Supreme Court President John Roberts contradicted President Donald Trump’s rhetoric against the federal judge on Tuesday, in a highly uncommon statement that seemed to have the request for dismissal of judges who decide against the US President.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that dismissal is not an appropriate response to disagreement with a court decision,” Roberts said in a statement issued by the Supreme. “The normal resource process exists for this purpose.”
In the statement, Roberts does not mention Trump by the name, but hours later, the president intensified the attacks on federal judges, specifically asking that US district judge James Boasberg, who temporarily blocked the deportations of alleged members of a Venezuelan gang, be dismissed.
Several Trump allies, including Elon Musk, have been asking for weeks to dismiss judges following a series of preliminary decisions against the Trump administration. The US president’s rhetoric against the judicial power has been much more aggressive than during his first term and the president’s approach has raised fears of a constitutional crisis.
Republican members of Congress, in response to the president, advanced with a process of dismissal of federal judges, who comply with lifetime nominations. A Republican of Texas, Deputy Brandon Gill, said on social networks, this Tuesday, who presented articles of challenge against Bomberg.
“This radical left -wing left judge, a disorder and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack H. Obama, was not elected president – he did not win the popular vote (for much!), He did not win all seven southern states,” Trump published on the social network. “This judge, like many of the corrupt judges before whom I am obliged to appear, should be impeacked !!!”
A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for a comment from CNN International.
Difficult relationship with conservatives
Roberts has had a difficult relationship with some conservative politicians, who have never forgiven him that he defended Obamacare in 2012 – although he was repeatedly on the side of conservatives in weapons, abortion, religion, affirmative actions, and other important issues of cultural war.
Conservatives have a 6-3 advantage in the Supreme Court and Trump himself has appointed three of the current judges. The court has often been on Trump side in important cases, namely last year’s decision to grant former presidents wide immunity against criminal proceedings for their official actions. But in a series of emergency orders since the return of Trump to the White House, the court ruled preliminarily against him.
At the same time, Trump seemed especially eager to point his finger to Roberts during his congress speech earlier this month.
“Thanks again. I won’t forget,” Trump heard to tell Roberts in the House Plenary. Later, the president stated on social networks that he was grateful to Roberts for sworn him in his inauguration.
Gabe Roth, executive director of the Fix The Court Surveillance Group, said Roberts pointed out “an important point” in his statement, stressing that “it is a little badly coming from the type that, by giving Donald Trump almost total immunity in an important decision last year, it helped to open the current era of illegality”.
Reactions to threats of dismissal
The president of the Supreme Court and other members of the Supreme Court remained silent while Trump and his allies intensified his attacks against the judicial system in the midst of a series of preliminary decisions that were not favorable to them. Most of these cases are being appealed and it is likely that, in the coming weeks, the Supreme Court, conservative by 6-3, will be tried.
Although Roberts has not mentioned the case specifically, this statement was issued at the time when the lawyers of the American Administration and the Union of Civil Freedoms are discussing a federal judge in Washington DC about the sudden deportation of Venezuelan citizens.
The way the Justice Department is dealing with the case has raised questions about whether the White House has challenged a court order to deport Venezuelan immigrants under the controversial law of foreign enemies. Bomberg’s order was not a final decision, but a temporary measure designed to give the court a few days to consider the arguments in the case. But the White House considered that the judge was trying to usurp the power of the presidency.
When Bomberg held an audience on Monday to obtain answers to the specific measures that the administration had taken after the order for deportation, the DOJ lawyers initially refused to answer because, they said they were not allowed to do so, alleging national security concerns. In a statement by judges made public this Tuesday, immigration authorities assumed that Venezuelan citizens deported after the judge’s order were subject to deportation orders under other laws, not the law of foreign enemies.
Trump is trying to invoke a 1798 law that allows the federal government to accelerate citizens’ deportations of a “hostile nation” in war times or when an enemy tries to “predatory invasion or foray” in the United States. Opponents reported that the United States are not formally at war and questioned whether the definition of “invasion” given by the Administration fulfills the requirements of the law.
This is the question that the courts – including the Supreme Court – will have to resolve eventually.
Tuesday’s Roberts’ statement was similar to a rebuke that the president of the court issued in 2018, when he responded to Trump’s criticism by stating: “We have no Obama judges or judges Trump, Judges Bush or Clinton judges.”
At the time, a judge in the northern district of California had issued a temporary order that prevented the first Trump administration from removing the right from asking asylum to immigrants who illegally cross the US.
“It’s a shame when all cases are archived in the 9th circuit,” criticized Trump. “This is not law. In all 9th circuit we are defeated and we have to go to the Supreme Court, as in the case of the prohibition of travel, and we won.
“We have no judges Obama or Judges Trump, Judges Bush or Judges Clinton,” replied Roberts, who was appointed to the Supreme Court by President George W. Bush. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges that give their best to do what is fair to those who present themselves before them. This independent judicial power is something we must all be grateful.”
