Staff Reports
Chief Justice John Roberts finds himself in the hot seat again, but this time, he’s not just facing the typical criticism from progressives over his legal rulings. Instead, Roberts has become the target of leaks that are raising eyebrows and shaking heads. What is the content of these leaks? A confidential memo where Roberts pointedly critiqued lower court judges for not tackling significant questions in Trump’s legal battles. Apparently, trying to foster unity in an already divided court has its downsides, particularly when left-leaning commentators have aimed at him for attempting to find common ground over cases involving Donald Trump.
According to the New York Times, it seems Roberts is on a mission to preserve a sense of consensus on several high-profile cases revolving around the former president. These cases include Trump’s attempts to fend off consequences arising from his actions surrounding the 2020 election. Notably, the court has already ruled unanimously that Trump can remain on the ballot across all 50 states—a decision that might ruffle a few feathers among those wishing him ill. Roberts’ insistence on disputing the overreaching application of the 14th Amendment’s insurrection clause adds fuel to the fire of his critics.
Chief Justice John Roberts targeted by Supreme Court leak https://t.co/MtwqrK6CNo
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) September 16, 2024
As the New York Times highlights, Roberts’s push for unanimity didn’t go unnoticed, leading to a slew of negative commentaries from the Left. One professor described him as sounding “delusional,” suggesting he was out of touch with public sentiment and reality. It’s fair to consider that any chief justice attempting to maintain civility and bipartisanship might end up standing in stark contrast to a media narrative eager to portray him as floundering. What’s mind-boggling is that some will deride Roberts for performing his job—promoting collaboration over division—despite examples from history that show how consensus can lead to landmark decisions.
The critics have been quick to leverage these leaks to portray Roberts as ineffective, particularly highlighting his reluctance to involve himself in partisan bickering. Yet, defending the chief justice is Mark Paoletta, a friend of Justice Clarence Thomas, who contended that consensus-building is a commendable endeavor in significant cases. Noting the historical achievements of former Chief Justice Earl Warren in uniting the court, Paoletta suggests that Roberts is simply following a proud tradition of judicial pragmatism.
These leaks have turned Roberts into a veritable punching bag for the Left, but the reality is that the Supreme Court is under siege like never before. Not so long ago, a massive leak about the draft decision to overturn Roe v. Wade rocked the court, showcasing just how vulnerable the institution has become. As Democrats gear up for the November election, intent on reshaping the court, they appear willing to throw any semblance of decorum out the window.
Left-wing vendettas against the court have only intensified, with critics calling underlying ethical concerns into question regarding the justices, particularly regarding their spouses. Attempts at ethical scrutiny seem more like smear campaigns than genuine concerns, aiming to tarnish conservative justices’ reputations while conveniently ignoring the ethical implications of their own party’s narratives. The latest attempts by Democrats to control the narrative around judicial ethics through calls for term limits and binding rules raise pressing concerns about the integrity of a balance of power in government.
