'Chilling': Expert slams Chief Justice John Roberts’ report as 'disingenuous'

Chief Justice John Roberts’ year-end report on Tuesday seemed to be more of a tongue lashing at critics of the high court than a reasoned report, according to a legal analysist who noted the “chilling” effect it can have on the judiciary and country.

Roberts’ annual report included a stern warning to reject “dangerous," "open disregard” for federal court rulings from both sides of the political spectrum. He also warned about the threat of violence and intimidation that judges across the country face, and of officials who defy their rulings.

But Roberts issued his report “while completely ignoring the ethical questions that have swirled around the court,” and his own leadership over the past two years, according to legal reporter Chris Geidner of the “Law Dork.”

“Chief Justice John Roberts decided to take on critics of the U.S. Supreme Court in his annual end-of-year report on Tuesday with a disingenuous half-response that is nonetheless instructive — and disturbing — for what he does say,” Geidner wrote in a detailed takedown of Roberts.

ALSO READ: Bannon escalates war on ‘toddler’ Elon Musk: ‘We took you on and ripped your face off!’

Geidner concluded that Roberts’ report is simply a “once-a-year moment” for the chief justice to spotlight what he views as “illegitimate” criticism of the court. The journalist found particularly troubling Roberts’ merging together “violence and lies with legitimate criticism.”

“The end result is a chilling, if vague, condemnation by Roberts of the widespread opposition to the extremism exhibited by the high court in its decisions and the ethical failings of justices responsible for those decisions,” he wrote.

Geidner noted that while violence is of course unacceptable, Roberts shifted the ground in a way that allowed him to tie everything to violence — all the while ignoring the court’s own role in creating the majority public disapproval that the court faces.”

And, Geidner added, the big takeaway from the report is that judges shouldn’t be expected to handle “too much” criticism “and not in a way that Roberts doesn’t like.”

“And he will only vaguely tell us what that means, but if criticism crosses that invisible line it is illegitimate," he told readers.