How Conflicts of Interests and Deep State Cronyism Undermine the Rule of Law, By Charles Taylor (Florida)
Chief Justice John Roberts, the 17th Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court, has recently come under scrutiny for his alleged close relationship with Norm Eisen, a prominent liberal lawyer and activist known for his role in orchestrating legal challenges againstPresident Donald Trump. The controversy, as highlighted in the below, centres on claims that Roberts has been "rubbing elbows" with Eisen, described as a "radical Leftist operative" who has spent years leading lawfare campaigns targeting Trump and his allies. This association has raised questions about Roberts' impartiality, particularly given his position as the head of the nation's highest court, which is expected to remain above partisan politics. Critics argue that this relationship constitutes a conflict of interest severe enough to warrant Roberts' resignation or impeachment.
John Roberts, appointed Chief Justice in 2005 by President George W. Bush, has long been viewed as a centrist on the Supreme Court, often acting as a swing vote in contentious cases. However, his judicial philosophy and decisions have increasingly drawn criticism from conservatives, who accuse him of leaning Left on key issues, such as upholding the Affordable Care Act in 2012 and siding with the liberal justices in cases involving abortion and immigration. The controversy over his ties to Norm Eisen adds fuel to this fire, painting Roberts as potentially compromised by partisan influences.
Norm Eisen, a former Obama administration official and co-founder of the anti-Trump group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), has been a central figure in legal efforts to challenge Trump. Eisen played a key role in Trump's first impeachment in 2019, serving as special counsel to the House Judiciary Committee during the Ukraine inquiry. He has also been linked to numerous lawsuits and investigations targeting Trump, including efforts to disqualify him from office under the 14th Amendment's insurrection clause following the January 6, 2021, Capitol peaceful protest. Eisen's activism extends beyond Trump, as he has been involved in broader progressive causes, often using legal strategies— "lawfare"—to advance political goals.
The specific nature of Roberts' relationship with Eisen remains murky. However, the phrase "rubbing elbows" suggests a level of familiarity or collaboration that critics find inappropriate for a sitting Chief Justice. Given Eisen's high-profile role in anti-Trump legal battles, any association with him could be perceived as undermining Roberts' neutrality, especially in cases involving Trump or related political issues. For example, the Supreme Court has ruled on several Trump-related matters in recent years, including Trump v. United States (2024), which granted former presidents broad immunity for official acts, and cases involving Trump's eligibility to appear on state ballots under the 14th Amendment. Roberts' majority opinion in the immunity case was criticised by liberals for favouring Trump, but conservatives now question whether his ties to Eisen indicate a hidden bias that could influence future rulings.
The controversy also taps into broader concerns about the politicisation of the Supreme Court. Public trust in the Court has plummeted in recent years, with a 2023 Gallup poll showing approval ratings at a historic low of 41%, driven by perceptions of partisanship following decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization (2022), which overturned Roe v. Wade. Roberts, as Chief Justice, has often spoken about the need to maintain the Court's independence and avoid the appearance of political bias. His alleged association with Eisen, a figure so deeply entrenched in partisan legal battles, directly contradicts this stated commitment, fuelling calls for accountability.
John Roberts' apparent relationship with Norm Eisen constitutes a significant conflict of interest that undermines his ability to serve as an impartial judge on the Supreme Court. As Chief Justice, Roberts is not only a judge but also the symbolic head of the federal judiciary, tasked with upholding the integrity of the nation's highest court. His position demands an unimpeachable standard of neutrality, particularly in an era of intense political polarisation.
The appearance of bias erodes public trust in the judiciary. The Supreme Court's legitimacy hinges on its perceived impartiality—unlike elected branches of government, the Court has no democratic mandate and relies on public confidence to enforce its rulings. Roberts' association with Eisen, a known partisan operative, creates a perception of favouritism toward progressive causes, even if no direct evidence of misconduct exists. This is particularly damaging given Eisen's role in anti-Trump lawfare, as the Court is likely to face future cases involving Trump or his political allies, especially with Trump's recent return to power in 2025. For instance, ongoing legal battles over Trump's policies, such as his executive orders on immigration or election integrity, could come before the Court. If Roberts is seen as having ties to a figure like Eisen, his rulings—whether for or against Trump—will be tainted by suspicion of bias, further eroding the Court's credibility.
Roberts' failure to disclose or distance himself from Eisen violates ethical standards expected of federal judges. The Code of Conduct for United States Judges, while not formally binding on Supreme Court justices, provides guidance that justices typically follow. Canon 2 of the Code states that a judge should avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety in all activities. Associating with a partisan activist like Eisen, especially one involved in high-stakes litigation that could reach the Court, clearly breaches this principle. In 2023, the Supreme Court adopted its own Code of Conduct in response to ethics scandals involving justices like Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, who faced criticism for accepting gifts and failing to recuse in cases with potential conflicts. Roberts, as the architect of this new code, should be held to its standards. His refusal to address the Eisen controversy—whether by recusing himself from relevant cases or stepping down—sets a dangerous precedent, suggesting that justices can flout ethical norms without consequence.
