This Scares Us--Can Roberts Be Trusted?

Rep. Mo Brooks questions Chief Justice Roberts’ ability to conduct fair impeachment trial

December 22, 2019

China Spies On Citizens With Robotic Birds

00:30

/

01:06

7 Time Lottery Winner: "You're All Playing The Lottery Wrong...

Men, Fix Your ED By Doing This (Try This Tonight!)

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has been called out by Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) for being “mentally erratic” in his legal foundation.

Shoptrendingmarket

Ads by Revcontent

Once House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) releases the articles of impeachment to the Senate, Justice Roberts will preside over the Senate impeachment trial. Brooks called Roberts’ impartiality into question in an appearance on Huntsville, AL radio’s WVNN on Saturday.

While much of the current conversation has focused on how Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) will handle the Senate impeachment proceedings, Brooks turned the spotlight on Roberts.

He pointed to Roberts’ opinion on Obamacare as an example of that “erratic” thinking, saying that “out of nine Supreme Court justices, he was the only one who thought that Obamacare was not socialized medicine […] He thought it was a tax increase, therefore it was permissible.”

“Justice Roberts engaged in this kind of legal gymnastics in his own brain that all eight of the other Supreme Court justices thought was rather bizarre. But nonetheless, he was the deciding vote on Obamacare. So, I don’t trust John Roberts’ judgment,” the Alabama Republican continued.

• 

Brooks went on to speculate about how Roberts’ may choose to preside over the trial, commenting:

“I don’t know if he would be passive. I don’t know if he would be aggressive. Typically, the trial judge by way of example would be responsible for making evidentiary rulings, what is admissible in a trial and what is not. And I don’t know if John Roberts is in a position to do that in a way that I believe is appropriate.”

Brooks cast doubt on how Roberts will influence the trial and remarked that he would “much rather we have someone who is fairly consistent and reliable — someone we could trust in a reasoned way to come up with what is fair and just.”