As a legal layman I can only say the Chief Justice of the US should be somewhat enigmatic, if he is really deciding cases on their individual merits, right? I don't see the story here.
The Chief Justice of the fascist Supreme Court was appointed as a reward for his political machinations helping to get Bush back into the White House despite losing the election to Al Gore in 2000. And are we supposed to believe that the Supreme Court is apolitical?! Puhleezzze! Roberts presides over a court that, especially with a seat stolen from President Obama’s choice of Merrick Garland and given to Trump's far-right-wing choice of Neil Gorsuch and a right-wing extremist like Kavanaugh, is just perfect for a misogynistic, racist, homophobic, anti-immigrant, right-wing police state. It’s the court of a nation that is hypocritical and a total fraud. A supposedly-democratic nation whose Supreme Court is responsible for Citizens United. A nation founded on the claimed principle that "All men are created equal" but at the same time enslaved an entire race virtually in the same stroke of a pen: the Great Satan and the Evil Empire.
1
I actually appreciate CJ Roberts inner conflict between his ideological skeleton and his desire to uphold the constitution. Tough balancing act when you’ve been trained and indoctrinated all your life as a right wing hard liner. Often these types mellow over time in office to orbit closer to the center that holds. Dont forget he is a product (and i mean that literally) of the (Anti) Federalist Society, the right wing brain factory whose mission is to train super conservative lawyers and get them appointed to as many fderal and state benches as they can. The apple doesnt fall far from the tree.
All by themselves, two decisions -- Citizens United and the Shelby County case -- decisively demonstrate that Roberts couldn't be trusted to umpire a tee-ball game among preschoolers.
1
I was expecting to read a book review. But the time I finished, I realized that I was reading a NYT editorial on Chief Justice Roberts. Notwithstanding its leftward leanings, the Times used to have some semblance of neutrality. Now, even book reviews have become political statements.
An estrangulation in slow motion. This is what it feels like to watch these extremely powerful and conservative mean-spirited men dismantle the safety nets for the women, immigrants, people of color and the poor. Our only hope is for the pendulum to swing back and for decent people, regardless of political leanings, to do right for humanity’s sake. Otherwise our standing on the world’s stage as the leader of the free world will have been a thing of the past.
1
Roberts may have started his tenure as Chief Justice as a right wing conservative but through the years he has been the Republicans, especially Trump, trample the Constitution in favor of personal aggrandisement and egoism. Such egregious actions have alerted Roberts to the dangers of this rightward demagogery to the US.
To this observer it seems that Justice Roberts, like many of the other justices, starts with a desired decision and then works backwards looking for its legal justification. If in Roberts' case we may not always know what his motivation for any decision is, it is wrong when it is not solely the facts presented and a "reasonable" interpretation of the law. Politics, religion, his concerns about the Court's legitimacy, etc. should not be factors.
Supreme Court decisions are not based on the Constitution but on expediency.
A Justice decides what he /she wants and then dredges up some rationale to support their decision.
But justices' views change over time.
I suspect this will happen with Roberts who has his and the Court's legacy in mind.
Some examples.
As Attorney General of California, Earl Warren supported the WW2 Japanese internment as did Justices Hugo Black and William Douglas.
Warren and Douglas later recanted but Black never did.
Warren also as Atty. Gen. advocated exspeling high school students who did not pledge allegiance to the flag.
Black wrote in support of the WW2 internment "We were at war."
That is not an argument based on the Constitution but on expediency.
Similarly in Cohen, Black in the minority in a 5-4 Court decision voted to uphold the obscenity conviction of a young man who wore a shirt that carried the message " [naughty word] the draft".
So much for Black's argument that the first amendment says "No law means no law".
Justice Blackmun evolved to vote for Roe.
Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. modified his "Clear and present danger" views
I think Roberts will similarly evolve.
As more mass killings occur i can see Roberts supporting more gun safety measures.
I see him voting with the 4 liberal justices to require release of the Mueller report.
In the Nixon tapes case 3 Nixon appointees voted in the 8-0 decision to require release.
Peoples' and judges' views evolve over time.
As California Attorney General Earl Warren supported the WW2 Japanese internment and supported expelling school children who refused to pledge allegiance to the flag.
Justice William Douglas later recanted his support of the Japanese internment. So later did Warren.
Justice Blackmun evolved to support Roe.
I believe Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. backed away from his "clear and present danger" position in later decisions.
I see Roberts as primarily concerned about his legacy and the Court's legacy which will moderate his conservative views.
This is simply further proof that our archaic government is dysfunctional. What kind of topsy turvy system allows a freshman to be made head of the Supreme Court?
1
Maybe Roberts is not a racist, but he does seem to vote the way racists prefer. That he is considered a centrist by anybody is shocking for many reasons and reveals the awful differences between stated American values and reality.
I am so disillusioned. I compare the policing of women's health issues to be just as drastic as the policing of society in strictly Moslem countries. I wonder when the right to an education, health care, dignity and ability to fulfill one's dreams became obsolete. We are the industrialized world's least educated society. Our infant mortality statistics are shameful. Now we will deny health care to women and the right to live out of the closet to our gay citizens. A devout Catholic? As devout as the clergy who raped their faithful's children for generations. And Trump is so proud.
3
A leopard cannot change it's spots.
It remains to be seen if Mr. robert's "ardent catholicism" (as another poster here so aptly put it) will (or can) be overhauled by maturity and paying attention to some of the baser trends in American Life (which could bring him a smidgeon of concern for the poor) but my reading is that his life long moralistic catholicism will prompt him to recognize the dangers to the American legal system brought about by the trumpist attacks on that system and the judges who make up that system. Add to that his disgust at the vulgarity of the person occupying the White House and Mr. robert's may, just MAY, get real and come to understand the corruption, venality and decadence of the strong (in other words, the rich). Overlay this with a penchant for protecting the court's reputation and his own yearning for a place in history and we just all might get somewhere down the road to a slightly better world.
1
The legal system in the US, though not as bad as in the non-democratic countries such as Russia and China, certainly CANNOT be considered to dispense UNBIASED judicial verdicts.
The blindfolded lady holding the scale of justice is a JOKE!
This is simply because judges in the US - at ALL levels - are political appointees or get elected (at lower levels) because of their political beliefs.
It is simply INCONCEIVABLE how judges are appointed when they CLEARLY and EXPLICITLY show a political bias. The US legal system simply doesn't care that a judge MUST be apolitical AND unbiased.
This reader strongly believes that ALL political messes in the US have their roots in such a legal dysfunction. This dysfunction will carry on for the foreseeable future.
Well, it seems as if his devout Catholicism has guided his hand in his past decisions. A mean philosophy at the very least. But i'm hoping he equally applies that to the immorality of Trump and holds the line for the good of our Democracy if it becomes the last line of defense.
