I don't think he is compromised. After watching some of his recent appearances, I think he is a lightweight ill prepared for the task at hand and too concerned about his legacy as "fair" rather than recognizing the dangerous political times we are living in.
I'll defer to your opinion - to a point (as I'll explain*) - as you're far more engaged with our court system than I could ever hope to be.
As to "fair," after "Obamacare" that was what I thought. Schumer's comments leading up to about "reputation of the court" signaled to me that the Democrats has (perhaps) run a psychological profile on Roberts, and identified his point(s) of vulnerability.
That said, fast-forwarding to today - post 2020 election, multiple impeachments, etc. - it becomes harder to accept that he is so oblivious as to not recognize the dangerous political times. He MAY see appeasement and avoidance as the best path for the Court, I'll grant you that.
But (and this was a major premise of my Substack), there's an argument to be made that he (and the federal judiciary overall) have been compromised by a Progressive world-view, which is inherently incompatible both with our founding principles and the raison d'être of the courts.
I hate to say it, but I think it will be another 60+ years before we see it all; could it be Trump is using them to keep Roberts in line?
Moreover, it is obvious foreign countries (UK & Israel for sure) are putting severe pressure to at least delay it for decades. My fear is much has already been destroyed.
One thing for certain, they got to Bongino & Kash, and that speaks VOLUMES!
Question from a non-lawyer: Is there any legal way to rein in activists such as the ACLU and other leftist groups? They're as much to blame, or possibly more to blame for the "Denny's" atmosphere in our federal courts.
I don't know how in terms of funding, access, etc.
Courts should not be rewarding their bad behavior especially the unethical conduct of Lee Gelernt. But as I said, SCOTUS just endorsed how the ACLU is running roughshod over judges and the Trump administration.
Good question. I THINK they are mostly non-profit organizations so they are funded by contributions from those who support their goals...and likely some who aren't really aware of what their goals are.
I look at 990s and do not see revenue sources detail. I see detail for those to whom they have given funds. I see that as a huge problem with this aspect of the tax code.
Leftists litigants are attempting to powerball our courts. They file their motions in the middle of the night, often appearing to seek to place their cases before favorable judges, and doing so successfully.
Chief Justice Roberts attempts to thread the needle, thinking he preserves respect for the court by not taking a side. He's doing the opposite. He promotes chaos and disrespect for the court, by not following the law and precedent, and encouraging manipulation of the legal system.
His year end report was laughable. "Disinformation" is illegal and threatens the legitimacy of the courts? That sounds more like an AOC rant than a careful analysis of the current climate. And his statement about not impeaching judges was way out of line.
I cooked in a diner back in the day - there's no comparison.
We didn't base the outcome of the food on the customer's politics. We didn't take cheap shots at hard workers. And when the going got tough, ie a board full of orders, we didn't duck everything and hide till it all went away.
"Maybe if the majority of judges stopped acting like harried waitresses taking orders from their most demanding customers and instead acted like serious people tasked with immense power, Americans would view them differently." Exactly!
About those customers, ACLU what does the A stand for? And how do they have standing to represent Non-Americans? Keep up the excellent work!
It truly sickens me to see the long list of lawyers on every ACLU motion with the knowledge not a single one stepped up to represent a J6er. Anti American on every level.
Imagine if the ACLU had acted with this sense of urgency or even thought about sticking up for an American J6er vs international gang bangers. Hmmm...would you rather have your neighbor be a peaceful protester or a member of MS13 or Tren de Aragua? It is beyond ridiculous!
Good question. And the rest stands for? Civil. Liberties. Union. - we're talking about criminals, so criminal cases - not civil. Illegal aliens don't receive the same "liberties" as citizens or legal residents (generally only become legal residents in Visa authorized entry) and are covered by ICE court - EOIR, who determines whether their past, present, or potential future crimes warrant "immediate" expedited deportation. OR if their only crime of illegally entering our country warrants the "opportunity" (not liberty) to pack their bags - Otherwise, if timely assylum was requested, whether their story warrants such be awarded. No illegal alien is provided "Union" protection, until they have fully completed the naturalization process, proving their allegiance to the U.S. and full assimilation promise.
Also, just because the 5th amendment says "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,....", which falls under Article III processes, it also relates to "criminal" not "civil" cases and it also states ".. unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or "public danger"...without due process of law". The 5th Amendment does not supercede or negate the sole and separate powers of Ariticle II.
