John Roberts has a bone to pick with the rest of us

John Roberts, a man who attained the most powerful legal post in the country because he aligned with the values of the Federalist Society, an extreme right-wing organization, has issued his annual diatribe against anyone who complains about the corrupt actions of his court. Once again, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States has used his bully pulpit to whinge about the public's anger at the corruption of the Roberts Court.  

How corrupt is the Roberts Court? Let me count the ways...

• Mrs. John Roberts earned millions "consulting" law firms, many of whom had cases in front of her husband. 
• Clarence Thomas, in a class of judicial corruption all by himself, has accepted multiple excessive gifts from people with cases in front of the court and he did not disclose these gifts as required by law. On any other bench, he would have been removed long ago. 
• Sam Alito, also happy to accept massive gifts from "friends" with cases in front of the court, has also flown flags at his homes (though he blamed his wife) that are flown by right-wing extremists. 
• As he was elevated to SCOTUS after a contentious Senate Hearing, Brett Kavanaugh's large debt was paid in an off-the-record kind of way – at least there has been no public disclosure of how his six-figure debt had been quickly paid off just as he assumed the bench. 
• His fellow high school classmate,  Neil Gorsuch, was able to sell an undesirable property that had been on the market for two years just days after his confirmation to SCOTUS to lawyer in a law firm with multiple cases in front of SCOTUS. 

All of that is something we, the public, are to ignore. Some say that Thomas was being paid specifically because his ideological perspectives so perfectly align with Harlan Crow's needs, not because he changed his vote to align with Harlan Crow's needs, and that's perfectly okay in a SCOTUS justice. 

That's not okay. In no country that respects the rule of law is it in the slightest bit okay for a justice to align so closely with a person's interests in front of SCOTUS that he's gifted massive gifts as a "gratuity" for his rulings. 

The Roberts Court did respond to the charges of corruption by creating a weak, unenforceable "code of conduct" that the justices are individually responsible for following. There are no consequences if a justice on the highest court in America decides to abandon ethical considerations and accept massive gifts. 

But the ethical lapses of SCOTUS justices are the furthest thing from John Roberts' mind; his year-end reflections are reserved for justifying life-time appointments and blaming everyone else for the troubles surrounding SCOTUS. Roberts opens with a quaint history lesson about King George III's attempts to own the judiciary and then pivots into a defense of lifetime appointments. From the Roberts report:

"Quoting the French political philosopher Montesquieu, Hamilton endorsed in Federalist No. 78 the principle that “there is no liberty, if the power of judging be not separated from the

legislative and executive powers.” (2 ) Hamilton anticipated that the relatively weak judicial branch—possessing neither the sword nor the purse—would require “all possible care . . . to

defend itself” against the attacks of the other branches. (3) To that end, “permanent tenure of

judicial offices” would free judges to perform their essential role as “the bulwarks of a limited Constitution against legislative encroachments.” (4) 

2 Federalist No. 78.

3 Ibid.

4 Ibid." 

(Quote from the Roberts report, p. 2) 

Roberts does not address the issues that come when justices are too ill from cancer and/or age to do their job. He does not discuss the importance of ridding SCOTUS of corrupt jurists. Instead, he then turns his attention to the reality that "some tension between the branches of the government is inevitable and criticism of judicial interpretations of the people’s laws is as old as the Republic itself." 

Roberts neglects to mention that because SCOTUS overturned Roe, women and babies are dying at higher rates in states that have initiated abortion bans. Red states have turned the treatment of miscarriage into a crime that could bring a murder charge. Thus, women are dying. And that is one reason why there is criticism of SCOTUS today. As I noted in an earlier post, the Republican Party's forty-year war to own the judiciary has been successful. Six right-wing ideologues preside over the nation's highest court. Their rulings over the years have damaged voting rights; taken away employees' right to use class-action suits in wage-theft cases; enabled dark money to corrupt our politics, and turned the treatment of miscarriage into a criminal act, among other things. In other words, the "originalists" have significantly tilted the balance of power further away from ordinary people. And as a result, the regular folk have lost faith in SCOTUS. 

Though all SCOTUS justices take an oath to protect our constitution, those nominated by a Republican president have to be approved by the Federalist Society, the right-wing organization that still holds John Eastman in good standing, though he's been disbarred (for the time being at least) for unconstitutionally trying to overthrow the 2020 election Trump lost. 