It's way past time to reform SCOTUS. I like Pete Buttigieg's ideas on reforming SCOTUS in order to make appointments less toxic and more fair.
Cancer deaths in Finland? 11,000
Caner deaths in the Minnesota? 9,000
Minnesota has a larger population than Finland but fewer deaths. Similar demographic.
Roberts might be guided by a fundamental principle that he knows is saving lives every day.
Maybe socialized medicine will cost most of us our lives when full blown antibiotic resistance hits us. Medical research in the U.S. is $51 billion per year. Europe? Only $16 billion and a lot of that is driven by the U.S. market.
When Trump's State of Emergency declaration hits the Supreme Court, we will see if he is on the side of Democracy and the Constitution, or on the side of dismantling said Democracy in return for unbridled power.
1
It's a sad day when America's future depends on the consistent defenders of the powerful like John Roberts and Robert Mueller to have occasional twinges of conscience or enough smarts not to let their fellow right-wing Republicans like Mitch McConnell completely destroy our government's legitimacy. And so many of us just sit waiting to sing their praises for the crumbs they throw us.
2
Chief Justice proved in advance that he is not in the same league as Kavanaugh and trump ! While there is always a case to closely examine the credibility of all the Supreme Court nominees, current Chief Justice Roberts stands taller than the other conservative nominees, certainly Roberts make the stained judicial nomination by a self proclaimed sexual harasser all the more invalid !
Years ago, a respected law school professor told me that ultimately the role of the Supreme Court is to protect the rights of a single individual against all others -- if those rights were essential within the context of a democratic republic -- and to provide justice to that individual.
Perhaps that is a simplified way of expressing the need to uphold individual rights for ALL, but as a broad principle, it is one I look to the Supreme Court to uphold. Sadly, it has failed far too often under Chief Justice Roberts, and I believe he will continue in that vein. Obama read him correctly.
1
I wonder just what Roberts wants his legacy to be. Will he be compared to Justice Taney or William Taft. He certainly is no Warren, or John Marshal.
This court will be rated well below that of most past courts.
2
John Roberts grew up in the Incorporated Village of Long Beach, which is located in Michigan City, Indiana. It is a affluent community, but not as affluent as the word implies. His father was an executive with Bethlehem Steel; my father was an executive with Allis Chalmers. My parents and his parents knew a lot of the same people, although they were not friends (Roberts is four years younger than me).
Long Beach is not conservative, though it is predominately white. Catholics are not the majority -- Presbyterians, Episcopalians, and Congregationalists make up the majority of residents.
Michigan City has a diverse population: besides the three above mentioned mainline Protestant churches, there are Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists and the Church of Latter Day Saints. Also one synagogue and one mosque ( a large community of people from Lebanon and Syria). Residents largely vote Democratic.
Roberts' conservatism comes from his Catholicism, not from the Village of Long Beach where he lived; he still had to come into town to shop, go to the library, eat at the one "top" restaurant (Maxine and Heinie's), swim and play basketball at the "Y", attend the dances at the "Y" and Elston Senior High School and participate in a host of other activities that made up the lives of those of us who grew up there in the 1950's, 60's and 70's.
Or Roberts could view the law as a common law judge saw it at the turn of the 20th century (1900) did--seeing his job not as doing justice in accordance with law, but as applying the law regardless of doing justice. And that the law is simply to decide disputes, and has nothing to do with justice. And the old legal principles are the ones that matter. But how does he choose what legal principles to apply, as litigators know that judge usually has a drawer of principles for each side ? The drawer that enforces what each side brought to the table --power and responsibility. And that people who don't like the dispute they find themselves in should resolve the unhappiness, as President Reagan once famously said, by voting with their feet--walk away.
2
This piece excoriates Roberts for his "heartless" work against "the poor", "gays", "blacks", and others. I love and support these groups too, but that does not mean they should always win in court.
Judges should follow the law wherever it leads, not follow their "heart". Judges should seek justice, and uphold the rule of law, not the interests of favored classes.
Roberts may have, as an undergrad, attended Catholic mass every weekend, and may still.
But if Roberts favors "the strong in opposition to the weak,” then he's not yet understood the Gospel of Christ, much less attempted to live by the teachings of Christ.
12
When religious zealots achieve power, widespread exclusion from the fruits of a nation result. A hierarchy of more valued citizens determine the worthiness, advantage, opportunity and wealth accumulation of every other person in that society. And, they almost always promote the interests of their class.
In his gut, John Roberts knew that the crazy expectations of his caretakers and what he was trained to do against the general welfare of the people was wrong and the resulting knot in his stomach had to be quelled chemically rather than organically because it would entail a searing confrontation and arduous grappling with the truth.
By this process, false selves are conceived to blindly wreak their havoc on everyone else.
2
Roberts is a corporate stooge who was rewarded by Bush for joining the team of right wing legal thugs sent to Florida by the GOP to steal the election from Al Gore. My theory as to why he upheld the ACA (while simultaneously crippling it) was that someone told him he didn’t want to go down in history as the man who took health care away from 35 million people with a stroke of the pen; the death of a thousand cuts was preferable. Other than that, like his hero Reagan, Roberts is a genial faux Christian Koch Brothers Heritage Foundation Cato Institute flunkey who uses his civility to as Obama nicely put it, champion the strong over the weak.
8
i had hoped and still do that as his kids aged they would erode his biases. They are now of an age we will see if my hope comes true.
1
"Roberts, in fact, regularly opposes the rights of blacks, gay people, the poor and other relatively powerless groups. His bias against the weak was on display even in the Obamacare decision, which is often considered his great blow for the common man. While he voted to uphold most of the act, he wrote an opinion striking down, on the flimsiest of constitutional grounds, the Medicaid expansion provision that required states to offer Medicaid to more poor Americans. With that holding, Roberts helped take away health care from millions of the nation’s poorest people."
the author might as well print "left-wing progressive" after his name.
2
Neither the article nor almost any comment mentions what a sure bet Roberts always -- and I mean always -- is for corporate interests against anything else, be it common folks, unions, or government regulations. Check the record.
Talking about his heartlessness toward the downtrodden is accurate, but doesn't fully cover this glaring fact.
6
Now that the Roberts children are adults, can we have some proper reporting about the circumstances of their adoptions? They're both Irish. Ireland does not permit private adoptions. There is a waiting list. There is no way that Roberts and Sullivan were at the top of the list (for two children from separate mothers!). The adoptions were formally done in a Latin American country, with the obvious intent to contravene Irish law.
You didn't need to be a keen judge of character to figure out John Roberts back in 2005, all you had to do was look at his judicial record. How and why everyone chose to ignore the more glaring and easily understood example of Roberts' indifference to laws that deny him his desired outcome represented by his two adorable children is a subject that deserves public consideration.
