This first article is from June 2015
The Blackmailing of John Roberts
In which crazy people think President Obama blackmailed Roberts for his Affordable Care Act vote. Oh, and same-sex marriage is now legal.By Charles P. PiercePublished: Jun 26, 2015 10:13 AM EDT
Purely as a political matter, Chief Justice John Roberts did the Republican party great good yesterday when he laughed the absurd King v. Burwell out of the Supreme Court. Now, the various Republican candidates can rouse the fury of The Base without ever having to present an alternative. And, also, by ruling the way he did, Roberts blunted the edge of any Democratic attacks about the future of the Court itself. However, deep in the base, there are people who know What's Really Going On, and they are not fooled.
Just blackmail one or two key conservative leaders to stop the GOP from blocking Obama's agenda. Just find out the weak link of a key opposition leader or government official and hold it over their heads. It's that simple. Suddenly sworn lifelong conservatives are giving Obama whatever he wants – Obamacare, Trans Pacific Partnership, massive tax increases, amnesty for illegals. The list is long. Am I being too cynical? Really? Did anyone suspect former House Speaker Dennis Hastert was a child molester who commited crimes with underage boys? Because he sure had everyone fooled. He looked like a choir boy. But he clearly did something terrible that forced him to agree to pay millions of dollars in blackmail.
That's just logic right there.
The comments are an absolute delight.
This is dead simple. Justice Roberts has two adopted children. There were some shenanigans getting the adoption paper work done. The threat against him is not actually against him but against his adopted daughters that could be deported which would also devastate his wife and him. So, yes, Obama is blackmailing him with deporting his daughters. Pure Alinsky – can't attack the man so attack his family and a strong family commitment then becomes his achille's heel. Keep in mind how the Obama administration handles deportations. They enforce the law selectively. Illegal immigrant rapists and murders are let loose on the streets but cross them and your adopted children will be deported.This is all documented. I saw an article somewhere some time after the first Obamacare decision that was butchered by Roberts about his adopted children. Do the research. It's there. But it was a back page little blurb that could have been blown up into a national scandal and possibly have removed Roberts from the bench. But nothing came of it. Why? Because they knew they would need it again later. Now apply this to Boehner, McConnell, military leaders, anyone at all that gets in the way. Make them an offer they can't refuse.
I think "This is all documented. I saw an article somewhere sometime..." is my favorite attribution ever. And the same Supreme Court just ruled that there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage.
Wake up, sheeple!!!
this second article, though not dated is current
Donald Trump and John Roberts: A president, a chief justice and a judiciary under pressure Story by Andrew Chung 6 min read
In 2015, the man who would become the chief executive of the United States assailed the integrity of its chief justice, calling Roberts "disgraceful" and "disappointing" - and, later, an "absolute disaster" - for earlier upholding the Affordable Care Act, the Obamacare law that Trump subsequently sought to repeal.
A little more than a year later on the U.S. Capitol steps, Roberts, an enigmatic conservative Supreme Court justice from the American Midwest, swore in Trump, a brash businessman-turned-politician from New York City, as president. Any lingering tension had evaporated under smiles, handshakes and a backdrop of applause.
Since then, the dynamic between the two has remained complicated, marked by dramatic legal wins for Trump as well as painful losses, and punctuated by clashes between the two as Trump shattered norms by aggressively pushing his policies while brooking little dissent - including from the coequal branch of government that Roberts leads: the judiciary.
The tension has risen once again, culminating in an extraordinary public statement by Roberts on Tuesday rebuking the Republican president for urging the impeachment of a Washington-based federal judge who faulted the administration's actions in a dispute over the legality of deportation flights.
"For more than two centuries," Roberts said, "it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision."
For Roberts, who is seen as deeply conservative but also concerned about the institutional credibility and perception of the Supreme Court, chastising Trump puts him in a difficult spot. It has drawn sharp criticism from Trump's allies and comes as the court braces for the flood of legal challenges to Trump's myriad executive actions.
'A CERTAIN MEASURE OF CONTEMPT'
"I suspect Roberts has a certain measure of contempt for Trump and the way he treats judges," said University of Michigan law professor Richard Friedman, a Supreme Court historian. "Roberts is an establishment Republican, but I think he's horrified."
While Roberts and Trump often may converge on legal and substantive goals, there are sharp divergences emerging, according to University of Chicago constitutional law expert Aziz Huq.
Through his flurry of executive actions to shutter federal departments, fire thousands of federal employees, target perceived enemies and eradicate policies he dislikes such as diversity mandates from the public and private sectors, Trump is "proceeding as if legal constraints don't matter," Huq said.
