Chief Justice John Roberts Warns Against Defying Supreme Court Rulings, Politico Makes Story About Trump
“Roberts made no direct reference to the president-elect, but with Trump vowing to swiftly enact dozens of sweeping policy moves of questionable legality, he seemed to be on the receiving end of the chief justice’s admonition”
Chief Justice John Roberts has issued a year-end report that includes a warning about defying rulings from the U.S. Supreme Court. While it is Democrats who have been waging a years-long attack on the court, the liberal outlet Politico is trying to make this all about Trump.
Leftists have been protesting outside the homes of justices, a radicalized leftist admitted wanting to murder members of the court, and even Senator Chuck Schumer publicly threatened two judges on the court, but none of that matters because Trump!
So much of what gets published at Politico is garbage:
As Trump’s return looms, chief justice warns against defying courts
With Donald Trump’s re-inauguration as president less than three weeks away, Chief Justice John Roberts is warning against calls to resist or defy the Supreme Court’s decisions.
Roberts made no direct reference to the president-elect, but with Trump vowing to swiftly enact dozens of sweeping policy moves of questionable legality, he seemed to be on the receiving end of the chief justice’s admonition in his year-end report released Tuesday.
“Every Administration suffers defeats in the court system — sometimes in cases with major ramifications for executive or legislative power or other consequential topics. Nevertheless, for the past several decades, the decisions of the courts, popular or not, have been followed,” Roberts wrote in the annual message. “Within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings. These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.”…
During Trump’s first term, he was accused of ignoring court decisions limiting spending related to his signature project of a border wall with Mexico, although the Supreme Court allowed him to continue to tap the disputed funding and the issue became moot with Biden’s election in 2020.
This past weekend, Jan Crawford of CBS News appeared on Face the Nation and said that Democrats have been actively trying to undermine the legitimacy of the Supreme Court. She is absolutely correct.
Transcript via CBS News (emphasis is mine):
MAJOR GARRETT: Jan, as you know better than anyone at this table, this last year was a clash of law and politics, unlike anything we have seen in our modern American history.
The judicial system in our country, according to Gallup, 35 percent confidence, 20 percent below our peer countries, other free market democracies. How much of that is a reflection of this clash, the Supreme Court, or just a sense that our judicial system has become, in the words of someone we have all come to know, two-tiered?
JAN CRAWFORD: You know, that’s a hard question to answer, because I think you have got a…
MAJOR GARRETT: We always give you the easiest ones, Jan.
(LAUGHTER)
JAN CRAWFORD: But I’m going to try, Major, because I think it goes – you have got to look past just this past year and go further back.
I think it really started and took off in the wake of the Dobbs decision, the court’s ruling that overturned Roe v. Wade. The outrage over that decision was so extreme that you saw, I think, a quite calculated effort to undermine legitimacy of the Supreme Court by Democrats, Senate Democrats, for example, hearings, stories about scandals, some of which were pretty overblown, to say the least.
Here’s the clip:
MUST WATCH: CBS's Jan Crawford eviscerates the "calculated effort to undermine legitimacy in the Supreme Court by Democrats."
"The public starts to believe that this Court is corrupt, is on the take — none of which is true." pic.twitter.com/xh0EeyYkOa
— Jake Schneider (@jacobkschneider) December 30, 2024
Just wait until this coming year or next when Trump gets to appoint another justice. Then we will get a real reminder of who presents a genuine threat to the Supreme Court.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
OK, Mr Chief Justice. Exactly what are you going to do when the SCOTUS is ignored? Do you have your own SWAT team?
Maybe you can put the guy that ran down the Dobbs leak on it?
The fact is that our three “co-equal” branches, only one branch has guns.
Roberts’ remark will cause many of us to remember what President Jackson said, though alleged to be apocryphal, to another Chief Justice, “John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia
He’s done nothing so far.
Because he’s a leftist paper tiger. Leftists have sht on the SC and Roberts has done nothing. Mr it’s a tax but it ain’t a tax. Asshat.