3
Roberts’ majority opinion on Obamacare read like a dissent: almost as though Roberts cast his deciding vote to preserve Obamacare’s individual mandate at the last minute and/or it was Roberts’ way of sending the signal he was not happy with his decision. I could be wrong, but especially after reading Roberts’ opinion, his enigmatic vote seemed to me a trade: unlimited corporate financing in Citizens United (2010) in exchange for preserving Obamacare (2012).
1
I am one of these people who had to rely at some point on Obamacare to survive. I no longer need the protections of the ACA but I would be forever thankful for the critical vote of Chief Justice Roberts. This is a very strong legacy in my humble opinion...and it trumps the legal, political and cultural discussion about who is John Roberts.
1
The social and political perspective of all five justices who make up the right wing of the Supreme Court has been the product of a strict catholic education. Although one of them shifted his alliance to the Episcopalian Church, his intellectual training was, as that of his four colleagues', within the ultra-conservative circles of the Catholic orthodoxy.
Should it concern us that these five men, all of whom adhere to strict religious views, rule the Supreme Court of our nation and and have for decades been deciding the most transcendental legal issues of our nation.
The current make-up of our Supreme Court should lead us to question the extent to which court decisions, for the most part decisions imposed by these five justices, can be trusted to respect the separation of church and state, the foundation of a democratic society.
7
I don't care about John Roberts.
He is a proponent of this newly politicized right-wing Supreme Court. Dangerous person, setting a dangerous precedent.
He's done little to advance American principles of fairness, equality, human rights, and endemic (birthright) freedoms.
He instead has grossly empowered corporations -- over and above the rights of people.
9
These days the only opinion that seems to matter is that of the Federalist Society .
9
Perhaps, in an odd and indirect way, the immoderation of the Trump area has had a moderating effect on Justice Roberts.
Mr. Trump's unorthodox relationship with the Constitution would pose different mental challenges than during a more normal administration, and could have jarred the otherwise more predictable arc of the Roberts legal philosophy.
2
"In his mid-20s he fought to narrow the reach of the Voting Rights Act, one of the civil rights movement’s crowning achievements."
An auspicious opening act to a career dedicated to disadvantaging the already suffering, forcing bizarre beliefs about the need to deny women from leading their own reproductive lives, packing, politicizing, Catholocizing the court, and sitting like a dummy on the sidelines as his President was denied the right to name his own Justice.
Of course Roberts' crowning achievement, ushering through the lazy, duplicitous, diabolical election decision that gave us Bush the Younger and wrecked America for the ensuing almost twenty years.
Combined with the Stare Decisis Festival of Lies and Bloviation he made of his confirmation hearing, it is painfully clear Roberts is the handsome and unassuming face of a dreadful move to destroy American jurisprudence in order to save it. Its working, except the saving part.
Now he weeps openly that ill-informed partisans believe his political club of a court is somehow partisan.
You can humanize this wee man all you like, he remains an unpatriotic monster of the Right.
8
@oogada "Stare Decisis Festival of Lies and Bloviation he made of his confirmation hearing"
He literally grinned his questioners to death.
2
The chief justice of the Supreme Court is the Catholic Church.
6
This enigma better start changing his stripes and reveal himself to be a moral follower of our constitution.For starters repeal Citizens United.You know perfectly well that the rule is I vote per citizen and you bloody well know that corporations are NOT people.Get a grip on yourself Justice Roberts because right now you look like a partisan hack.Do you want to be remembered as immoral and spineless???Cute pic of you and your son..will he have air to breath and clean water to drink???
10
Roberts knows his decisions are important because at this point he understands that if he is to keep his job the so called "united States" has to continue to exist as a country. That is not at all a certainty.
5
More fine NYT journalism. Thank you.
1
Bias alert — Chief Justice Roberts views on voting rights are not “continuing the war on voting rights.”
2
what should be highlighted in the first place is the historical revision factor and the reader's own consciousness being protected. Why protected? Because someone could lie. And in no lie, there is the factor that in 2005 what does not look like young adults and middle-aged adults were feverish in developing the nationalist protection of each country. Only then? Maybe not, maybe yes. But in this nationalist defense she is contained in the feverish of many times in the open hours to be studying sciences not related their sciences to understand better the around and the problem that each one had to defend, plus the nationalism. Urban psychology, rural psychology that has a perception of modification. And other items that worried each country. The disappointment of systems consequent to phenomenology has not yet been clearly explained in books. The effects of 1969, 1976, 1986, 1992, 1999 (the Tunisian effect that European journalists define as important in everyone's life, a Saddam hussein-type populism began in the world) and the final phenomenology that is disappointment of consent return by society in general to all continents, and as a consequence to the neglect of the request the continuation of phenomelogy of years cited for the years 2009, and 2012 the general chaos. In the midst of all this far in our consciousness was the information that the Capitol had an expectation of presence in projects.
Cont. How this was heard on the street... Today in a newspaper of renowned confirmation, for a nomination of Head of Dept there existed a bench of 320 seats more or less, the value of 1 third interested to the risk of the nomination. The presentation in 2005 is that it was not known why, the presence always redounded to a third of presentation most of the time. Something interesting to present to the public that trusts in its Capitol. The sincerity.
Soon the criticism of the nomination will be true if they did not like it after the nomination. Because? A 1-third nomination, she's interesting.
At last the praise to the United States of America. It has been publicly communicated to a newspaper of respect in the world that a head of the United States Dept of Justice in its history has had its nomination to only one-third of the representatives of the people. Two things will remain for history. One day someone came in with only a third (and if he had the other two thirds?). And the other Democracy still exists for historians, readers and sociologists to analyze the moment. There are countries that have not been so lucky. They have historical lapses.
Now I will be sincere, I went to geology at the university in 90 and my maternal grandfather, asked to see the phenomenology in the middle of the entrance party, and in one of these phenomenologies, he lost his wife in 74. He passed away in 92.
Roberts' vote to uphold the gist of Obamacare is an exception proving the norm—in Citizens United, Obergefell v. Hodges, the gutting of the Voting Rights Act, and predilection for minimizing the rights of people of color, the poor, and other powerless groups.
With Chief Justice Roberts isolated vote siding with the liberal judges, the hope among centrist, pro-choice, left-leaning, and liberal Americans is that Roberts may yet validate the wish-dream that he isn't the doctrinaire conservative he is. That's naïve and a setup for disappointment.
Roberts' seeming desire to protect the integrity and credibility of the court isn't as strong as his conservative CV confirms his political and social beliefs.
A most urgent reason to defeat Donald Trump next year and elect a Democrat president and a Democratic majority in the Senate is the Supreme Court and the appointment and seating of its justices.