The conflict of interest poses a direct threat to the integrity of the Court's decisions. If Roberts has a personal or professional relationship with Eisen, it could influence his judicial philosophy, even subconsciously. For example, Eisen's advocacy for using the 14th Amendment to bar Trump from office aligns with progressive efforts to limit conservative political power. If Roberts shares private discussions with Eisen, he might be exposed to arguments or strategies that shape his views on related cases, compromising his ability to rule impartially. This is not a hypothetical concern—Roberts has already been accused of political manoeuvring, such as his reported efforts to broker a compromise in the Dobbs case to avoid a full overturn of Roe v. Wade. His ties to Eisen only amplify fears that external influences, rather than legal principles, guide his decisions.
Given these concerns, Roberts should resign voluntarily to preserve the Court's integrity. Resignation would allow a new Chief Justice to take over, free from the taint of this controversy, and signal that the judiciary takes conflicts of interest seriously. If Roberts refuses to step down, impeachment becomes a necessary, albeit drastic, option. Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution allows for the impeachment of federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, for "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." While Roberts' actions may not rise to the level of a crime, the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" has historically been interpreted broadly to include behavior that undermines public trust in officeholders. The House Judiciary Committee, which has already investigated other justices for ethics violations, could initiate impeachment proceedings if evidence emerges of deeper ties between Roberts and Eisen, such as financial dealings or direct collaboration on legal strategies.
Critics might argue that calling for Roberts' resignation or impeachment is an overreaction, as no concrete evidence has been presented of wrongdoing. They might also note that justices often have personal relationships with political figures without recusing themselves—Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for example, was openly critical of Trump during the 2016 campaign but did not face impeachment. However, the current climate demands a higher standard. The Supreme Court is under unprecedented scrutiny, and Roberts, as Chief Justice, bears a unique responsibility to lead by example. His failure to address the Eisen controversy head-on—whether by issuing a public statement, recusing himself from relevant cases, or stepping down—only deepens the perception of bias, making resignation or impeachment a justified response.
In conclusion, the controversy over Chief Justice John Roberts' ties to Norm Eisen highlights the fragility of the Supreme Court's reputation in an era of political division. Roberts' association with a partisan operative like Eisen creates a clear conflict of interest, undermining his impartiality and the Court's legitimacy. To restore public trust, Roberts should resign, allowing a new Chief Justice to take over without this baggage. If he refuses, Congress should consider impeachment to hold him accountable and send a message that ethical breaches at the highest levels of the judiciary will not be tolerated. The stakes are too high for the Court to remain mired in scandal, and Roberts' failure to act decisively leaves little choice but to demand his removal.
"Is the Supreme Court Compromised by Deep State Cronyism?
In a bombshell revelation that's sending shockwaves through conservative circles, it turns out Chief Justice John Roberts has been rubbing elbows with none other than Norm Eisen—the radical leftist operative who's spent years orchestrating lawfare campaigns against President Donald Trump and his allies.
According to a report from Revolver News, Roberts didn't just bump into Eisen at a D.C. cocktail party. No, these two are apparently such "good pals" that Roberts jetted off to the Czech Republic for a week-long sleepover at Eisen's lavish 150-room palace.
It's straight from the mouth of Norm Eisen himself—the very same man who practically wrote the Deep State's instruction manual on how to destabilize political opponents via color revolutions, lawfare, and weaponized legal warfare against President Trump.
According to Eisen, during an interview with Pantsuit Politics LLC, Chief Justice Roberts is a longtime friend who joined him overseas to work "on American and European rule-of-law issues."
Eisen: I think part of the solution is to acknowledge John Roberts is not corrupt. I know the chief justice well. He stayed when I was ambassador, stayed under my roof, came and spent a week with us. We worked on American and European rule of law issues together.
And most of the justices are trying to do their best. And they don't see the world exactly the way that I do, but not Clarence Thomas and Alito to a lesser but still troubling extent.
It's a blatant, in-your-face conflict of interest that reeks of elite collusion.
How can the American people expect impartiality from a Chief Justice who shares wine and policy agendas with the puppet masters orchestrating anti-Trump legal assaults?
Norm Eisen is the hatchet man in the current shadow government to take down US President Trump.
Eisen is also the acclaimed expert on 'color revolutions, ' a system used by US intel to overthrow undesirable regimes or unwanted political movements. Eisen and top Democrats and intel experts used this model to take the US election from President Trump in 2020.
Following the 2020 election, Eisen and others famously bragged about using color revolution tactics to rid President Trump of the White House.
Norm Eisen also posted a tweet on X bragging about how he was taking Elon Musk and Doge to court to "impose consequences" for their efforts to cut fraud and spending in the US government.
Eisen accuses Elon Musk of having an office in the White House, no supervising official — as if President Trump is AWOL?
It can be recalled that Chief Justice John Roberts has been linked to an exclusive circle of elite judges and lawyers that includes James Boasberg, Beryl Howell, Amit Mehta, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Chief Justice Roberts released a statement attacking President Donald Trump for calling on these same crooked District judges to be impeached!
It also appears that Chief Justice John Roberts thought quite well of James Boasberg. Roberts appointed Judge Boasberg to serve on the US Foreign Intelligence Court (FISA Court) in 2014.
Boasberg sat on the court when this group of vagabonds allowed the deep state to spy on President Trump, his family, his business, and his administration. Boasberg was part of the group that approved that.
Comments