If you didn’t know better, Joan Biskupic’s post at CNN might give rise to a serious concern: why are the judges not condemning this atrocity?

President Donald Trump’s pardon of former Sheriff Joe Arpaio has been widely denounced as another instance of the President’s scorn for the judiciary. Yet one set of voices has been missing: that of Chief Justice John Roberts and the nation’s leading judges.

They have been silent since the beginning, when Trump derided a judge of Mexican heritage during the 2016 presidential campaign and during the furor over an immigrant travel ban early in his presidency when he referred to a “so-called judge.”

Wait, what? Oh my god, she’s right!!! Except this is utter nonsense, as she begs the question by falsely suggesting that judges are politicians who can, or should, show up on the Rachel Maddow Show with furious tears in their eyes for this affront to the Least Dangerous Branch.

That pattern held after Trump’s repudiation Friday of a US district court judge’s conviction of Arpaio for criminal contempt. The July 31 conviction arose from Arpaio’s flagrant defiance of another judge’s orders in a long-running case over the former Maricopa County sheriff’s targeting of Latinos in Arizona.

That’s what makes the current silence in the judiciary especially notable. Arpaio was not convicted of routine criminal misconduct; his disobedience directly challenged judicial integrity and independence.

Pattern? The pattern of judges honoring their ethical and legal duty not to comment without a case and controversy before them? The pattern of not commenting on a case that may come before them? A pattern of not behaving like shilling politicians exposing their feelz, whether sincere or to pander to their constituents, whenever they can get their mug before a spotlight?

There are two levels of falsity reflected in her ridiculously disingenuous post. The second is that judges don’t care, or at least don’t care enough, about what is happening. It’s inconceivable that judges aren’t well aware of, and fully appreciate, the message sent by Trump’s pardon of Arpaio, his disregard for the criminal-contempt authority of the court. After all, the judicial branch is the least powerful, and Trump’s pardon just made that abundantly clear.

But the first level is far more nefarious and destructive. Biskupic has deliberately, because as a legal analyst, she has no excuse for such rank ignorance, informed the public that speaking out on controversial political matters is something judges do. They don’t. They shouldn’t. To suggest otherwise is a lie. For Biskupic to do so makes her a liar.

And if there is any hint that she doesn’t know better, she goes on to offer evidence that judges can, and do, speak out.

Judges on the US district and appeals courts often look to the Supreme Court for guidance. The nine who sit atop the three-tiered federal bench have not voiced their views of Trump since he took office in January. By his conduct, Roberts appears to be signaling that judges should hold off.

This is insanely wrong. The Supreme Court “speaks” through its decisions, not on talk shows or press releases whenever some feelings demand venting. Chief Justice John Roberts is signalling something, that judges should remain judicial, should adhere to the ethics as so many around them, including Biskupic, lose their shit.

But what about the Harold Baer situation?

In contrast to Roberts’ silence, there were times when Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who led the court from 1986 until his 2005 death, publicly defended the judiciary.

During the 1996 presidential election, politicians including Republican nominee Bob Dole lambasted US district court Judge Harold Baer of New York for excluding evidence from a drug case that had been seized by police under questionable circumstances. President Bill Clinton, running for reelection, signaled he might consider asking for Baer’s resignation. Other critics called for Baer’s impeachment.

Judge Baer granted suppression, holding that it was unreasonable to expect Hispanics not to run from police. This raised a shitstorm, with everyone from Clinton to Congress demanding his resignation upon pain of impeachment. This was a frontal assault on the independence of the judiciary to rule as it will without the panderers demanding that judges change their decisions to match their law and order rhetoric or be excommunicated.

Chief Justice Rehnquist did, indeed, defend the assault upon the judiciary’s independence. But the circumstances bore no similarity to the Arpaio pardon, and directly implicated separation of powers and judicial independence. There was nothing whatsoever comparable, despite Biskupic’s lame attempt to compare the two.

But what about Trump’s attack on Judge Gonzalo Curiel? Or Judge James Robart? Certainly that’s more akin to Baer, right?

Last year during the campaign, Trump disparaged US District Court Judge Gonzalo Curiel as the San Diego-based judge was hearing a fraud claim against Trump University. Trump said Curiel, born in Indiana and of Mexican heritage, would not be fair because of Trump’s proposal to build a wall along the southern US border.

After he became President, Trump referred to US District Court Judge James Robart in Washington state as a “so-called judge” when Robart temporarily blocked the administration’s travel ban covering certain Muslim-majority countries. Trump said that “if something happens blame him and the court system.”

Trump was mean to the judges. He disparaged them. How did they not ball up in the corner and cry? Is that what Biskupic would expect judges to do? Ninth Circuit Judge Jay Bybee, in contrast, handled it the way judges do, by using his opinion to torture Trump.

Such criticism prompted US Court of Appeals Judge Jay Bybee of the 9th Circuit to write, without naming Trump, “Such personal attacks treat the court as though it were merely a political forum in which bargaining, compromise, and even intimidation are accepted principles.”

And the Chief Justice still hasn’t appeared on MSNBC, proving not that he doesn’t care, but that he’s a judge. Too bad Biskupic has chosen to mislead the public to believe that this somehow taints the judiciary. It’s a lie.