Let’s keep this simple, and as Joe Friday, of Dragnet fame, always requested, we’ll stick to nothing but the facts. Chief Justice John Roberts did rebuke President Trump for stating the obvious, that a judge who ruled against the exercising of Trump’s constitutional executive powers to curb illegal immigration was an “Obama judge.” According to Chief Justice John Roberts, there is no such thing as "Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges." There is only "an extraordinary group of dedicated judges" who make up an "independent judiciary" that all Americans "should be thankful for." In response to Robert’s rebuke, Trump unapologetically refused to recant and repeated the obvious, that the rulings of liberal judges nominated by liberal presidents are often a matter of personal opinion and political prejudice rather than jurisprudence.
Trump and Roberts had, and still have, a difference of opinion. Furthermore, I dare say that you would be hard-pressed to find a handful of people who disagree with our Commander in Chief and agree with our Chief Justice that there is no political partnership in our present-day judiciary. In fact, one of Roberts' fellow Supreme Court Justices, Justice Sotomayor, recently condemned her conservative colleagues on the High Court as Trump judges, whose rulings, she claims, prove them to be Trump stooges rather than true jurists. Interestingly, while Trump's dubbing of a lone federal judge as an Obama judge brought him a swift public rebuke from Roberts, not a peep of public protest has been heard from the Chief Justice against Justice Sotomayor for castigating their conservative colleagues on the High Court as Trump toadies. Go figure!
What Senator Schumer did on the steps of the Supreme Court building this past Wednesday, which earned him a public rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts, pales in comparison to what Trump did to provoke Roberts' public rebuke of him. Schumer actually threatened by name two Supreme Court Justices, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Now, we ought to pause here to remember the character assassinations orchestrated by Schumer and his fellow Democrats against these two Supreme Court Justices during their confirmation hearings. So vicious were Democrat assaults upon them that Gorsuch's wife was forced to leave her husband's confirmation hearing in tears and Kavanaugh's little girls were so frightened by the goings-on in their daddy's confirmation hearing that they had to be rushed from the room. As Schumer's demonstrated disdain for Gorsuch and Kavanaugh indisputably proves, his threats against them this past Wednesday are not empty threats, but serious ones.
Whereas the Chief Justice's rebuke of President Trump was precipitated by his perception that the president cast a cloud of suspicion over the independence of our federal judiciary, his public rebuke of Senator Schumer, this past Wednesday, was for something far more sinister. According to Roberts, "threatening statements [against Supreme Court Justices] from the highest levels of government [Chuck Schumer, the Minority Leader of the United States Senate] are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.” Not only is Senator Schumer's unveiled threat dangerous, but, as the Minority Leader of the House of Representatives, Kevin McCarthy, asserted, it "marks a dangerous new low" in today's polarized politics.
As is typical of Democrats in their attempt to veneer their villainy with a sidetracking tit for tat, they preposterously propose that President Trump's calling upon Justices Ginsberg and Sotomayor to recuse themselves from future cases involving his Administration over their publicly stated prejudices against him is equivalent to Senator Schumer's downright threatening of Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for daring to rule contrary to the dictates of him and his fellow Democrats. To anyone with a thimble full of commonsense this is a cockamamie comparison of apples and oranges. In one case, Supreme Court Justices, who've compromised themselves by publicly stating political prejudices, are being asked to recuse themselves from cases in which their own public statements have cast clouds of suspicion over their ability to render a nonpartisan ruling. In the other case, a known antagonist of Supreme Court Justices, who has already proven his hatred of them by launching character assassinations against them, is attempting to intimidate them into ruling according to his dictates by credibly threatening them if they refuse to do so.