Chief Justice John Roberts once compared his role to that of a baseball umpire: fair, impartial, just calling “balls and strikes.” But as his tenure has unfolded, that metaphor has aged about as well as a Bud Light marketing campaign. Roberts hasn’t just stepped out of the dugout—he’s trying to pitch the game, manage both teams, and rewrite the scoreboard in real-time. And now, in the face of a national crisis of judicial overreach and lawless rulings from radical lower courts, Roberts is choosing to lecture President Trump rather than lead the court.
Roberts’ betrayal of his own umpire analogy started in 2012 with the Obamacare case, when he twisted the Constitution into a pretzel to save Barack Obama’s signature law. He called the individual mandate a tax, despite everyone—including Obama himself—saying it wasn’t. His ruling wasn’t grounded in law. It was a political contortion meant to spare the court criticism. The result? A so-called “umpire” who decided to make up new rules rather than enforce the ones that exist.
But it didn’t stop there. Time and again, Roberts has tried to “split the difference” in landmark rulings—not to render constitutional judgment, but to preserve the public image of the court. That’s how you end up with his infamously incoherent opinion in Dobbs v. Jackson, where he tried to uphold Mississippi’s abortion law without overturning Roe v. Wade. It was legal gibberish meant to appease both sides—and it fooled no one.
Now, Roberts is once again grandstanding, attacking President Trump for demanding accountability from a rogue judge who blocked the deportation of violent gang members. That judge, James Boasberg, ruled in favor of Tren de Aragua thugs—some of the most violent criminals on Earth—over the will of the American people and the president’s constitutional duty to enforce immigration law.
What Roberts seems to forget is that judicial impeachment is constitutional. Article III allows it. Alexander Hamilton defended it. But for Roberts, it’s apparently off-limits to question judges—no matter how blatantly they substitute personal politics for law. That’s not umpiring—that’s protecting the worst actors in black robes while pretending to be above the fray.
The crisis in America’s courts isn’t coming from the political branches. It’s coming from activist judges and a chief justice too timid to rein them in. The judiciary isn’t being delegitimized because Trump is criticizing it—it’s being delegitimized because it refuses to stay in its lane and does nothing when rogue judges hijack national policy.
If Roberts wants to restore integrity to the court, he should stop lecturing President Trump and start fast-tracking reversals of these insurrectionist lower-court rulings. The judicial branch isn’t supposed to run the country. It’s supposed to interpret the laws passed by those who do.
Chief Justice Roberts has a choice: he can be the umpire he promised us—or continue being the mascot of a broken court, more interested in applause from the Beltway than the Constitution he swore to uphold.
