Linda Greenhouse, a long-time attorney, argued in an ominous essay for The New York Times that Chief Justice John Roberts if embrace” authenticity” because “deciding instances may not be sufficiently these days.”
Former Times reporter and columnist Greenhouse wrote that” the latest chief justice maintains beautiful control of his public image, making it difficult to imagine a spontaneous John Roberts act.” However, there is currently room for a little authenticity.
Greenhouse faulted Roberts for , his refusal , to sacrifice criminal democracy by participating in a secret one- allied meet with Senate Democrats. She also brings up the fact that his alleged failure to order Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas to step aside from Donald Trump’s resistance situation because their families ‘ secret ideas.
Although Greenhouse not specifically defined” spontaneity,” she suggested that it should involve embracing judicial activism rather than just deciding situations.
” Deciding situations is indeed the judge’s job”, Greenhouse wrote. ” But deciding situations may not be much these days, when the Supreme Court has sunk to near-historic highs in public esteem and each week seems to take a new issue to its image of propriety and detachment,” the statement said.
In a separate article for the History News Network, Greenhouse went into more detail about the liberal criminal philosophy she believes Roberts should accept.
” We need a Supreme Court that does n’t see the Constitution as a roadblock to structural reform, but as Ruth Bader Ginsburg saw it, as an engine of social progress,” Greenhouse wrote. She continues, calling the judge’s new restrictions on religious freedom “off-ramps from civil society for those with religious concerns to following the equality principles intended bind us all.”
This drive for leftist advocacy contrasts with her criticism of the judge’s consistently conservative justices, who she refers to as “five activist justices to Roberts ‘] right.” Greenhouse questioned why Roberts does n’t have more authority over Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas, particularly given that the justices are not Roberts ‘ subordinates.
” I’ve been asked a lot of times why Chief Justice Roberts does n’t just instruct Justices Alito and Clarence Thomas to recuse themselves from the cases involving Donald Trump’s prosecution stemming from the 2021 attack on the Capitol,” Greenhouse wrote.
Greenhouse does no criticize the magistrates ‘ behaviour as deserving of their recusal. She instead , cites , recent , slander campaigns , against the magistrates ‘ wives, including Martha- Ann Alito’s show of an” Appeal to Heaven” symbol recently flown at George , Washington’s control. But the Supreme Court ‘s , password of conduct , does not need political independence from families.  ,
According to Greenhouse, Roberts ‘ inability to “jawbone them” into recusal demonstrates a lack of leadership, comparing him to Chief Justice William Rehnquist.
” We’ll never know, obviously, but I think] Rehnquist ] would have drawn on his deep well of capital inside the court and found a way to let Justices Alito and Thomas know that recusal from the Trump immunity case would be highly advisable even if not required”, Greenhouse wrote. A general justice who might not have had the administrative money to call on in a time of need has eluded the court’s ability to address the issues that are currently roiling around the court.
Roberts ‘ ability to push Alito’s and Thomas ‘ recusal is never a matter of lacking “institutional funds” but rather of the , parameters of his part. Roberts may be in a special position in terms of leadership and presidency over court proceedings, but he is not the head of the other judges.  , Individual judges decide , their personal recusals.  ,
Greenhouse argued that the Supreme Court’s expert and that of the chief justice were excess. Her claim that simply “deciding cases may not be sufficiently these time” is incongruent with the function of the judicial branch of government. The , constitution , and , legitimate precedent , have established the court as a fortress of independent decision- making, no spontaneity in addressing people perception.  ,
The Federalist requested comment from Greenhouse for clarity on what she , meant by” fluidity” and “deciding instances may not be sufficiently these days” but received no reply.
Monroe Harless is a summertime volunteer at The Federalist. She recently received degrees in media and social science from the University of Georgia.
