For a purpose, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has found himself at the center of American political discussion.
The main justice has then taken it upon himself to condemn President Donald Trump for calling for the impeacher of District Court Judge James Boasberg after allowing the criminal warfare against the executive branch to remain uninterrupted. Boasberg, an Obama appointment, made a unilateral attempt to stop the government’s recent weekend repatriation of Tren de Aragua group members to El Salvador.
Roberts appeared to be trying to cover up Boasberg’s overblown actions in his astonishingly tone-deaf statement by criticizing Trump’s demands for the jury’s impeachment.
According to Roberts, it has been proven for more than two decades that impeachment is hardly a fair response to disagreements over a criminal decision. ” The typical appealing review procedure exists for that reason.”
Strangely, the statement does not seem to have been made public on the Supreme Court’s website as per customary practice, but rather was made available to legacy media sources. The high judge’s open data office’s repeated requests for the main court’s entire speech and explanations as to why the speech wasn’t uploaded to the court’s site have gone unanswered.
It’s important to point out that Roberts has gone to great lengths to criticize Trump for his criticism of advocate judges ‘ attempts to sabotage his government in the wake of Tuesday’s event. The chief justice disputed the government’s allusion to District Court Judge Jon Tigar, who had imposed an” Obama appraise” on the administration in 2018.
The chief justice is missing the forest for the trees, even though Roberts appears to believe it’s his grave duty to censure Trump for rejecting a renegade lower court’s overblown order.
According to Davis,” The decision to oust judges has been entirely up to the American people’s elected representatives.” The Supreme Court and its main fairness have no authority or authority over the process, relative to Roberts ‘ need to introduce himself into the matter.
For a Supreme Court justice, let alone the general justice, Roberts ‘ most recent actions may seem unusual. The Bush appointment uses political gamesmanship to further his years-long campaign to defend what he sees as the court’s “legitimacy.”
Consider that the chief justice appeared to be unconcerned with the radical Democrat politicians calling for the impeached of his SCOTUS associates Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito due to the court’s decisions and unscrupulous scheming published by left-wing advertising sources like ProPublica. Due to the leaks in the judge’s Dobbs draft opinion, he didn’t bother to issue a statement right away after a gunman was apprehended for supposedly trying to assassinate Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh. ( The leaker has not yet been publicly identified and held accountable for his or her conduct. )
However, Roberts ‘ conduct in issuing statements is not confined to Roberts ‘ conduct in attacking his colleagues. The chief justice is infamous for taking prospective political repercussions into account when making decisions in contentious matters.
In their bestseller Justice on Test: The Kavanaugh Confirmation and the Supreme Court’s Future, Roberts somewhat considered the “public frustration” the high court might experience if it invalidates Obamacare in the 2012 NFIB v. Sebelius situation. The authors remarked that the chief justice was nervous about the possibility of the Court’s proposed significant change to the health care legislation and that it would be held responsible for the possible collapse of the insurance markets.
According to some studies, Roberts first sided with his own Republican nominees by upholding the law. Hemingway and Severino point out that the chief justice ultimately “negotiated a deal with Justices Kagan and Breyer” to protect Obamacare by “overturning ] the law’s expansion of Medicaid, contrary to their own reading of the statute, in exchange for [ Roberts ] upholding the individual mandate as a tax.
Whatever Chief Justice Roberts ‘ arguments are, the end result was not a positive impact on the Court’s standing. The authors wrote that Pew reported that the Court’s approval rating remained at its all-time low of 52 % following the ruling. The common misconception was that the chief changed his constitutional position not on theory but in response to public force, even among those who supported the leader’s choice. For people concerned about the Court’s legitimacy, it was a terrible outcome.
Roberts ‘ steps in preserving the court’s “legitimacy” are just going to undermine its credibility with the British people, which he evidently fails to grasp.
When combined with his administrative sportsmanship and ham-fisted remarks, his unwillingness to put an end to the lower courts ‘ illegal damage of America’s duly elected president creates the impression of a general justice who is more concerned with playing the role of a legislator than a judge. His main goal is to serve as the entire judiciary’s public relations representative rather than faithfully interpret the law as it is written.
The more faith the people lose in the ability of the courts to function as a trustworthy branch of government the longer Roberts ( and Associate Justice Amy Coney Barrett ) allow lower court judges to upend America’s constitutional system with arbitrary nationwide injunctions. The president can either ignore these antics or allow the chief justice to stop them. His is the one.
The Federalist staff writer Shawn Fleetwood graduated from the University of Mary Washington. He previously worked for Convention of States Action as a state content writer, and his articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Conservative Review, RealClearPolitics, and RealClear Health. Follow him on Twitter at @ShawnFleetwood
