It’s often amusing how the political winds in Washington can shift faster than a weathervane in a tornado. One moment, certain esteemed members of the judiciary are hailed as champions of justice; the next, they’re derided as political hacks. Recent events have put the spotlight on Chief Justice John Roberts, who finds himself juggling the challenging task of defending the judiciary’s integrity while navigating the political landmines strewn about by both sides.
Roberts recently expressed concern over the dangerous rhetoric directed at judges, a problem that has not only threatened the dignity of the courts but also the safety of those wearing the robe. He suggested that people need to understand judges aren’t just pawns in a political game but professionals dedicated to their craft. It sounds like wise advice, yet the silence was deafening during past instances of politically charged attacks on members of the judiciary, particularly conservative figures. This inconsistency surely must tickle at least a few irony-prone funny bones.
During the tumultuous times of Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s hearings, the outcry over threats seemed like a whisper compared to current tones. Both parties scream about respect for the branches of government, only sometimes one might be a little too distracted by their own reflection in the political mirror to listen. It’s almost as if the rules of respect apply only when it suits a particular narrative. Perhaps, in Roberts’ case, the alarm bells are ringing now because the stakes are as real as they get, with threats materializing into terrible realities.
Watching the political circus, many find themselves pondering if the Democrats have perfected the uncanny knack of flip-flopping. They passionately oppose nationwide injunctions when it disrupts their agenda but tout the very same tool when it serves their purpose. Justice Elena Kagan’s evolving stance on such injunctions is a textbook example of this phenomenon. When the political shoe is on the other foot, suddenly the tune changes, revealing that the goalposts may not be as fixed as they once seemed.
It’s worth noting that while accusations of partisanship fly, some maintain faith in the judiciary’s ability to uphold the Constitution. Despite criticisms, many of former President Trump’s judicial appointees have demonstrated fidelity to constitutional principles over political demands, which is more than can be said for some of the other “distinguished” appointees. As the dust of rhetoric settles, the enduring hope is that the bench remains a place of law above all else – even if we need to duck our heads to avoid the political debris flying overhead.
