There are no Obama judges or Trump judges, except when there are
In November 2018, in response to another of the usual leftist rulings from the Ninth Circuit Court out of San Francisco, President Trump referred to the judge making the determination as an "Obama Judge." Responding to a query regarding this event made by the Associated Press, the Supreme Court chief justice, John Roberts, is quoted as saying, "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges."
To name just a few of many examples, the past Democrat persecution of Judges Bork and Clarence Thomas, and the vicious attack by the Democrats on now-justice Kavanaugh, makes the chief justice's words incomprehensible. If the Supreme Court justices are to act as umpires, assessing facts from a common set of rules, then why are so many decisions so clearly split along perceived party lines? The world Chief Justice Roberts lives in is imaginary.
Has the chief justice missed the immediate vows of lawfare, political obstruction, and even violence expressed by the Democrats upon the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg? In his fantasy world, does he not comprehend the importance the Democrats have placed on activist "judges" to put in place their agenda that cannot be passed by the legislative process?
In 2012, it was this same Chief Justice Roberts who changed President Obama's penalty from regulation into a tax from the bench to save the dramatic Obamacare change of relationship between the citizens and their government. Even President Obama's representatives in front of the court argued against the penalty being considered a tax. Our chief justice lives in an Obamacare fantasy world of his own design.
The Democrats are always righteously indignant when their government is run by an outsider, including Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Trump. The Democrats' courts are staffed by those who do not agree with their political agenda, such as those mentioned previously. According to their political propaganda arm, the mainstream media, when a Democrat wins a political seat, this is confirmation of the righteousness of their cause, and they should aggressively implement their agenda. Democrat Supreme Court justice selections are typically passed without difficulty, touted in the media as fair and impeccably qualified jurists.
Alternatively, when a Republican wins a political seat, the Democrat propaganda arm mainstream media intone that this is time to bring us all together and reach across the aisle for bipartisan agreement. Republican Supreme Court selections are typically demonized and editorially assaulted. Chief Justice Roberts appears to have missed this long-term condition when he alleges that the Judiciary is above partisan considerations.
As the poster child for Democrat judicial activism is the 800-pound gorilla in the room, Roe v. Wade. Establishing a right to kill unborn humans by finding in the Constitution's emanations and penumbras a guarantee of privacy while doing the deed was and is the very definition of judicial activism. An emanation or penumbra is unseen. There is no specific wording that can be pointed to that supports an emanation or penumbra; it is purely an invented interpretation. It is an implication of what the justices felt was intended in the Constitution at the time of its writing. It's the essence of judicial activism — or, in plain English, BS. This issue is fought to this day because of how it was decided: by judicial fiat and not developed through a legislative process.
As a symptom of the problem based on the statements and track record of Chief Justice Roberts, and his bizarre fantasy world indwelling, the courts will likely remain an act of political will and not justice.