Mo Brooks Warns of a ‘Mentally Erratic’ Chief Justice Presiding over Impeachment — ‘I Don’t Trust John Roberts’ Judgment’

Now that an impeachment trial is likely on the way in the U.S. Senate, how it will proceed is uncertain given the charges are being handed over from a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives to a Republican-controlled Senate. Under the Constitution, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over the Senate trial. However, Rep. Mo Brooks (R-AL) says he is skeptical of Roberts’ ability to preside over the trial in a manner that is “appropriate.”

During an appearance on Huntsville, AL radio’s WVNN, Brooks referred to Roberts’ 2012 opinion in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, which upheld the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare, as justification for his skepticism in the chief justice’s abilities.

“Justice Roberts has been mentally erratic in his legal foundation for the opinions he has written,” Brooks said on “The Jeff Poor Show.” “By way of one example, out of nine Supreme Court justices, he was the only one who thought that Obamacare was not socialized medicine, was not some kind of government health care program. He thought it was a tax increase, therefore it was permissible; therefore, the government could mandate that the American people be forced to buy products that they may or may not want, OK? Now that’s a direct conflict with the liberty and freedoms established in the Bill of Rights and the United States Constitution. But 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.”

“I don’t know where he is going to come down in this matter,” he continued. “I don’t know what kind of trial court judge he would be. 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. So, I do have some reservations about John Roberts based on his rather erratic rationales for the kinds of opinions that he issues on the United States Supreme Court. I 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.”

Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor


Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.