Which per Congress "... consists of the authority to enforce laws and to appoint the agents charged with the duty of such enforcement. The President also has distinct authority over foreign affairs, and alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation." and The Supreme Court has "...recognized that officials appointed by the President—even those located within the Executive Branch—may exercise regulatory or adjudicative powers that are quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial (Look that up!). Broadly, the Court has recognized that Executive Officers exercise authority to enforce and administer the laws, including rulemaking, administrative determinations, and the filing of lawsuits." This would include ICE and its EOIR court. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-1/ALDE_00000243/ with footnotes
IDK what makes the ACLU think they have standing, but IMO it and other NGO's have gone over a very thick line and so have federal courts and SCOTUS - in everything related to "illegal" immigration.
It’s obvious John Roberts is too old and tired of his role on the SCOTUS. He needs to retire and be replaced by someone unaffiliated with the DC insiders good ol boy crowds. Then at least our broken Justice system in America might actually have a fighting chance! ✝️❤️🙏🇺🇸🙌
I don't see him retiring while Trump is in office. He really believes it's his job to control the "excesses" of the Trump administration. Very unfortunate.
He also believes in the misinterpretation that Judges and Justices are appointed for life - Article III, Section 1 says "..shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.."
His beliefs don't make them correct or legitimate.
I agree but tbh, it’s painfully obvious he sold his soul long ago and thanks to his inflated ego and savior identity to the left, he’s destroying our country. What a legacy…
LOVE THIS JULIE! Judge Ho is completely correct. Not allowing the government to voice opposition to a filing by ACLU, no less, is in fact abhorrent, and unconstitutional action taken by judges that should be absolutely ignored!!
Spot on. The Midnight Ride of John Roberts among the low points of the Supreme Court’s history. Rapidly devolving into a just make it up court detested by the Country as a political hack operation whose only connection with law are the black robes and location. Rehnquist Scalia Jackson Frankfurter Holmes would be appalled at this clown show. Poor Alito and Thomas trapped in a circus.
Thanks for this piece, Julie. After reading your column, it makes it all the more apparent that the only way these bogus lawsuits from lower tier district judges is for President Trump, essentially, to thumb his nose at these ridiculous examples of judicial tyranny and go ahead and schedule the immediate deportation of illegal immigrants. Again to paraphrase President Andrew Jackson in his dispute with Chief Justice Marshall (recognizing that the "Marbury" case was more than Jackson's retort to Marshall), "you make the decision, now enforce it." If nothing is done due to restraint, the Marxist-Demos will have defeated the agenda for which President Trump was elected. And our blessed country cannot survive such obstruction.
Thank you, Karlan. Every lawsuit chips away at the limited time Trump has in office. SCOTUS knows this. The handful of opinions--allowing the firing of political appointees on executive branch boards--that support the president are no brainers. Only Alito and Thomas appear to have the courage to stand up for the American people and the Constitution.
I agree. But trying to play the nice guy isn't working, is it? That is precisely why I advocate for Trump to go ahead and send the planes because that's the only way to cause this problem to escalate to the point of forcing this Constitutional crisis. Perhaps that would have the added benefit of getting the Inside-the-Beltway-Establishment-Statists-RINOS off of their dead asses, do something about these judicial tyrants, and support Trump's agenda.
Very well written and very good comments. Yes, the ACLU has always been a problem, but they would not be if we did not have so many activist, left-leaning judges (especially in the District and Appellate Courts -- the DC District judges are among the worst) who do not follow the law, but rather create it out of thin air and/or ignore it, as well as a 'chicken' Supreme Court. Sorry, Judge Roberts -- no, I no longer have respect for the courts; respect is earned, not given automatically because you wear a black robe. Our so-called judicial system is beyond broken; judges are acting like kings and queens (& wimps in the case of the Supreme Court), and we no longer have a 'balance of power' in our government (it's all in the hands of the corrupt courts). My question is: given all of this, what can we DO to fix this broken system? It is impossible to impeach all these judges. What else can be done? In spite of my rant, I'm an optimist and we need creative solutions to fix this problem. What can we do? There must be something. Divine intervention and prayers may work; I'm hoping someone will have a divinely inspired solution to break these logjams and restore faith in our judicial system.
Well said, Sharon. Roberts is an elitist who believes, as you said, we should automatically respect judges because they wear the robe and wield the gavel. I think it's time to start flouting some of these orders especially related to immigration and deportation policies.
