Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
MaddowBlog-Why John Roberts' defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive
Justices should consider not only why most believe the high court is motivated by politics, but also their own role in fueling the problem they find offensive.
Why John Roberts’ defense of the Supreme Court was so wildly unpersuasive www.ms.now/rachel-maddo...
— Philly Joe (@joehick58.bsky.social) 2026-05-07T22:39:16.924Z
https://www.ms.now/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/john-roberts-defense-supreme-court-unpersuasive
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is clearly aware of public perceptions related to the high court, though he apparently wants Americans to see him and fellow justices as above the political fray. The Associated Press reported on his latest public remarks:
As part of the same remarks, Roberts went on to argue that sitting justices are not “part of the political process … and I’m not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate.”.....
Why does the public see the justices, as Roberts put it, as “political actors”? It might have something to do with far-right justices issuing regressive and reactionary rulings. And far-right justices getting caught up in indefensible ethics controversies. And far-right justices elevating the presidency above the law.
But I suspect one of the main reasons so many people see justices as “political actors” is the frequency with which they act like political actors. Right around the same time that the public was learning about Roberts’ remarks, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has a track record of chatting with conservative media personalities, appeared on a conservative podcast, talking about his belief that “young conservatives must have courage to stand by their beliefs.”....
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut argued five years ago, “Judges turning into political actors, giving speeches attacking journalists, is terrible for the court and terrible for democracy.” Justices proceeded to ignore the warning.
The tarnishing of the Supreme Court — its credibility, its integrity and its reputation — has unfolded episodically over the course of several years. If Roberts and his brethren want to whine about public reactions to their work, that’s their right, but if they want to help restore the institution’s standing, they have an enormous amount of work to do. To date, they have shown no willingness whatsoever to even acknowledge the causes of the Supreme Court’s problems, much less take steps to address what ails it.
“I think, at a very basic level, people think we’re making policy decisions, we’re saying we think this is how things should be, as opposed to what the law provides,” he said. “I think they view us as purely political actors, which I don’t think is an accurate understanding of what we do.”
His remarks to a conference of judges and lawyers from the 3rd U.S. Circuit in Pennsylvania came at a time of low public confidence in the court, and about a week after the court handed down a decision that hollowed out the Voting Rights Act.
As part of the same remarks, Roberts went on to argue that sitting justices are not “part of the political process … and I’m not sure people grasp that as much as is appropriate.”.....
Why does the public see the justices, as Roberts put it, as “political actors”? It might have something to do with far-right justices issuing regressive and reactionary rulings. And far-right justices getting caught up in indefensible ethics controversies. And far-right justices elevating the presidency above the law.
But I suspect one of the main reasons so many people see justices as “political actors” is the frequency with which they act like political actors. Right around the same time that the public was learning about Roberts’ remarks, Justice Neil Gorsuch, who has a track record of chatting with conservative media personalities, appeared on a conservative podcast, talking about his belief that “young conservatives must have courage to stand by their beliefs.”....
Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut argued five years ago, “Judges turning into political actors, giving speeches attacking journalists, is terrible for the court and terrible for democracy.” Justices proceeded to ignore the warning.
The tarnishing of the Supreme Court — its credibility, its integrity and its reputation — has unfolded episodically over the course of several years. If Roberts and his brethren want to whine about public reactions to their work, that’s their right, but if they want to help restore the institution’s standing, they have an enormous amount of work to do. To date, they have shown no willingness whatsoever to even acknowledge the causes of the Supreme Court’s problems, much less take steps to address what ails it.
Roberts is a racist asshole who has been plotting to overturn or gut the Voting Rights Act since Roberts' days in the Reagan DOJ. I still remember reading the Shelby County opinion and dissent where Roberts gutted Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. That was NOT a legal opinion but a policy decision based on Roberts' belief that there was no longer racial prejudice. Alito's opinion is merely a continuation of the racist policies of the six asshole SCOTUS justices.
7 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
