More on the Chief Justice's End of the Year Report

I provided a relatively brief reaction to the Chief Justice's End of the Year Report. 

My first impression was that the author of Trump v. U.S. (presidential immunity) starting with Tom Paine (anti-monarchial) is a bit rich. Since he's talking to the nation, I'm fine with the first over the second. 

Various law professors have impressions. I added a link to one that felt it was inane and hypocritical. Basically, the professor argues the report is junior high school civics (at best) by someone who violated its terms repeatedly. 

Reading between the lines, one can find the Chief Justice of the United States standing up for immigrants; extolling the continuing aspirations of the Declaration of Independence; and reiterating the importance of judicial independence—three messages that are certainly welcome as we look ahead to the second year of the second Trump administration.

Steve Vladeck wonders who Roberts feels is his audience. Vladeck basically sends my sentiment that it promoted general republican values (small "r") and can be seen as anti-MAGA. He figures it is court-friendly mild Never Trump types who are still worried about speaking out. 

The problem, though, is that one has to read between the lines to find those takeaways. Given the year that just transpired—not just the substantive behavior of the executive branch but its unprecedented hostility toward, threats against, and defiance of federal judges—this would’ve been a golden opportunity for Chief Justice Roberts to make the kind of statement that might’ve resonated across the political/ideological spectrum. By opting for subtlety, it seems worth asking exactly who the Chief Justice views as his audience these days. 

Michael Dorf also notes the references to judicial independence (a self-interested one). Dorf also sees some anti-originalist implications. Maybe? Roberts is not a strict originalist anyhow. He's open to some development. 

(Roberts cites the Declaration of Independence as stating overall principles that the Constitution honors over time, more so in its later years.) 

A libertarian sort also references the usage of the Declaration of Independence. Supreme Court opinions from time to time over the years have cited the DOI, including its principles. He disagrees, not too surprisingly, somewhat with Dorf's opinion about the report's anti-originalist sentiments.

Vladeck liked it better when Rehnquist (who had Roberts as a law clerk) used the report to explicitly provide policy concerns and recommendations. Roberts arguably does this in a lower key fashion. There's something to be said about that.

None of the analysts care much about the second half of his report that provides statistics. Are they accurate? Are they provided in a simply straightforward fashion? 

Anyway, I think it is fine on some basic level to use the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence to remind the country about some basic republican principles. Some words about the continuing threats on federal judges would have been good too. He did honor them.

And, yes, I remain cynical about his above the fray celebratory, honorary tone given how much the Supreme Court has failed us (as various people summarize) of late. 

We need change to fulfill the ideals he discusses. And, as Roberts shows, this is a long-term process, with earlier generations not meeting the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.

Ideals are like that. They are things we aim for and imperfectly uphold. The DOI also suggests what should occur when things get too bad.

Change, even if it requires ending long and familiar practices. Change that might be messy and uncomfortable, including for the powers that be.