Boasberg was supposed to be the FIRST. Would only need a majority in House and Senate to pass, unlike impeachment that requires 2/3 in Senate to remove them, which would never happen. Congress is the only entity with authority to create or remove courts and likewise confirm Judge nominees to the court nominated for as well as revoke the approval in instances where they are not in "good behaviour".
My favorite breakfast place was in Champaign in the early 70s, not a Denny’s but a Denny’s precursor, Sambos! Also the Chuckwagon and Uncle John’s (UJs)!
Chief Justice Roberts, of the Silly Cartel Organized To Usurp Standards (SCOTUS), thinks that he's always the only person doing a bloody good job in Washington, keeps complaining about the lack of respect for the judiciary. He needs to look in a mirror. Because if he did, he'd see the biggest problem is the lack of respect the judiciary has for the law.
I'll ask what I think is a silly question, but which gets to the point: Who is permitted to declare whether any foreigner is part of an invasion? Is it the President, as outlined in the Alien Enemies Act? Or does he have to get permission from a group of certain members of the judiciary? Or does he have to wait for a declaration from Congress?
At this point, I would suggest that Chief Justice Roberts needs to return to law school. Or retire.
Every court, even SCOTUS, has acknowledged that invocation of the Alien Enemies Act falls under the purview of the executive branch. Period. So what happens when this case finally reached SCOTUS to rule on the merits and concludes--again--that the president maintains the sole authority to decide an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" but SCOTUS and lower courts prevented that for a year? A huge black mark on the judiciary we will not forget.
I wrote about Roberts last week in my own Substack (I'm sharing your frustration, Julie).
I'm resigned to this being one of those "which came first, he chicken or the egg" type dilemmas. Here, it's:
"Is Roberts weak? Or compromised? Or is he compromised because he's weak?"
I don't think he is compromised. After watching some of his recent appearances, I think he is a lightweight ill prepared for the task at hand and too concerned about his legacy as "fair" rather than recognizing the dangerous political times we are living in.
I'll defer to your opinion - to a point (as I'll explain*) - as you're far more engaged with our court system than I could ever hope to be.
As to "fair," after "Obamacare" that was what I thought. Schumer's comments leading up to about "reputation of the court" signaled to me that the Democrats has (perhaps) run a psychological profile on Roberts, and identified his point(s) of vulnerability.
That said, fast-forwarding to today - post 2020 election, multiple impeachments, etc. - it becomes harder to accept that he is so oblivious as to not recognize the dangerous political times. He MAY see appeasement and avoidance as the best path for the Court, I'll grant you that.
But (and this was a major premise of my Substack), there's an argument to be made that he (and the federal judiciary overall) have been compromised by a Progressive world-view, which is inherently incompatible both with our founding principles and the raison d'être of the courts.
Perhaps the Epstein file will answer your question.
Maybe Trump should release the Epstein Files.
I hate to say it, but I think it will be another 60+ years before we see it all; could it be Trump is using them to keep Roberts in line?
Moreover, it is obvious foreign countries (UK & Israel for sure) are putting severe pressure to at least delay it for decades. My fear is much has already been destroyed.
One thing for certain, they got to Bongino & Kash, and that speaks VOLUMES!
Indeed
Question from a non-lawyer: Is there any legal way to rein in activists such as the ACLU and other leftist groups? They're as much to blame, or possibly more to blame for the "Denny's" atmosphere in our federal courts.
I don't know how in terms of funding, access, etc.
Courts should not be rewarding their bad behavior especially the unethical conduct of Lee Gelernt. But as I said, SCOTUS just endorsed how the ACLU is running roughshod over judges and the Trump administration.
Who funds them?
Good question. I THINK they are mostly non-profit organizations so they are funded by contributions from those who support their goals...and likely some who aren't really aware of what their goals are.
I look at 990s and do not see revenue sources detail. I see detail for those to whom they have given funds. I see that as a huge problem with this aspect of the tax code.
Leftists litigants are attempting to powerball our courts. They file their motions in the middle of the night, often appearing to seek to place their cases before favorable judges, and doing so successfully.
Chief Justice Roberts attempts to thread the needle, thinking he preserves respect for the court by not taking a side. He's doing the opposite. He promotes chaos and disrespect for the court, by not following the law and precedent, and encouraging manipulation of the legal system.
His year end report was laughable. "Disinformation" is illegal and threatens the legitimacy of the courts? That sounds more like an AOC rant than a careful analysis of the current climate. And his statement about not impeaching judges was way out of line.
