Staff Reports
Rep. Steve Cohen’s move to file six articles of impeachment against Chief Justice John Roberts is loud, dramatic and, let’s be honest, mostly symbolic. The Tennessee Democrat says the Chief Justice has turned the Supreme Court into a partisan engine and cites recent cases and post‑ruling redistricting as proof. The filing makes a big show of outrage, but it raises a real question conservatives should care about: are we watching accountability or just another political stunt before the lights go out on a retiring congressman?
What Rep. Steve Cohen is charging Chief Justice John Roberts with
Representative Steve Cohen accuses Chief Justice John Roberts of steering the Court into partisan territory, alleging “arbitrary, unexplained, and inconsistent decisions.” The articles point to a string of rulings, including the Court’s presidential‑immunity opinion, and argue the Chief Justice abdicated his duty to administer justice impartially. Cohen, who is a member of the House Judiciary Committee and not seeking re‑election, put those grievances into six formal articles of impeachment. It’s a fierce critique dressed up in legalese, and yes, it reads like a farewell salvo.
How Louisiana v. Callais and Tennessee redistricting figure into the complaint
The filing leans heavily on the Court’s handling of Louisiana v. Callais and the ripple effect that followed. After the decision, Tennessee’s governor called a special session and lawmakers redrew the Memphis‑based district that Rep. Cohen represented, splitting it into multiple districts. Cohen ties the timing and the Court’s approach to doctrines like Purcell to a pattern he says favors Republican interests. Whether that proves a constitutional high crime is another matter — but the argument is built around a real chain of events involving the Supreme Court and state redistricting.
Impeachment is possible, removal is not — and that matters
Let’s be blunt: impeachment of a Supreme Court justice is historically rare and politically brutal. The House can vote to impeach, sure. Conviction and removal, however, require two‑thirds of the Senate — a steep climb. Only one justice has been impeached in U.S. history and he was acquitted. So while Cohen’s filing grabs headlines, it is most likely a political signal, not a path to removal. Even so, the filing drags into daylight real debates about the Court’s role and certain controversial rulings, like the presidential‑immunity decision that placed broad protections around official acts of President Donald Trump.
Why conservatives should not ignore the spectacle
Conservatives should call out grandstanding when they see it. Impeachment should not be a political press release. At the same time, silence isn’t the answer if the Court has drifted from neutral law‑applying to law‑making. Cohen’s action is a messy mix of both: personal politics, protest and a public airing of grievances about the Supreme Court’s direction. The smart conservative response is to defend the judiciary from petty partisan attacks while also pushing for principled, long‑term reforms that restore clear rules and confidence in the Court. After the headlines fade, that’s the work that will matter.
