By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Congressman Steve Cohen has introduced six Articles of Impeachment against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts, alleging violations of the Constitution and his oaths of office. The articles accuse Roberts of leading the Court to become a partisan force, systematically favoring the powerful and wealthy over the populace, and exempting the President from criminal liability. Furthermore, the articles cite the Court’s arbitrary rulings and Roberts’s failure to fully report assets and recuse himself from cases involving potential conflicts of interest, particularly concerning his spouse’s employment.
Read the original article here
Congressman Cohen has recently introduced six articles of impeachment against Chief Justice John Roberts, signaling a significant escalation in the scrutiny and criticism directed at the nation’s highest court. These articles, brought forth by Representative Cohen, aim to address what he and his supporters perceive as a profound erosion of judicial integrity and impartiality under Chief Justice Roberts’s leadership. The move, while acknowledged by many as a long shot in terms of actual removal, is seen by some as a crucial step in highlighting alleged misconduct and sending a message about accountability.
One of the central tenets of the impeachment articles focuses on the perception of the Court becoming a partisan force. Article One specifically accuses Chief Justice Roberts of allowing the Court to act in a manner that breaches the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, due process, and equal protection. It alleges a pattern of interfering in elections on behalf of Republican candidates, a claim that strikes at the heart of the Court’s role in a democratic society and the Chief Justice’s obligation to administer justice impartially.
Further elaborating on this concern, Article Two posits that under Chief Justice Roberts’s tenure, the Court has systematically favored the powerful over the people. This is seen as undermining the fundamental principles of popular sovereignty and representation. The article contends that this has led to a system of political exclusion, enabling minority rule at the expense of the popular will, which is described as a grave violation of participatory democracy enshrined in the Constitution.
Another significant accusation, detailed in Article Three, is that Chief Justice Roberts has violated his oath to “do equal right to the poor and the rich.” This is directly linked to his alleged endorsement of a campaign finance system perceived as corrupt, one that purportedly privileges the wealthy. Such a system, it is argued, disenfranchises and disadvantages all other citizens, further eroding the ideal of equal justice under the law.
Article Four addresses the controversial issue of exempting the President from criminal liability, a move seen by critics as a usurpation of Congress’s legislative role. By placing a single individual above the law, Chief Justice Roberts is accused of breaching his oath to “administer justice without respect to persons” and violating the Constitution itself. This article highlights the deep concern over the potential for unchecked executive power when the judiciary appears to shield it.
The impeachment process also brings to light concerns about the Court’s decision-making processes. Article Five points to the Court’s arbitrary, unexplained, and inconsistent decisions under Chief Justice Roberts’s leadership, arguing that these rulings violate the constitutional protections afforded to parties involved in cases before the bench. This suggests a broader critique of the Court’s jurisprudence and the perceived lack of predictable and principled application of the law.
Perhaps the most pointed and widely discussed article, Article Six, directly addresses alleged ethical and statutory violations. It claims Chief Justice Roberts failed to fully report assets on his financial disclosures and refused to recuse himself from cases where conflicts of interest were apparent, or at least perceived. A particularly striking detail within this article is the revelation that the Chief Justice’s spouse, Jane Sullivan Roberts, was paid millions of dollars by firms litigating before the Supreme Court. This arrangement, occurring while she was adjudicating sensitive matters, is cited as a direct violation of ethical obligations and potentially 28 U.S.C. § 455, raising serious questions about impartiality and the constitutional right to an independent and impartial judiciary.
While the introduction of these articles by Congressman Cohen is a significant development, it is widely understood that the path to impeachment and removal is arduous. Many observers acknowledge that these articles are likely to be “dead on arrival” in the current political climate, lacking the necessary votes for passage. Nevertheless, the act of impeachment itself is viewed by some as a vital symbolic gesture, a way to formally register dissent and hold powerful figures accountable, even if the ultimate outcome remains uncertain. The intention, as expressed by supporters, is to serve as a foundational step towards cleaning house and reclaiming the integrity of American governance, particularly in the face of perceived corruption and partisan overreach within the judiciary.