In his column “Rogue judges or a rogue president?” (April 4, TribLive), Joseph Sabino Mistick told only one side of the story when characterizing the Trump administration as the true rogue in disputes between the executive and the judiciary.
Earlier this year, Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh found it necessary to admonish lower court judges who, while they are free to disagree, are not free to defy Supreme Court decisions about the executive branch’s authority to set policy.
Of course, the history of lower courts ignoring Supreme Court decisions predates the current administration. In just one such example, over 30 years ago the Supreme Court found it necessary to admonish a lower court that granted four last-minute stays of an execution as abusive delays intended to manipulate the judicial process.
It seems clear that at least some judges feel free to apply their own view of what is proper regardless of whether that view contradicts the policy set by officials who are more directly subject to public control via elections.
One can agree that the Trump administration is not and should not be beyond criticism regarding derogatory characterizations of the judiciary. A fair and balanced approach, however, would also agree that there are instances where the judicial process has been used, in some cases with the willing cooperation of judges, to inappropriately interfere with the prerogatives of the executive. Such balance is markedly absent from the professor’s column.
David Thomas
Bradfordwoods