Government ceremony in a personalist presidency

At the Supreme Court Historical Society annual dinner Monday evening, Chef Justice Roberts gave the traditional toast--"To the President of the United States." People unfamiliar with the dinner and that tradition (including young attorneys and summer associates) were shocked. Supreme Court advocate and former Burger clerk Carter Phillips said it is routine, a show of respect for the office, and that it would have been stranger and more political for Roberts not to follow tradition. My colleague Tom Baker, who shared the story with me, tentatively reaches the same conclusion as Phillips.

I think I agree, but some questions and thoughts:

1) Trump's personalist presidency undermines government ceremony. Trump does not separate himself from the office (or really from the federal government or the U.S. as a whole), thus a toast to the office is a toast to him personally. I am surprised we have not gotten a Truth post in which Trump brags that the Chief Justice loves him so much he is toasting him at official functions. Which, of course, causes people to fear the Chief and the rest of the Court will cave to whatever Trump wants.

2) Perhaps this offers another example of the defects of having the same person as head of state and head of government. Toasting one person as the former, even in a ceremonial manner, looks awkward when the same person as the latter attacks the courts and threatens to ignore and violate (or is actively ignoring and violating) court orders.

3) Why--in a society and event to honor and educate the public about the Court's history--a toast to the President? The Society's executive director did not know the origins. One new trustee says it "underscores the profound respect to the nation's highest office." But is the presidency the nation's highest office? What does "highest" mean in a three-part separation of powers system? It may mean the "head of state," but then see # 2.