News
‘Subpoena Him’: Critics Blast Chief Justice’s ‘Hubris’ Over Refusal to Testify on SCOTUS Ethics Amid Pattern of ‘Corruption’
On the same day news broke that another one of his Supreme Court justices had failed to disclose critical financial information, establishing a pattern of what is being called “corruption,” Chief Justice John Roberts sent the Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee a terse letter refusing his request to testify.
The Supreme Court’s approval rating hit a historic low late last year, and the Chief Justice has done little to help it improve. Amid unprecedented rulings that ignore the Court’s own guidelines, amid what has been called an “unprecedented” use of the shadow docket to shape public law and policy rather than, as Roberts himself promised Congress, calling “balls and strikes,” and amid unprecedented, public rancor among the justices themselves, Chief Justice Roberts claims judicial independence is more important than trust in American jurisprudence.
Responding to Chairman Dick Durbin (D-IL), Roberts writes, “I must respectfully decline your invitation. Testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee by the Chief Justice of the United States is exceedingly rare, as one might expect in light of separation of powers concerns and the importance of preserving judicial independence.”
“The Supreme Court Library compilation of ‘Justices Testifying Before Congress in Matters Other Than Appropriations or Nominations’ has identified only two prior instances – Chief Justice Taft in 1921 and Chief Justice Hughes in 1935. Both hearings involved routine matters of judicial administration relating to additional judgeships in the lower courts and jurisdiction over appeals from lower court injunctions,” Roberts says – ignoring that Chairman Durbin also invited any there Justice to testify before his committee.
READ MORE: Trump a No Show at His Rape and Defamation Trial, Says He Will Be a No Show at the GOP Debates
“My predecessor, Chief Justice Rehnquist, appeared before House committees twice, also on mundane topics,” Roberts adds, before including other instances.
Ignoring the core issue: ethics or lack thereof in the Roberts Court, the Chief Justice addresses it in his last sentence: “In regard to the Court’s approach to ethics matters, I attach a Statement of Ethics Principles and Practices to which all of the current Members of the Supreme Court subscribe.”
Critics are furious.
U.S> Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) tweeted: “Chief Justice Justice Roberts has no choice—for the Court’s sake & the country’s—to accept our invitation to appear before the Judiciary Committee. The marble pillars of the Supreme Court & platitudes about its independence no longer provide refuge. He must face the nation.”
Jamison Foser, a journalist and former senior fellow at Media Matters for America writes: “This letter from John Roberts to Durbin is basically ‘fuck you,’ but less honest.”
“Note Roberts says won’t testify to congress because of the ‘importance of preserving judicial independence,'” Foser continues. “This is bullshit. Judicial independence does not mean — cannot mean — that the Judiciary is immune from accountability and oversight.Justices are not kings.”
Foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and journalist David Rothkopf writes: “Given the crisis in the Roberts court, this should not be at his option. Subpoena him. Letting him slide is sending a message reinforcing the courts sense of impunity. Passivity in the face of corruption is aiding and abetting the corrupt.”
Mattathias Schwartz, a senior correspondent for Insider and a former staff writer at the New Yorker, apparently paraphrasing Roberts, tweets: “Sorry, I’m not going to come testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. If you have questions about SCOTUS ethics please see attached boilerplate.”
Attorney Jay Willis, the Editor-in-chief of Balls & Strikes, which reports on the courts writes: “Holy SHIT this John Roberts letter sucks. ‘Sorry can’t testify, judicial independence, enclosed is a copy of our fake ethics rules, have a nice day’??? Subpoena his ass posthaste.”
Political history podcaster and author Mike Duncan blasted Roberts’ “hubris.”
“If you really wanna do originalism, the literal intent of the Framers was for the other two branches of government to respond to a letter like this by crushing the unearned hubris of the Chief Justice,” Duncan wrote, before adding this: “‘Dear Mr. Chief Justice, it has come to our attention that we don’t care what you think is appropriate. Your house is in shameful disorder and your attitude is patently offensive. We will break you’
“This is what Madison wanted,” Duncan said.
Other Twitter users also weighed in.
“It’s a ‘fuck you, make me’ response in flowery language,” wrote one.
Read a copy of the Roberts letter below or at this link.
Chief Justice Roberts declines to testify before Senate hearing on Supreme Court ethics in letter to @SenatorDurbin https://t.co/epTZGO7cnT pic.twitter.com/9Ql5bQ2sgA
— Justin Elliott (@JustinElliott) April 25, 2023
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
 |
Maine Democratic U.S. Senate nominee Graham Platner is under fire after releasing a video declaring that new allegations against him are false, yet he is “taking time to reflect” on a path forward.
Politico on Monday afternoon reported that a woman who dated Platner, Jenny Racicot, “says he forced her to have sex with him nearly five years ago despite her repeated objections, an allegation Platner denies.”
“Racicot said she had an on-and-off relationship with Platner,” Politico reported, “for more than two years before he entered her rural Maine home uninvited one night in late 2021, deeply intoxicated, and forced himself on her while she repeatedly told him to stop. She said she cut off contact with him after telling him the encounter was not consensual.”
In a video posted to social media eleven minutes after the Politico story dropped, Platner says, “I wanted to directly address the troubling, serious, and false allegations against me. Any accusation of nonconsensual behavior is categorically false.”
He said he and his supporters “were united in a love of Maine, a belief that our politics must change, in a focus on defeating Susan Collins.”
