We do not need any more lectures about an independent judiciary from Chief Justice Roberts

By Fred Bates - February 14, 2025

    In my post on January 7, 2025, I stated that Chief Justice Roberts had made misleading claims about the threat to judicial independence in his 2024 Year End Report. I not only stand by what I stated in that post, I will expand upon it. Agreed, judicial independence is a very important component of our constitutional form of government. Agreed, violence and intimidation directed against judges poses a threat to judicial independence and the rule of law. As I also noted in my post, the threat to judicial independence is not the greatest threat to democracy and the rule of law. The greatest threat to democracy and the rule of law is the lack of any guardrails imposed on our judiciary by oversight from within the judiciary itself or from the executive and legislative branches of government. The lack of any guardrails or oversight over our federal judges has fostered a culture of corruption in our federal judiciary that has completely undermined our Constitution, democracy, and the rule of law.  

    Chief Justice Roberts has made it a habit of reminding us of the independence of the judiciary in his Year End Reports and many other public statements. We get it Chief Justice Roberts. We don't need any more lectures from you or any other federal judges for that matter about an independent judiciary. When Chief Justice Roberts and other judges talk about an independent judiciary, what they are really saying is that they do not want to have any guardrails or oversight on what actions they take. They use the independence of the judiciary as a shield to discourage, intimidate, and deter the executive and legislative branches of government from imposing guardrails or oversight on the judiciary as is required by the Constitution.      

   Chief Justice Roberts and other judges should stop constantly lecturing Americans about the importance of an independent judiciary. We get it! What Chief Justice Roberts and other judges should be doing is giving Americans assurance that they are committed to upholding the rule of law and precedent. I have my doubts that this will happen because the rule of law and precedent does not seem to be high on judges' list of priorities. This is especially true in our federal courts. 

                                                                                                                                        

 

 

Chief Justice Roberts Makes Misleading Claim About the Threat to Judicial Independence

 Response to Chief Justice Roberts 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary

January 7, 2025 - By Fred Bates

    In his 2024 Year End Report on the Federal Judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts gave a historical background on the evolution of our independent federal judiciary. Roberts credits former Chief Justice Rehnquist as saying that the independent judiciary, established by Article III of the US Constitution, is the crown jewels of our system of government. Roberts also credited Chief Justice Rehnquist with articulating in his 2004 Year End Report that the Constitution protects judicial independence not to benefit judges, but to promote the rule of law. Roberts also stated in his report that Justice Kennedy had commented that judicial independence is not conferred so judges can do as they please but is conferred so judges can do what they must.

    While recognizing that the First Amendment protect criticism of judicial decisions, Chief Justice Roberts expressed concern about uninformed criticisms and illegitimate activity that he believes threaten the independence of judges on which the rule of law depends: (1) violence, (2) intimidation, (3) disinformation, and (4) threats to defy lawfully entered judgments. 

    As to his concerns, every sane person is going to agree that violence and intimidation directed at judges is unacceptable. And that those perpetrating violence or intimidation against a judge or their family should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Chief Justice Roberts concern that disinformation or the deliberate distortion of the factual or legal basis for a ruling can undermine confidence in the court system has some credibility. The final threat to judicial independence as stated by Roberts is the defiance of lawfully entered judgments by courts of competent jurisdiction. Certainly, from a theoretical standpoint the defiance of a judgement by the executive or legislative branches of government challenges the independence of the judiciary based on the separation of powers doctrine. 

    The problem with Chief Justice Roberts' 2024 Year End Report is that it exaggerates the threat to judicial independence. Chief Justice Roberts is well aware that the executive and legislative branches of government face the same threats to their independence by violence, intimidation, disinformation, and defiance of their lawful authority just as the judiciary. Our three branches of government will not cease to function as independent co-equal entities as provided for by our Constitution because of occasional threats from disenchanted parties. We have laws and law enforcement agencies to deal with threats to government officials. Our robust freedom of speech and press rights under the First Amendment is certainly capable of providing a counter to disinformation. Also, each branch of government has powers to hold accountable those that openly defy their lawful authority. 

   Chief Justice Roberts has made it a practice of defending the independence of the federal judiciary as being important to democracy. However, his concern about the threat to judicial independence deflects attention away from the dysfunction and corruption in our federal courts that poses the greater threat to democracy and the rule of law. Not only has judicial independence not been significantly threatened as Chief Justice Roberts claim, but judicial independence has been a shield that protects the judiciary from badly needed oversight by the executive and legislative branches of government. Judicial independence has benefitted judges by allowing them to disregard the rule of law and do as please, and not as they must, contradicting the purpose of judicial independence as stated by Chief Justice Rehnquist and Justice Kennedy according to Chief Justice Roberts in his 2024 Year End Report. 

    This blog has been dedicated to exposing corruption in the US District Court in San Jose and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals during litigation of a lawsuit I filed against the City of San Jose for racial and disability discrimination in 2006. I am black/African American. Judges from both courts did as they please by entering judgments that disregarded the rule of law and were biased in favor of the City. It is unmistakable that corrupt judges are a greater threat to an independent judiciary than violence, intimidation, disinformation, and threats to defy lawfully entered judgments.