Kirkus
An analysis of the most powerful jurist in the land, seen as a veritable wolf in sheep’s clothing.
John Roberts makes it a point of practice to appear mild mannered, reasonable, and affable. Yet, writes Graves, former advisor to the Senate Judiciary Committee, when George W. Bush nominated Roberts to the high bench, “I was certain he would devote himself to advancing a right-wing political agenda through the judiciary.”
An obvious central plank was abortion and the overturning of Roe v. Wade, the centerpiece of “Roberts’s reactionary docket.” Others were reshaping the nature of executive power, most blatantly demonstrated by declaring that Donald Trump (and future presidents) are immune from prosecution for crimes committed in office; using the free expression of religion to nullify equal rights for gay Americans; and “sabotaging voting rights and permitting illegitimate and undemocratic electoral maps that have all but eliminated incentives to seek compromise, fueling extremism and division.”
Graves considers the worst offense, however, to be Citizens United v. FEC, which has allowed the persons with the biggest purses to manipulate elections. The author makes a strong point in stating that the cases the Supreme Court chooses to hear are “almost entirely discretionary,” so that the justices’ personal agendas are reflected in what they choose to rule on.
Other conservative justices, by Graves’ lights, are no great shakes (Brett Kavanaugh lied to Congress, she alleges, while Thomas’ now-well-publicized trove of expensive gifts speaks to “serious ethical failures”). But it is thanks to Roberts, she holds, that Trump now wields “kinglike powers,” giving weight to her closing argument that Roberts “will go down as the worst chief justice in American history.” Graves’ slate of proposed reforms extends beyond the judicial and into the legislative and executive branches, but almost all involve overturning the bulk of Roberts’ decisions.
A vigorous takedown of the chief justice of the United States.
—Kirkus