4
John Roberts is unquestionably a conservative, both politically and judicially (as if there is difference) and I did not expect him to be the swing vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act. But he was. Anthony Kennedy had been viewed by many as the swing justice because of his views on gay rights and a center-right view on abortion, but Kennedy was no O'Connor; he had a subpar legal mind, and there were regular demonstrations of atrocious logic in Kennedy opinions (Gustafson v. Alloyd, on the meaning of "prospectus" might be the most poorly reasoned legal decision I've ever read, and there's plenty of competition out there). What John Roberts has is a first-rate legal mind, and maybe the longer he is separated from being a political partisan, and instead the Chief Justice of the SCOTUS, he will recognize the importance of his role and of reasoning over ideology. We've seen it several times, and I'm hoping for more, while at the same time, I know I'm going to be disappointed often.
4
I don't understand how a self-interested tool of the Koch brothers is all that much of an "enigma." His votes are completely predictable based on whether the issue at hand is pro or con wingnut. Pro = yes, con = no.
Shelby and Sebelius are just two of the most egregious embarrassments and have absolutely no justification in the Constitution or precedent. Unless you're a political hack.
4
Is it just me, or does the photo of Justice Roberts in a suit greeting his son who is also in a suit albeit one with shorts, stand for the ruling class that has everything to gain from a right wing court.
9
With that holding, Roberts helped take away health care from millions of the nation’s poorest people.
One sick individual.
6
My enigma would be WHAT is the Chief Justice? "Roberts’s deep-seated bias against the weak, which rings powerfully true," paints him as vile, heartless and unjustly BIASED.
5
The greatest of thinkers are usually free thinkers. They may be theists but they are not members of the organised religions, which do your thinking for you.
Exceptions exist. Tolkien, in my view the greatest storyteller in the English language since Dickens, was a Roman Catholic. As was Graham Greene towards the end, as was Evelyn Waugh.
But Nobel physicists and Fields Prize winners in mathematics tend not to be observant church or synagogue goers.
The organised religions are not into subtlety or individual choice. This is how it is, they proclaim. Like it or leave it. Conform or be expelled.
The Roman Catholic Church does your thinking for you. It even does your reading for you. Until a century ago, most lay Roman Catholics were at best semi-literate. The Mass was conducted in ecclesiastical Latin, which few could understand. Unlike Protestants, few Roman Catholics had a Bible in their vernacular, which they read and could understand. The thinking was that you didn't need to think for yourself. It had been done for you.
Most devout Roman Catholics are conservative on sexual identity, on marriage, and on sexual behaviour. They follow the teachings of the Church — except, of course, when it's inconvenient, for example on contraception or divorce.
Roberts is the product of his religious upbringing, and of his commitment to the unshakeable dogma of his organised religion. He is what he is.
4
You will never find anything critical about the Court or its Justices in the work of a Supreme Court reporter, and Biskupic's books show this to be true. They share the Court's self-image as a place where dedicated legal scholars with different philosophies harmonize their analyses of legal questions to reach reasoned results in cases chosen on the basis of objective criteria.
In fact, the decisions on which cases to take are highly political and neither the logic nor the voting is disclosed. In cases such as those involving Seattle public school desegregation, the Voting Rights Act and campaign finance, Chief Justice Roberts accepted cases which did not meet the usual criteria and then wrote majority opinions overturning accepted law in line with Federalist Society thinking. In the Obamacare cases, while he did uphold the tax on uninsured people, he struck down the parts which relied on interstate commerce, made Medicare funding subject to Obamacare regulations, and which required the provision of reproductive health services.
By keeping its docket small and taking mostly nit-picking cases, the Court is trying to reduce its exposure but allow itself 2 or 3 ideologically divisive cases per year. In the meantime the criminal and immigration courts and jails have become completely inhuman; financial services cases all go against the consumer; and public services are being provided by religious organizations applying religious criteria.
9
If there is one individual with a defined role in our system of government who should be beyond political influence it is the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. For some number of years John Roberts has seemed to me to be our democracy's last best hope if their is one. I cannot think of a more weighty office after that of President. John Roberts is for all of us the most influential of the arbiters for our democracy. He stands between our current adherence to the rule of law with power sharing and a takeover of our country by a party of a minority of our citizens. John Roberts must be a jurist first and protect his institution and this nation of laws. I refuse to yield to cynicism. My hopes for our country are in Justice Roberts who has this progressive's respect. When I heard Bret Kavanaugh's tirade against his perceived Democratic Party persecutors I was shocked and could only conclude he was a strict partisan. I am still shaken by his behavior. I can only hope the Chief Justice had some similar reaction and is watching for the dangers that may be present.
3
Slanted.
Perhaps he just applies the law and Constitution as they were enacted and ratified? And if that seems to trend in one political direction it is because the other direction has been stretching them in its favor?
Criticism of the Court (and reviews of books about it) should be made on grounds of legal philosophy, not on grounds of who benefits.
It is not enough to be rich, powerful, and privileged. Evidence of those less so is validating, and hence the need to create and maintain more of them.
I once worked at a Vegas hotel that built a casino room limited to only high rollers. It never drew many people and closed down after a few months. The post mortem was, the high rollers wanted the average gamblers to see them. Since there were none around, there was no reason to be there.
1
@George. I think this is brilliant. People brag to people who don’t have - they don’t do it to people on their level. The people below are the validations — creepy stuff.
1
I am always dumbstruck when narrow interpretation overrides the reason we have a legal system at all. To me, that should be paramount in any deliberative process. If it is legally possible to interpret the Constitution as protecting rights, often from the tyranny of the majority as designed, why is that not the central guiding light in Supreme Court decisions? There are all sorts of laws allowing people on the right to live life as they see fit and those laws never seem to be under threat. But it is Justices who use their position to write an opinion that limits the rights of everyone else, while other Justices with the same training see an opening to uphold rights, who are the activists, undermining the reason we have laws in the first place.
It is the same as the perversion of the Second Amendment by ditching half of it. And it is the same as the perversion of the design of the Electoral College we have been seeing lately. Part of its purpose was to prevent inflicting an ill-prepared President voted in by a majority on the United States, not to rubber stamp one chosen by a minority of voters.
7
For families like the Robertses, and mine, I wish the Times would lose the adjective "adopted" before the word "children." Our children are our children. "Adopted" continues a stigma.
1
This piece is technically a "Book Review" but only three of its eighteen paragraphs contain any reference at all to Joan Biskupic's new book. Adam Cohen is entitled to his opinions on John Roberts, but he didn't really do much to help me figure out if I should read Biskupic's book. I am surprised that this 'review' made all the way to publication without somebody at the NYT noticing that it neglected to actually review the book.
