[otw_shortcode_dropcap label=”S” font=”Ultra” background_color_class=”otw-no-background” size=”large” border_color_class=”otw-no-border-color”][/otw_shortcode_dropcap]peaking on Fox Business’s “Bulls and Bears” Gregg Jarrett discussed the Supreme Court dialogue happening between Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the Trump administration. While Jarrett says the comments by the female Justices are not grounds for recusal, nevertheless, Sotomayor was wrong. She accused the Trump administration of unnecessarily running to the high court to lift injunctions, and accused the conservative majority of granting them too frequently for political reasons.
The truth is that almost every time Trump does something, a federal judge (frequently in California) steps in and issues an injunction –often wrongfully. That forces the Trump administration to go to the Supreme Court. Invariably, the Court upholds what Trump did or stays the injunction. For example, the Travel Ban was stopped by several federal judges, only to have the Supreme Court uphold it. Same thing with using military funds for border security. And in the most recent case, allowing Trump to restrict VISAs to non-citizens.
It’s silly to argue that Supreme Court justices are above politics. They’re not.
In all three cases, Congress had delegated authority to the President by statute. These were cases that should never have been stopped by liberal lower-court judges who made decisions for purely political reasons. They’re the ones who are guilty of politicizing the judiciary. Trump is merely seeking corrective relief and has every right to do so.
Senator Ted Cruz recounted the disparate treatment of Trump: In 8 years of Obama, 19 injunctions were issued. In just 3 years of Trump, 55 nationwide injunctions have been issued. Sotomayor should be complaining about all the lower court judges who routinely get it wrong.
Sotomayor is also wrong when she accuses the conservative majority of being overly political. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch sided with the liberal wing on cases last year (the Apple case and the gun penalty case). Who can forget Roberts breaking from conservatives in upholding Obamacare? You want to go back to the most politicized case ever? Dred Scott v. Sandford in 1857. Chief Justice Roger Taney’s majority opinion was blatantly political, racist, and wrong.
President Trump’s frustration is understandable. The excessive number of injunctions issued and overturned also proves that Chief Justice John Robert’s comment last June that “we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges” is both naïve and ludicrous. All federal judges are appointed by the President. Nearly all of them are political in nature. You claim, if you want, that they are picked based on their liberal or conservative “judicial philosophy.” But at its core, the choices are derived from political and social views. We all have them.
So, it’s silly to argue that Supreme Court justices are above politics. They’re not.