Chief Justice Roberts Doth Protest Too Much, Methinks
Hear no judicial evil; see no judicial evil …
“The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” – William Shakespeare (Hamlet)
“The line is spoken by Queen Gertrude in Act 3, Scene 2 of the classic play by William Shakespeare. Prince Hamlet and Queen Gertrude view a play themselves when he asks the Queen how she likes the performance. In this reply to her son, she references a character in the play who is also a queen. Queen Gertrude communicates to her son that she feels that the queen in the stage show lacks credibility.” – Reference.com
“… lacks credibility.”
We might say the same about Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, John Roberts.
After following a de facto gag order regarding “President” Joe Biden’s openly declaring defiance of the judicial branch – and acting upon same – (re: student loan forgiveness), Chief Justice Roberts has of late taken to openly criticizing President Trump’s (and others’) criticism of the judicial jihad (a/k/a lawfare or “courts’ coup”) now underway.
Chief Justice Roberts would have us believe that the federal judiciary (as it exists today) is an apolitical dispenser of justice – and so, as such, warrants its insulation from any examination of motivations, activities and, especially, it’s very legitimacy.
This technique of (attempted) insulation by title – or insulation behind title – is not unlike what we endured through Covid, and before that (and continuing to this day) related to the “climate change” grift, i.e., “we’re scientists” and “[you must therefore] trust the science” because “the science is settled.”
Similarly, Roberts mirrors what we’ve been hearing in recent years from “journalists” attempting to deflect recognition that they’ve devolved from the “Fourth Estate” into credibility bereft regime mouthpieces. With all the drama of a southern belle fanning herself as she gets “the vapors,” we witness media figures exclaiming (in effect): “How dare you question our credibility? We are inherently credible because we are journalists!”
Back in 2016 this author flagged this phenomenon – or should I say, “technique” – and the root-cause of same:
The so-called “mainstream media” is anything but. Journalism is a noble profession, when practiced as such. Alas, Progressivism seriously erodes, if not eliminates the integrity of its adherents, no matter their occupation – journalists, educators, politicians, judges, whatever – bending all into the service of protecting and advancing the agenda, rather than adhering to what is right and doing what is proper. – Communiqués From The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (2016)
Contrary to what Chief Justice Roberts would have us believe, the federal judiciary long ago became “Progressivized” and so, politicized.
If it had not, today’s lawfare would not be feasible. For if the federal judiciary still maintained fealty to our Constitution – to the impartial dispensation of justice and to judicial restraint – the litigious circus now percolating from district court to district court across the land would “never have achieved liftoff.” For the vast majority of District Court judges would have summarily dismissed most, if not all of the lawfare cases currently targeting the Trump administration and its policies.
Contrast, e.g., with how virtually every case opposing the stolen election of 2020 was summarily dismissed for “lack of standing.”
Here, let us ponder a Christian-premised analogy. All of us are sinners. Precious few of us will ever be saints. But for believers, there are the polestar(s) of the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ, and the example of the saints for what a human can be capable of. The polestars provide ideals to strive for, and a measurement against which to gauge our progress (or lack thereof) toward the ideal.
Conversely, those who don’t make a sincere effort to embrace those polestars – much less the ones that deny their existence – are the ones most susceptible to sin, much less descent into outright evil.
In our political system – our Republic (not “our democracy”) – our Constitution is our polestar. And within it, the establishment of a Supreme Court (and lower courts as determined by Congress). It contemplates an independent judiciary – that is the intended purpose of the lifetime appointments – but not an unaccountable, political one. As the above quote from Communiqués highlights though, Progressivism (and its first cousin, Cultural Marxism) have upended this.
In Communiqués a section titled “The Constitution of the United States as a Contract” goes into some detail concerning this; an abridged version is available (free) here.
From Cultural Marxists in law schools, to Democrats during the appointment process, ideologues have been inserted throughout the federal judiciary. That is why so many appointments – especially to the Supreme Court – are so politically charged.
For IF the law schools were producing people trained to embrace the polestar of our Constitution (“as a contract”), with loyalty to its original intent, and the principles of “blind justice” and “equal application of the law,” judicial nominations would be relatively routine affairs, focused solely on competence and degree of “judicial temperament.”
Instead, at the hands of Progressives and their political party the Democrats, we have “Borking.”
Such people not only don’t embrace our Constitutional polestar(s), they are on an avowed mission to displace the Constitution itself.
As will be seen, Collectivism-Progressivism has been intentionally polluting and altering our cultural and economic ecosystems – ultimately putting our nation as founded on the “endangered” list and ultimately intending to render it spiritually and functionally extinct. – Communiqués From The Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy (2016)
Many have opined that Chief Justice Roberts is an “institutionalist” whose reticence to act (as one would expect a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to act) is explainable by some sort of motivation to maintain the (perceived) independence of, and respect for the federal judiciary.
Whether this explanation originates with him, or from others attempting to provide cover for him, it doesn’t pass muster (it would IF it was motivated by intent to restore the federal judiciary to its foundational design and intended operation; but not when the motivation is to “insulate it by title”).
Thus – if Roberts was a genuine “institutionalist” – he would first acknowledge the politicization problem, and then work to restore and then enforce adherence to the requisite judicial polestar(s).
As of yet, that has not occurred. Quite the opposite. So, President Trump and others are acting appropriately in calling-out the politicized federal judiciary.
Yes, concerning that criticism, Justice Roberts doth protest too much, methinks.
The clock is ticking, yet there is still a window of opportunity …
It’s not (yet) too late. The current lawfare / courts’ coup provides an opportunity to right the wrongs of recent decades.
Chief Justice Roberts will be judged by history. If today was his final chapter, I dare say that future historians will consign his record to that of the weak, the timid – if not the compromised.
More importantly for Chief Justice Roberts – what should be the most important to him – is that he will ultimately be judged by eternity, i.e., by our Maker.
Present circumstances afford him the opportunity to grasp both Constitutional and (perhaps) eternal redemption. He need “merely” to “repent” by exercising his existing power to restore the federal judiciary to its proper role – to un-“Progressivize” it – litigation decisions issued, and administrative orders promulgated, can do it.
If Chief Justice Roberts really is an institutionalist, then this is the course he will – he must – follow for it to survive as more than just a discredited shell of its former self. He holds it within his hands to “fundamentally transform” from weak and timid, to one of the greatest Chief Justices of the Supreme Court. Ever.
Let us hope that Chief Justice Roberts, facing both a current, growing recognition of the federal judiciary’s polluted function and reputation — and an imminent “Constitutional crisis” — begins undertaking earnest prayer both for Divine guidance and the strength to act in accord with it.
And let us all pray that Chief Justice Roberts so engages in prayer — and pray that, overall, God will still find our nation worthy of His blessings.