This is an essay, not a book review. It seems the author had no access to Roberts himself. But who did she get to cooperate? OK, so he's an enigma. Are there any clues in the book as to why? Any Rosebud. I wish Cohen had spent more time on the book itself, and less on his views of the court.
He is not an enigma
His life's work and his opinions have given us a good understanding of who he is.
1
It’s interesting that the Times has published two book reviews on SCOTUS justices on successive days, first O’Connor and now Roberts.
Both justices legacies will be judged on their votes on a single case;
for O’Connor it’s Bush v Gore with all its disastrous sequelae for our country, not to mention the world,
and with Roberts, so far, it will be Shelby County which ushered in a new era of Jim Crow voting barriers for blacks in the South.
And by the way, Roberts didn’t save the ACA, he just consigned it to death by a thousand cuts.
12
Justice Roberts was born in Buffalo in 1955, and subsequently moved with his family to Long Beach, Indiana, while in fourth grade, when his father transferred from Bethlehem Steel's Lackawanna plant to the Burns Harbor, Indiana, plant. As such, he lived in New York State for the first five years of Nelson Rockefeller's long stretch as governor. Perhaps Roberts is a "Rockefeller Republican" at heart.
1
Clarence Thomas sounds like he is in a panic or maybe just beside himself with anticipation or frustration that all the rotten things that he most wants done are just within his grasp or just outside his reach. I don't know which.
Samuel Alito just wants his agenda fulfilled. He doesn't care how it is done. There isn't even a pretense. Any argument will do. To me he is the worst of the lot. But I definitely wouldn't argue against anyone else's choice.
Gorsuch is logic chopping, literal minded, cold hearted and mean. If he can add an extra twist of the knife to any hateful decision he will do it.
Kavanaugh has a sordid history. Like Gorsuch he seems to have an added streak of cruelty in him. But possibly there is something there that can be reached. He seems less frozen more unhinged. Whether that is good or bad or even true time will tell
Roberts seems to me like he has lived in a bubble. Silly, literal minded, trapped by arguments that have no real relationship to anything real. It seems there is some faint glimmer of awareness dawning on him that the world he is stuck in might not be the only reality there is. Or more that there is a reality outside the constricted very narrow world he has always been a part of.
15
A sobering assessment, and one wonders whether Democratic control of all other branches of government would suffice to achieve a counterbalance to this Court which can arbitrarily declare any law passed by Congress and signed by the President “unconstitutional” and thereby vitiate it.
3
It always seems wrong that a majority--a supermajority--of the court should be populated by adherents of one religion, and that religion consistently uses the courts and the force of law to legislate its dogma.
7
@mike Which religion? Not that it matters. What's even more wrong is to make a judge's religion into the discussion. Anti-Semites always bark about how the court is "stacked" with Jews, and how disproportionate that is to the number of Jews in America. That's wrong, as is this comment.
I wonder if Roberts' wealth has any influence on his economic and legal positions. A few years ago I read the annual financial statements of all the Supreme Court justices, which had just been made public. Each Justice's report listed all his/her stock holdings. Roberts's stock holdings report went on for many pages. My thinking was that he must spend a great deal of time buying and selling stocks and building and tending to his extensive portfolio. Might his judicial decisions be at all influenced by his stock portfolio? Or does he have to put all his holdings in a blind trust, as President Obama did and leave it to his broker to manage his portfolio?
In what way can a Chief Justice "protect" the institution of the Supreme Court, when his record is one of "'far more often...(using) his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak?'"
Maybe in Trump world. Twitter world?
Real world? No.
4
Just about half way through "Hamilton". I tried to put myself in the midst of those who wrote the Constitution both the advocates for a strong and weak central government. Truth be told, those that drew up the document felt it was an experiment and would not last. I did last over two centuries with amendments. It's not a perfect document so courts to have tried to put some thought into it as what the framers words and thoughts were in 1787. Human beings don't have that ability. So interpretation of the Constitution rests with the ideology of the judges. From Chief Justice Roberts upbringing it's a stretch to imagine him other than a conservative in all matters. I wonder if he carries around Pepto Bismol.
she suggests that he is pulled by two often-conflicting instincts. One is ideological... The other is institutional: an interest in the court being respected and seen as nonpolitical.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
And with the latter he has failed miserably if fact, doing exactly the opposit.
"supreme" Court, indeed. He's turned it into and ideological instrument of the right wing.
10
Like essentially all of the American judiciary, Chief Justice Roberts is mentally obsolete, as revealed by his characterization of the plaintiff's statistics-based key argument in the Whitford gerrymandering case as "sociological gobbledygook." If the rest of the justices also have the mental equipment of a 1950s non-STEM person, good luck to all of us if the Court ever has to hear argument about almost any of the sci-tech developments since 1995.
9
@J P
If you had bothered to read (and understand) the opinion in that case, you would know that his criticism is not based on the use of statistics in general, but on the fact that the plaintiffs simply tried to use an illogical, numbers-soup based approach, rather than one that used statistics to make a logical, coherent argument. You may want to upgrade your own "mental equipment."
3
A life of John Roberts, and Opus Dei does not appear in the Index?
15
Is he carrying a concealed handgun in lower back holster?
@just wondering
Good catch.
@just wondering
Maybe it's a pocket size copy of the Constitution.
1
Roberts is correct. He only calls balls and strikes. However, the balls are mainly to the left while the strikes are largely to the right. So much for sports metaphors.
9
OK, so this really says nothing.
4
I wish Roberts cared more about other people, but if concern for the reputation of the Court causes him to moderate the Court's rulings, then that is better than nothing.
3
A lesbian is not a person, but a corporation is?
23
Only in the current environment in this country could the words "moderate" and "Roberts" be used in tandem. This pious man spews forth hate against the powerless and less fortunate in society at every turn. His support of Citizens United and the evisceration of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 should lead him to the confessional booth.
21
I guess all those masses he attended never sank in. How these”catholic” judges, Alito, Thomas, can call themselves good Catholics still boggles my mind. Hypocrisy at its apex.
31
I call them Old Testamites. They believe in hellfire. The Sermon on the Mount? Fogetaboutit.
16
We're about to find out how much of a "moderate" Roberts is. Two gerrymandering cases, the most significant in 50 years, will be argued next week. The strict reading of the Constitution favored by Thomas, Kavanaugh, et. al. would dictate that states are free to draw districts as they please, as long as they're not racially biased and conform to one-person-one-vote. The liberal view is that it's unfair, even if it's not illegal, the court should stop it. The decision will boil down to the judgement of 9 people. Which way does Roberts lean this time?
109
@Ken L
He leans and pushes to the right. This is after all the republican racist right wing religious Subprime Court.
13
@Ken L
I am hoping the Chief Justice is determined to blunt all the opinions in all cases of Kavanaugh, the leader of the hyena pack !
