The Supreme Court is under attack. It has been under attack for years, almost exclusively from the left. And by “under attack,” I don’t mean the peaceful criticism. I mean everything from challenges to its legitimacy to outright ignoring its rulings to death threats against conservative justices.
This began years ago. Chief Justice John Roberts initially responded by trying to stay apolitical and by trying to ignore the criticism. When President Barack Obama called him out during his 2010 State of the Union address, Roberts called the stunt “very troubling.” In the last two decades, that has been the entire extent of his pushback against the left.
In the last couple years, leftist district judges and leftist federal judges issue decrees and stays that directly contradict recent rulings from the Supreme Court itself. Last August, Justices Brett Kavanaugh Neil Gorsuch also publicly rebuked lower courts for having to reverse orders from lower courts regarding issues that the Supreme Court (SCOTUS) had already addressed. But not by Roberts.
Last September, a group of anonymous federal judges criticized recent emergency stays that SCOTUS granted. In interviews with NBC News, these judges said such rulings imply that the lower courts are doing shoddy work (yes, that’s the point). One judge quipped, “It’s inexcusable. They don’t have our backs.” Far be it from me to explain to this judge that the job of SCOTUS is not to “have their backs.” It’s John Roberts’ job to explain this to them. And yet, nary a peep.
District Judge Brian Murphy has twice openly flouted SCOTUS decisions. For his obstinacy, Justice Elena Kagan, of all people, publicly rebuked him. But still nothing from Roberts.
Then there is the internal drama.
It burst into the open with the Dobbs decision, which the liberal justices deliberately slow-rolled in an attempt to stave off the inevitable. The problem arises because no SCOTUS decision is binding until the justices’ opinions are finalized and publicized. If a justice happens to die in the interim, then that justice’s vote is nullified.
This rule applies even if a justice dies from assassination. Like, you know, what almost happened to Brett Kavanaugh in June 2022. An armed suspect showed up outside his home, and his presence was made known to the authorities only because the suspect got cold feet and called the police and turned himself in.
The would-be assassin was upset the upcoming (and, at that time, unreleased) Dobbs decision, which overturned Roe v. Wade and helped decodify legalized infanticide. But how did he know about the upcoming Dobbs decision? Because one of the justices' staffers unprecedentedly leaked it to the press. This has never happened before on the Supreme Court. It happened on Roberts’ watch.
Who was the leaker? Who knows? Roberts refused to let the FBI investigate, and instead handed the investigation to federal marshals. There is speculation that Roberts did so to prevent the executive branch from encroaching on his turf. As a result, to this day we have no idea who the leaker was.
There is also the behavior of the three leftist judges, which is shockingly juvenile for persons occupying such prestigious positions. There is Justice Elena Kagan, who screamed “so loudly” at fellow liberal Justice Stephen Breyer that the “wall was shaking.” Why was she screaming? Because Breyer disapproved of Kagan’s tactic of slow-rolling the Dobbs decision because of the threats to the lives of his conservative friends on the bench. Breyer was that rare liberal that put the value of human life above his personal opinion, and he supported publishing the Dobbs dissent quickly to diffuse the threats. Kagan, on the other hand, was perfectly willing to risk the murder of her fellow justices in order to possibly skew the decision.
This is the Roberts’ court.
Then there is the “wise” Latina, who thinks that colorblind, impartial justice requires one to consider race and upbringing while trying to excuse why the law should be applied unequally upon the citizenry. Regarding a disagreement on a recent immigration ruling, Sotomayor told the Lawrence Journal-World that her colleague Brett Kavanaugh is “a man whose parents were professionals. And probably doesn’t really know any person who works by the hour.”
Continuing, she quipped that "There are some people who can’t understand our experiences, even when you tell them.” I’m confident that Sotomayor wouldn’t understand the “experiences” of Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, or Sheridan Gorman, even if they told her. But they can’t tell her. Because the very illegals for whom Sotomayor so passionately fights murdered them.
If this is the left’s definition of what it means to be “wise,” then I’m glad they consider me “deplorable.” Sotomayor issued a hand-in-the-cookie-jar apology, but the fact remains is that this sort of backstabbing culture is being allowed to fester within the hallowed walls of SCOTUS.
This is the Roberts’ court.
And finally, we have that morbid disaster of a flaming clown car, more commonly known as Ketanji Brown Jackson. In a recent speech at Yale, she called the judicial rulings of her conservative colleagues “utterly irrational.” This from the person who couldn’t give a definition of a woman. Back in August, she blasted her colleagues for “lawmaking” from the bench, impervious to the fact that this is exactly what the lower courts have been doing since Jan. 20, 2025.
This is the Roberts court.
So let’s recap. With increasing frequency, we have leaks from the world’s previously most leak-proof institution. We have SCOTUS justices using delaying tactics, even if those tactics put the lives of their colleagues in danger. We have mobs protesting outside the homes of justices. We have lower courts outright ignoring SCOTUS decisions. And we have SCOTUS justices publicly taking personal jabs at their fellow colleagues.
And how does Roberts respond? By criticizing calls from President Trump and other Republicans for the impeachment of district court judges who abuse their power. Roberts was responding specifically for Trump’s call for the impeachment of district judge James Boasberg. Roberts may disagree with grounds for impeaching Boasberg, but the means to impeach judges is clearly enshrined in the Constitution. Judges have no more special protection against impeachment than do presidents, even if those impeachment efforts are corrupt and frivolous (the two of which were attempted against Trump received absolutely zero criticism from Roberts).
Roberts still thinks he’s living in an Ivy League, Skull & Bones, secret meeting lodge where treason is punished on pain of death. In reality, he’s living in a glass house whose interns and clerks are Deep State insurrectionists who can’t wait to spill the latest juicy gossip to whatever likeminded fourth estate hack will listen.
If he chooses to live in denial, that’s his prerogative. But if he’s upset about the drastic loss of support for the American judiciary as a transcendent vessel of apolitical justice, he’s barking up the wrong tree. It isn’t Trump who sapped this support, it is the behavior of the courts themselves.
But for now, it appears that Roberts will continue to insist that the court system is flawless, respected, and dispassionate to the only person who believes him, the man in the mirror. He’ll continue to watch his beloved institution crumble, because he refuses to realistically delineate friend from foe. He’ll continue lashing out at those who truly care about the preservation of the Western legal system, and he’ll continue to run cover for those hellbent on destroying it. He’s making for one awful chief justice.
On the other hand, he’d make a great pope.
Help continue to tell the truth about the leftist attacks on our liberties as we continue to usher in the Golden Era of America. Join VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member