The writing in the Roberts report is pedantic and boring – it almost seems as if he used AI to help with some paragraphs. An example:

"At the end of the day, judges perform a critical function in our democracy. Since the beginning of the Republic, the rulings of judges have shaped the Nation’s development and checked the excesses of the other branches." (Roberts p. 4)

I have no idea why someone educated at Harvard feels compelled to state the obvious in that graph but he definitely stated the obvious about the role of SCOTUS in a nation defined by the rule of law. AND he avoided noting that his very own immunity ruling, issued this summer, eliminated most checks on the presidential branch. Apparently, the six right-wing justices were so concerned that a former president had been indicted for inciting violence on 1/6/21 and also for stealing classified documents, that they felt compelled to write a "ruling for the ages," as Gorsuch claimed was the goal. As a result of the dillydallying of our highest court, Trump will never be held accountable for stealing classified documents. Nor will he be held accountable for his actions that incited violence at the Capitol on 1/6/21 in an attempt to halt the certification of the election Trump lost. This is one of the lowest acts of SCOTUS in a history that includes rulings like the Dred Scott & Plessy v Ferguson rulings. 

In his end-of-year report, Roberts outlines the threats to an independent judiciary - "(1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.  ( Roberts p. 5) In no place does he mention the corruption of the justices who feel emboldened to take bribes (though SCOTUS now calls this form of payment a legal "gratuity.") 

Violence should never be condoned but it is interesting that Roberts in his report focuses on the deaths of justices and not the deaths of children shot in schools thanks to our unregulated militia or pregnant women dead of sepsis thanks to abortion bans. Violence is indeed a threat we face today - we all saw the violence at the Capitol on 1/6/21 – but thanks to SCOTUS, Trump will never be held accountable for his role in the violence of that day. Trump also campaigned on promising to release 1/6/21 prisoners who were convicted of crimes – Trump calls them political prisoners, when in fact, they engaged in acts of violence and vandalism and threatened to hang the vice president. Trump will enter the White House on 1/20/25 with enormous and unchecked power to do whatever "official acts" he wants to do. It was Roberts who wrote the immunity ruling, holding: 

"Under our constitutional structure of separated powers, the nature of Presidential power entitles a former President to absolute immunity from criminal prosecution for actions within his conclusive and preclusive constitutional authority. And he is entitled to at least presumptive immunity from prosecution for all his official acts. There is no immunity for unofficial acts."  (Trump v. United States ruling, p. 1) 

What constitutes an "official act" made by a president? Does pardoning people convicted of seditious conspiracy constitute an official act? Does aligning American foreign policy with a countries like Saudi Arabia and Israel, where Trump's company plans to build new hotels, constitute an official act? Does a presidential decree looking to expand our territory by claiming that of our allies constitute an official act? Does selling classified information to an enemy constitute an official act if it is done by a president? 

Why was such broad immunity needed? What president prior to Trump ever needed this immunity ruling to engage in official acts? None. What president has been indicted for unlawful acts? Only one. And he will be president again later this month. Thanks to SCOTUS, there will never be any resolution to those two cases. 

The public has lost respect for the court over which Roberts presides. He claims that the rulings in his court are without partisan bias and yet says nothing when several of his peers have accepted gifts from people with interests in front of the court. He says nothing when one of his peers flies a flag associated with insurrection. Under the code of conduct that none of the justices have to follow, the first canon of the code recommends that "a justice should uphold the integrity and independence of the judiciary." (SCOTUS code of conduct, p. 1) As an American citizen, I find it remarkable that John Roberts can focus on the dangers of criticizing the court without any mention at all of the corrupt behaviors of his peers on the court. 

John Roberts was selected for SCOTUS specifically for his ideological beliefs. The Republican Party has been telling us FOR DECADES that control of the courts is a key goal of the GOP. They have played the long game and won big. Under the leadership of John Roberts, right-wing SCOTUS justices have overturned Roe; they've diminished protections for employees; they've enabled dark money to buy elections; they overturned VRA protections for voters. In short, when John Roberts wants to look at "threats to the court," he should look in the mirror and at those who serve on the bench with him. His end-of-year report is filled with nothing but gaslighting. We deserve much better than that.