I cooked in a diner back in the day - there's no comparison.
We didn't base the outcome of the food on the customer's politics. We didn't take cheap shots at hard workers. And when the going got tough, ie a board full of orders, we didn't duck everything and hide till it all went away.
Ho is exactly right.
Every time I read Ho's order, I find a new nugget worth repeating. Let's hope Trump has a chance to put him on SCOTUS.
It is heartbreaking to learn that we, the people, could have had Ho. Instead, Barrett. I again thank the Federalist Society.
I agree. Let's hope Trump has another shot at putting Ho on the court.
RBG was never going to be replaced by a man. Not in this era.
RBG was at least brilliant.
WOW!
"Maybe if the majority of judges stopped acting like harried waitresses taking orders from their most demanding customers and instead acted like serious people tasked with immense power, Americans would view them differently." Exactly!
About those customers, ACLU what does the A stand for? And how do they have standing to represent Non-Americans? Keep up the excellent work!
It truly sickens me to see the long list of lawyers on every ACLU motion with the knowledge not a single one stepped up to represent a J6er. Anti American on every level.
Imagine if the ACLU had acted with this sense of urgency or even thought about sticking up for an American J6er vs international gang bangers. Hmmm...would you rather have your neighbor be a peaceful protester or a member of MS13 or Tren de Aragua? It is beyond ridiculous!
My question too
Good question. And the rest stands for? Civil. Liberties. Union. - we're talking about criminals, so criminal cases - not civil. Illegal aliens don't receive the same "liberties" as citizens or legal residents (generally only become legal residents in Visa authorized entry) and are covered by ICE court - EOIR, who determines whether their past, present, or potential future crimes warrant "immediate" expedited deportation. OR if their only crime of illegally entering our country warrants the "opportunity" (not liberty) to pack their bags - Otherwise, if timely assylum was requested, whether their story warrants such be awarded. No illegal alien is provided "Union" protection, until they have fully completed the naturalization process, proving their allegiance to the U.S. and full assimilation promise.
Also, just because the 5th amendment says "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime,....", which falls under Article III processes, it also relates to "criminal" not "civil" cases and it also states ".. unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or "public danger"...without due process of law". The 5th Amendment does not supercede or negate the sole and separate powers of Ariticle II.
Which per Congress "... consists of the authority to enforce laws and to appoint the agents charged with the duty of such enforcement. The President also has distinct authority over foreign affairs, and alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation." and The Supreme Court has "...recognized that officials appointed by the President—even those located within the Executive Branch—may exercise regulatory or adjudicative powers that are quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial (Look that up!). Broadly, the Court has recognized that Executive Officers exercise authority to enforce and administer the laws, including rulemaking, administrative determinations, and the filing of lawsuits." This would include ICE and its EOIR court. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artII-1/ALDE_00000243/ with footnotes
IDK what makes the ACLU think they have standing, but IMO it and other NGO's have gone over a very thick line and so have federal courts and SCOTUS - in everything related to "illegal" immigration.
It’s obvious John Roberts is too old and tired of his role on the SCOTUS. He needs to retire and be replaced by someone unaffiliated with the DC insiders good ol boy crowds. Then at least our broken Justice system in America might actually have a fighting chance! ✝️❤️🙏🇺🇸🙌
I don't see him retiring while Trump is in office. He really believes it's his job to control the "excesses" of the Trump administration. Very unfortunate.
He also believes in the misinterpretation that Judges and Justices are appointed for life - Article III, Section 1 says "..shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.."
His beliefs don't make them correct or legitimate.
I agree but tbh, it’s painfully obvious he sold his soul long ago and thanks to his inflated ego and savior identity to the left, he’s destroying our country. What a legacy…
LOVE THIS JULIE! Judge Ho is completely correct. Not allowing the government to voice opposition to a filing by ACLU, no less, is in fact abhorrent, and unconstitutional action taken by judges that should be absolutely ignored!!
Spot on. The Midnight Ride of John Roberts among the low points of the Supreme Court’s history. Rapidly devolving into a just make it up court detested by the Country as a political hack operation whose only connection with law are the black robes and location. Rehnquist Scalia Jackson Frankfurter Holmes would be appalled at this clown show. Poor Alito and Thomas trapped in a circus.
