The President and the Judge

Published in La Croix
(France) on 22 November 2018
by Guillaume Goubert (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Hal Swindall. Edited by Elizabeth Cosgriff.

 

 

In an extremely rare occurrence on Wednesday, Nov. 21, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts publicly rebuked Donald Trump, who called another judge an “Obama judge” after that judge made a decision Trump disliked. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. The independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for,” Roberts said.

The exact significance of Roberts’ words lies not only in the fact that he presides over the highest level of judicial authority in America, but also in the fact that he was appointed to the Supreme Court by former President George W. Bush; Roberts would not, therefore, normally be considered a political opponent of a Republican president.

In a broader sense, Chief Justice Roberts reminds us that a democracy does not just consist of electoral victories; it rests on the balance and separation of powers between the executive, legislative and judicial branches as well. This is a healthy reminder at a time when authoritarian personal power ratified by the ballot box, or “demotatorship,” is on a roll.*

*Editor’s note: The term “demotatorship” has been popularly used to describe a system whereby democratically elected leadership transforms into a life-long dictatorship, in which one party alone controls the justice, media and administrative processes.






Spectacles spectaculaires entre Donald Trump et le président de la Cour suprême

Très rare événement: mercredi, le président de la Cour suprême des États-Unis, John Roberts, contredit publiquement Donald Trump. Ce dernier ayant qualifié de "juge pro-Obama" un magistrat dont il n'a pas aimé la décision, John Roberts a déclaré: " Nous n'avons ni juges pro-Obama, ni Trump, ni Bush, ni Clinton. Nous avons un groupe extraordinaire de Des juges dévoués qui font de leur mieux pour juger équitablement ceux qui comparaissent devant nous . Nous devrions tous être reconnaissants de voir une justice indépendante ."

Le poids particulier de cette déclaration du juge Roberts ne vient pas uniquement de sa présidence du plus haut tribunal des États-Unis. Mais aussi parce qu'il a été nommé à la Cour suprême par George W. Bush. Il ne peut donc, a priori, être considéré comme un opposant politique à un président républicain.

Plus généralement, ce que dit le juge en chefRoberts is that a democracy does not meanpas seulement des victoires électorales. Il repose également sur une séparation et un équilibre des pouvoirs entre l'exécutif, le législatif et le judiciaire. Ce n’est pas seulement la loi de la majorité mais aussi le respect de la minorité. Rappel salutaire à une époque où la "démocrature" - un pouvoir personnel autoritaire ratifié par les urnes - a le vent en poupe.

This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Austria: Gulf War in Limbo

Egypt: The Role of Technology and AI in the US-Israeli War with Iran

Spain: The Danger of Political Violence

Ireland: The Irish Times View on the Iran War: Trump Urgently Needs a Way Out

United Arab Emirates: Did the War Create a Rift in Trump’s Party?

Topics

South Africa: Trump’s Cantankerous Leadership a Bad Omen for World Peace

Egypt: The Role of Technology and AI in the US-Israeli War with Iran

United Arab Emirates: Did the War Create a Rift in Trump’s Party?

Germany: The Pentagon’s Internal War

Poland: Polish PM Donald Tusk Questions US Loyalty in Financial Times, Targeting Both Parties

Spain: The Danger of Political Violence

Related Articles

South Africa: Trump’s Cantankerous Leadership a Bad Omen for World Peace

Egypt: The Role of Technology and AI in the US-Israeli War with Iran

Germany: The Pentagon’s Internal War

Saudi Arabia: The Bullet, the President, and the Battle for the Image