最高法院大法官凯坦吉·杰克逊表示,批评法官是对民主的攻击。
Supreme Court's Ketanji Jackson Says Criticizing Judges Is 'Attack On Democracy'

原始链接: https://www.zerohedge.com/political/supreme-courts-ketanji-jackson-says-criticizing-judges-attack-democracy

最高法院大法官凯坦吉·布朗·杰克逊批评了针对法官的攻击,特别是那些针对对唐纳德·特朗普的议程做出不利裁决的法官的攻击,称其为“对我们民主的攻击”。她指出,这些攻击,通常包括呼吁弹劾或质疑司法合法性,旨在恐吓法官,并有可能破坏宪法和法治。 她的评论是在关于司法积极性和全国性禁令的辩论之后发表的,批评者认为这超越了司法权力。一些法官被指责在阻止特朗普政府政策方面过度干预,导致了弹劾呼声,例如詹姆斯·博斯伯格法官的案例。此外,还有一些立法行动,例如安迪·比格斯议员的决议和达雷尔·伊萨议员的法案,旨在限制阻止行政行动的全国性禁令的使用。最高法院还在审理一个关于出生公民权的案件,进一步突显了行政部门和司法部门之间的紧张关系。


原文

People who criticize activist judges (who often refuse to recuse themselves amid wide-ranging conflicts of interest while ruling against Donald Trump's agenda) are 'attacking democracy,' according to US Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks in Birmingham, Ala., on Sept. 15, 2023. Butch Dill - Pool/Getty Images

On May 1, Jackson - who was apparently referring to recent comments by Donald Trump, though not specifically naming him - told an audience at the First Circuit Judicial Conference in Rio Grande, Puerto Rico, "The attacks are not random. They seem designed to intimidate those of us who serve in this critical capacity."

"The threats and harassment are attacks on our democracy, on our system of government. And they ultimately risk undermining our Constitution and the rule of law," the Biden appointee continued, referring to "the elephant in the room."

As the Epoch Times notes further, several federal judges have said the Trump administration has not complied with various court orders on federal spending, the firing of government employees, and foreign aid. The administration denies that it disobeyed the orders and has criticized judges who have halted its policy actions, in some cases calling for the judges to be impeached.

Jackson’s comments followed a public statement by Chief Justice John Roberts on March 18 after Trump called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, who was confirmed in 2011 after being nominated by President Barack Obama.

Boasberg issued orders forbidding the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members under the Alien Enemies Act and then said the Trump administration disobeyed those orders. The Trump administration denies it flouted the orders and said some deportation flights had already left U.S. airspace before the initial written order was issued.

For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” Roberts said in a statement provided to The Epoch Times. “The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

Later that month, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-Ariz.) introduced a resolution in the House to impeach Boasberg.

“We cannot stand by while activist judges who incorrectly believe they have more authority than the duly-elected President of the United States, impose their own political agenda on the American people,” Biggs said in a statement on March 31.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court is scheduled on May 15 to hear oral arguments on lower court orders blocking Trump’s policy of limiting birthright citizenship for certain individuals.

Trump’s Executive Order 14160, signed on Jan. 20, states that “the Fourteenth Amendment has never been interpreted to extend citizenship universally to everyone born within the United States.”

In the court filings, the Department of Justice did not ask the Supreme Court to rule on the constitutionality of the executive order itself, although it acknowledged that the birthright citizenship question raises “important constitutional questions with major ramifications for securing the border.”

Instead, the department made what it called a “modest” request to contain the coverage of court injunctions within the parties in the lawsuits.

“While the parties litigate weighty questions, the Court should ‘restrict the scope’ of multiple preliminary injunctions that ‘purport to cover every person ... in the country,’ limiting those injunctions to parties actually within the courts’ power,” it wrote.

Nationwide injunctions, also known as non-party or universal injunctions, set policy for the entire country. Such injunctions issued by judges have become controversial in recent years as they have become increasingly common.

On April 9, the House passed a bill on a 219–213 vote in an attempt to curb the barrage of district court rulings that have blocked or delayed Trump’s executive actions on multiple fronts.

Wielding national injunctions in that way “undermines the system of government,” the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.), said on the House floor on April 8.

Sam Dorman contributed to this report.

Loading...

联系我们 contact @ memedata.com