By John Q. Hosedrinker 
In the past few months, the Supreme Court, heavily influenced by Trump’s appointments, has issued a series of rulings, largely through the “shadow docket,” that have greatly benefited the former president, including granting him 18 straight victories. These decisions have allowed Trump to pursue his agenda and potentially causing immense suffering to millions. Critics, including prominent legal scholars, argue that Chief Justice John Roberts is overseeing the undermining of the rule of law. The current actions have led many, including legal scholars, to fear for the future of the court.
Read the original article here
The umpire who picked a side: John Roberts and the death of rule of law in America. The situation, quite frankly, is dire, and the focus often falls on one man: Chief Justice John Roberts. The narrative that’s emerging is clear: Roberts isn’t just making bad calls; he’s playing for a team. He’s the umpire who’s not just letting a few bad pitches slide, but actively shaping the game to favor one side, the right. And the consequence of this favoritism is the erosion of the rule of law, the very foundation of American democracy.
It’s not about a few missteps or the occasional preference; this is about a deliberate strategy. Roberts, as the comments suggest, was chosen for his conservative leanings. The fact that he allegedly misled the public during his confirmation hearings only serves to amplify this perception of bad faith. The implication is that he presented himself as something he was not, and that his subsequent actions on the bench have revealed his true political convictions. His legacy, according to many, is already taking shape: one of a judge who has done more to damage the integrity of the Supreme Court than uphold it.
His actions speak volumes. The erosion of voting rights, the enabling of partisan gerrymandering, the expansion of money in politics, and the weakening of checks on presidential power – these aren’t isolated incidents. They are, as some point out, a pattern, a concerted effort to reshape the legal landscape in a way that benefits a particular political agenda. The assertion is that Roberts, along with other conservative justices, has opened the door for figures like Donald Trump to exploit the system, further exacerbating the perceived crisis.
The sentiment is clear: Roberts is not seen as an impartial arbiter but as a political operative. The idea is that his rulings have been influenced by his personal beliefs and allegiances, and that this bias has led to decisions that are harmful to the country. His perceived role in the Bush v. Gore decision, and his subsequent actions on the Court, have painted a picture of a man who seems to prioritize political outcomes over legal principles.
The consequences are significant. The Supreme Court’s credibility is in decline, and public trust in the judicial system is eroding. The perception is that the court is no longer a neutral arbiter of the law, but a political institution driven by ideological agendas. This can lead to widespread disillusionment with the democratic process, as people begin to feel that their voices don’t matter and that the system is rigged.
The response to this perceived crisis ranges from anger and frustration to calls for drastic measures. Some believe that the only way to counter the perceived bias is to fight fire with fire. This includes calls for gerrymandering, packing the court, and other tactics that would, in effect, use political maneuvering to counteract perceived political maneuvering. Others advocate for constitutional amendments and structural reforms to address the underlying problems.
The comparison of Roberts to an umpire who consistently calls balls and strikes unfairly is a powerful one. Like the baseball umpire, Roberts is supposed to be an impartial enforcer of the rules. When that impartiality is compromised, the game becomes unfair, and the outcome is predetermined. The rule of law is supposed to be like that umpire; a fair and impartial means of deciding disputes in society. If the law is not applied equally, the whole system falls into disrepute.
In the end, the accusations against John Roberts and the Supreme Court are serious. The debate over the rule of law and the future of American democracy is a complex one, but at the heart of it lies a fundamental question: Can the Supreme Court, as currently constituted, be trusted to act as an impartial arbiter of the law? The answer, for many, appears to be a resounding no. The belief is that Roberts and his allies have not only picked a side but have actively worked to reshape the legal system to benefit that side, and that this has put the very foundation of American democracy in jeopardy.