Who said it ain’t a tax? Certainly not Roberts. Before the bill got in trouble, when they were shoving it through Congress practically by brute force, the Democrats swore up and down that it wasn’t a tax, to which the Court’s opinion said: They lied. If you read that decision it’s hard not to agree with the reasoning, that if something looks waddles like a tax and quacks like a tax, it’s a tax even if you call it a “penalty”.
And the court cited a precedent from the 1930s where Congress did pass an unconstitutional penalty, but they called it a “tax”, and the court did the exact same thing, striking it down because a thing is what it is, not what you call it.
Who said it’s not a tax? Congress said that it’s not a Tax and Roberts said it was a tax to make ObamaCare legit
And it wasn’t just Congress that said it “ain’t a tax”. So did Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito. They read Roberts’ opinion and had no problem disagreeing with it. I found their arguments to be persuasive and correct.
Well Justice Roberts, what is the real power backing up SCOTUS? It’s supposed to be “We the People” and not the government. Remember that when you decide in whom the power resides when the Left/Dems et al want to neuter 1A, 2A, 4A and 5A.
The “power” backing the Supreme Court is the acquiescence of the people to its decisions. The submission of the people to its decisions. Absent that acquiescence and submission the SCOTUS has no power to actually enforce any of its decisions. And Roberts needs to understand that simple fact. Push it too far and he’ll find out what happens. That is all.
Actual two branches, remember Ashley Babbit
“So much of what gets published at Politico is garbage” And the rest is trash.
“Chief Justice John Roberts has issued a year-end report”
A year-end report is not a forecast for the upcoming year, but rather Justice Roberts is looking backwards at what happened in the past year and is commenting on it.
This, exactly. Trump’s last four years were “How can I do these things and stay within the law?” Biden’s last four years were “How can I do these things and not be prosecuted?” To that regard, his administration constantly threatened the SC by allowing violent protestors in front of their houses (but only the Republican members, of course) and trampled full-speed across the rule of law and prosecutorial discretion to imprison and ruin their political opponents. Prosecutors were pulled off child s-x crimes and violent felonies to prosecute misdemeanors committed by J6 protestors, a wild expansion of the FBI’s history where they practically *never* investigated misdemeanors in any year until then. And now when their pigeons have come home to roost, they’re going to wave the magic pardon flag at their own criminal actions.
You mean that he’s probably hinting about certain people trying to forgive student debt in spite of being told multiple times they don’t have the authority to do that. Go to Congress if you want to do that
No, that’s not a possible interpretation, because nobody’s ever been told they have no authority to forgive student debt. There has never been a court decision saying that, and there can’t be. It’s outside any court’s jurisdiction to say so.
SCOTUS decided that the government’s interpretation of a particular statute was wrong. The government immediately complied with the decision and stopped relying on that interpretation.
As for “go to Congress”, the government’s whole point was and is that Congress has authorized what it wants to do. That’s what statutes are. What else did you think the dispute was about? The constitution?! There’s nothing in there about student debt. It’s all about how to interpret various statutes.
Yes, the court slapped down the pedophile three times on that issue, but retard can’t take a hint.
I may concede your point, but like the Pope, Roberts talks in gibberish that allows the media and others to make their own talking points.
My thought when reading about JR comments was decisions about gun control. There seems to be a number of them that are trying to skirt Bruen. HI Supreme Court just ignored it.
Yep. I was.just gonna point out 2A and NY State/HI which seem to keep creating new but equally constitutionally unsound statutes as each prior one is knocked down. Eventually Justice Thomas is gonna get a conclusive bite at the Apple. Another possibility is a 2A friendly DoJ intervening against these civil rights violations.
Especially Hawaii whose supreme court says that 2A is subjugated to the state’s “Aloha Spirit”.
No, it never said that. Read the decision. I have, and there is not even a hint of that.
In the decision, SCAP-22-0000561
Section B States:
in Section e of Part 5 “History and Tradition in Hawaiʻi” the decision states:
……
Although the opinion did cite Buren to conclude that the Federal right is not aboslute,, the decision explores Hawaii’s History rather than the history of the United States as a whole before it goes on to state
A strong argument argument can be mustered that Hawaii Court’s analysis does not pass the historical analysis requirements imposed by Bruen and relied too much on state law and history.
