks about federal judges. The head of the highest court felt compelled yesterday to defend the independence of the judiciary in the wake of Mr Trump calling District Court jurist John Tigar an “Obama judge” after he ruled against the administration’s new policy on asylum
seekers.
“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,” Mr Roberts said in a rare public show of defiance. “That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for,” added chief justice Roberts, who was appointed to lead the Supreme Court by George W Bush in 2005.
Mr Roberts was responding to a request from the Associated Press regarding Mr Trump’s comments about the asylum ruling in the 9th Circuit Court earlier in the week. Judge Tigar ruled the Trump administration could not deny illegal immigrants the chance to apply for asylum, as had been laid out in an executive order by the president. Mr Trump called the decision to block his order a “disgrace” and Mr Tigar ”an Obama judge”.
Mr Tigar had been appointed by the former president Barack Obama. The judge ruled that Mr Trump did not have the authority to override the current legislation on asylum claims. He also ruled the president had misused his authority to issue emergency regulations and waive a 30-day waiting period to consider comments on the policy change.
Mr Robert’s criticism yesterday earnt a swift response from Mr Trump, with the president never afraid to get into a war of words. Mr Trump wrote: “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.” Mr Trump asked why so many “opposing view” cases, meaning cases filed with the intention of challenging his administration’s policies, were filed in the 9th Circuit – particularly relating to border and immigration issues
The president said Mr Roberts should “study the numbers” of cases with rulings against the administration and said the decisions were making “our country unsafe”. The president had hit out at the district court as well, noting: “Every case that gets filed in the 9th Circuit, we get beaten. And then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court, like the travel ban, and we won.”
It is not the first time that Mr Trump has taken aim at the judiciary for blocking his policies - a possible reason why Mr Roberts felt he had to respond when members of the Supreme Court see themselves as apart from the tumult of American politics. In 2017, Mr Trump called a federal judge who reversed his controversial travel ban against a number of Muslim-majority countries a “so-called judge” with a “ridiculous” opinion.
The year before that, the president referred to a judge who was presiding over a fraud lawsuit against Trump University as a “Mexican”. He said US District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel, who was born and raised in Indiana, would be unable to rule fairly because of Mr Trump’s proposal to build a wall along the US-Mexican border.
Chief justice Roberts is seen as the judge on the Supreme Court who is the closest to the centre. The current makeup of the bench is five judges considered conservative – including Mr Roberts – and four liberal.
Mr Trump just successfully placed conservative Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court after a controversial confirmation process during which Mr Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault when a teenager. Justice Kavanaugh denies the allegations. Mr Kavanaugh’s confirmation followed Mr Trump placing another conservative judge – Neil Gorsuch – on the Court in 2017.
Given the fact that Mr Trump has solidified the Supreme Court’s conservative majority, several justices have spoken out about judicial independence and the danger of having the Court viewed merely as a political institution.