This is not the first time that Chief takes Justice Roberts President Trump. (And he was wrong every time)

Federal judges should not criticize the President of the United States than in official opinions in which these are cases in which the president is a party. The judge of the late foreign court, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, apologized in 2016 for the reaction to a media investigation by criticizing the then Republican candidate for President Donald Trump. Nevertheless, she criticized Trump again shortly later, and both the New York Times and the Washington Post-Hardly Pro-Trump-Medien-have been directed at her. The Times said that Trump, the Ginsburg had led to what she had said, “right” and that Ginsburg should drop the political punditrie and the calls of name. The article called Ginsburg’s comments “inappropriate”.

Apparently chief judge John Roberts disagrees. After all, he recently criticized President Trump in the media for the third time. Roberts first criticized Trump in 2018 when the President said that an “Obama judge” often decided differently than a Republican judge. According to Roberts, belonging to the political party of a judge does not matter. With all respect, the top judge is wrong. In fact, the first question that every process lawyer asks is who the judge is. “Obama judge” differed from “Trump judge”, and the judges nominated by Kamala Harris would also be distinguished by Trump -Järter.

“Dangerous” order of the liberal judge to rehire to the federal employees should go to Scotus, says Trump

Six years later, on the eve of Trump’s second inauguration, Roberts said that the President “could not take into account the decisions of the Federal Court”. The highest judge called this possibility “dangerous” and said that she “has to be rejected”. What Roberts did not mention was that other presidents did not take into account the decisions of the Federal Court than they believed that their constitutional oath was prescribed. In order to mention the most dramatic illustration in American history, President Andrew Jackson replied to the decision of the Supreme Court in Worcester against Georgia, by saying: “John Marshall has made his decision, now enforced him.”

Roberts’ third public criticism came to Trump at the beginning of this week when the highest judge made an explanation to the president’s appeal after the election of a federal judge due to his treatment of an extraterrestrial and tasks law. “For more than two centuries, it has been found that there is no reasonable response to disagreements in relation to a judicial decision,” wrote Roberts. “The normal appeal review process exists for this reason.”

Click here to find more opinion from FOX News

Roberts’ recent criticism of Trump is perhaps the most worrying of all. The constitution makes it clear that the congress occasionally has to exercise the political courage that is necessary to fulfill its constitutional duty, to accuse federal judges who try to rewrite the law instead of interpreting it. Alexander Hamilton advised in the federal papers that office survey is “complete security” against the “deliberate usurpations” of a federal judge, an unmistakable indication that the Framer expected the authority to be called more frequently than actually.

Click here to get the FOX News app

As worrying as the impact process may sometimes be, the constitution requires that they are sometimes used. President William Howard Taft, himself a great admirer of the Supreme Court and later of the Supreme Richter, made a good shape in some remarks about the perceived shortcomings of the judiciary of his time: “Make your judges responsible. Charge. And in these current times of the judges who read their own politics in the law and impose the rest of us, you will earn a special attention only if the authority is taken seriously the rule of law will survive.