Aw, poor widdle Chief Justice Roberts has his fee-fees hurt...

The SCOTUS is feeling the heat. Will they adjust their activities? Don't count on it...

The NY Times has an article out this morning about Chief Dickhead Justice John Roberts in his annual year-end report on the judiciary (this is for all of the judiciary, not just the SCOTUS), and he wants us all to feel ashamed for how difficult it is to be a Justice.

(Gifted link)

In it, he includes this nugget:

“Violence, intimidation and defiance directed at judges because of their work undermine our Republic, and are wholly unacceptable,” he wrote.

I actually agree with this, we are (at least until the Trump restoration) a nation of laws. That is the bedrock of the American experience. But it needs to be noted that not all judicial rulings and activities are in harmony with that proposition.

The report, which arrived in the wake of questions about the court’s ethical standards and a drop in its approval ratings, said some criticism of judges’ work is healthy, warranted and welcome.

Sure, it is just dandy that Alito and Thomas are fully on the grift-train, that from the oral arguments, that the bulk of the right wing appointed justices carry a heavy bias, and dare I say it, have “pre-judged” the case?

I mean for fuck’s sake, they practically telegraph that they are seeking to make certain Republican-friendly rulings. I swear to God that they are fishing for a chance to overturn Obergefeld, and then Griswald, and finally Loving to get us back to the 1950’s status quo.

Gee that sure the fuck sounds like “Make America Great Again” to my amateur ears.

Then he whips this gem out:

One, he wrote, was “violence directed at judges for doing their jobs.” The number of hostile threats and communication directed at judges has more than tripled in the past decade, he wrote. “In extreme cases,” he added, “judicial officers have been issued bulletproof vests for public events.”

Uh, you know what would tone down the treats and risk of violence? Finally acknowledging the “Well-Regulated” clause of the second amendment:

“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

(emphasis mine)

is in fact something that should be part and parcel of the laws of the country.

Then he goes on to whinge about being doxed, and how disturbing it is for the judicial officers to have to deal with angry calls, protests and other “inconveniences” in their daily routine.

But they seem to have opened the door to a lot of bad behavior on the right (all the bobbing and weaving about allowing protests at abortion and women’s care clinics) so what the fuck did they expect after 4 decades of stripping rights of women to seek care, enabling sick fucks to harass them endlessly just trying to enter a business?

Politicians bore some blame, the chief justice wrote.

Gee, really? Your big-assed legal brain came up with that all himself? Of course he was implying that the bulk of this heated rhetoric is from the left, but he did mention that DJT also partakes in court fuckery 🙄.

Then he tries the “justice is blind” schtick, trotting out this tired trope:

The chief justice said at the time that “we do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges,” adding: “What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them.”

This is clearly bullshit that issued forth from his pen (or more likely from one of his plethora of clerks).

There was a time when I would have bought this argument, but any neutral observer of the last say 10 sessions (years) would be hard pressed to not segregate the rulings issued in majority with the party of the appointing judge.

Finally, I will just offer this: Judge Aileen Cannon. That “Trump” judge clearly was and is in the bag to aid her sugar-daddy¹.

Then he pivots to the cancer that “social media” has become on the nation’s psyche:

A third threat to judicial independence, he wrote on Tuesday, was disinformation about the work of the courts amplified by social media. Some of it, he said, was the product of “a new and growing concern from abroad.”

“In recent years, hostile foreign state actors have accelerated their efforts to attack all branches of our government, including the judiciary,” the chief justice wrote. “In some instances, these outside agents feed false information into the marketplace of ideas. For example, bots distort judicial decisions, using fake or exaggerated narratives to foment discord within our democracy.

Um, you know, you could have done several things to help curtail this vector of hate, but alas, they seem poised to listen to Trump and halt the Tik-Tok ban that is set to go into effect on January 19. (And many more opportunities to revisit the Section 230 of the DMCA, a problematic “original sin” that protects the platforms from harm perpetrated via their products)

The article finishes with this:

That is not a given, Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “Within the past few years, however, elected officials from across the political spectrum have raised the specter of open disregard for federal court rulings,” he wrote. “These dangerous suggestions, however sporadic, must be soundly rejected.”

Um, Chief Justice Roberts doth complain too much me thinks. If you want to be respected, stop being partisan, unhinged hacks, and stop pretending that you are above the political fray.

Or, he can …

1. and this is why I am not “satisfied” that Marco Rubio in the Secretary of State nomination, he is the one that floated Cannon to Trump. Fuck that turd.

---