NewYou can listen to Fox News articles now!
Federal Judge The president of the United States should not be criticized, rather than in the official opinion that decides that the president is one side. Late juvenile judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg criticized media inquiry in 2016, criticizing then-President Donald Trump for apologizing for the media investigation. She criticized Trump again soon after, and the New York Times and the Washington Prote (the lack of pro-Trump media) weakened her for this. The Times said Trump had rebuked Ginsburg for saying that she was “right” and that Ginsburg should “give up political magazines and names.” The post called Ginsburg’s comment “inappropriate.”
Obviously, the Chief Justice John Roberts disagree. After all, he has been criticizing President Trump for the third time recently. Roberts first criticized Trump in 2018, when the president said that “Judge Obama”’s decisions were usually different from Republican judges. Roberts believes that the judge’s party affiliation is irrelevant. With all respect, the Chief Justice is incorrect. Indeed, the first question every litigant asks is, who is the judge? “Judge Obama” is different from “Judge Trump”, and the judge nominated by Kamala Harris is also different from Justice Trump.
Six years later, on the eve of Trump’s second inauguration, Roberts raised concerns that the president might “ignore … federal court rulings.” The Chief Justice called the possibility “dangerous” and said “must be denied.” Roberts failed Mentioned It was other presidents who ignored the federal court’s ruling when the constitution took the oath to do so. To mention the most dramatic illustrations in American history, President Andrew Jackson responded to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Worcester v. Georgia, saying: “John Marshall made the decision and let him enforce it now.”
Roberts’ third public criticism trump card Earlier this week, the Chief Justice issued a statement in response to the president’s call for foreigners and incitement bills, which was impeached by a federal judge. “For more than two centuries, it has been determined that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreements in judicial decisions,” Roberts wrote. “There is therefore a normal appeal review process.”
Click here for more Fox News comments
Roberts’ recent criticism of Trump is perhaps the most disturbing. The Constitution clearly states that Congress must occasionally exercise the required political courage to fulfill the constitutional obligations of federal judges who try to rewrite the law rather than interpret it. Alexander Hamilton suggested in the Federalist Paper that impeachment is the “complete security” of “intentional usurpation” of federal judges, a clear sign that the makers expect impeachment to be more frequent than they actually are.
Click here to get the Fox News app
As disturbing as the impulse process, it sometimes seems constitution It is required to be used sometimes. William Howard Taft himself was a great admirer of the Supreme Court and later its chief justice, who raised this point in some comments on the shortcomings of the understanding of the judicial judiciary at that time: “Let your judges be held accountable. Impulse. In the current judge’s time, reading your own politics as law and imposing it on the rest of us, Taft’s remarks deserve special attention, because only by taking improvisation power more seriously can we survive. President Trump should be praised for acknowledging the central purpose of our Constitutional Republic.
