{"id":160394,"date":"2026-08-13T16:07:24","date_gmt":"2026-08-14T00:07:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/08\/13\/john-roberts-uses-william-howard-taft-to-defend-his-own-record-fails\/"},"modified":"2026-08-13T16:07:24","modified_gmt":"2026-08-14T00:07:24","slug":"john-roberts-uses-william-howard-taft-to-defend-his-own-record-fails","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2026\/08\/13\/john-roberts-uses-william-howard-taft-to-defend-his-own-record-fails\/","title":{"rendered":"John Roberts Uses William Howard Taft To Defend His Own Record, Fails"},"content":{"rendered":"

Every year, Chief Justice John Roberts sits down and pens a little newsletter to the nation about the big issues facing the judiciary and manages to blow it every single time. Whether he\u2019s rambling about typewriter history<\/a> or spinning Thomas Paine fan-fiction<\/a>, the Chief reliably provides a warmed over Christmas card letter of vapid meditations while the world burns. <\/p>\n

Now he\u2019s gone and gotten a Substack<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Well, not exactly. Roberts contributed an essay on William Howard Taft to In Pursuit<\/em>, a \u201cdebrief\u201d of the American experiment on the occasion of its 250th birthday. A mostly rosy look at the national journey from \u201cdivided government\u201d to \u201cgo ahead and send SEAL Team 6 to murder your rivals.\u201d Presumably, the curators of this project asked Roberts to write about the former chief justice who inspires him most and then scrambled when he turned in a draft about Taft instead of Roger Taney. <\/p>\n

The essay is, by and large, a Wikipedia history of the 27th president-cum-10th chief justice. He hailed from Ohio, he was president, he lost in a three-way fight with Teddy Roosevelt, he sat on the Supreme Court. It\u2019s an unintentionally fitting reminder that the conservative legal movement believes in rooting its decisions in history while simultaneously displaying a superficial grasp of the subject<\/a>. Roberts spends more effort buttering up Taft than staffers did trying to get him out of a bathtub.<\/p>\n

In fairness, Roberts alludes to this by mentioning Taft\u2019s White House weight gain, and eventual slimming before joining the Court. Sort of buries the best part though.<\/p>\n

But what the essay lacks in insight, it makes up for with pointed remarks. The In Pursuit series explicitly instructed contributors to keep it non-partisan, but they didn\u2019t say anything about using the essays to hype yourself:<\/p>\n

\n

To be sure, Taft opinions are few and far between in modern constitutional law casebooks. A notable exception is Myers v. United States<\/em>, which upheld a President\u2019s power to remove executive branch officials.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Six weeks ago, Roberts personally used Trump v. Slaughter<\/em><\/a> to expand the power of presidents to haphazardly remove \u2014 not only executive officials \u2014 but officers serving in independent agencies under statutes with explicit checks against removal. At the time, Roberts called Myers<\/em> a \u201clandmark decision\u201d and \u201cperhaps our best word on the subject.\u201d In reality, Myers<\/em> was a radical departure from established law at the time, and that\u2019s why it got swatted back by Humphrey\u2019s Executor<\/em> a few years later. Roberts took the occasion of honoring Taft to slide in a plug for his decision to kick down a load-bearing pillar of federal governance based on a decision that didn\u2019t last a decade. <\/p>\n

Of note, Roberts does not use this essay\u2019s lionization of Myers<\/em> to explain why it would magically exclude the Federal Reserve from its \u201cbest word on the subject.\u201d Roberts tried and failed to explain that distinction himself when he issued the directly contradictory Slaughter<\/em> and Cook<\/em> opinions on the same day<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Ironically, the In Pursuit project is being quarterbacked by Colleen Shogan, who is only doing this because Trump fired her as Archivist of the United States in February 2025. That role does not have the protections on paper that either Slaughter or Cook enjoyed, but Congress DID see fit to require under 44 U.S.C. \u00a7 2103<\/a> that the President \u201cshall communicate the reasons for any such removal to each House of the Congress.\u201d Just send Congress a memo. That\u2019s it. <\/p>\n

Eighteen months and several<\/a> professional-association letters later, he still hasn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

\n

The enhanced prestige of the Court contributed to the ability of future Chief Justices to stave off challenges to its authority, such as the court packing plan and resistance to its landmark civil rights rulings.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Except, the court packing plan worked<\/em>. The \u201cswitch in time\u201d Court surrendered and the bill died after the capitulation was complete. As for the \u201cresistance to its landmark civil rights rulings,\u201d that does describe the Court\u2019s battle against Southern governors in 1957. It also very much describes Shelby County<\/em> and Callais<\/em><\/a>. The essay half-hopes some Sorkin-pilled West Wing<\/em> liberal reads it and decides that objecting to justices taking luxury vacations from litigants puts them on the wrong side of Brown<\/em>. I\u2019m not sure that person exists.<\/p>\n