3
@wanderer
To ask the question is answering it.
Roberts is a stubborn rightist, a pro-Republican judge, period.
Citizens United will stay as an indelible stain on his legacy. Such an absurd rationale for a scandalous decision...
7
All the bombast and bluster of Originalism's loudest proponents fails to deliver on its promise. The man is a hypocrite no matter how you slice him. I suppose we should be thankful that we do not yet have a Pence-like SCOTUS.
13
California Chief Justice Rose Bird was a justice writer would have loved. Rather, than an 'umpire' her job was to administer 'deep-pocket' justice that sized up the relative wealth of those before her court and took from the rich to give to the poor rather than any reliance on the 'rule of law.' The result was a surge in insurance premiums given that no one had any idea how the Bird Court would decide the next case since the law was whatever she and her fellow justice warriors decided it was on any given day. In the end, the very liberal voters removed her and two other justices from the bench.
7
This man is a fiendish opponent of democracy and civil rights. With the arrogance of a stealth bomber he has attacked political equality and sought to transform the US into a plutocracy. Unfortunately he has been extremely successful in his manipulations of law in order to achieve his ends: the wrecking of American democracy.
17
If Roberts were really concerned about the Court’s standing with the public, he would not be as unconcerned as he is with the effects of Citizens United, which is hugely unpopular with a large majority of Americans. Its consequences have been nothing short of disastrous, and Roberts had a major part in pushing this ruling beyond the claims of the plaintiffs.
26
@Geoffrey James
It is in the case of CU, but not only there, that Roberts established himself as a fierce opponent of democracy.
13
Roberts an enigma, hardly. From his overturning of the Voting Rights Act, to Citizens-United, Roberts has put his blessing on the sale of US government to the highest bidder by restricting certain voters and enabling unlimited money in politics. Even his vote for Obamacare was a great gift to the health insurance industry of tax dollars and customers. His position always follows big money, the oligarchy.
Where's the enigma?
26
The comment of B. Franklin on exiting the signing of the US Constitution. "A Republic, if you can keep it." He was sort of old at the time and grumpy but it chills my blood to think of how fragile our national fabric is.
9
An enigma???!!!
When a mildly informed person, not legally trained, can predict how Roberts will vote 90% of the time, it's preposterous to call him an enigma.
He is a down-the-middle corporatist with no appreciable belief that compassion or real-life impacts should inform his legal views, which are wooden and lifeless.
Equally, his leadership in the surge of court rulings advocating the pseudo-persecution claimed by evangelicals (eg, Hobby Lobby) to justify claims for the First Amendment protection of their religious "freedoms" is also entirely as expected.
Everyone knows this. The Federalist Society types and the evangelical right like the goodies they get. Those who view general social welfare and the non-establishment of a particular religion as more important Constitutional principles, hate it.
With very few exceptions, we all know where he stands.
24
@Gregg54: An "establishment of religion" is a faith based belief, in the same sense that gravity is an establishment of physics. Establishment is ontology, how things come to be believed. Congress is denied power to treat any faith-based belief as a proven fact in legislation by the Establishment Clause.
I don't respect people who claim to be "originalists" who don't actually follow how authors of a particular time used words.
3
This review was more about the reviewer's personal bias to Roberts than it was about the author's book. Totally pointless to the potential reader
10
Proof positive of the existence of pre-Trumpian Deplorables.
1
Roberts will be infamous, as will all the Republicans from this era that supported white nationalism. He will never personally suffer, rich white guys like him rarely do, but his children and grandchildren will hear the echoes of his heartless inhumanity and I can only hope he recognizes his place in history for what he has made it.
3
@Mcacho38 I'm no fan of Roberts or of the rightward lurch of the court, but it is patently false that he has supported white nationalism as a jurist. His decisions in Citizens United and Shelby v. Holder were, in my mind, wrongly decided, but they were animated by an ideologically coherent reading of the Constitution (again, one I firmly disagree with). But to claim he's a white nationalist trivializes the very real incursion of racial antipathy into the executive (by way of Trump) and the Congress (by way of the Tea Party, Steve King, and enablers like Mitch McConnell), depriving deserved accusations of racial animus of moral clarity.
3
Chief Justice Roberts may be considered an enigma, but in that photo of him and his son, Jack, running towards him with wide open arms, it is very reminiscent of the JFK days in which many family photos were taken of our Jack and his beautiful son, John-John and Caroline.
Fantastic photo. Fantastic moment.
12
"Roberts, in fact, regularly opposes the rights of blacks, gay people, the poor and other relatively powerless groups."
Roberts is true to himself. He fears blacks, gay people and the poor because they threaten his rigid views of religion and morality. Roberts is afraid that if shares wealth and improves the life and lives of the poor and other minorities it will diminish his personal power and his station in life. So, he votes against civil rights, health care, medicaid expansion, gay rights, abortion, and anything else that may threaten his security. Money rubs off but power is never shared. Roberts will never share power and authority with the great masses of the powerless.
There is no enigma here. Just a fearful, lonely man desperately trying to maintain white supremacy and rigid Christian morality. As for his assertion that he is an umpire/ judge, merely interpreting rules while not making them, that is a boldfaced lie. Roberts exerts his power and will interpret every law that threatens his views. He is indeed "heartless". And a white-purist-racist hiding under a black robe.
23
Great review. That Biskupic apparently concludes that Roberts' jurisprudence is undecipherable makes her book unessential.
JR's bio and record are widely reported; no mystery there. The great question about Roberts is whether he is some legal grandmaster always cognizant of his endgame. While Alito and Thomas whine whenever in the minority, griping over every defeat, Roberts is patient and willing to sacrifice a piece or two, like with the 2012 Obamacare decision. The more apt metaphor may be go rather than chess, but the question is whether Roberts is very gradually constructing a jurisprudence that makes ever more conservative Supreme Court decisions almost inevitable.
5
Roberts is an enigma. In the current administration, he is even more so.
I don't doubt his earnest desire to simply apply the law. But the Trump administration would seem to have recalculated his philosophy.
I admire Justice Roberts redoubtable legal scholarship. I have disagreed with many of his opinions. I am happy he sees Trump as a threat to the country.
3
I was a registered Republican for 45 years until the party walked off a cliff in support of Trump. I'm now a registered Democrat. The data might suggest that something subtly analagous happened to the Chief Justice. People often grow into their new role after donning the vestments of office--just look at Henry II's drinking buddy Thomas Becket, Henry VIII's loyal Lord Chancellor Thomas More, and Ike's Chief Justice pick Earl Warren, whom he was assured was a dependable conservative. I suspect Roberts will relish the opportunity that being both Chief Justice and swing vote will give him to earn a place in the history books. Like John Marshall, Roberts may be more consequential than anyone before and anyone long after he is gone.
