When he became the Supreme Court Supreme Court judge at the 2005 Senate confirmation hearing, John Roberts is famous for evoking American national entertainment when explaining his views on the role of justice in the constitutional order. “The judge seems to be a judge.
If so!
Unfortunately, Roberts’ actual career in the High Court was one of the broader denials of his lofty “judgment.” declaration. In raising all other concerns, his personal conception of institutional integrity, and, by extension, the judiciary as a whole, made Roberts ironically more than anyone else to outlaw the court. His recent wild criticism of President Donald Trump’s fraudulent lower judge’s call for a bluff each is just the latest example. For the court itself, in these politically tense times, Roberts must immediately change courses.
Roberts first showed his hand in the 2012 Landmark 2012 Obamacare Incident, National Federation of Independent Businesses vs. Severius. As CBS News’ Jan Crawford first reported shortly after the decision, Roberts, later reported by other court observers such as CNN’s Joan Biskupic, was originally intended to govern the constitutionality of individual mandates of health law.
But at some point during the court’s deliberation, Roberts changed his mind. He decided that the ruling could throw bones into the conservative block of the court. Against Commerce clause mandate is based on the basis that the law drafters and the Obama administration cited as constitutional grounds as well. However, Roberts chose to throw even bigger bones into the liberal block of the court and unilaterally rewrite the decree, and interpret the mandate as “tax.” Therefore, Obama’s signature domestic achievements were supported.
That’s not what a judicial “judgment” that calls a legitimate “ball and strike” looks like. Worse, Roberts’ flip timing coincided with Obama’s Spring 2012 Rose Garden Speech. He silly explained the possibility that the Supreme Court could override his health care law as “unprecedented” or “extraordinary.” Has the Supreme Court conveniently switched back to historic important cases? That’s certainly the case.
In the years since Sebelius, Roberts has had an additional example of Roberts ruled in famous cases in a way that could only be interpreted as a clumsy attempt to make “both sides” of the court. Roev in 1973. In the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Agency’s 2022 abortion case that mercilessly overturned Wade’s decision, Roberts refused to participate in the written majority opinion by Samuel Alito, and chose to write separately and agree to the judgment. It was a classic Roberts move. He argued that courts could support Mississippi’s underlying 15-week abortion ban law.
Roberts’ Dobbs stunts were legally contradictory to the point of complete intellectual injustice, but politically useful for the singular concept of Roberts’ role as the Chief Justice. But once more: That certainly isn’t what a judicial “judgment” that calls a legitimate “ball and strike” looks like.
This week’s criticism of Trump’s call for each of Roberts’ Judge James Boasberg’s bounce-up each of the bullets is consistent with his prioritization history – Ham Hand and self-directed fashion – he believes the aggressiveness of judgment. But on this particular score, Roberts is wrong.
Judicial bullet each is an established remedy for illicit judicial action that dates back to President Jefferson in the early 1800s. This is expressly expressed by Article 3 of the Constitution text, which states that federal judges will only sit “in good conduct.” And here is the bluff each, and there is fundamentally political judgment everywhere. That’s appropriate, Alexander Hamilton writes in Federalist No. 65, where there was “abuse or violation of public trust.” That is not a legally valid standard. It is the politician Bailwick who must be careful and discernible.
Roberts’ recent explosion is even more ridiculous given the specific legal background of Boasberg’s standoff with Trump. In this example, Boasberg opposed the president’s ability to enforce immigration laws. However, the “doctrine of overall authority” of the Constitution has long been determined that the judiciary is not involved when the political sector wants to ensure our sovereignty. A memo to the official online constitution of the US government is available in Congress, state, ”