\n

Taft operated within the system, acting only where he found authorization under the Constitution. Roosevelt, by contrast, saw himself as a direct representative of the people, pushing ahead where he sensed a mandate, even if his actions bumped up against or maybe even beyond the powers of the Executive under the Constitution.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ah. Perhaps Teddy should have declared his actions as \u201cofficial acts\u201d because I hear that automatically makes it legal. <\/p>\n

Roberts praises Taft\u2019s post-presidency book Popular Government<\/em> as \u201ca defense of presidential self-restraint and a critique of excessive use of executive muscle as an end run around the Constitutional design.\u201d It\u2019s hard to read this as anything but wishcasting constitutional order. It\u2019s not that he and his fellow traveler jurists agree<\/em> with facilitating Trump\u2019s abuses \u2014 or so he desperately hopes we believe \u2014 it\u2019s that presidents require<\/em> sweeping, nearly unchecked power so history can properly bestow brownie points when they show self-restraint. <\/p>\n

In an essay sprinkled with gratuitous references to his own legacy, this unintentionally might be the most telling and frightening. While the Framers sought to build institutions to guard against a venal man capturing an imperial presidency, Roberts knocks those guardrails down in favor of a sort of ritualistic presidential asceticism. Like he envisions the American experiment as a string of presidents on a hero\u2019s journey that only properly reveals their moral worth if the temptations are maximized. <\/p>\n

Sometimes that creates a great statesman. Sometimes it lands the Chief Justice in the cuck chair<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Supreme Court Slaughters FTC, Lets Federal Reserve Cook<\/a>
Chief Justice Roberts Explains Why Thomas Paine Would LOVE Presidential Immunity And Troops Patrolling Streets, Actually<\/a>
John Roberts Once Again Uses Judiciary\u2019s Annual Report To Express His Utmost Contempt For The Public<\/a>
John Roberts Dismayed Public Sees Supreme Court As \u2018Political Actors\u2019 Just Because They\u2019re Political Actors<\/a>
Chief Justice Roberts, Welcome To The Cuck Chair<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post John Roberts Uses William Howard Taft To Defend His Own Record, Fails<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Every year, Chief Justice John Roberts sits down and pens a little newsletter to the nation about the big issues facing the judiciary and manages to blow it every single time. Whether he\u2019s rambling about typewriter history<\/a> or spinning Thomas Paine fan-fiction<\/a>, the Chief reliably provides a warmed over Christmas card letter of vapid meditations while the world burns. <\/p>\n

Now he\u2019s gone and gotten a Substack<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Well, not exactly. Roberts contributed an essay on William Howard Taft to In Pursuit<\/em>, a \u201cdebrief\u201d of the American experiment on the occasion of its 250th birthday. A mostly rosy look at the national journey from \u201cdivided government\u201d to \u201cgo ahead and send SEAL Team 6 to murder your rivals.\u201d Presumably, the curators of this project asked Roberts to write about the former chief justice who inspires him most and then scrambled when he turned in a draft about Taft instead of Roger Taney. <\/p>\n

The essay is, by and large, a Wikipedia history of the 27th president-cum-10th chief justice. He hailed from Ohio, he was president, he lost in a three-way fight with Teddy Roosevelt, he sat on the Supreme Court. It\u2019s an unintentionally fitting reminder that the conservative legal movement believes in rooting its decisions in history while simultaneously displaying a superficial grasp of the subject<\/a>. Roberts spends more effort buttering up Taft than staffers did trying to get him out of a bathtub.<\/p>\n

In fairness, Roberts alludes to this by mentioning Taft\u2019s White House weight gain, and eventual slimming before joining the Court. Sort of buries the best part though.<\/p>\n

But what the essay lacks in insight, it makes up for with pointed remarks. The In Pursuit series explicitly instructed contributors to keep it non-partisan, but they didn\u2019t say anything about using the essays to hype yourself:<\/p>\n

\n

To be sure, Taft opinions are few and far between in modern constitutional law casebooks. A notable exception is Myers v. United States<\/em>, which upheld a President\u2019s power to remove executive branch officials.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Six weeks ago, Roberts personally used Trump v. Slaughter<\/em><\/a> to expand the power of presidents to haphazardly remove \u2014 not only executive officials \u2014 but officers serving in independent agencies under statutes with explicit checks against removal. At the time, Roberts called Myers<\/em> a \u201clandmark decision\u201d and \u201cperhaps our best word on the subject.\u201d In reality, Myers<\/em> was a radical departure from established law at the time, and that\u2019s why it got swatted back by Humphrey\u2019s Executor<\/em> a few years later. Roberts took the occasion of honoring Taft to slide in a plug for his decision to kick down a load-bearing pillar of federal governance based on a decision that didn\u2019t last a decade. <\/p>\n

