For years, liberals have been afflicted by “Trump Derangement Syndrome” (TDS) which causes them to devolve into delusional fits of rage at the mere thought of the 45th and 47th president. But the Democrat judges on the Hawaii Supreme Court may be showing early signs of a related brain ailment which might be called “Roberts Derangement Syndrome.”
The primary symptom of this psychological disease, which afflicts left-wing jurists, is disturbed screeds directed at the U.S. Supreme Court – now led by Chief Justice John Roberts. A recent opinion authored by Hawaii Justice Todd Eddins provides a startling glimpse into “RDS” and just how much disdain liberal partisan judges have for the highest court in the land.
The case itself was relatively unremarkable as far as state supreme court cases go. A convicted rapist had challenged a 1990 ruling against him after the Department of Justice admitted in 2017 that the testimony of an agent “overstated the statistical weight” of a “hair and fiber analysis.” The Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that the defendant should receive a new trial due to the unreliability of the evidence cited.
Had the justices stopped there, the opinion would have been nothing more than a run-of-the-mill decision about the role of evidence and testimony that courts normally consider. But instead, the court majority decided to use an additional eight pages of the 80-page ruling to go on an unhinged attack on the U.S. Supreme Court.
That section of the ruling reads more like a rant that your liberal aunt wrote on Facebook with the help of ChatGPT than a well-thought-out opinion by a jurist and law school professor.
It specifically attacks the Supreme Court for rulings protecting religious liberty, the authority of legislators to enact abortion restrictions, and Second Amendment rights. (Just weeks ago, the Supreme Court in a 6-3 decision rebuked Hawaii for a backdoor scheme to prohibit concealed carry.)
The ruling is not a deep dive into complex constitutional issues, but rather an airing of grievances over every Supreme Court decision Eddins does not like.
“We take no guidance on the meaning of due process from a court that gutted due process protections in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Org,” Eddins wrote, along with two other justices. Dobbs was a 2022 decision which overturned Roe v. Wade and returned power to legislate on abortion to the states. It had nothing to do with due process rights for accused criminals.
More egregiously, the Hawaii decision accuses the High Court’s six right-leaning justices of being racists (yes, including black Justice Clarence Thomas) and supporting the abominable Dred Scott Supreme Court decision that denied citizenship rights to freed slaves.
“The Court that now defines federal due process does not honor the work of 1954,” Eddins wrote. “It revives the work of 1857. The work of 1896,” he opined, referring to the Plessy v. Ferguson decision that allowed for “separate but equal” accommodations.
“The Roberts Court sees only white,” Eddins ranted elsewhere. “It refuses to acknowledge who the Equal Protection Clause was written to protect. The freed people, their descendants, and all others denied equal citizenship.” Again, none of this had anything to do with the actual case before the Hawaii Supreme Court.
In the shocking climax to his diatribe, Eddins declared that he will subsequently ignore the U.S. Supreme Court.
Leftists were quick to cheer the opinion, with Slate commentator Mark Joseph Stern praising Eddins for having “guts.” Raw Story also lauded Eddins for saying he won’t listen to the Supreme Court.
However, legal experts criticized the blatantly defiant ruling, which amounts to a direct challenge to the American constitutional system.
Lawyer and president of the Judicial Crisis Network Carrie Severino criticized the Hawaii Supreme Court’s “ongoing disregard for the rulings of the United States Supreme Court,” further calling the ruling “ugly and unhinged” while predicting that “more defiant rulings will follow.”
Center-left law professor Jonathan Turley likewise blasted the “unhinged screed,” calling it a “disgrace to the court and the Hawaii bar.”
Cornell University law professor William Jacobson similarly criticized the ruling as “just an opportunity to unload a pile of CRT-infused venom, hinting at future defiance of SCOTUS.”
He similarly predicted more rulings like this could come from other liberal justices who mold themselves after Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson (KBJ).
“I’ve asserted that one of the reasons KBJ writes her dissents – often alone without Sotomayor or Kagan joining – is that she is creating a body of ‘KBJ law’ that other judges can cite to defy SCOTUS,” he opined.
This has become the modus operandi for the modern-day left. They are frustrated that the current Supreme Court generally respects the Constitution and the rule of law.
Instead of passing laws that conform to the Constitution, leftists are looking for any justification, no matter how flimsy, to defy the Supreme Court and legislate via judicial fiat. When the Supreme Court upholds the Constitution on issues like religious freedom or the right to bear arms, radical activists unleash their contempt and declare themselves above the law.
That is the true threat to “our democracy.”
Editor’s note: The author works for William Jacobson at Legal Insurrection.
Matt Lamb is an AMAC Newsline contributor and associate editor for The College Fix. He previously worked for Students for Life of America, Students for Life Action, and Turning Point USA. He previously interned for Open the Books. His writing has also appeared in the Washington Examiner, The Federalist, LifeSiteNews, Human Life Review, Headline USA, and other outlets. The opinions expressed are his own. Follow him @mattlamb22 on X.
