Saunders: Trump was more on point than Chief Justice Roberts

After nearly two years of Trump tweeting at all hours, the “so-called judge” line seems mild — but federal judges are a prickly lot. Trump’s first Supreme Court pick, Neil Gorsuch, felt sufficiently disturbed that he had to admit he found the comments “disheartening” and “demoralizing” — before his confirmation.

Be it noted, Trump was wrong. Robart’s ruling was not overturned.

So after a federal judge in San Francisco issued a restraining order Tuesday against Trump’s new policy limiting asylum claims to those made at legal checkpoints, Trump railed against “Obama judge” Jon S. Tigar and the 9th District — which has blocked all three Trump travel bans, including the one upheld by the top court.

Those remarks apparently were a bridge too far for Roberts, who issued a rebuke: “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.”

Sorry, but there’s a reason conservatives call the 9th Circuit the “Nutty Ninth.” From 2010 to 2015, the Supreme Court overturned 79 percent of the circuit’s decisions. (Polifact notes that the 6th Circuit has a higher reversal rate.) The 9th Circuit has 17 judges appointed by Democratic presidents, as opposed to seven GOP picks.

But it is the baldness of some of the 9th’s rulings that has solidified its reputation for putting left-wing politics before the letter of the law. This is the circuit that found the Pledge of Allegiance to be unconstitutional because of its inclusion of “under God.”

A new circuit?

Trump is hardly the only conservative who sees the 9th District — which contains Nevada, Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Oregon and Washington — as too big and too much of a California powerhouse. Arizona Republican Sens. Jeff Flake and the late John McCain introduced legislation in 2017 to create a new 12th circuit by peeling away six states.

While Roberts chided Trump for seeing Obama and Clinton justices versus Bush and Trump justices, the partisan divide keeps popping up in Supreme Court decisions.

In June, when the Supreme Court upheld Trump’s third (and much improved) travel ban, Roberts wrote an opinion that noted the policy’s “legitimate purposes.” He was joined by four other justices nominated by Republicans and all four justices nominated by Democrats dissented.

It’s true that the justices can be very collegial and as institutionalists, they are duty bound to defend each other as honest jurists upholding their honest views of the law. But somehow when it comes time to vote on matters that divide the country, the decisions tend to divide on the same lines.