During his confirmation hearing, Judge Roberts spoke continually of "seeing" himself as an Umpire, calling legal balls and strikes, rather than a player affecting the outcome of the game. That concept no longer seems applicable, given his actions in a number of his opinions since becoming Chief Justice.
To be fair, Justice Roberts never promised to "be" and umpire but continually referred to how he saw himself...at least during the period of his confirmation. On that basis it isn't possible to say he testified falsely or even that he didn't mean his testimony to be truthful.
But perhaps his testimony provides both a cautionary tale and evidence that we should parse the statements by and sentences of those who testify under oath very carefully. Perhaps even more importantly, the questions posed should be written carefully so they might require answers that are transparently unequivocal.
In Judge Robert's case the proper follow-up question should have been, "...and do you, yourself, testify that this is the manner in which you will perform, if confirmed, as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America, sir?"
That question was never asked. It should have been. And that points out one of the great failings of almost all politicians when on camera, in public view, or campaigning: they don't listen. If the listen, they hear what they want to hear and often they don't listen at all because they are already thinking about their own next question or statement.
Almost all politicians end up like "fence-post turtles" (found from time to time in farming country) seen upside down on top of a fence post: they sure didn't get there on their own, they're totally useless, and they have no idea what to do next to help themselves or others.
What most Judges have in common is the tendency to forget they aren't God. They are part of a system that should be honored. In Judges' cases, they aren't superior to the other parts of Government and need to remember that they are (or SHOULD BE) limited to their assignment...and that is to point out truthfully and accurately failings in our Justice system and in written laws. It is Congress and/or legislatures that have the responsibility to change or correct the laws under which we live, and not for any court to provide a "do-over" or a "correction."
Our Supreme Court is "supreme" only over other courts. It is NOT supreme to the legislature, even though it has the power to rule that a law passed by Congress violates our Constitution; it can stop the application of the law, but it CANNOT and should not ever CORRECT what it (the Court) sees as an error by the Legislature or Congress.
The Supreme Court of the United States is empowered to LIMIT actions by the Chief Executive, the Congress, and of the States to act in ways contrary to the United States Constitutional requirements. It is NOT empowered to REWRITE laws; that is for other branches of government.
It is profoundly unfortunate that Chief Justice Roberts and other members of the Court all to often seem to forget their own limitations in favor of a narcissistic temptations to act as (or in place of) God.
Our Founding Fathers hoped that they were creating a governing entity that divided power in such a way the abuse of power would be prevented. Unfortunately, they apparently (falsely, as it turned out) presumed that elected officials would honor their oath(s) of office and if not, that the people would exercise the power to remove them.
The Founding Fathers did not foresee (and perhaps could not foresee) the elimination of moral conscience and the removal of God and the Ten Commandments from public life. And so we have riots, looting, assaults, disrespect and disowning of "law and order" and the police that would provide that and a "silent" (so far) citizens wonder in the quiet of their homes where the U.S.A. into which they were born has gone, and if it will ever return.
And Chief Justice Roberts now bats clean-up calling his own balls and strikes with no umpire in sight.
