John Roberts Weighs In

Joyce Vance Mar 18

Today, Chief Justice John Roberts entered the chat.

Although he does not mention Trump by name, his comment that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision” is clearly directed at the president. Elon Musk and Republican elected officials have been flirting with this approach ever since district judges began delivering temporary restraining orders that have prevented Trump from disassembling government full force.

This morning, Trump made a statement of his own. His post followed Judge Boasberg’s decision in the Salvadoran deportation case yesterday. If you haven’t already, I encourage you to read my piece from last night discussing what happened and the implications of the matter. It’s a serious moment for democracy, and it’s important we understand it isn’t about Trump removing “thugs” from our communities, but rather an effort to develop legal support for a dangerously power-engorged version of the presidency, using fear of alien criminals as the vehicle for getting there.

Trump, who as recently as last week during his Justice Department speech railed against people who criticize federal judges—and lavished praise on Aileen Cannon, the judge who derailed the classified document prosecution against him—went on the attack this morning. He used words like “Radical Left Lunatic of a Judge,” “troublemaker and agitator,” “sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama,” and wrote, “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED.” That followed an all-caps rant about how big Trump won.

With that, the president of the United States places a bullseye on the back of yet another federal judge. This comes in the wake of a rise in threats against federal judges after Elon Musk criticized some judges’ rulings on Twitter. Back in December the chief justice criticized elected officials for trying to intimidate judges. He was concerned about impeachment threats then, as well.

That seems to be the redline for the chief justice, the threat of using impeachment in a way the Constitution does not intend. Impeachment is meant as a way to remove a judge who would otherwise have lifetime tenure from the bench if they commit “high crimes or misdemeanors.” Alcee Hasting was convicted by the Senate after being impeached for soliciting a $150,000 bribe in return for reducing the sentences of two mob-connected felons. Impeachment is not meant for a judge who enters a temporary restraining order that the president doesn’t like. It’s yet another indicator of the Trump administration’s abject disregard for the rule of law.

Every day we need to go through the painful ritual of waking up and reminding ourselves that none of this is normal, that we are living in an America dangerously close to a slide into tyranny. Destroying the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary is always a first step for would-be dictators. Trump is no different.

So it’s important that chief justice took this modest but unusual-for-the-court step today. Perhaps the chief justice will reflect on how frequently he has been called upon to do so during the Trump administration, something almost unheard of during other presidencies. Does it signal that the Court will protect the Constitution as cases begin to arrive there? It’s far too soon to say.

After the chief justice’s statement, George Conway posted, “Welcome to the Resistance, Mr. Chief Justice.” Perhaps that’s a bit premature, or maybe he has finally realized the leopard wants to eat the judiciaries face. In reality, no one should expect or want the justices to take a side in a political fight—we’ve had enough of that with upside down flags and such already. What we are entitled to expect from the Court is an unflagging commitment to the Constitution, not to the president and it’s essential they do that if we are going to make it through this.

The Court, not to put too fine of a point on it, erred in delaying cases and giving a president overly expansive immunity from criminal prosecution. Their decisions are part of the reason that we are where we are today. When Justice Sotomayor wrote, “With fear for our democracy, I dissent,” it was not just a rhetorical device; it was the truth. So far, the district courts have been holding the line against the encroaching presidency. As I wrote to you early on, with Republicans in Congress asking “how high?” each time this president says to jump, the courts are the hope for holding democracy until the midterm elections. It’s hopeful that there are signs of life there.

Thanks for being here with me at Civil Discourse through all of this. If you aren’t already, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. Your support matters to me and really helps with this work.

We’re in this together,

Joyce