John Roberts is the Judas of the Judiciary

Peloni:  The American Judiciary is meant to uphold the laws of the land in the US, and the Legislature is meant to hold the individual justices accountable for their fidelity to the law.  The failure of both of these branches of govt to maintain fidelity with these obligations is now taking the form of blocking the very real need for reform being exercised by the Executive, and as Sen. Shumer recently confessed, the appointed judges involved in this effort were specifically appointed for this very reason, demonstrating the fact that the failure of equitable rulings of constitutionality in America is entirely by design.  The solution to all of this is thru the ballot box, to elect a more responsible legislature which will hold the Judiciary to account rather than adding to its politicization and judicial failures.  Yet, the electoral process in the US, which led to the 2020 election debacle, complete with the support of the failure of Robert’s court, has yet to be reformed.  And notably, any reform which might be proposed to enforce the concept of Consent of the Governed will itself be faced with the mail-storm of “Progressive justice” now blocking ongoing reforms in the US.  So the US stands at a point in which systemic corruption is actively being maintained by the corrupt activists, which will act as intended to block any redress which reduces their hold on power in the US…very similar to the Judicial standoff now ongoing in Israel…and thru it all, Chief Justice Roberts continues to fail in his duty to uphold the Constitution as he remains silent on the confessed weaponizing of the court system in the US.

By Amil Imani | Am Thinker | Mar 21, 2025

Image: Public domain.

Chief Justice John Roberts was expected to be a conservative stalwart and a guardian of the Constitution, appointed by George W. Bush to guide the Supreme Court towards originalist principles. Instead, he has transformed into something completely different—a turncoat whose rulings have betrayed the values he vowed to uphold. For those of us who believed in a judiciary that honors the will of the people and the intent of our founders, Roberts has become the ultimate disappointment: a Judas in black robes, selling out the American Right for thirty pieces of silver from the progressive elite.

Let’s start with the Affordable Care Act. In 2012, conservatives held their breath as NFIB v. Sebelius threatened to unravel Obamacare, a bloated government overreach that symbolized everything we despise about the Left’s nanny-state agenda. Roberts had the chance to strike it down. Instead, he twisted logic into knots, declaring the individual mandate a “tax” rather than a penalty — a semantic trick that saved Obama’s signature legislation. Legal scholars still scratch their heads over that one, but the message was clear: Roberts wasn’t here to fight for principle. He was here to play it safe, cozying up to the Beltway cocktail circuit where progressivism is the currency of prestige.

Fast forward to 2020, when election integrity hung in the balance. After a chaotic presidential race marred by allegations of fraud—claims that millions of Americans still find credible—Roberts had another chance to prove his mettle. Texas brought a case challenging the election procedures in several swing states, and conservatives begged the Court to hear it. Roberts refused. He didn’t just avoid responsibility; he ensured the case was dead on arrival, reportedly pressuring his colleagues to sidestep any “political controversy.” Never mind that the Constitution’s survival sometimes requires tough choices. For Roberts, maintaining his reputation as a neutral arbiter outweighed any obligation to the republic. The result? A stolen election—or at least the perception of one—was left to fester while Roberts washed his hands like Pontius Pilate.

Then there’s his track record on cultural issues, where his betrayal cuts the deepest. In the 2020 case of Bostock v. Clayton County, Roberts joined the liberal bloc to redefine “sex” in Title VII, effectively rewriting federal law to include sexual orientation and gender identity. This wasn’t merely interpretation; it was legislation from the bench, a favor to the woke mob, an act that undermined religious liberty and common sense. Conservatives who had spent decades battling judicial activism looked on in horror as their “reliable” chief justice handed progressives a victory they couldn’t achieve at the ballot box. The man once celebrated as a textualist revealed himself as a weathervane, swaying to the winds of cultural pressure.

What drives this treachery? Some say it’s cowardice—an obsession with dodging the Left’s inevitable tantrums. Others suggest leverage: rumors of compromising secrets or backroom deals have swirled around Roberts for years, from his unusual handling of the FISA court to his adoption records from Ireland. We may never know the complete story, but the pattern is unmistakable. Time and again, when the stakes are highest, Roberts flinches. He’s not a warrior for the Constitution but a referee, more concerned with the game’s optics than its outcome.

Compare him to the justices whom conservatives admire. Clarence Thomas, a lion of originalism, never wavers, delivering opinions rooted in first principles regardless of the backlash. Samuel Alito, another Bush appointee, has consistently stood against the tide of progressive overreach. Even the Trump trio—Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett—have shown more backbone in their short tenures than Roberts has in two decades. Yet, it’s Roberts who holds the gavel, setting the Court’s agenda and casting decisive votes. His influence isn’t just disappointing—it’s disastrous.

The Right trusted Roberts to be our champion, but he has become our albatross. His tenure serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of establishment picks—those polished résumés and Ivy League backgrounds that mask a weak character. We don’t need more Roberts clones hiding their cowardice behind robes of respectability. We need justices who will stand their ground, confront the howling mobs, and say, “This is the law, and it doesn’t bend for your feelings.”

So, where do we go from here? Roberts isn’t going anywhere soon—he’s only 70, and justices cling to their positions like barnacles. But conservatives can send a message: demand accountability from our leaders. Advocate for nominees who will counter his weaknesses with unapologetic strength. And never forget: the judiciary isn’t a gentleman’s club—it’s a battlefield. Roberts may have surrendered, but the war for America’s soul rages on.

Ultimately, John Roberts will be remembered not as a conservative hero but as a traitor who exchanged principles for applause. His legacy stands as a warning etched in the rubble of rulings that could have saved us. Judas betrayed with a kiss; Roberts betrays with a gavel. The Right deserves better.