Chief Justice Roberts AGAIN Rebukes President Trump During Uncharacteristic Public Appearance

Go to Article

It’s a rare thing for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to make public appearances.

It’s equally rare for the highest judge in the land to openly rebuke the President of the United States on POLITICAL MATTERS.

John Roberts has managed to pull off BOTH, two different times, in a matter of months.

And both times it was to assert the inviolability of the Supreme Court from any checks from the President, while simultaneously asserting that the Court wields that EXACT POWER over the Executive Branch!

Yesterday, he appeared on what was called a “fireside chat” in Buffalo, New York.

And he again publicly rebuked the President’s oversight of the court, and the idea that impeaching judges for stepping outside of their Constitutional bounds is somehow not the right thing to do.

Check out this clip from the event:

Here’s the full screen video for easier viewing:

Is it just me, or does Chief Justice Roberts seem to say on one hand the Judicial Branch is co-equal with the other two Branches of government…

And then turn right around and DEFINE the relationship as HIGHER THAN the other two Branches of the U.S. government?

That certainly seems to be his mindset.

I’m reminded of that old game that started out something like, “one of these things is not like the other”.

Co-equal certainly doesn’t mean HIGHER THAN; and that’s besides the fact that the Judicial Branch was actually intended to be the WEAKER of the three Branches.

Why don’t we vet these people better?  You’d think we would have learned our lesson by now.

The Supreme Court Chief Justice is flagrantly messaging that the SCOTUS is impervious to oversight from the President, and yet itself empowered to conduct oversight on that very President.

That’s NOT the definition of ‘co-equal but separate’, as Roberts put it.

That’s judicial tyranny — and that’s EXACTLY the reason the Executive DOES have the authority, Constitutionally, to “check” the power of the judiciary!

Roberts’ comments were a direct pushback against the firestorm that has flared up against activist judges initiated when President Trump refused to bow down before Judge Boasberg, in this Truth Social post from March:

Here’s the full text of the President’s post in the even that’s hard to read:

This Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge, a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama, was not elected President – He didn’t WIN the popular VOTE (by a lot!), he didn’t WIN ALL SEVEN SWING STATES, he didn’t WIN 2,750 to 525 Counties, HE DIDN’T WIN ANYTHING! I WON FOR MANY REASONS, IN AN OVERWHELMING MANDATE, BUT FIGHTING ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION MAY HAVE BEEN THE NUMBER ONE REASON FOR THIS HISTORIC VICTORY. I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do. This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!

Roberts claimed during Wednesday’s event that the real purpose of the Supreme Court isn’t to find ‘mistakes’ in law, but to address the scenarios when conflicting laws — or conflicting interpretations of laws — needed to be “fixed”.

That is a Constitutionally accurate statement.

But he also, contradictorily, claimed that the judiciary’s job was to “strike down… acts of Congress or acts of the President”, according to a report by ABC News:

At the event, Roberts doubled down on his statement rebuking President Donald Trump’s call to impeach Judge James Boasberg, who had ruled against the administration’s immigration actions in March.

Roberts called judiciary independence “central” — describing it as the “only real political science innovation” in the Constitution.

“The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others, with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of the president,” he said.

“Its job is to obviously decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or of the executive, and that does require degree of independence.”

He also addressed the importance of judiciary independence, suggesting judiciary independence is the “only real political science innovation” in the U.S. Constitution.

“In our Constitution, judges and the judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, separate from the others with the authority to interpret the Constitution as law and strike down, obviously, acts of Congress or acts of, of the president. and that innovation doesn’t work if it’s not the judiciary is not independent,” he said.

These judges keep using the phrase “independent judiciary” like they know what it means; they obviously don’t.

That concept was never intended to insolate judges from oversight, either from Congress or the Executive Branch.

It was a concept infused into American governance to ensure that the judiciary didn’t become POLITICAL.

The ideal of an “independent judiciary” means they don’t swerve into politics, they aren’t bought by entities with political agendas, and they don’t become ACTIVIST JUDGES!

“INDEPENDENT JUDICIARY”…

Mike Davis chimed in with a true mic drop moment.

His statement alone SHOULD be enough to put any judge back in his lane… if they actually comprehend the basics of American law:

BOOM.

And… that SHOULD be the ballgame.  But, of course, it won’t be.  And we’ll have to wage this war — hopefully JUST in the courts — if there is any hope to put these activist judges back in their respective (Constitutional) bottles.

But this repeated pushback directly from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court in such a public way begs another question: WHY?

There are a few likely answers to that question.  Here’s one that seems to be gaining traction, and I’m inclined to believe it at this point:

The philosophical method of using the principle known as “Occam’s razor” would suggest strongly that the truth of “why” he is consistently taking this approach is the simplest answer.

Chief Justice John Roberts WANTS the judicial coup against President Trump to continue.

