Chief Justice Roberts says personal criticism of judges is dangerous and has ‘got to stop’

Diogenes said:
It appears to be the point that Mark Sherman attempted to make.
Click to expand...
Trump’s most recent comments about judges came Sunday in a post on his Truth Social following a ruling by U.S. District Judge James Boasberg quashing subpoenas the Justice Department had issued to the Federal Reserve.


Boasberg, Trump wrote, is “a Wacky, Nasty, Crooked, and totally Out of Control Judge” who “suffers from the highest level of Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS), and has been ‘after’ my people, and me, for years.”

apnews.com

Chief Justice Roberts says personal criticism of judges is dangerous and has 'got to stop'

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is warning that personal criticism of federal judges is dangerous and “it’s got to stop.”
apnews.com apnews.com
 
T. A. Gardner said:
In law, language has to be precise. So, yes, the Supreme Court was correct that "waive or modify" doesn't include "cancel."

On the other hand, what District Court judges, on the Left mainly, started doing once Trump took office again, was having a single plaintiff come before them suing about something the Trump administration was doing. They'd take that lawsuit and then slap a nationwide injunction on the administration stopping that action in all cases even though they had a single plaintiff in their courtroom and their jurisdiction was limited to the district they were assigned to.

The Supreme Court smacked that down permanently removing almost all ability for district court judges to make rulings that impacted anyone or area of the country outside their district. Yes, there were some, a few by comparison, cases of Rightwing judges doing likewise against Obama or Biden. But with the return of Trump to power, it became a virtual political crisis where district judges were now running the country or so it seemed.

Now, what you are seeing is those same District Court judges handing down rulings for their district that get tossed on appeal at the Appellate or Supreme Court level. In fact, just in the last week something like a half dozen such rulings came down tossing out restrictions imposed on ICE by one District Court judge or another.

If anything, politically Leftist District court judges are shooting the judiciary in the foot by fighting Trump tooth and nail on everything. They are letting politics dictate their rulings and in the long run they're losing their power to make rulings on more and more.
Click to expand...
Language is precise and the word "modification" INCLUDES changing the terms in any regard. That is the literal meaning modify which is you change the terms.

You can change the terms by doubling, quadrupling or halving or wiping out the payments. All of which are a CHANGE in terms.

IF what you say and what the SC said, with regards to specificity then EACH AND EVERY increment must be specified by the Congress. They must say 10% if they mean 10% or 20% if they mean 20% as language has to be precise.

Thus Congress would have to write a bill with infinite definitions or... OR... they could simply tell the POTUS 'we give you the power to modify' which means he gets to choose.

The SC exhibited the worst type of politics in that ruling where Congress clearly wanted to give the POTUS to act and not put boundaries on him. If Congress wanted to exclude 'cancel' from the common meaning of 'modify' they could have easily put that in the legislation with an 'up to but not including cancelling' but they did not. And the SC should have put that onus on Congress to be precise.
 
Hume said:
No. I bet you flunked high school English.
Click to expand...

I suppose we'll just have to disagree. Although Justice Roberts clearly didn't say the alleged danger was political, Mr. Sherman seems (to me) to have written his report in a manner that suggests the opposite.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Then impeach them. Judges are should not be dictators and making up law as they go. Yet, many do, particularly ones that hew to the political Left. District judges have already seen their power to make national injunctions stripped from them by the Supreme Court, for example. That happened because they grossly overstepped their authority repeatedly in trying to stop or hinder the Trump administration in doing something.
Click to expand...

Care to provide some proof of that?

Or are you...

T. A. Gardner said:
.....an utter and complete idiot so your irrelevant, baseless, opinion is meaningless.
Click to expand...
 
Hume said:
I doubt you read the article.
Click to expand...

OK. I'm not trying to convince you. But how else would I know that the AP apparently believes that Mr. Sherman's past residences in New York, Paris and Atlanta are relevant. I'd rather learn something about his background, if the idea was to make him seem qualified.
 
Diogenes said:
OK. I'm not trying to convince you. But how else would I know that the AP apparently believes that Mr. Sherman's past residences in New York, Paris and Atlanta are relevant. I'd rather learn something about his background, if the idea was to make him seem qualified.
Click to expand...
boring
 
Diogenes said:
OK. I'm not trying to convince you. But how else would I know that the AP apparently believes that Mr. Sherman's past residences in New York, Paris and Atlanta are relevant. I'd rather learn something about his background, if the idea was to make him seem qualified.
Click to expand...
Trump calling a judge "crooked" is an accusation of a crime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top