Reacting to 72-year-old President Donald Trump criticism of San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court Judge Jon S. Tigar for blocking new asylum guidelines, 63-yer-old Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts set the record straight. “We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” Roberts said in a statement. “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them. That independent judiciary is something we should all be thankful for.” Roberts reacted to Trump’s criticism of Judge Tigar who issued a stay on Trump’s policy that all asylum applications most come through dedicated asylum centers. Roberts’ statement defends the independence of the federal judiciary, something subject to liberal and conservative interpretation. Trump didn’t appreciate Robert’s rebuke.

Speaking at an impromptu news conference before flying to his Mar a Lago Golf Resort in Palm Beach, Trump took exception to Roberts’ analysis. “Sorry Chief Justice Robers, but you do indeed have Obama judges, and they have a much different point of view that the people who are charged with the safety of our country,” Trump said, referring the hoards of Central American refuges streaming to the U.S.-Mexico border. Trump pointed out that many of the immigration cases are filed in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where they generally get a warm reception. Noting the high number of immigration cases filed in San Francisco-based Appellate Court, Trump wanted Roberts to see that there are differences in reception at the 9th Circuit, compared with other appellate courts. Trump invited Roberts to study “the numbers” of immigration cases filed in San Francisco.

Roberts tried to inform Trump that regardless of who appoints the judges, an appellate court judge must follow the law, wherever it takes them. Trump calls the 9 th Circuit Court an “activist court,” for leaning to the left when making its rulings. Trump had similar problems with Seattle-based U.S. District Court Judge James Robart issuing an injunction Feb. 3, 2017 against Trump’s travel ban aimed at certain Mideat countries. Plaintiffs claimed that Trump violated the First Amendment, discriminating against Muslims. When Trump revised his travel ban, he had equally bad luck with Honolulu District Court Judge Derrick K. Watson, also ruling that Trump’s travel ban discriminated against Muslims. Trump had even more bad luck when the 9the Circuit Court ruled against his travel ban Dec. 22, 2018. When the Supreme Court overturned the 9th Circuit ruling June 26, 2018, Trump finally won.

Trump tried to point out to Roberts that liberal leaning courts like the 9th Circuit Court often get the rulings wrong, or, at the very least, don’t jibe with the High Court’s conservative majority. Instead of ranting publicly against Judge Tigar, Roberts wants Trump to let the controversy play itself out in the federal courts. If the Supreme Court rules in Trump’s favor, it’s not because it’s left-or-right leaning but because the rule of law or precedents dictate the outcome. Ranting in public against federal judges or a Circuit Court serves no one, especially the lawyers seeking equal justice under the law from any court in the land. Whether it was the travel ban or no the asylum issue, Trump made clear that he’s concerned about unvetted immigrants seeking access to the U.S. Trump worried about terrorists with the travel ban, now he’s concerned about criminals gaining access to the U.S.

With the federal court system, it doesn’t matter whose leaning left or right, only that the proper briefs are filed and arguments made. If the Supreme Court eventually rules against the District and Circuit courts, that’s the U.S. court system, whether it seems activist or not. When liberals or conservative talk of judicial activism, they refer to rulings, like the one yesterday in San Francisco, that don’t go their way. Activist liberals don’t like conservative rulings, much like activist conservatives, don’t like liberal rulings. For better or worse, Trump needs to accept the process and stop ranting against judges or rulings that don’t go his way. Tigar may interpret the U.S. asylum law statute differently than Trump or any of his preferred legal experts holding similar views. If appellate lawyers look for friendly courts or judges to support their cases, that’s the way things are done in U.S. courts.

Getting into a spat with Roberts makes Trump look bad by showing that he doesn’t really understand the federal court system. Everyone knows that federal judges are appointed by incumbent presidents, whether Republican or Democrat. Once a judge swears his allegiance to the Constitution, all bets are off with regard to politicians seeking certain outcomes from appointees. Protecting the U.S. homeland is not primarily the responsibility of the federal courts. Roberts let Trump know that the federal judges apply the rule of law to the best of their ability, regardless of who appointed them. When Roberts talks of an independent federal judiciary, he’s not talking about the political leaning of judges or who appointed them. He’s talking about hearing arguments, applying appropriate precedents and writing opinions that best answer the questions presented to the court.