By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Chief Justice Roberts’s recent rebuke of calls for judicial impeachment, following President Trump’s attacks on judges, rings hollow given the Supreme Court’s past actions shielding Trump from legal consequences. This current crisis, with Trump and allies attempting to dismantle the judiciary, is a predictable outcome of the Court’s prior decisions. The Court’s conservative supermajority is likely to further empower Trump, prioritizing a specific political agenda over upholding the rule of law. The situation underscores the judiciary’s increasingly vital role in constraining executive overreach.
Read the original article here
Chief Justice Roberts’s actions regarding Trump have undeniably contributed to a deeply concerning state of affairs. The idea that he harbors “buyer’s remorse” is a compelling one, suggesting a potential internal conflict between his personal beliefs and the consequences of his decisions. However, the reality is far more nuanced and disturbing.
The notion of remorse implies a recognition of wrongdoing and a desire for amends. While some might interpret certain actions as subtle indications of regret, a deeper examination reveals a pattern of behavior that suggests otherwise. The Chief Justice, through his judicial pronouncements and votes, has significantly shaped the legal landscape, often in ways that have bolstered executive power and weakened checks and balances.
This is not simply about isolated decisions. The sheer volume and consistent nature of his rulings are profoundly concerning. They represent a shift towards a more conservative and arguably authoritarian interpretation of the law, a shift that has empowered a president who consistently flouts norms and conventions. It’s hard to argue that these decisions were made in a vacuum; they are part of a larger trend contributing to a concerning imbalance of power.
Furthermore, the suggestion of remorse conveniently overlooks the potential motivations behind the Chief Justice’s actions. It’s far too simplistic to assume that his decisions are solely driven by a misguided sense of judicial propriety. The power dynamics at play are complex and involve political maneuvering, ideological convictions, and potentially even personal ambition. The idea of sudden remorse ignores the potential for carefully calculated strategies to maintain a facade of neutrality while actively shaping a desired outcome.
The argument that Chief Justice Roberts, through his actions, has made Trump an “unaccountable king” holds significant weight. The legal frameworks he helped establish, particularly through interpretations of executive privilege and other significant rulings, have granted unprecedented latitude to the executive branch. This has severely diminished the ability of other branches of government to effectively hold the president accountable for his actions. This isn’t a matter of simple regret; it’s a fundamental alteration of the balance of power within the American system.
The notion of the Supreme Court’s power being “done” if it is routinely ignored is also a valid concern. The Court’s authority is intrinsically linked to its perceived legitimacy and the willingness of other branches of government to comply with its rulings. If a president can simply disregard a court’s decision with impunity, the institution’s authority erodes dramatically. This is not something that would be casually brushed aside; it is a crucial element for the functioning of a democratic society.
Chief Justice Roberts’s legacy will undoubtedly be shaped by his involvement in these pivotal events. Whether he privately agonizes over the implications of his decisions or remains steadfast in his convictions is ultimately irrelevant to the broader context. His rulings have demonstrably contributed to a more polarized and potentially less democratic political landscape. While speculation on his internal state of mind is tempting, it’s far more crucial to assess the actual ramifications of his judicial actions on the functioning of the American political system. The reality remains that his actions have significantly contributed to a situation where accountability is lacking, and the executive branch operates with far greater unchecked power than ever before. The question of buyer’s remorse, therefore, is overshadowed by the far more serious concern of the lasting consequences of his decisions.