Rep. Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.) filed an impeachment resolution Thursday against Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. I guess we should just add it to the pile of impeachment resolutions Democrats have filed against President Donald Trump and members of his administration, right?
Cohen has represented Tennessee's 9th Congressional District for years, but he's retiring after Tennessee Republicans redrew his seat following a late-April Supreme Court ruling declaring racial gerrymandering unconstitutional. Rather than accept the outcome, Cohen decided to go out with a fire-sale grievance tour, targeting the most consequential figure in American law.
In announcing the resolution, Cohen said, "I have come to the unfortunate conclusion that while John Roberts remains Chief Justice, correcting this misconduct and ensuring the Justices and the Court itself comply with their legal obligations will be impossible."
The problem is that his resolution is absurd.
Take Article I, which accuses Roberts of allowing the court to become "a political instrument" through its handling of election and redistricting cases. This is rich coming from a party that spent decades running to the courts to block policies it couldn't kill through legislation, and to impose policies it couldn't pass through Congress. It’s funny how when the courts were a rubber stamp for the left, they were oracles of justice. Now that they're not, they're corrupt.
Article II claims Roberts "entrenched minority rule" through decisions that have enabled partisan gerrymandering. Cute story. Remind me again which party aggressively gerrymandered blue states for decades? Oh right.
Article III blames Roberts for campaign finance rulings that allegedly "empowered the rich.” For starters, that isn't even a constitutional argument, but if you can find me the part of the Constitution that says that “the rich” have fewer rights than “the poor,” we can talk.
Article IV targets Trump v. United States and the issue of presidential immunity. Cohen apparently forgot that presidents of both parties have long asserted immunity protections for official actions; Democrats were just the first party to weaponize justice against a former president.
Of course, my favorite is Article VI, which alleges that Roberts failed to recuse himself from cases involving law firms connected to his wife. Democrats have never raised similar concerns about Justice Elena Kagan, who declined to recuse herself from Obamacare cases, despite previously arguing for the law's constitutionality as Obama's solicitor general.
ICYMI: Greg Gutfeld’s Reaction to the DNC's 2024 Election Autopsy Was Epic
George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley has noted that the majority of Supreme Court decisions are unanimous or near-unanimous (often, Biden’s DEI pick is a lone dissenter), which runs counter to the narrative that the court is a 6-3 ideological machine grinding out partisan rulings on command.
Strangely, the inconvenient facts never make it into the Democrats' talking points. Here’s the thing: This impeachment resolution has zero chance of passing. So why bother?
Because this was never about impeachment or removing Roberts.
Democrats are laying the groundwork to pack the court the next time they hold power, and they need a narrative to justify it. Every impeachment article, every ethics accusation, every outraged floor speech is a brick in that foundation. Trust me, I used to be an architect. The left is merely trying to delegitimize the court so that, when the moment comes, the public is already primed to accept packing the court.
Editor’s Note: Every single day, here at PJ Media, we will stand up and FIGHT, FIGHT, FIGHT against the radical left and deliver the conservative reporting our readers deserve.
Help us continue to tell the truth about the Trump administration and its successes. Join PJ Media VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member