By Tony Bruce & Don Terry | Saturday, January 4, 2025 | 7 min read
In a striking reflection of the political tensions gripping the nation, Chief Justice John Roberts released an end-of-year letter addressing what he identified as threats to judicial independence. While his letter ostensibly sought to defend the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, critics argue it failed to address the most urgent crisis: the specter of lawlessness tied to the resurgence of MAGA extremism. This issue looms larger than ever, especially in light of November 5, 2024, the day Donald Trump was elected as the 47th President of the United States.
As early as September 6th, 2024, FeDlan News posed a chilling hypothetical: “What if former President Donald Trump wins re-election and proceeds to pardon the attackers of January 6th?” The article further warned of the possibility that MAGA-aligned insurrectionists could direct their wrath at the Supreme Court over future rulings that do not align with Trump’s agenda. Such scenarios highlight a fragile moment for American democracy, and Roberts’ letter did little to calm those fears. Instead, it seemed to absolve the court of its own role in the erosion of public trust.
What John Roberts Overlooks
Chief Justice John Roberts says he’s focused on protecting the independence of the Supreme Court, but that ship has already sailed. The court, as it stands today, has been effectively captured. This didn’t happen by accident. For decades, Republican efforts to seize control of the judiciary have been deliberate and out in the open.
It goes back to 1971, when future Justice Lewis Powell wrote a memo warning American businesses that they were missing a crucial opportunity to influence the courts. At Powell’s urging, organizations like the Chamber of Commerce and wealthy backers started pouring money into reshaping the judicial system. They were joined by Republican leaders who recognized a bigger opportunity: turning this judicial overhaul into a political strategy. By using emotionally charged issues—most notably abortion—they turned corporate interests into a partisan rallying cry. Images of fetuses became a tool to mobilize voters, even as the broader goal was to benefit big business.
At the same time, Republicans in the Senate were laser-focused on stacking the courts. A glaring example was their unprecedented refusal to hold a hearing for President Barack Obama’s Supreme Court nominee in 2016, effectively shrinking the Court for over a year to preserve an opening for a Republican appointment.
Then there’s Roberts’ own role in all of this. His majority opinion in Citizens United opened the floodgates for unlimited and anonymous political spending. That ruling supercharged efforts by groups like the Federalist Society, which used dark money to reshape the federal judiciary from top to bottom.
Today, Roberts leads a court that isn’t independent in any meaningful sense. It reflects the long-term strategy of the Republican Party and its wealthiest donors—a strategy designed to achieve through judicial decisions what couldn’t be accomplished through legislation.
A Democracy Under Siege
The events of January 6th, 2021, remain an indelible stain on the nation’s history. That day, rioters inspired by Donald Trump’s baseless claims of election fraud stormed the Capitol in a violent attempt to overturn the results of a legitimate election. The chaos resulted in multiple deaths, injuries to law enforcement, and an assault on the foundational principles of the republic.
Trump’s role in stoking the flames of insurrection is clear. Through months of incendiary rhetoric and outright lies about election fraud, he cultivated an atmosphere of paranoia and rage among his supporters. Even after the violence erupted, he continued to fan the flames, famously telling the rioters, “We love you. You’re very special.” For this, he was impeached by the House of Representatives on charges of incitement of insurrection but ultimately acquitted by a divided Senate. That failure to hold him fully accountable has haunted the nation ever since.
Now, with Trump back in the political spotlight and poised for another term in office, the unthinkable becomes plausible: the pardon of January 6th attackers. Such an act would not only embolden extremists but would also legitimize their actions, further undermining the rule of law. It would serve as a stark message that violence in service of political goals is acceptable—a notion that threatens to tear at the fabric of democracy itself.
Roberts’ Omission: The Real Threat
Chief Justice Roberts’ letter was, in many ways, a missed opportunity to address the looming crisis. Instead of acknowledging the clear and present dangers posed by MAGA extremism, Roberts focused on defending the court against its critics. His letter listed four key threats to judicial independence: public misunderstanding, unfair criticism, interference by the political branches, and the erosion of collegiality within the judiciary.
These concerns, while valid, seem disconnected from the broader national crisis. The Supreme Court’s legitimacy is indeed under fire, but much of that distrust stems from the perception that the court has become increasingly politicized. Decisions that appear to align with the interests of conservative powerbrokers—such as rulings on voting rights, campaign finance, and abortion—have fueled public skepticism. Roberts’ failure to confront this reality and instead shift the blame to critics comes across as a deflection rather than a defense.
More glaringly, Roberts ignored the potential for future political violence targeting the judiciary. With Trump and his supporters framing the court as part of the so-called “deep state,” the possibility of an emboldened MAGA faction turning its ire toward the Supreme Court is not far-fetched. By sidestepping this issue, Roberts missed the chance to reaffirm the court’s commitment to upholding the rule of law in the face of extremism.
The Dangers of Pardons
If Trump were to pardon the January 6th attackers, the consequences would be far-reaching. Such a move would embolden not just the individuals involved in the Capitol riot but also others inclined toward violence in pursuit of political goals. It would erode the principle of accountability, signaling that those who disrupt the democratic process can act with impunity as long as they align with the right political leader.
Moreover, pardoning the attackers could galvanize Trump’s most ardent supporters, giving rise to a more organized and dangerous form of MAGA extremism. This could lead to an environment where threats and acts of violence against public institutions—including the Supreme Court—become increasingly normalized.
The United States stands at a crossroads. The 2024 election has already laid bare the deep divisions within the nation, and Trump’s return to power only amplifies the stakes. While Roberts’ letter emphasized the importance of judicial independence, it fell short in addressing the real and present threats to the court’s security and the broader democratic system.
Judicial independence is indeed a cornerstone of freedom, but it cannot exist in a vacuum. It requires a stable democratic foundation, one that is currently under siege by forces of extremism and authoritarianism. For the judiciary to maintain its legitimacy, it must not only remain independent but also responsive to the crises that threaten the nation’s survival.
Roberts had an opportunity to speak directly to these issues and to reaffirm the judiciary’s role as a guardian of the rule of law. Instead, his letter read more as an attempt to deflect criticism than as a call to action. As the nation braces for the challenges ahead, one can only hope that the Supreme Court—and its chief justice—will rise to meet the moment.
Copyright 2024 FN, NewsRoom.