(Photo
by
Leah
Millis-Pool/Getty
Images)
Chief
Justice
John
Roberts
has
spent
most
of
his
time
on
the
Supreme
Court
enjoying
a
reputation
as
a
centrist.
If
mainstream
Court
watchers
were
honest
with
themselves,
they’d
know
that
Roberts’s
“moderate”
rep
—
based
largely
on
his
refusal
to
overturn
Obamacare
—
was
always
hogwash.
But
a
report
from
Jodi
Kantor
and
Adam
Liptak
in
Sunday’s
New
York
Times
puts
none
too
fine
a
point
on
Roberts
as
a
devotee
of
Donald
Trump.
The
article
dives
into
three
cases
during
the
most
recent
Supreme
Court
Term,
all
written
by
Roberts,
and
all
on
Donald
Trump’s
personal
wishlist.
It’s
a
pretty
damning
look
at
what
happened
behind
the
scenes
at
the
Court
this
past
Term.
Take
the
immunity
case,
Trump
v.
United
States.
In
February,
before
the
case
was
before
the
Court,
Roberts
was
already
sharing
how
he
thought
the
Court
*would*
rule.
The
chief
justice’s
Feb.
22
memo,
jump-starting
the
justices’
formal
discussion
on
whether
to
hear
the
case,
offered
a
scathing
critique
of
a
lower-court
decision
and
a
startling
preview
of
how
the
high
court
would
later
rule,
according
to
several
people
from
the
court
who
saw
the
document.The
chief
justice
tore
into
the
appellate
court
opinion
greenlighting
Mr.
Trump’s
trial,
calling
it
inadequate
and
poorly
reasoned.
On
one
key
point,
he
complained,
the
lower
court
judges
“failed
to
grapple
with
the
most
difficult
questions
altogether.”
He
wrote
not
only
that
the
Supreme
Court
should
take
the
case
—
which
would
stall
the
trial
—
but
also
how
the
justices
should
decide
it.“I
think
it
likely
that
we
will
view
the
separation
of
powers
analysis
differently”
from
the
appeals
court,
he
wrote.
In
other
words:
grant
Mr.
Trump
greater
protection
from
prosecution.
Moreover,
the
Times
reports
Roberts
“froze
out”
the
liberal
justices
on
the
Court
as
they
tried
to
build
consensus.
In
Fischer
v.
United
States,
the
Chief
made
a
shocking
switcheroo.
He
took
the
majority
opinion
away
from
Samuel
Alito
and
wrote
it
himself.
Outside
the
court,
the
switch
went
undetected.
Inside,
it
caused
surprise.
To
change
authors
without
the
judgment
itself
shifting
was
a
break
from
court
procedure,
several
court
insiders
said.In
interviews,
Supreme
Court
scholars
agreed.
“Can
I
tell
you
an
instance
when
it’s
happened?
No,”
said
Paul
J.
Wahlbeck,
a
professor
at
George
Washington
University
who
has
studied
opinion
assignments.
This
may
have
been
a
shallow
attempt
to
save
the
credibility
of
the
Court.
At
the
time,
Alito
was
catching
flack
for
flying
flags
associated
with
the
January
6th
riots
at
his
homes.
Perhaps
Roberts
thought
that
letting
Alito
write
that
January
6th
defendants
should
be
let
off
the
hook
was
a
little
uncouth.
But
don’t
worry
—
the
Roberts-penned
case
held
pretty
much
what
you’d
have
expected
Alito
to
write:
that
prosecutors
overreached
in
charging
some
perpetrators
of
the
January
6th
coup
attempt.
Kantor
and
Liptak
also
reveal
that
the
unsigned
decision
in
Trump
v.
Anderson,
which
held
Colorado
cannot
kick
Trump
off
their
presidential
ballot
on
account
of
the
14th
Amendment’s
ban
on
insurrectionists
holding
office,
was
also
written
by
none
other
than
Roberts.
None
of
these
moves
are
the
machinations
of
a
centrist.
They
are
the
calculated
plays
of
someone
actively
trying
to
push
the
nation’s
jurisprudence
to
the
right
—
beyond
what
the
majority
of
Americans
support.
With
Roberts
clearly
dethroned
from
his
ostensible
role
as
the
“very
serious
moderate”
on
the
Court,
it
*should*
supercharge
the
efforts
to
reform
the
institution.
But
even
before
this
exposé,
the
hunt
was
already
on
for
a
“new”
swing
vote
on
the
Court
that
can
be
pandered
to
in
order
to
stop
the
absolute
worst
SCOTUS
power
grabs.
It’s
like
we
never
learn.
Earlier:
John
Roberts
Will
Not
Save
Us
Kathryn
Rubino
is
a
Senior
Editor
at
Above
the
Law,
host
of
The
Jabot
podcast,
and
co-host
of
Thinking
Like
A
Lawyer.
AtL
tipsters
are
the
best,
so
please
connect
with
her.
Feel
free
to
email
her
with
any
tips,
questions,
or
comments
and
follow
her
on
Twitter
@Kathryn1 or
Mastodon
@[email protected].