Amidst the firestorm ignited by the Supreme Court’s controversial 6-3 decision granting Donald Trump sweeping presidential immunity, Chief Justice John Roberts faced scathing backlash for his demeaning and dismissive comments aimed at Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Former U.S. Attorney Joyce Vance launched a blistering critique on her Civil Discourse Substack platform, condemning Roberts for his overtly sexist tone and his arrogant dismissal of the dissenting justices. Vance excoriated Roberts for effectively telling his female colleagues to “sit down, little ladies,” characterizing his attempt to diminish their concerns as a disgraceful display of patriarchal condescension.
Vance tore into Roberts’s assertion that the dissent exhibited “a tone of chilling doom,” deriding it as a feeble attempt to mask the Court’s complicity in shielding Trump from accountability for potential criminal acts. She accused Roberts and the conservative majority of adopting language straight from Trump’s playbook, using dismissive rhetoric that not only belittled the dissenting opinion but also undermined the Court’s credibility as a bastion of impartial justice.
Vance also lambasted Roberts’s selective historical amnesia, pointing out the glaring omission of past presidents’ adherence to legal scrutiny for their official actions. She forcefully argued that the Court’s failure to hold Trump accountable set a dangerous precedent, effectively endorsing executive impunity at the expense of justice and the rule of law.
Going ever deeper, Vance challenged Roberts’s integrity and leadership, asserting that his comments reflected a systemic bias and a callous disregard for the foundational principle that no individual, regardless of their office, is above accountability. She lamented the Court’s conservative bloc for its blatant partisanship, accusing them of betraying their duty to uphold constitutional norms in favor of shielding a former president from legal consequences.
Vance’s searing critique underscored broader concerns about the Supreme Court’s credibility under Roberts’s stewardship, portraying a judiciary tainted by political maneuvering and a disturbing willingness to compromise fundamental principles of equality and justice.