"If presidents are not bound by statutes, if they're not bound by regulations, if they're not bound by the (U.S. Constitution's) First Amendment, then it's not really clear what the job of the Supreme Court is," Huq added.
Huq said that the "casting into institutional doubt of the court's role is I think the hard nub of conflict between the two."
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. A spokesperson for the Supreme Court had no immediate comment.
Since Trump first took office in 2017, Roberts has figured prominently in the president's fortunes, and in many ways, vice versa.
Trump appointed three justices in his first term, creating the 6-3 conservative majority that Roberts needed to deliver landmark rulings rolling back abortion rights and affirmative action practices, expanding gun rights and curbing federal regulatory power.
Roberts, meanwhile, presided over the first of Trump's two impeachment trials - he was acquitted both times - and has penned Supreme Court rulings that both boosted the president - including by granting him broad immunity from criminal prosecution - and constrained him at key moments.
The landmark immunity ruling authored by Roberts last July involved federal criminal charges against Trump over his efforts to undo his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe Biden, bolstering his bid to regain the presidency by effectively delaying a trial that ultimately never took place.
Trump thanked Roberts as Supreme Court justices attended the president's address to a joint session of Congress this month.
"I won't forget," Trump added.
The president later stated that he was thanking Roberts for swearing him into office.
"It's very hard to see that decision as being anything but highly consequential in electoral terms, and as anything other than a real choice on Roberts' part," Huq said of the immunity case. "Having done that, what does he think now?"
TRAVEL BAN
Roberts also authored a ruling that gave Trump one of his biggest victories during his first term, upholding his travel ban blocking people from several Muslim-majority countries from coming to the United States against claims that the policy represented religious discrimination in violation of the Constitution.
Trump's administration now is considering issuing a new travel ban that could include dozens of countries.
On the other hand, Roberts has handed Trump some setbacks.
In recent weeks, Roberts joined a narrow majority of Supreme Court justices in declining to let Trump immediately fire the head of a federal watchdog agency or withhold payment to foreign aid organizations for work they already performed for the government - though neither decision resolved the legal merits of the cases.
In 2019, Roberts joined the court's liberal justices to block his plan to add a contentious citizenship question to the national census questionnaire, prompting Trump to suggest that the administration would find a way to move forward anyway - before backing down.
In 2020, Roberts wrote a ruling that let a New York prosecutor obtain Trump's financial records, and the chief justice again joined the liberals to block Trump's bid to end a program protecting from deportation immigrants - known as "Dreamers" - who entered the United States illegally as children.
"These horrible & politically charged decisions coming out of the Supreme Court are shotgun blasts into the face of people that are proud to call themselves Republicans or Conservatives," Trump wrote on social media after that ruling.
Friedman said, "From Trump's point of view, it may be very perplexing because he thinks you're going to have a judge entirely in his favor or against. But that's not the way the world works. From Roberts point of view, there's no mystery. He's deciding cases."
Roberts, Friedman added, "is a good, smart lawyer with an allegiance to constitutional procedures. And that's something that's a little bit out of Trump's understanding."
A PREVIOUS REBUKE
The chief justice's rebuke of Trump on Tuesday was not his first.
After Trump in 2018 called a federal judge appointed by Democratic former President Barack Obama who ruled against his policy barring asylum for certain immigrants an "Obama judge," Roberts responded in a statement.
"We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges," Roberts wrote, referring to former presidents who made the appointments and emphasizing the importance of an independent judiciary.
In recent weeks, some legal scholars and Trump critics have questioned whether his administration's pushback against orders by judges impeding his policies amounts to defiance of the judiciary by the executive branch, which could provoke a constitutional crisis.
Asked during a Tuesday interview on the Fox News program "The Ingraham Angle" whether he would defy a court order, Trump said: "No, you can't do that," but also said that there are "judges that shouldn't be allowed."
Whether the administration defied U.S. Judge James Boasberg's orders to halt deportation flights of alleged gang members to Venezuela is at the heart of Trump's call for the judge's impeachment by Congress, which could lead to removal from the bench.
If Roberts wants to preserve the legitimacy and authority of the Supreme Court, "The issues that are likely coming down the pike are going to put the court's power to the test," Albany Law School professor Raymond Brescia said.
"The most important of these issues is the question of the court's authority to ensure the executive branch complies with court orders," Brescia said. "I hope we can expect (Roberts) to support the lower courts in their efforts to ensure compliance with their orders, even if that means seeking to rein in actions of the Trump administration."
(Reporting by Andrew Chung in New York; Editing by Amy Stevens and Will Dunham)