That is, after all, the simplest explanation with the least moving parts.

Nothing would seem to contradict it, except the normalization bias and cognitive dissonance that each of us must battle.

That hypocritical contradiction put forward by Mr. DC Draino himself would track with Roberts being in favor of the judicial coup against the Trump Administration, as well.

So would pretty much EVERY OCCASSION that he has sided with liberal judges to swing the court AGAINST President Trump — and the Constitution and safety of the American people, for that matter.

So, if he’s compromised… does this explain — well — A LOT?

Right about now I’m starting to wonder if James O’Keefe’s impending Epstein bombshells could have some answers here?

He’s promising to bring out the truth on what he is characterizing as the most dangerous story he’s ever covered.

Rumor is that he’s going to expose a Trump Official.

Something to keep our eye on, definitely.

In researching this story, I saw none other than Dinesh D’Souza signaling the importance of another story that is strangely getting a tiny sliver of the attention it should be getting.

And it may be part of the bigger ongoing story playing out between the Trump Administration and the activist judges that Chief Justice Roberts is hell bent on protecting:

I actually reported on this story 2 days ago, highlighting the possibility that this is very likely the beginning of the Trump Administration’s END GAME PLAN to put these activist judges back in their place.

And Chief Justice John Roberts is right at the heart of this strategy!

Why?  Is it just because he happens to be the highest judge in the land?

Or… is it because he is the highest COMPROMISED judge in the land?

SO IT BEGINS – Stephen Miller’s ‘America First Legal’ Just SUED Chief Justice John Roberts!

Behind all the legal arguments coming from both sides is this one issue.

The place of most friction is happening around the question of whether or not a judge can rightly oversee Presidential authority, or whether a President can rightly exercise authority over a judge.

That’s what this all comes down to.

That’s why the Trump Administration and conservative legal people are all talking about the Executive oversight of the judicial branch.

That’s why Stephen Miller’s lawsuit through America First Legal is all about clarifying the functions of each Branch of government.

That’s why all these judges — including the Chief Justice — keeps talking about an “independent judiciary” and their ability to “check” and “strike down” Presidential actions.

That’s why Roberts is publicly, and frequently, pushing back so hard against the idea of impeaching judges, as he did AGAIN YESTERDAY, as reported by Fox News:

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts used a public appearance Wednesday to stress the importance of an independent judiciary, doubling down on defense of the courts under fire by President Donald Trump and his allies, who have accused so-called “activist judges” of overstepping their bounds.

Asked during a fireside chat event in Buffalo, New York, about judicial independence, Roberts responded in no uncertain terms that the role of the federal courts is to “decide cases, but in the course of that, check the excesses of Congress or the executive.”

That role, he added, “does require a degree of independence.”

There, U.S. District Judge James Boasberg spent more than an hour grilling Justice Department lawyers about their use of the Alien Enemies Act to summarily deport hundreds of migrants to El Salvador earlier this year.

Boasberg’s March 15 order that temporarily blocked Trump’s use of the law to send migrants to a Salvadoran prison sparked ire from the White House and in Congress, where some Trump allies had previously floated calls for impeachment.

Roberts, who put out a rare public statement at the time rebuking calls to impeach Boasberg or any federal judges, doubled down on that in Wednesday’s remarks.

“Impeachment is not how you register disagreement with a decision,” Roberts said, adding that he had already spoken about that in his earlier statement.

In the statement, sent by Roberts shortly after Trump floated the idea of impeaching Boasberg, said that “for more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” he said.

“The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose,” he said in the statement. (Emphasis added.)

Roberts is very keen on repeating over and over that IMPEACHMENTS aren’t the answer.

And, he’s right — impeaching a judge isn’t ALWAYS the answer.

It’s not the answer if, as Roberts said, we’re just talking about “disagreements” with a judges decision.

Except, as Jack Posobiec pointed out, this isn’t about a “disagreement” with a “judicial decision”:

We’re talking about a situation where judges are actively overstepping the Constitutional authority of the Executive Branch, and RESISTING the Constitutional authority of the Executive Branch granted to it expressly to keep them from making a mockery of justice!

All signs point to rough seas ahead for the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

These activist judges have been able to operate according to their handler’s directions, hiding behind the lawfare that was protected externally by the political entities of both the Congress and the Presidency in years past.

That cover has been BLOWN.

We may not have all the answers yet, but we have enough to know what’s going on in general.

We had enough answers to put President Trump back in the White House, and we had enough answers to vote based on the promise to EXPOSE this American cabal of injustice and Deep State puppeteering for what it is.

If the Chief Justice thinks it’ll be enough to simply keep repeating “Impeachment is not the solution you’re looking for…” — he, and a few other judges, might just found out the hard way:

Yes… it is.

 



Comment on this Article Via Your Disqus Account