Scott Gurvey's Public Offerings

John Roberts is annoyed. I had picked a stronger word, but Merriam-Webster says my word is considered vulgar in both Britian and the United States, so I chickened out.

Please take note. When the Chief Justice of the United States is annoyed he clearly expects us all to pay heed. I spent all of three seconds taking heed. And then began laughing uncontrollably.

John Roberts’ recent year-end report on the federal judiciary highlighted several serious issues threatening judicial independence. He identified four main areas of concern: violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy lawfully entered judgments. Roberts emphasized the significant increase in threats against judges, including doxxing and other forms of intimidation. He also pointed out that disinformation about court rulings can undermine public confidence in the judiciary. Additionally, he criticized public officials who suggest political bias in judicial decisions.

The trigger for my scorn lies in my belief that the ills Roberts sees are self-inflicted wounds. They are a direct result of the extreme conservative majority on the Supreme Court which seems to value loyalty to Donald Trump and the MAGA cause more than their duty to decide cases based on law and precedent. In his first term as president, Donald Trump built a conservative 6-3 supermajority on the Supreme Court. Ever since, the nation’s highest court has repeatedly issued increasingly extreme, far-right decisions. 

I’ve written extensive criticism of the Court at the end of its term in recent years. But I am not alone. As detailed in a recent Rolling Stone article, the Supreme Court has eliminated federal protections for abortion rights; limited the federal government’s ability to regulate carbon emissions, protect Americans’ drinking water, and limit ozone pollution; gutted federal agencies’ ability to implement regulations generally; opened up long-standing regulations to new challenges; made it easier for states to enact racial gerrymanders; eliminated college affirmative action policies; found businesses can discriminate against LGBTQ+ customers; permitted public school employees to lead students in prayer; decided that companies can pay public officials gratuities, or thank-you payments, for corrupt contracting decisions; and broadly shielded Trump from criminal prosecution for any so-called official acts he committed as president.

Trump, who Roberts never mentions in his report, is so proud of the conservative majority that he praises the justices, individually by name, at 2024 campaign events — thanking them for their “courage” in deciding to overturn Roe v. Wade so states could ban abortion. At a September rally, Trump called the conservative justices “very brave” and said that “people should be put in jail” for criticizing them. 

The idea that critics have intimidated justices is a joke. While Democrats have called out conservative Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito for failing to disclose, in apparent violation of federal ethics rules, luxury travel provided by right-wing billionaires, they didn’t do anything about it. Nor have they tried to combat the Court’s long list of radical decisions. For his part, Roberts has long pretended to be an apolitical actor, who would simply call “balls and strikes” as a jurist. Yet he was the driving force behind the Court’s decision given Trump near total immunity for anything he did as president. Or will do in the second term about to begin.

With Trump’s appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett, the Supreme Court is the most conservative it’s been in nearly a century. Lobbying for their appointment were the same right-wing dark money interests which later gave them unreported private jet rides and superyacht trips, given them lucrative teaching gigs, and steered consulting payments to at least one justice’s spouse. 

As law professors Ilya Somin and Austin Sarat observe in thoughtful columns, the Court’s actions to carry out an extreme agenda greatly contribute to the lack of confidence in the institution Roberts’ claims to revere. My laughter was at Roberts’ smug report. The state of the Court itself is no laughing matter.

#####