“So, regardless of the inaccuracy of the reporting, but mindful the political reality will inflict, we are taking the time to reflect on the best path forward for the state that I love, the people that I love, the movement I belong to, and the goal of defeating Susan Collins.”
“Those were the goals when we launched this campaign. And they remain my goals today.”
“Throughout it all, you never turned your back on me. And I will not turn my back on you now. Every one of you deserves to see that vision come to fruition and see Susan Collins defeated. And we will use every tool at our disposal to do so.”
The Bulwark’s Tim Miller, a political commentator who served as the communications director for the Jeb Bush 2016 presidential campaign, blasted Platner.
“I’m sorry but ‘we are taking time to reflect on the best path forward’ is not an option on the table,” Miller wrote. “Either it’s false and you campaign with vigor or it’s true and you get out / apologize to everyone you let down.”
Journalist Ryan Grim, commenting on Platner’s video, noted that Platner “strongly suggests he is considering dropping out. Already Troy Jackson and Chellie Pingree, both gubernatorial candidates, are being kicked around in Maine circles as potential replacements.”
Several others, including Puck News’ Peter Hamby, predicted Platner will be dropping out.
Platner had postponed several campaign events before the Politico story was published.
— Graham Platner for Senate (@grahamformaine) July 6, 2026
President Donald Trump is facing backlash after posting a video of children — including showing their unblurred faces — graduating from kindergarten, with some of the girls purportedly wearing hijabs.
“President Trump posted a captionless video of graduating kindergarteners on Truth Social on Monday, goading his supporters into verbally attacking little children simply for being Muslim,” The New Republic reported. “The clip is from Gateway STEM Academy, a majority-Black K-8 public charter school in St. Paul, Minnesota. It shows about 21 children in caps and gowns on stage singing a song together. Most of the girls are wearing hijabs.”
The original post of the video which Trump reposted reads: “Public school in St. Paul, Minnesota. Every girl is in a hijab … in kindergarten.”
Trump did not add any comments. TNR called the post “Islamophobic, weird, and creepy,” while noting that the comments section of Trump’s post was filled with calls “by racist, xenophobic MAGA supporters” to “deport the children and ban hijabs.”
TNR also noted that it “should come as no surprise that Trump isn’t above attacking children who just learned how to read, but this post is still particularly discomforting—and will certainly contribute to the already potent level of anti-Muslim sentiment in the U.S. and in Minnesota.”
Critics blasted Trump.
“There is something deeply unsettling about the president of the United States—the most powerful person in the world—going after kindergarten schoolchildren in Minnesota because they wore hijabs, as Trump has done this morning on his website,” The Bulwark’s Sam Stein wrote.
One social media commentator wrote, “Trump posted an unblurred video of more than a dozen Muslim kindergartners to Truth Social, exposing the children’s faces while targeting them for their religion.”
Another added, “Trump is a bigot. The president took to Truth Social to attack kindergarteners in hijabs. These are little kids. The president isn’t just a bigot, he’s also a coward.”
The original video was posted to the X social media platform in June.
U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) at the time commented, “If you are in a public school in America, you should be speaking english.”
Image via Reuters
President Donald Trump’s apparent efforts to delay releasing the $5.8 million civil judgment to E. Jean Carroll are being met with a warning by the journalist’s legal team, who suggest there could be a legal maneuver for Trump to employ to forgo paying the judgment in either of the two cases he lost.
According to The Guardian, on July 4, U.S. District Judge Lewis Kaplan ordered Trump to release the $5.8 million judgment, which is in escrow, to Carroll by this coming Tuesday — or explain why he would not do so.
Carroll’s attorneys think Trump may be trying to buy time to mount another legal strategy, telling the judge that Trump’s request for an extension “appears to be little more than yet another play for time.”
“The case is separate from Trump’s appeal of a Manhattan civil jury’s 2024 award of $83.3m to Carroll for defamation,” The Guardian explains. “But her lawyers have suggested a legal scenario in which the president might seek to conjoin the cases and further delay payment of both.”
Carroll’s attorney Roberta Kaplan (no relation to the judge) wrote, “We can only assume that defendant is seeking … to buy time so he can try to concoct some new basis to put off paying plaintiff presumably in connection with his forthcoming petition and motion for a rehearing.”
Trump’s former attorney, Justin Smith, in one of his final acts, wrote to the Supreme Court suggesting that his client would be appealing the $83.3 million civil judgment.
Smith argued that the Supreme Court “may wish to consider the petitions together,” given they involve the same parties.
The larger judgment case involves possible questions of presidential immunity, and that has Carroll’s attorneys concerned.
“A conjoined case, Carroll’s lawyers fear, could result in both judgments being wiped out,” The Guardian reports.
The president has also made clear he is no fan of Judge Kaplan, after the jurist made several rulings that “angered” Trump.
“What else can you expect from a Trump Hating, Clinton appointed judge, who went out of his way to make sure that the result was as negative as it could possible be,” Trump wrote on Truth Social in 2023, “speaking to, and in control of, a jury from an anti-Trump area which is probably the worst place in the US for me to get a fair ‘trial’.”
Image via Reuters
Platner Scorched Over ‘Taking Time’ Video After New Accusation
Trump Sparks Fury Online After Posting Unblurred Video of Muslim Kindergartners in Hijabs
One Legal Maneuver Threatens to Undo Everything E. Jean Carroll Won
Inside the Group Helping MAGA Voters Walk Away — And What Finally Pushed Them
