'Pardon the snark': Legal expert hurls 'long list of criticisms' at Justice John Roberts
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts recently made some comments that many interpreted as a criticism of Donald Trump, but he's still not doing enough to protect the judiciary from MAGA, a former federal prosecutor has said.
Ex-prosecutor Joyce Vance had some harsh words for Roberts, who she thinks is doing a good job speaking up for judges but not on defending democracy itself from the president.
"Apparently, this is what it takes to get the chief justice’s attention. Giving a crooked president a pass on being prosecuted? As we know all too well, Roberts was down with that. But when it comes to criticizing judges, well, that’s a bridge too far," Vance wrote on her Substack.
EXCLUSIVE: Breastfeeding mom of US citizen sues Kristi Noem after being grabbed by ICE
Noting that Roberts "laid blame at the feet of schools, which he held responsible for failing to provide adequate civics education," Vance said, "Perhaps he should direct federal judges to get out in their communities and speak with students more often, instead of blaming America’s struggling public schools."
She continued:
"I have a long list of criticisms of this chief justice, starting with Citizens United and moving on through his opinion in Shelby County v. Holder, to Trump v. U.S. The first case, with a messy 5-4 opinion, allowed the injection of unlimited amounts of dark money into our political system, so that wealthy donors, while remaining anonymous, could influence voters’ decisions without any accountability. In Shelby County, Roberts applauded the protections in the Voting Rights Act, claiming they were so successful at bringing Black voters into the electorate that they were no longer necessary; that the country had made so much progress on issues of race and voting. Justice Ginsburg understood the shell game he was playing. She explained in dissent that what Roberts was doing was like taking down your umbrella in the middle of a storm because you haven’t gotten wet yet. Then there was Trump v. U.S., which sealed the fate of the nation by allowing Trump to escape prosecution."
Regarding the recent comments interpreted to be Roberts slamming Trump, Vance said, "Assuming, and I think this is a big assumption, that Roberts was slinging arrows at Trump and his cronies for criticizing federal judges, that criticism has been ongoing for years. Trump has been attacking federal judges since before he was president, like he did during the 2016 campaign, when he baselessly called District Judge Gonzalo Curiel—who was hearing the fraud cases against Trump University—unfit because he was of Mexican heritage."
Vance further noted, "The Supreme Court should not be seen as meddling in politics, but there are moments that demand a response out of Court, and Roberts has come to the defense of his fellow judges. It’s a shame he hasn’t always done the same thing for democracy from inside of the courtroom."
Regarding her tone, Vance issued a word of apology, while also doubling down.
"You’ll have to pardon the snark tonight, but I’m knee-deep in research for my book, and there just isn’t enough sarcasm and caffeine in my world right now, so you’re getting the hottest of takes! And while I appreciate the Chief Justice’s concern for federal judges, I think that actual attacks on them backfire; efforts to intimidate them don't work."
She then concluded, "Any lawyer can tell you about the futility of trying to threaten or frighten a judge who is sitting on the bench with life tenure. They stiffen their spines and rule against parties who try to do that. The United States Marshals Service protects them with diligence. The judiciary, as an institution, reacts swiftly when one of its own is threatened."