Thanks for this piece, Julie. After reading your column, it makes it all the more apparent that the only way these bogus lawsuits from lower tier district judges is for President Trump, essentially, to thumb his nose at these ridiculous examples of judicial tyranny and go ahead and schedule the immediate deportation of illegal immigrants. Again to paraphrase President Andrew Jackson in his dispute with Chief Justice Marshall (recognizing that the "Marbury" case was more than Jackson's retort to Marshall), "you make the decision, now enforce it." If nothing is done due to restraint, the Marxist-Demos will have defeated the agenda for which President Trump was elected. And our blessed country cannot survive such obstruction.
Thank you, Karlan. Every lawsuit chips away at the limited time Trump has in office. SCOTUS knows this. The handful of opinions--allowing the firing of political appointees on executive branch boards--that support the president are no brainers. Only Alito and Thomas appear to have the courage to stand up for the American people and the Constitution.
I agree. But trying to play the nice guy isn't working, is it? That is precisely why I advocate for Trump to go ahead and send the planes because that's the only way to cause this problem to escalate to the point of forcing this Constitutional crisis. Perhaps that would have the added benefit of getting the Inside-the-Beltway-Establishment-Statists-RINOS off of their dead asses, do something about these judicial tyrants, and support Trump's agenda.
The difference between anything from Dennys versus the Federal government.....product quality, delivery timing, employee attitude, and....Price!
Ha, true!
Very well written and very good comments. Yes, the ACLU has always been a problem, but they would not be if we did not have so many activist, left-leaning judges (especially in the District and Appellate Courts -- the DC District judges are among the worst) who do not follow the law, but rather create it out of thin air and/or ignore it, as well as a 'chicken' Supreme Court. Sorry, Judge Roberts -- no, I no longer have respect for the courts; respect is earned, not given automatically because you wear a black robe. Our so-called judicial system is beyond broken; judges are acting like kings and queens (& wimps in the case of the Supreme Court), and we no longer have a 'balance of power' in our government (it's all in the hands of the corrupt courts). My question is: given all of this, what can we DO to fix this broken system? It is impossible to impeach all these judges. What else can be done? In spite of my rant, I'm an optimist and we need creative solutions to fix this problem. What can we do? There must be something. Divine intervention and prayers may work; I'm hoping someone will have a divinely inspired solution to break these logjams and restore faith in our judicial system.
Well said, Sharon. Roberts is an elitist who believes, as you said, we should automatically respect judges because they wear the robe and wield the gavel. I think it's time to start flouting some of these orders especially related to immigration and deportation policies.
Not sure why, but this bill has been sitting in the House (last referred to Judiciary Committee) since 3/31/25... https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-resolution/270/text
Boasberg was supposed to be the FIRST. Would only need a majority in House and Senate to pass, unlike impeachment that requires 2/3 in Senate to remove them, which would never happen. Congress is the only entity with authority to create or remove courts and likewise confirm Judge nominees to the court nominated for as well as revoke the approval in instances where they are not in "good behaviour".
Praying 🙏
Beautiful writing. Great article
Thank you, Marilyn!
My favorite breakfast place was in Champaign in the early 70s, not a Denny’s but a Denny’s precursor, Sambos! Also the Chuckwagon and Uncle John’s (UJs)!
Hadn't thought of Sambo's in decades!
Got my first job as a waitress at a Sambos, in Washington state in 1973.
Chief Justice Roberts, of the Silly Cartel Organized To Usurp Standards (SCOTUS), thinks that he's always the only person doing a bloody good job in Washington, keeps complaining about the lack of respect for the judiciary. He needs to look in a mirror. Because if he did, he'd see the biggest problem is the lack of respect the judiciary has for the law.
I'll ask what I think is a silly question, but which gets to the point: Who is permitted to declare whether any foreigner is part of an invasion? Is it the President, as outlined in the Alien Enemies Act? Or does he have to get permission from a group of certain members of the judiciary? Or does he have to wait for a declaration from Congress?
At this point, I would suggest that Chief Justice Roberts needs to return to law school. Or retire.
Every court, even SCOTUS, has acknowledged that invocation of the Alien Enemies Act falls under the purview of the executive branch. Period. So what happens when this case finally reached SCOTUS to rule on the merits and concludes--again--that the president maintains the sole authority to decide an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" but SCOTUS and lower courts prevented that for a year? A huge black mark on the judiciary we will not forget.
Well said. Is it a possibility that some of the SC Judges like Barrett are being extorted?
How could you ask that question without naming Roberts?
His inclusion is implied. It’s just more surprising with Comey-Barrett because she was selected by Trump.