Of note, Roberts does not use this essay\u2019s lionization of Myers<\/em> to explain why it would magically exclude the Federal Reserve from its \u201cbest word on the subject.\u201d Roberts tried and failed to explain that distinction himself when he issued the directly contradictory Slaughter<\/em> and Cook<\/em> opinions on the same day<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Ironically, the In Pursuit project is being quarterbacked by Colleen Shogan, who is only doing this because Trump fired her as Archivist of the United States in February 2025. That role does not have the protections on paper that either Slaughter or Cook enjoyed, but Congress DID see fit to require under 44 U.S.C. \u00a7 2103<\/a> that the President \u201cshall communicate the reasons for any such removal to each House of the Congress.\u201d Just send Congress a memo. That\u2019s it. <\/p>\n

Eighteen months and several<\/a> professional-association letters later, he still hasn\u2019t.<\/p>\n

\n

The enhanced prestige of the Court contributed to the ability of future Chief Justices to stave off challenges to its authority, such as the court packing plan and resistance to its landmark civil rights rulings.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Except, the court packing plan worked<\/em>. The \u201cswitch in time\u201d Court surrendered and the bill died after the capitulation was complete. As for the \u201cresistance to its landmark civil rights rulings,\u201d that does describe the Court\u2019s battle against Southern governors in 1957. It also very much describes Shelby County<\/em> and Callais<\/em><\/a>. The essay half-hopes some Sorkin-pilled West Wing<\/em> liberal reads it and decides that objecting to justices taking luxury vacations from litigants puts them on the wrong side of Brown<\/em>. I\u2019m not sure that person exists.<\/p>\n

\n

Taft operated within the system, acting only where he found authorization under the Constitution. Roosevelt, by contrast, saw himself as a direct representative of the people, pushing ahead where he sensed a mandate, even if his actions bumped up against or maybe even beyond the powers of the Executive under the Constitution.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Ah. Perhaps Teddy should have declared his actions as \u201cofficial acts\u201d because I hear that automatically makes it legal. <\/p>\n

Roberts praises Taft\u2019s post-presidency book Popular Government<\/em> as \u201ca defense of presidential self-restraint and a critique of excessive use of executive muscle as an end run around the Constitutional design.\u201d It\u2019s hard to read this as anything but wishcasting constitutional order. It\u2019s not that he and his fellow traveler jurists agree<\/em> with facilitating Trump\u2019s abuses \u2014 or so he desperately hopes we believe \u2014 it\u2019s that presidents require<\/em> sweeping, nearly unchecked power so history can properly bestow brownie points when they show self-restraint. <\/p>\n

In an essay sprinkled with gratuitous references to his own legacy, this unintentionally might be the most telling and frightening. While the Framers sought to build institutions to guard against a venal man capturing an imperial presidency, Roberts knocks those guardrails down in favor of a sort of ritualistic presidential asceticism. Like he envisions the American experiment as a string of presidents on a hero\u2019s journey that only properly reveals their moral worth if the temptations are maximized. <\/p>\n

Sometimes that creates a great statesman. Sometimes it lands the Chief Justice in the cuck chair<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Earlier<\/strong>: Supreme Court Slaughters FTC, Lets Federal Reserve Cook<\/a>
Chief Justice Roberts Explains Why Thomas Paine Would LOVE Presidential Immunity And Troops Patrolling Streets, Actually<\/a>
John Roberts Once Again Uses Judiciary\u2019s Annual Report To Express His Utmost Contempt For The Public<\/a>
John Roberts Dismayed Public Sees Supreme Court As \u2018Political Actors\u2019 Just Because They\u2019re Political Actors<\/a>
Chief Justice Roberts, Welcome To The Cuck Chair<\/a><\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post John Roberts Uses William Howard Taft To Defend His Own Record, Fails<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Every year, Chief Justice John Roberts sits down and pens a little newsletter to the nation about the big issues facing the judiciary and manages to blow it every single time. Whether he\u2019s rambling about typewriter history or spinning Thomas Paine fan-fiction, the Chief reliably provides a warmed over Christmas card letter of vapid meditations […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-160394","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160394","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=160394"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/160394\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=160394"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=160394"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=160394"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}