Tag: John Roberts

‘Assault on Democracy’: A sitting federal judge takes on John Roberts, Trump and Republicans

Washington Post logoLynn S. Adelman, a U.S. district judge in Milwaukee, has riled conservatives by publishing a blistering critique of the Supreme Court’s record under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., focusing on a string of decisions that he argues have fostered “economic inequality,” “undermined democracy” and “increased the political power of corporations and wealthy individuals” at the expense of ordinary Americans.

Adelman also criticized President Trump, who he wrote ran as a populist but failed to deliver “policies beneficial to the general public. … While Trump’s temperament is that of an autocrat,” Adelman wrote, “he is disinclined to buck the wealthy individuals and corporations who control his party.”

The article by Adelman was all the more unusual because it went after the chief justice directly. Roberts, he said, was “misleading” in his 2005 confirmation hearing testimony when he pledged to be a passive “umpire” calling balls and strikes. Continue reading.

Justice John Roberts legacy will hinge on whether he lets Republicans get away with their sham impeachment trial: CNN

AlterNet logoAccording to CNN legal analyst & Supreme Court biographer Joan Biskupic, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is currently facing the defining moment of his career on the bench as he presides over the impeachment trial of Donald Trump and he needs to give serious thought as to how history will treat him if he allows the Republican Party to brush aside the charges against the president.

With the Republican-controlled Senate expected to vote to block attempts to allow witnesses to appear in the trial — or end in a 50-50 deadlock — it will be up to Roberts to decide if he wants to intercede and keep the trial alive.

“Roberts has led the US Supreme Court for 15 years. Now age 65, he may serve another 15 years as chief justice. But Friday, he could face a moment on the elevated Senate dais that significantly shapes his legacy — if it gets to that point,” she wrote. “The chief justice could be pressed to break a tie vote on whether witnesses will be called. And he will almost certainly face further pleas by Democratic House managers to intervene and require a deeper review of the Trump allegations.” Continue reading.

GOP predicts Roberts won’t cast tie-breaking vote on witnesses

The Hill logoRepublicans are signaling confidence that Chief Justice John Roberts will not insert himself into the middle of the looming fight over witnesses at President Trump’s impeachment trial. 

GOP senators are cautiously optimistic they will be able to fend off any effort to call new witnesses. But with several of their colleagues still undecided ahead of Friday’s vote, the possibility of a 50-50 tie is seen as the one remaining wildcard in a trial whose outcome is all but certain to end in acquittal.

Roberts, who didn’t respond to a question this week about possibly casting the deciding vote, is facing pressure from Democrats to allow witnesses, after they unsuccessfully attempted to insert a similar provision in the impeachment rules. Continue reading.

John Roberts comes face to face with the mess he made

Washington Post logoThere is justice in John Roberts being forced to preside silently over the impeachment trial of President Trump, hour after hour, day after tedious day.

The chief justice of the United States, as presiding officer, doesn’t speak often, and when he does the words are usually scripted and perfunctory:

“The Senate will convene as a court of impeachment.” Continue reading.

Roberts under pressure from both sides in witness fight

The Hill logoSenate Democrats are pressing Chief Justice John Roberts to rule in favor of calling witnesses at President Trump‘s impeachment trial, while Republicans argue it could force his recusal from potential Supreme Court cases. 

Democrats say it’s simple: A trial can’t be a fair one without witnesses. Republicans counter that if Roberts rules on witnesses, he will have to recuse himself from any Supreme Court case on Trump’s claims of executive privilege over potential witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney.

“I don’t know how you have a serious trial unless you hear from witnesses who know in fact what the facts are, what happened,” said Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a leading candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. Continue reading.

Trump trial poses toughest test yet for Roberts

The Hill logoChief Justice John Roberts will soon discover firsthand that while the Supreme Court and the Senate sit on adjacent Washington city blocks, the two institutions occupy separate worlds.

Roberts on Thursday appeared in the Senate in his black robes to preside over President Trump‘s impeachment trial, leaving the collegiality of the court for a chamber marked in recent years by partisan fighting.

The chief justice was led by a procession of Judiciary Committee and Rules Committee members to the well of the chamber. There, he raised his right hand and swore to do “impartial justice” — the kind of oath he is more accustomed to hearing from advocates before the Supreme Court. Continue reading.

Roberts would hold the gavel, but not the power, at Trump impeachment trial

The chief justice is likely to punt contentious and political questions to lawmakers

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. will preside over any impeachment trial of President Donald Trump as the Constitution requires, but don’t expect him to make decisions that substantively reshape the action.

Although there is speculation about how active a role Roberts will take in an impeachment trial and whether key witnesses testify, the Senate under past rules has given relatively little authority to the nation’s top judicial figure. And in the areas Roberts might have authority to make rulings, such as questions about whether evidence is relevant, the rules also allow the Senate to call for a vote to overrule him anyway.

Also, past impeachment trial rules, such as those for President Bill Clinton in 1999, give the chief justice the ability to defer making a ruling on his own and instead put a question to a Senate vote. Continue reading.

Impeachment Trial Looming, Chief Justice Reflects on Judicial Independence

New York Times logoChief Justice John Roberts’s year-end report on the judiciary praised civics education, but it was not hard to detect a timely subtext that appeared to be addressed to President Trump.

WASHINGTON — As Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. prepares to preside over the impeachment trial of President Trump, he issued pointed remarks on Tuesday in his year-end report on the state of the federal judiciary that seemed to be addressed, at least in part, to the president himself.

The two men have a history of friction, and Chief Justice Roberts used the normally mild report to denounce false information spread on social media and to warn against mob rule. Some passages could be read as a mission statement for the chief justice’s plans for the impeachment trial itself.

“We should reflect on our duty to judge without fear or favor, deciding each matter with humility, integrity and dispatch,” he wrote in the report. “As the new year begins, and we turn to the tasks before us, we should each resolve to do our best to maintain the public’s trust that we are faithfully discharging our solemn obligation to equal justice under law.” Continue reading

Chief Justice Roberts tells right-wing judges to slow their roll

Chief Justice John Roberts, Official Photo

The conservative Chief isn’t going to let Trumpy judges tear everything up at once.

On Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts signaled, for the second time in less than two weeks, that he’s not going to let overeager conservative judges willfully ignore the Supreme Court’s precedents — even if Roberts himself disagrees with those precedents.

The first such signal came 12 days ago, when Roberts unexpectedly voted with his liberal colleagues to temporarily halt a Louisiana anti-abortion law that is nearly identical to a Texas law his court struck down in 2016. Roberts is a conservative George W. Bush appointee who typically votes against abortion rights. He joined the dissent in the 2016 Texas case.

Roberts’ second signal to the judiciary’s right flank came in Moore v. Texas, the second case of that name to reach the Supreme Court. Both Moore cases involve Bobby James Moore, a Texas man sentenced to die despite the fact that he is almost certainly intellectually disabled. Under the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia, which used a term for the intellectually disabled that is now considered deeply offensive, “death is not a suitable punishment for a mentally retarded criminal.”

View the complete February 19 article by Ian Millhiser on the ThinkProgress website here.