Chief Justice John Roberts — redemonstrated the Supreme Court's uselessness

19 March 2025

The pertinent situation

Malevolently 'leftist' American federal judges are inviting a self-defensive presidential tyranny.

This so, by expanding the Democratic Party's anti-Trump lawfare into overt interference with the Executive Branch.

These meddling federal court judges are hoping to discredit the current president by forcing him into demagogic tyranny, when he (reflexively, they hope) ignores their orders.

Worse for us all . . .

. . . is that these lawfaring activists are going to so irritate the American public, that the preponderance of We the People will invite and applaud a tyrannical presidency that sweeps the petty-minded meddlers out of efficiency's way.

And then, what kind of society are we going to have?

The American Republic is being destroyed by the short-sighted malevolence that controls it, seemingly from all sides.

Our cultural degeneracy problem is aggravated by . . .

. . . (arguably pusillanimous) Chief Justice Roberts' demonstrably useless Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court has been dodging serious Constitutional issues for years. Letting major issues mold among stupidly quarreling lower courts. And worse, letting the Judiciary (as a whole) do nothing effective to protect the First, Second and Fourth amendments.

The First and Fourth have been so watered down by this oligarchically controlled Highest Judicial Bench, as to be borderline meaningless today.

And the Second teeters on confusing questionability, due the Court's continuing tolerance of a wide mish-mash of literally opposite individual State treatments of gun rights.

Yet, suddenly now . . .

. . . with President Trump tangling with the current cabal of overweeningly 'leftist' federal judges — all bent on interfering with Trump's reform of the Executive Branch — Chief Justice John Roberts is pretending that the Judicial Branch itself has been a bastion of real and honorable protection of the US Constitution:

Chief Justice John Roberts said impeaching federal judges is "not an appropriate response" to disagreeing with their rulings in a rare statement Tuesday.

Roberts' extraordinary comments come as a rebuke to President Trump's Tuesday post saying the federal judge who ordered flights deporting alleged Venezuelan gang members to turn around "should be IMPEACHED!!!"

The Trump administration ignored the order, claiming it was issued after the flights had already departed and left American jurisdiction.

"For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," Roberts said in a statement shared by the Supreme Court's public information office.

"The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."

As a result of Roberts' admonishment of Trump . . .

. . . you can guess what which political way the characteristically pudge-mushy-minded Chief Justice leans.

In reality, from Roberts' perspective, it is not what the Constitution says that matters.

It is, instead, whatever weakens the arguably democracy-crushing power that the Judicial Branch holds over the alleged republic.

In short, the Chief Justice is just another narrowly institutionally interested power grabber. Who, when he actually holds influence on genuinely major issues, fails to wield it in a form that allows Constitution-protecting legal closure.

The man is — we might tentatively conclude — a squishy blob of black-robed responsibility-avoidance and disingenuous connivance.

One can sense . . .

. . . some of the conservative justices' disrespect for their 'chief' — via their dissenting criticisms of the Court's nation-fracturing dodging of making consequential rulings.

For example, from Ben Weingarten's analysis — with my slight change to his formatting:

The universal injunctions ordered so far have not only hamstrung the president but raised myriad legal and practical questions,

These include whether[:]

a court’s authority is limited to ruling on cases and controversies concerning the parties before it;

if it’s reasonable for the federal government to have to “run the table over months of litigation in multiple courts of appeals to have any chance of implementing” its policies;

and

to what extent the Supreme Court wishes to see conflicting circuit court opinions as to universal injunctions’ legitimacy persist.

So far, the nation’s highest court has been unwilling to resolve these questions, despite past pleadings from Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch and the Biden administration.

The Supremes’ reticence was brought into stark relief earlier this month when a 5-4 majority issued a one-page opinion involving a D.C. district court’s universal injunction halting the Trump administration’s “pause” on foreign assistance.

The ruling neither grappled with the merits of the case nor the ability of the trial judge, Amir Ali, to, in critics’ eyes, micromanage a president.

In a blistering, seven-page-plus dissent, Justice Samuel Alito wrote that he was “stunned” that the court’s majority had asserted that "a single district court judge" has “the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars.”

The court's reluctance to weigh in [until] such cases have worked their way through the lower courts has left all three branches of government in limbo, and increasingly at each other's throats.

[F]rustrated congressional Republicans are moving to pass legislation to curtail universal injunctions while making it harder to “judge shop.”

Some are even pursuing the more extreme measure of impeaching judges perceived to have overstepped their authorities . . . .

For Chief Justice Roberts, an endless chain of up-and-down circulation of the same case among the appellate Circuit Courts — without ever deciding anything clearly and on a nationwide basis — appears to be enough.

Ergo, the Court continues its downward spiral . .

. . . into societally obstructive uselessness.

Illustrating that point, by way of an abbreviated sample of cases, see the following:

Our "conservative" Supreme Court has decided that —protecting constitutional democracy is not its job (28 June 2019)

US Supreme Court demonstrates again, why it should not exist — Calvary Chapel v Sisolak (26 July 2020)

Cowardly US Supreme Court demonstrates again why it should not exist — election 2020 — Texas versus four states (13 December 2020)

And with representative regard to the sheer idiocy of some of the uncorrected appellate court decisions — see:

9th Circuit says that stealing — under a search warrant's legal protection — is Constitutional — unless cops were previously told otherwise by appellate courts (21 September 2019)

In historical contrast

Chief Justice (1801-1835) John Marshall — who gave the Supreme Court its massive national influence, when the actual Constitution gave it none — would be chagrinned by how far the 21st century Supreme Court has fallen from his envisioned 'deciding' purpose.

The moral? — The United States continues to crumble . . .

. . . entirely due to putting the worst among us in charge.

This is what happens, when a nation elevates avarice, personal advancement and grift over rationally minded objectivity, professional honor and the (admittedly debatable) good of the whole.

We are a country governed by blood-sucking, unity-destroying scumbags. Every branch of American government is corrupt and putrefying.

The United States has become a better example how not to be, rather than the reverse.

Of course, that does not stop us from pontificating about true righteousness to the rest of the world.

Bad people are, generally speaking, the surest of their rectitude.

PeteFree.com

Chief Justice John Roberts — redemonstrated the Supreme Court's uselessness