President Donald Trump vs The U.S. Chief Justice (John Roberts): I Saw it Coming and I Wrote About it when No One Was Watching.
Contrary to conventional wisdom, Chief Justice John Roberts (a conservative and a President George Bush appointee), yesterday defended the Independence of the Judiciary in reaction to President Donald Trump's Tweet over an unfavourable decision of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court. President Trump labelled the Judge an Obama's Judge for issuing a Temporary Restraining Order, blocking the Trump administration from denying asylum hearings to illegal migrants seeking political asylum.
In the words of the Chief Justice, "We do not have Obama Judges or Trump 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. That independent Judiciary is something we should all be thankful for." John Roberts, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Please, find below my candid opinion about some of the Justices of the US Supreme Court and my expectations of Justice Roberts, following the controversial confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh - a confirmation that makes the apex court overwhelmingly conservative leaning, supposedly. I told America to stay in faith and not be apprehensive of the unknown. Adding that when push comes to shove, Justice Roberts will save his Supreme Court and the American judicial system. And I was right.
The proof of the pudding is in the eating. Please, find below my candid opinion about some of the Justices of the US Supreme Court and my expectations of Justice Roberts, following the controversial confirmation of Justice Kavanaugh - a confirmation that makes the apex court overwhelmingly conservative leaning, supposedly. I told America to stay in faith and not be apprehensive of the unknown. Adding that when push comes to shove, Justice Roberts will save his Supreme Court and the American judicial system. And I was right.
Chief Justice John G Roberts: Saving the Integrity of the U.S. Supreme Court Amidst the Suffocating Voices of Conservative Jurists at the Apex Court.
Now that the American apex court is packed full with a convincing conservative majority following the addition of Justice Brett Kavanaugh to the bench, conservative ideologically biased decisions are assured. Republicans are celebrating, while liberal voices and progressive interest groups are in grief. And it's understandable.
But is that the kind of Supreme Court - one whose decision is easily predictable - that Chief Justice Roberts is comfortable presiding over? I don't think so.
Justice David H Souter was appointed by President George H.W. Bush (a Republican) in 1990. But the appointment didn't yield the expected dividends. Republicans were inadvertently sold a dummy.
Justice David Souter, a conservative thinking jurist, became an ideological centrist - a swing voter throughout his years at the apex court. Thereby making it difficult for litigants and legal scholars to predict the outcome of most cases before the apex court.
Today, Roe v Wade is on the line. Affirmative Action is always on the line. And same-sex marriage may be resurrected. But who will play Justice David Souter to ensure purposeful justice in the one body whose decisions are unassailable, next only to God? That is the question.
Do not expect Justice Samuel Alito to ever wear a neutral gown. He was once videotaped shaking his head, whispering "not true" while President Obama was making a State of the Union Address.
Count Uncle Clarence Thomas out. He is the heir apparent to the late extreme right constitutionalist, Justice Antonin Scalia's throne at the apex court. Besides, his resentment of populist and minority favored policies is well documented.
And Justice Neil Gorsuch? He is Donald Trump's apologist. Therefore, he is easily eliminated.
So, who is the emerging candidate for the role of ideological centrality within the conservative supermajority corner at the U.S. Supreme Court?
And the answer is in the hands of the gentleman who bears the cross: Chief Justice John G Robert. I arrived at this conclusion for two major reasons.
One. As a genuine (unpretentious) gentleman, an outstanding jurist and a family man to boot, I can see him adopting informed reasoning, recognized in laws and ethics to sustain the prestige, Integrity, dignity, and reputations of the custodian of the last hope of the aggrieved - his Supreme Court - by voting not just his conscience, but guided by facts, fundamental principles of fairness, the applicable laws, and the overall circumstances surrounding the case. He cannot afford to do less.
And two, his two decisions in the Obama Affordable Healthcare Law that came before the court provoked disturbing disbelief within the Republicans and the conservative intelligentsia circle. First, he rejected the constitutional challenges to the Act. And in the second case, he ruled in favour of tax subsidies for the Affordable Care Act. In fact, he wrote the majority decision in one of the cases. Unpredictable outcomes, no doubt.
In light of these decisions, I have cause to hope that when push comes to shove, Chief Justice John G Roberts, will vote his conscience, the laws, and the facts, without resorting to political correctness and ideological cum legal mumble jumble to circumvent justice, to appease the far Rights. It won't. And I pray.
