Roberts invoked Marbury v. Madison to remind the media and the political class that the judges control the rule of law- he got it backwards. The Rules of Law are meant to control judges. The first rule is to stay in your lane!
ST. JOHNS, FLORIDA / ACCESS Newswire / April 1, 2025 / On the first day of 2025, Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. published his annual report. Though cloaked in the language of judicial professionalism, the message was direct and unmistakable: any challenge to the authority of federal courts - especially from a returning president like Donald J. Trump - would be met with full resistance from the judiciary. Roberts invoked Marbury v. Madison, as if to remind the media and the political class that the Courts alone control the rule of law and are free to interpret it in deciding what the constitutional law is, and that questioning the Court's authority is a danger to the Republic itself.
What he didn't say - what he never says - is where that authority comes from.
Marbury v. Madison is the founding myth of judicial supremacy. But like many myths, it's built on a deception. Roberts's invocation of Marbury in his 2024 report wasn't a celebration of the rule of law. It was a warning - and a defense of a political weapon fabricated over two centuries ago by a man who had no constitutional or moral right to claim it.
The real Marbury story isn't about principles. It's about power.
John Marshall was Secretary of State under John Adams when he was nominated to be Chief Justice - the final act of a defeated Federalist president desperate to preserve power after losing to Thomas Jefferson in the 1800 election. Marshall as Secretary of State he failed to deliver judicial commissions - including the one at issue in Marbury - before assuming the bench. Then, once in the robes, he ruled on a case in which he had personally been involved, never recusing himself.
But his ruling was meaningless. Thomas Jefferson's Revolution of 1800 was not just a transfer of power from Federalists to Republicans, but an abolishment of the ideology that the Federalist had rooted judicial supremacy in the new American experiment.
And yet, instead of ruling to enforce the delivery of the commission, he handed down a decision that did nothing - a political opinion with no effect. The Jefferson administration had already denied the appointment, and the law authorizing original jurisdiction had already been repealed. But Marshall used the opportunity to invent a doctrine: that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is."
It was a statement with no legal consequence, no enforcement, no impact - but over time, it became gospel. And today, John Roberts wields it like a judicial sword and the media hailed it a tool to preserve American liberty.
Manuel P. Asensio is the founder of Asensio & Company, the accredited Pioneer of Activist Short Selling, and author of Sold Short: Uncovering Deception in the Markets. He is the Chairman of St. Johns Republican Presidential Committee the GOP's advocate of a new federal judiciary policy. Mr. Asensio is the movant of the nation's first Consideration of national policy making at the US Judicial Conference.
For further information, please email St. Johns GOP at info@stjohnsgop.org or call us at (561) 946-1000. Visit www.stjohnsgop.org and join our email list.
SOURCE: St. Johns Republican Presidential Executive Committee
View the original press release on ACCESS Newswire