The chief justice John Roberts ‘ career at the Supreme Court is ironic because the person who has worked so hard to defend the court has done a lot to destroy it. In doing so, he has threatened the state itself as well as the court’s validity.
His most recent example of defiance did not involve a faulty investigation into a destructive hole, a defence of the unjustified censorship-industrial advanced, nor was it an abhorrent ruling on the level of Obamacare, the census citizenship question, DACA, or other similar matters. It was a tense three-line statement that might show to be the most significant and corrosive of all.
According to the chief justice,” for more than two decades, it has been established that impeachment is not a proper response to disagreements regarding a criminal decision.” For that reason, there is a typical administrative review process.
The chief justice’s statement revealed that he is either intentionally blind to the making fire or lacks the will to expel it, along with other proof that he is not only suffering from the self-aggrandizement that plagues the lower court judges. Evidently, he is willing to let it spread by digging in, supporting judges ‘ actions inhumanely, and limiting the “process” to the process. He also criticizes those who would attempt ask that something be done about the judiciary’s self-immolation by subverting official government at the same time.
The main court’s statement was made in response to a Truth Social article that President Donald Trump had just published. The leader that demanded the removal of D.C. District Chief Judge James Boasberg, an appointed member of the federal court, as Trump put it. By thwarting his plan and micromanaging his operations to arrest the criminal illegal aliens of Tren de Aragua, Bosniasberg properly usurped the government’s power and responsibility to fight illegal immigration.
As the Trump-Roberts tussle raged, Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced articles of impeachment against the prosecutor for putting an end to the country, overstepping, and creating a” legal issue.”
The main justice’s apparent conviction that he has the right and obligation to express his opinion on the explicitly political act of impeachment is self-serving, both for the legislative branch and the electorate it serves. To issue claims like those from the Supreme Court’s chambers effectively attempting to tamper with the legislative firm’s deliberations is what is absolutely” not an appropriate answer.”
What more could Chief Justice Roberts have done to censure President Trump over his post if you wanted to sensationalize the judge and undercut the perception of its fairness? In addition, Roberts did it after previously criticizing Trump for his remarks about biased judges in 2018 and keeping quiet as former presidents who disagreed with the Supreme Court’s decisions, some calling for their impeachment, and their supporters threatened judges ‘ lives and courts with destruction.
Roberts showed animosity toward a leader who is gathering to dispute that is almost surely ticketed for his own, and in fact, is currently sitting in the Supreme Court, regarding the extremely dangerous criminal excess to which the president’s post is referring.
Roberts ‘ speech is even more ridiculous because of the context’s wider context. Trump’s article made reference to” crooked” magistrates who have successfully coerced in extraordinary legal battles with the blue state, left-wing NGOs, and administrative state actors who have filed more than 100 lawsuits aimed at stifling the leader. The plaintiffs have had a portion of their success by taking those cases to courts ( like the one in Boasberg’s D. C. District ), which are rife with Democrat nominees who have made it illegal for the administration to carry out its agenda at a large scale and recklessly.
While dictating” the Administration’s foreign policy, financial, personnel, and national security plans,” White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller put it also, noting that district court judges have “assumed the cape of Secretary of Defense, Secretary of State, Secretary of Homeland Security, and Commander-in-Chief.”
The executive’s efforts to regain control of the executive branch, which is home to the appointed and inexplicable administrative state saboteurs of the Trump I agenda, have resulted in the judiciary’s resistance. Your abuse on politics, as well as the state, is ongoing.
In these cases, we have seen judges undoubtedly rule on nonjusticiable problems, impose poor solutions, and disregard Supreme Court law, occasionally on behalf of plaintiffs who are probably not in good standing, with the judges themselves occasionally being incompetent.
They have issued general injunctions at historical speed, scale, and of optimum potency, which is most outrageously, as I lately reported at RealClearInvestigations.
This tale remedy, which was used so frequently under the first Trump presidency, is neither constitutional nor conceivable under federal law. Almost two-thirds of all injunctions issued in this decade were issued by Democrats-nominated judges, making up 92 percent of those decisions. Therefore, despite the orders of Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch, Chief Justice Roberts and his team chose not to accept their validity.
Federal judges issued more general injunctions against the Trump administration in the second month of February 2025 than they did during the Biden administration, a result of the prosecutor’s lack of urgency.
In a recent court filing, the Trump administration pointed out that federal judges “have issued generally unappealing orders at times granted without even giving the administration a hearing.”
The administration continued,” They have run their writ not just nationwide, but they have also awarded de facto universal damages.”
This was a part of a reference to the administration’s pending foreign aid freeze and its demand that it pay out$ 2 billion in allegedly owed to non-parties to the case all over the world in accordance with a universal TRO issued by D. C. District Judge Amir Ali. Justice Alito, who issued a vile dissent joined by Thomas, Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, but not Roberts, drew the ire of the Supreme Court, which upheld that decision.
Roberts ‘ suggestion that the administration should continue to carry out its fundamental constitutional duties as the rulings become more and more absurd in scope and scope is beyond alarming.
His inability to control the lower courts is precisely the reason, as I further explained, that members of Congress are organizing to stop all legal injunctions and, in some cases, calling for judges ‘ impeachment. The legislative branch was forced to take action because the chief justice was willing to let the lower courts that Congress established engage in such injustice.
It is remarkable that his inclination is obvious to support the judges who are burning down the judiciary and, to use another metaphor, to allow cases to mature sufficiently while the entire institution decays.
Chief Justice Roberts is undoubtedly of the opinion that the courts ‘ critics are a bigger issue than the lawless judges who have received such richly deserved criticism.
Additionally, his statement urges lower court judges to act even more blatantly. After all, the most they can trust in outrageous political decisions is being slammed down in the “normal appellate review process.”
The Trump administration has requested a stay of several universal injunctions overturning its executive order that restricts birthright citizenship in nearly identical cases that are currently being heard before the Supreme Court. Additionally, it has demanded that the Supreme Court “affirm that enough is enough before the growing reliance on universal injunctions by district courts grows even more ingrained.”
The chief justice has the power to do the least thing that can be done to rightly defend not only the judiciary but also our country by ending universal injunctions once and for all.
Ben Weingarten is the editor in chief for RealClearInvestigations. He contributes to publications like The Federalist, The New York Post, and Newsweek, among others. Subscribe to his Weingarten newsletter. Follow him on Twitter at @bhweingarten and subscribe to Substack .com.
