The article critiques Chief Justice John Roberts for prioritizing the judiciary's legitimacy among Washington insiders over true constitutional fidelity. It highlights a recent district-court judge's injunction against President Trump's agenda, suggesting a troubling trend among judges to undermine Trump's actions as a past President. Harvard Law professor Adrian Vermeule argues that this refusal to respect past decisions represents a significant issue. The piece also points out that Roberts' previous decisions, like the Obamacare case, demonstrate an undue focus on public and media perceptions rather than a commitment to constitutional principles, leading to a crisis in judicial credibility.
"A number of judges have seemingly adopted a constitutional meta-principle: what a past President did, President Trump may not undo."
"Roberts seems less concerned with preserving the court's legitimacy in the eyes of America's citizens, and more with the views of the editorial pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post."
Collection
[
|
...
]