'Pathetic' John Roberts scorched for 'nonsensical' excuses to avoid answering for Clarence Thomas

A letter from Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-IL) explaining why he did not feel compelled to testify before lawmakers about the avalanche of ethical accusations being made against Associate Justice Clarence Thomas received a thorough dismantling on Wednesday morning.

In his column for MSNBC, analyst Jordan Rubin called the chief justice "pathetic" for trying to shift the inquiry to someone other than himself as more and more questions are being raised about the relationship between Thomas and Texas billionaire Harlan Crow -- to say nothing about sketchy real estate transactions that have enriched the controversial Supreme Court justice.

As Rubin wrote, "Chief Justice John Roberts is practically begging for a subpoena. He must think that Senate Judiciary Chairman Dick Durbin, D-Ill., won’t push for one. He may be right. But that doesn’t make Roberts’ refusal to testify to the committee any less pathetic."

According to the analyst, Roberts' contention that he "must" decline to appear doesn't pass the smell test based upon the reasoning that followed. With Roberts writing, it is "'exceedingly rare' for chief justices to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, citing 'separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence,'" Jordan explained, "The implication of Roberts’ letter is that it might be appropriate for him to testify if it were about a mundane or routine subject, but that this situation is simply too extraordinary to warrant his appearance. Yet, that argument actually makes things worse, because it serves to highlight the extreme circumstances in which the Roberts Court finds itself."

IN OTHER NEWS: 'Entirely inappropriate': Judge in rape trial calls out Trump's Truth Social rants

Writing, "Roberts’ recitation of history is also misleading and not fully responsive to Durbin’s letter," Rubin added, "...if Roberts is so concerned about the 'separation of powers' or 'judicial independence' implications of congressional oversight of a chief justice — an argument that collapses under its own weight — then he should just have associate justices testify this time," Rubin claimed Roberts reasoning completely falls apart under scrutiny and that the Senate Judiciary Committee should cut to the chase.

"Indeed, according to Roberts’ letter — what it states and what it omits — he effectively makes a case not only for subpoenaing the chief, whose testimony, if his letter is any indication, might be pretty useless anyway, but for going straight to the source and subpoenaing Thomas," he wrote.

You can read more here.