The US judicial system finds itself at a crossroads as Chief Justice John Roberts faces mounting criticism from a prominent conservative voice. J Michael Luttig, a former federal judge, has publicly expressed his disappointment with Roberts’ perceived lack of a strong stance against former President Donald Trump’s attacks on the courts. This unprecedented rebuke raises questions about the integrity and independence of the Supreme Court, and whether Roberts’ commitment to institutionalism is overshadowing the need to defend the judiciary from political interference.
This article delves into Luttig’s criticisms, exploring the specific instances where Roberts’ actions (or lack thereof) have drawn fire. We’ll examine the implications of this internal conflict within the conservative legal community and assess the potential long-term consequences for the Supreme Court’s reputation and the rule of law. The core question is whether Chief Justice Roberts is adequately protecting the judiciary from external pressures, and if his ‘reticence’ is, in fact, ‘unforgivable’.
A Conservative Judge Speaks Out
J Michael Luttig’s critique of John Roberts is particularly noteworthy given his conservative credentials and long-standing friendship with the Chief Justice. Luttig, once considered a potential Supreme Court nominee himself, has broken ranks to voice his concerns over Roberts’ handling of Trump’s attacks on the judiciary. Luttig suggests that Roberts, fully aware of the situation, is choosing a path of inaction that ultimately harms the court’s integrity.
Luttig stated,
‘There is nothing that John Roberts is not aware of… He knows everything that’s going on and that’s why I’ve been so disappointed in him.’
This sentiment underscores the depth of Luttig’s disappointment and highlights the perception that Roberts is consciously failing to address a critical threat to the judiciary.
This criticism isn’t just about personal feelings; it speaks to a broader concern within the legal community about the role of the Chief Justice in safeguarding the courts from political influence. Luttig’s decision to go public with his concerns signals a growing unease over the direction of the Supreme Court and its ability to maintain its independence.
Roberts’ Selective Pushback
Chief Justice Roberts has, at times, responded to Trump’s attacks on the judiciary, but critics argue that his responses have been inconsistent and insufficient. In 2018, Roberts famously retorted,
‘We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,’
after Trump labeled a judge an ‘Obama judge.’ While this statement defended the impartiality of the judiciary in principle, it lacked a direct condemnation of the President’s behavior.
Similarly, when Trump called for the impeachment of a district judge, Roberts stated that impeachment was not an appropriate response to judicial disagreement. However, critics noted that Roberts avoided mentioning Trump by name in his statement, further highlighting his ‘unforgivable reticence’.
These instances raise the question of whether Roberts is prioritizing the appearance of neutrality over a forceful defense of the judiciary. His selective pushback may be seen as a calculated attempt to maintain institutional stability, but it also risks emboldening further attacks and undermining public confidence in the courts.
The Tension Within: Institutionalism vs. Judicial Philosophy
Critics argue that a tension exists between Roberts’ institutionalist stance and his judicial philosophy. His rulings have, at times, enabled Trump’s expansive view of presidential power, creating a sense that he prioritizes the stability of the institution over a strict interpretation of the law. This tension has fueled accusations that Roberts is enabling the very behavior he should be condemning.
The decision to limit the power of judges to impose nationwide rulings is cited as an example of this tension. While Roberts may view this decision as a way to curb judicial overreach, critics argue that it weakens the judiciary’s ability to protect individual rights and hold the executive branch accountable.
This perceived conflict between Roberts’ institutionalism and his judicial philosophy has led to accusations that he is more concerned with preserving the Supreme Court’s image than with upholding its fundamental principles. This perception, if left unaddressed, could have lasting consequences for the court’s legitimacy and its ability to serve as a check on the other branches of government.
Federal Judges in the Crosshairs
Luttig emphasizes the impact of Roberts’ silence on federal judges, who are increasingly facing threats and violence. He argues that Roberts has a profound obligation to speak for the safety of these judges, but that doing so would require directly condemning the President. This is a line that Roberts has been unwilling to cross, leaving many judges feeling vulnerable and unsupported.
Luttig recalls a conversation with Nicolle Wallace, where he stated that it would be ‘obligatory’ for Roberts to speak out for the safety of federal judges. He laments that Roberts is ‘sitting on that fact,’ leaving judges wondering what is going on and questioning whether their safety is being prioritized.
The rise in threats against judges is a serious concern, and Roberts’ perceived inaction has only exacerbated the problem. By failing to forcefully condemn these threats, he is sending a message that the safety of federal judges is not a top priority. This, in turn, undermines the independence of the judiciary and discourages judges from making unpopular decisions.
A Crisis of Confidence
Public trust in the Supreme Court is eroding, with fewer than half of Americans expressing a favorable opinion of the institution. This decline in public confidence is directly linked to the perception that the court has become increasingly politicized and that its decisions are driven by partisan considerations rather than legal principles.
Wilentz questioned Luttig on whether Roberts is aware of the damage to both the court’s reputation and his own legacy. Luttig responded that Roberts ‘knows everything there is to know’ about the perception, politics, and institution of the court, implying that his inaction is a conscious choice with potentially dire consequences.
The Supreme Court’s legitimacy depends on public trust, and the court’s inability to maintain its reputation as an unbiased arbiter of justice threatens the foundations of the American legal system. Roberts’ ‘unforgivable reticence’ may be contributing to this crisis of confidence, as it reinforces the perception that the court is unwilling to stand up to political pressure.
The Choice Between Moment and History
Blumenthal asked Luttig whether Roberts cares about historical judgment or only lives in the present. Luttig replied that Roberts ‘has made the decision between the moment and history already, and he cannot recover that decision.’ This statement suggests that Luttig believes Roberts has prioritized short-term stability over long-term legacy, and that his choices will ultimately be judged harshly by history.
The Chief Justice’s legacy is inextricably linked to the health and integrity of the Supreme Court. If Roberts fails to address the challenges facing the judiciary, he risks being remembered as the leader who presided over its decline. His ‘unforgivable reticence’ may be seen as a missed opportunity to defend the principles of judicial independence and the rule of law.
A Call for Leadership
The criticism leveled against Chief Justice John Roberts by J Michael Luttig underscores a growing concern about the direction of the Supreme Court and its ability to maintain its independence in an increasingly polarized political environment. Roberts’ perceived ‘unforgivable reticence’ in the face of attacks on the judiciary has raised questions about his leadership and his commitment to upholding the rule of law.
Whether Roberts will heed these criticisms and take a more forceful stand in defense of the judiciary remains to be seen. But one thing is clear: the future of the Supreme Court, and its role as a check on the other branches of government, depends on his willingness to confront the challenges facing the institution and to prioritize the principles of justice and independence over political expediency.
The implications of this internal conflict within the conservative legal community extend far beyond the personal relationship between Roberts and Luttig. They speak to a broader crisis of confidence in the Supreme Court and the need for strong, principled leadership to restore public trust and safeguard the integrity of the American legal system. The coming months and years will be critical in determining whether Chief Justice Roberts is up to the task.
Leave a Reply