149
@Chris Wyser-Pratte Hope springs eternal...
22
@Chris Wyser-Pratte Robert's justice is obviously biased as is his self interest; you could be right.
8
@Chris Wyser-Pratte...welcome to the DNC.Is your father Guy??
1
One of the hallmarks of right wing and conservative republicans is the desire to make life hard for the weak -- that is the dark-skinned, immigrants, people of non-Christian religions, the poor, etc. -- while being solicitous of the well off and well connected. It is not a surprise that this seems to be the key to understanding Roberts decisions.
I am glad that a new biography of the Chief Justice has been published; we need more books about the right-wing justices written by legal scholars who can explain their decisions. Often times it seems to me that all of their talk of "originalism" "textualism" "strict construction" is just a smoke screen. The right wing justices decide on the basis of their biases and prejudices then cover it up with mumbo jumbo about legal "principles." Often times they just vote to support the powerful and make things tough for the weak.
12
How predictable can this article be? From the one-sided slant review of Roberts's record to the comment about Obama being a "keen judge of character"--PLEASE! Can we remember for a second the Evangelical Minister whom Obama placed front and center during the inauguration or that he failed to support gay right to marriage for a large portion of his first term? I would like someone to ask Posner today what he thinks of Roberts. Someone ask RBG. Such a load of you know what, this article.
4
Justices sometimes understand that the only role of the court - as an institution - is to preserve its strength - another word for its credibility - while recognizing that every citizen shares an interest in being protected from the mob-like tyranny of the majority. Ironically, Roberts may get it even though his mentor Rehnquist never did.
47
@Allan Holmes
"every citizen shares an interest in being protected from the mob-like tyranny of the majority"
Or even worse the mob-like tyranny of the minority.
10
I'm going to walk on the opposite side of the street than the commenters here and bet that more of Roberts' decisions reflect his Obamacare stance.
There's a difference between being a Reagan-Bush Republican and a Trump supporter. Roberts' declaration, opposing another stupid Trump tweet about "Obama judges" also confirms to me that he is going to carefully weigh the effect of his court's decisions on the country.
His ardent Catholicism means he's lost when it comes to protecting the reproductive rights of women. Other controversial decisions are really quite straightforward -- the president clearly has a right to make sweeping decisions on visa matters as to who is permitted to enter the country. Anyone who expected Roberts, or indeed the court, to say the president can't take the position he did understands neither the court nor the executive branch.
He's not going to change his stripes. But he's a very clever man -- his reframing of the Obamacare decision shows that. This kind of legal legerdemain will be forthcoming on more decisions, I think, that Roberts feels could undermine the authority of the court when it acts in a way that is perceived as acting contrary to the intent of Congress -- the branch our Founding Fathers clearly saw as most in tune with the wishes of the people.
68
@DD:
Your premise is that Roberts may be politically neutral or fair, simply because he has disagreed with trump.
This is a dangerous assumption. Everyone of consequence can see that trump is not a thinking person, and rarely has informed ideas. So Roberts' disagreeing with the imbecile does not mean Roberts is "fair-minded". He may be a mostly right-wing conservative justice, who does not agree with this fake-republican imbecile president.
8
@DD I sure hope he also considers that depending on who wins the presidency next, Dems might try to stack the supreme court. Hooefully the threat of that is enough to keep him from making too many radically right calls. Arguably the threat of stacking the court worked well for fdr
3
@DD
"Congress -- the branch our Founding Fathers clearly saw as most in tune with the wishes of the people"
If you think the Senate is in tune with the wishes of the people, you're not paying attention. The republicans are in full repression mode.
Our only hope of saving democracy and weakening the strong hold of the oligarchs is for the people to step up and vote the republicans out of office; otherwise the future is dire.
15
Robert's is a product of The Federalist Society ilk. These folk have a very conservative reading of the Constitution and believe changes to it should only come in amendments to the Constitution, and an expansion of the rights of it provides, not the Legislative branch or a Justice's whims. The right for a woman to vote is in the Constitution via the 19th Amendment, the right to a woman's control to her body is not.
Robert's analogy of likening the performance of a judge sworn to uphold the law to that of an umpire upholding the rules sent a chill down my spine because the adjudication of the law is much more than that. It is the ability to see if a law is just or unjust: Does that law allow the minority to tyrannize the majority? Does the law protect the rights of the minority against the adverse wishes of the majority?
Scalia's ridiculous reading of the 2nd amendment to subvert an operative clause was his Federalist interpretation of that amendment. In recent decisions about the 1st amendment religions clause we are witnessing a similar reinterpretation and shift from allowing an individual or class to be free from the religious beliefs of others to allowing an individual to discriminate on the basis of "religious freedom".
The enigma Robert's is, is terrifying in its uncertainty.
146
@PGJ
"Just or unjust"? What Constitution are you consulting? The "Constitution for Idiots" book studied by that "little, obnoxious twit" (Sandy the bartender from the Bronx)? Actually, Sandy is from Westchester, not the Bronx. But don't dare remind the twit of that inconvenient fact! She'll put you on her list!
@PGJ The second sentence of your first paragraph should be the focus of discussion here. Whatever is on one’s legislative wish list should be viewed in a Constitutional context. The amendment process is the means to rectify when Constitutional sanction is not clear. This should not be attempted by name calling or characterizing opponents as racist or insensitive.
Obamacare should have been a classic Tenth Amendment case, inasmuch as it was a grievous assault on federalism, and also because it’s redistributive aspects violated both the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments.
@red sox 9
Your comment does not recognize an intelligent and perceptive analysis by @PGJ. "IS the law unjust?" is extremely important to marginalized groups and those of us who don't see much justice in numerous bad decisions. Equal rights and protections for the weak are bedrock American values. It's disheartening to see Justices who ignore that. An umpire without a heart will not protect the freedoms the marginalized believe are the true core of the American dream.
11
It is not hard to understand Roberts. With 4 justices always voting right and 4 justices always voting left, the man in the middle, the swing voter gets to write all the laws. With Congress and the Executive branch hopelessly gridlocked, this position becomes even more important. Justice Kennedy filled this swing position and Roberts realized that Kennedy used that to put his name in history books by writing more opinions than most other justices. Kennedy also spawned a mini cottage industry in the media and Judicial circles by them trying to predict which way he would vote. The way to understand US supreme court is that they are all politicians and they seek the limelight and glory above everything else.
74
@Rahul No, I am sorry. That sentiment is just too sad, cynical, and oversimplified. The Justices are not politicians, nor do they have any interest in being politicians. Theirs is a lifetime appointment. What is the upside of being a puppet?
8
@Rahul
You call them "politicians". I think it's more accurate to say they have an agenda; each, his or her own personal agenda.