Several appeals courts, however, have just been begging for a smack-down. Specifically the ones that have ruled, against all evidence and logic, that AR-15s are not weapons in common use for self-defense and other legitimate purposes.
“Justice Thomas is gonna get a conclusive bite at the Apple.”
And a little pineapple, too.
Jan better be careful….speaking her mind and doing it with truth is going to get her to need to get a gig on OANN.
Roberts reminds me of the media that only now is reporting on Biden’s dementia, once it no longer matters. How many times did Biden ignore the court on student loan forgiveness? Where was Roberts’ warning?
again how can he enforce it.
how many divisions does he have.
How many times did Biden ignore the court on student loan forgiveness? No times.
I think it’s pretty obvious. There have been rumblings among the Dems about how to prevent Trump from taking office. This is a caution – no shenanagins!
Or virtually every Dem Senator signing a statement urging the National Archivist to ignore numerous court decisions and just declare the ERA to have been enacted (disregarding that the statutory deadline for ratification expired over 40 years ago).
I don’t think there have actually been any court decisions on that question. Until now nobody’s had the hide to bring such an obviously wrong idea before a court.
As is unfortunately common for Milhouse, he is simply wrong. Per the official December 17 publis statement from the National Archivist:
“In 2020 and again in 2022, the Office of Legal Counsel of the U.S. Department of Justice affirmed that the ratification deadline established by Congress for the ERA is valid and enforceable. The OLC concluded that extending or removing the deadline requires new action by Congress or the courts. Court decisions at both the District and Circuit levels have affirmed that the ratification deadlines established by Congress for the ERA are valid. Therefore, the Archivist of the United States cannot legally publish the Equal Rights Amendment. As the leaders of the National Archives, we will abide by these legal precedents and support the constitutional framework in which we operate.”
Funny thing. I remember the courts told Joe Biden he couldn’t forgive student loan debt on his own authority, and he just kept trying.
When President Trump was told by the courts things he couldn’t do, even when he disagreed with the reasoning, he abided by the rulings until he could win on appeal.
Defying the courts has been a Democrat thing ever since the current majority.
WAY off topic: how did you change your avatar? I changed mine at the avatar site but nothing changed.
It can take a while to kick in, if people have them cached.
Been waiting seven months.
Then you misremember, because it never told him that. He never asserted such an authority in the first place, so it couldn’t tell him he didn’t have one. All it told him was that one clause in one statute did not mean what he thought it meant.
“Defying the courts has been a Democrat thing
ever since
the current majorityAndrew Jackson.”Is it wrong to think that there are bureaucrats with a conservative mentalities still in corrupted agencies, that they laid low?
Identifing those people early on would help a great deal to speed up Trump’s restructuring agencies.
It also would help to jumpstart criminal prosecutions.
Is any of them laid low and didn’t become a whistle blower, they must be cleared out with the rest of the trash.
Eisenhower deported illgals in Operation Wetback. It was legal. So just do it and ignore any roadblocks now. Full speed ahead.
Chief Justice of the U.S., Roberts, with the allegedly considerable investigatory resources and talents of the corrupt FBI, allegedly couldn’t identify who the leaker(s) of the Dobbs decision was. It defies credulity.
My bet is that Sotomayor, or, Sotomayor with her clerks’ connivance, did it. It would have been too scandalous to reveal that a Dhimmi-crat activist SCOTUS “Justice” and her staff so brazenly flouted SCOTUS rules and tradition, so, the entire matter was buried.
The Chief Justice understands that Trump understands.
When SCOTUS ruled that the person who is elected President has presumptive immunity for all official acts, that took away power from renegade federal judges to place a stay on presidential acts based on twisted reading of other laws. Since the President, for example, has the statutory power to ban any class of aliens from entering the United States, all acts of deportation by Trump are immune from civil or criminal actions. No longer can some obscure group have standing in a Hawaii court this time around.
Roberts knows that Trump will use his SCOTUS confirmed powers of the presidency against them and is signaling that the federal courts are not going to be as powerful this time around.
Leave a Comment