"You go to the 9th Circuit and it's a disgrace," "And I'm going to put in a major complaint because you cannot win — if you're us — a case in the 9th Circuit, and I think it's a disgrace. This was an Obama judge. And I'll tell you what, it's not going to happen like this anymore." President Donald Trump, a Republican.
“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,” “The independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” - Chief Justice John Roberts, USA Supreme Court., nominated to the US Supreme Court by President Judge Bush, a Republican.
That was Chief Justice John Roberts, in an unprecedented no-hold-barred declaration, taking umbrage at President Donald Trump for casting a Judge "an Obama Judge," because the Judge reached a decision that was inconsistent with President Trump's immigration agenda. For the purpose of records, Chief Justice John Roberts was nominated to the US Supreme Court by President George W. Bush, a Republican like President Donald Trump.
In terms of modern American jurisprudence, Chief John Roberts is an enigma. He is unpredictable, to say the least. And when the conservative minority expected him to exude his conservative legal bearing and kill Obamacare, he demurred. He upstaged conventional judicial wisdom and gave life to the new law.
What you may find interesting, and of course, the reason I write this essay, is that when Chief Justice John Roberts was nominated to the US Supreme Court by President George W. Bush, Mr. Obama, as a Senator from Illinois at the time, voted against Roberts' confirmation. And thanks to the Republican majority in the US Senate, Justice John Roberts was confirmed, not just as an Associate Justice, but as the Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court.
A few years later, Senator Obama ran and was elected US President, succeeding President Bush. And you would expect a pound of flesh from Chief John Roberts; forget it.
After bailing out the US Economy from the brink of recession, President Obama decided to grab the bull by the horns and go for the kill, pushing for the passage into law of the Affordable Healthcare Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.
In spite of the intransigence and crude filibuster of Republican members of Congress, the Bill was passed into law by a narrow margin. And it was not yet Uhuru.
Before the ink could dry up from the face of the paper on which the Bill was signed into law, Republicans in droves went to courts at both the State and Federal levels, propounding an unintelligible narrative for a judicial killing. Unintelligible because the philosophy underlying the Bill was first propounded by a Republican Governor in Massachusetts. In spite of everything, I was worried. And Americans were worried.
Given the harshness of Senator Obama's vocabulary during Justice Roberts' confirmation hearing, it was overwhelmingly expected that payback time had come for Chief Justice John Roberts. However, when the decision time came, he voted with the majority, affirming Obamacare as the law of the land. Republican conservative pundits cried foul - President George Bush sold us a dummy!
Not done, the opponents of Obamacare went to court again. And when the case came up before the US Supreme Court the second time, Republicans in unison expected a reprieve from the Chief Justice, to wit, he is going to atone for his sin of the past and vote along the partisan or ideological line this time around and kill the Law. They were wrong. The Chief Justice did not only vote to keep the Obamacare, but he also did, to the chagrin of Americans, author the majority opinion.
And just last year, he made the declaration quoted above.
Today, Americans and, specifically, legal scholars and pundits, are finding it difficult to predict the outcome of the few cases that come before the Supreme Court as the culture was before the ascension of the throne by Justice John Roberts as the Chief Justice.
Conclusion.
Conclusion.
It is no longer a secret, the Nigerian Bench has taken a severe beating in recent years, and it is still not free. As the ongoing hearing in the petition filed against the APC and INEC by Alhaji Atiku Abubakar, the Presidential candidate of the PDP reaches a critical stage at the Presidential Election Tribunal, borrowing a page from Justice Roberts's judicial integrity is not so herculean a task to execute by the major actors at the Nigerian Bench. Without missing words, the concerns most often expressed by Mr. Atiku Abubakar regarding the compromised position of the Chairman of the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal are not unfounded. The husband of the Chairman is a Senator under the flagship of APC flag. I do not think that the demand for her to recuse herself from hearing the petition made by the PDP Presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, is without foundation or merit. In addition, the sudden removal of Justice Onnoghen as the Chief Justice of the Nigerian Supreme Court, a few weeks before the Presidential election, by the President was not done in good faith. Nevertheless, it is my hope and prayer that the Chief Justice of the Nigerian Supreme Court, Ibrahim Tanko Muhammad, as well as the Chairman of the Election Petition Tribunal, Justice Bulkachuwa do the right thing and help to bring integrity, honor, and respect to the Nigerian Bench similar to what Justice John Roberts is doing in the United States of America.
AA
No comments:
Post a Comment
The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.