In a shocking revelation, a recent New York Times article by Jodi Kantor and Adam Liptak has shed light on the role Chief Justice John Roberts played in protecting former President Donald Trump from accountability for his actions. The exposé highlights how Roberts quietly removed Justice Samuel Alito's name from a drafted opinion, replacing it with his own, effectively shielding Trump from federal charges against the January 6 insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol.

The controversy surrounding the Supreme Court's involvement in protecting Trump from facing consequences for his misdeeds adds another layer to the ongoing scrutiny of the Court's impartiality. Despite claims of being an "institutionalist" and a staunch believer in adhering to the rule of law, Roberts' actions paint a damning picture of a biased Court willing to shield the former president.

The revelations have reignited the debate on the nature of the Supreme Court and its role in upholding democratic principles. Many legal experts had not anticipated the Court acting as a "MAGA Court," assuming that it would allow Trump's trial to proceed and potentially yield a unanimous ruling.

However, behind the scenes, Roberts had already made it clear that the Court would grant Trump greater protection from prosecution, as revealed in a memo written by Roberts in February. He selectively edited a quote from a key earlier ruling to favor Trump's case, highlighting a pattern of steering rulings in Trump's favor and isolating certain justices from the decision-making process.

The resulting ruling effectively grants future presidents the ability to flout the law without facing consequences, as long as they collude with other government officials. It has been widely criticized as one of the worst in American history, eroding key democratic protections and tearing at the constitutional fabric that safeguards the nation.

These revelations underscore a broader concern regarding the trajectory of the Supreme Court. Past instances of overreach by the Court, such as the Dred Scott case, have elicited strong reactions and led to significant consequences, such as the Civil War. The recent rulings, including Trump v. United States and the Dobbs abortion rights ruling, may similarly prompt a backlash and a demand for reform.

Calls for an 18-year term limit for Supreme Court justices and a binding code of ethics have gained traction among the public. A recent Fox News poll indicated that 78 percent of respondents support term limits for justices. Critics argue that no individual should hold too much public power for an extended period, and a code of ethics would ensure impartiality and recusal in critical cases.

As revelations continue to come to light, it becomes increasingly apparent that the Supreme Court is a broken institution in need of reform. The actions taken by Roberts and the Court as a whole raise serious concerns about impartiality, accountability, and the erosion of democratic principles. It is crucial to address these issues and restore faith in the highest court of the land.