What is a judicial philosophy if not an agenda?
25
@Rahul
Agreed. And boy do they love their benefits that most of us can’t come close to having. Roberts should try on Medicaid for awhile.
19
I think the book is very premature--at attempt to write history when not much has been made. Judges frequently evolve and grow into their positions and I'd suggest he needs another fifteen years or so before he is a fully formed Supreme Court justice. For this same reason, it seems far too soon to call him a swing vote or center of the court, especially when this is seems to be wishful thinking based on his one and only one leftish vote on Obamacare.
92
@Gregory
So true. He crippled the ACA instead of killing it. Big Whoop.
16
@Gregory. He has yet to upset a single racist with any of his decisions. That history is clearly written.
Justice Roberts and his GOP colleagues in the Court and in our halls of government have it in for the poor - their actions confirm it over and over and over again in America. So does much of law enforcement, in towns large and small all over America. I can't think of anything less Christian or that exposes the underbelly of the Right's cornering of family values more than this.
Commentor Christina from Dallas is absolutely spot on in her remarks here. It is utterly baffling that anyone, much less people who claim to be so religious and faith-grounded in whatever church act so inhumanely, so coldly, and in Justice Roberts' case, wields so much power over all of us, but especially over those who have the least in our society and struggle every day just to make ends meet.
Reading this did not make me any more confident in Justice Roberts' claims to be just a nonpolitical umpire. Quite the opposite.
President Obama's words about him were, and are, exactly right. It is very, very disturbing that so many of my fellow citizens appear to feel this way, based on their party affiliation and their votes. There is nothing patriotic, democratic, or decent about any of this. We are supposed to lead the world in human rights. We don't, clearly.
279
@MAW
You're right. It is the poor who are ignored. Ironically, Trump has fooled the poor into thinking he'll help them. They cheer him and are his base as the chorus "lock her up."
They need to be educated not fooled into thinking their lives will be changed.
10
John Roberts was an extremely talented appellate lawyer -- perhaps one of the best the country has ever known. I respect him for that reason. But as a judge and justice he reminds me of so many American Catholics I have known who are obsessed with matters of sex and reproduction to the exclusion of all other issues. This obsession leads them to the Republican party and to political positions that are wholly inconsistent with other components of Catholic social doctrine. It is the Church that has led them astray.
314
@Rupert
It is not only Catholics who force their religious views on their fellow citizens. Fundamentalist and evangelical Christians are usually single-issue voters, happy to invade bedrooms and doctors' offices.
It is ironic today that in 1960, candidate John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, felt the need to address the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. Excerpted from that speech:
"I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute, where no Catholic prelate would tell the president (should he be Catholic) how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote; where no church or church school is granted any public funds or political preference; and where no man is denied public office merely because his religion differs from the president who might appoint him or the people who might elect him.
"I believe in an America that is officially neither Catholic, Protestant nor Jewish; where no public official either requests or accepts instructions on public policy from the Pope, the National Council of Churches or any other ecclesiastical source; where no religious body seeks to impose its will directly or indirectly upon the general populace or the public acts of its officials; and where religious liberty is so indivisible that an act against one church is treated as an act against all."
Yet today, five justices are Catholic and are influenced by the dogma of their church in their opinions -- and are supported byProtestants.
153
@Rupert I agree with your assessment of some American Catholics but I don't think it's the Church that has led them astray. It's their own fault. I'm not religious myself personally but have known many devoted religious people who don't hew chapter-and-verse to whatever religious tradition they follow. They actually questioned what they read/ believed. Besides which I was educated in history by a Jesuit professor -- in a secular setting -- and he especially taught us to question our beliefs.
41
@Rupert Very good comment. The part about Catholicism and obsession with sex makes sense and probably explains a lot.
I also have heard that he was a very good appellate lawyer. Some people argue that being a good advocate does not necessarily mean that one will be a good judge. The appellate lawyer is advocating for one side; a judge is supposed to be impartial and decide which of the two sides is right according to the law.
In any case, have a nice day.
36
When Roberts surprises us, with some moderate opinion, I suspect he is appalled by the ship he is captain of, becoming a fat target of derision.
How embarrassed he must have been by Kavanaughs' testimony, and the character it revealed, as his newest peer -- as if Thomas wasn't bad enough.
On that slender reed we must pray. Apparently the man has been groomed, trained, brainwashed, and paid for by wealthy right wingers who can't see beyond their bank balances.
But it's his court forever to present and future and his place in history will scrutinized and judged.
Justices have bloomed on the court. Hugo Black, for instance. Perhaps Roberts can become a public champion. Future cases on guns, campaign finance and medical care will tell our tale.
BTW, the Times has a superb columnist on the court...is it Linda Green something or other? I wish she had written this book. I've come to trust her.
1
Leave it to the NY Times to describe a person as an "animatronic version" of something because he has a haircut. Using that standard would the writer portrait Senator Sanders as Clarabell the Clown? And what of the perfectly coiffed Speaker of the House, perhaps the Concrete Queen?
11
He's a republican hack. He is of course less of a hack than Thomas (R-GA), Alito (R-NJ), and the two new guys on the court. But he is a hack none the less. He claims to call balls and strikes which was at the time and has been proven since to be a lie. He invents whole new doctrine out of cloth when it suits him.
5
It is the of exposure to the "other" that creates the bridge to empathy. Justice Roberts' career as a rigid, careerist in the law, brought up in a specific, majority community, surrounded by a singular type of wealth and prosperity, has consciously or subconsciously driven his decision making, for better or for worse.
The law, divorced from reality (also known as data, politics, and the worst of human impulses), can be an unusually cruel device.
The irony of the Medicaid opt-out decision is that it created a natural experiment, which demonstrated the benefits of the Medicaid expansion across the country and which created a groundswell for popular (viz. citizen-led) votes to expand Medicaid in states which had up til 2018 refused to expand. At this point, the biggest holdouts are in the old south (AKA the Confederacy). It would not surprise me if at some point, an equal rights law suit began arguing that the restriction of Medicaid expansion impacted the equal rights of citizens in these states. Perhaps, that was Justice Roberts' goal, to push the debate towards its more natural conclusion, one that could be argued on more natural constitutional grounds.
9
To paraphrase Jesus, no one deserves applause for doing their basic duty; as a Catholic, I am dismayed when this and similar conservative public figures appear to be credited by observers with possessing moral stature simply because of consistent Mass attendance (as vital as that is). Just showing up and listening to the Word does not, unfortunately, come close to guaranteeing the listener will respect and support the fundamental social justice concepts of our faith, such as the universal destination of goods. Plus, it's just plain hard to like the guy who so slaughtered delivery of President Obama's oath of office in 2009. I still cringe.
1
I am an American who lives in Italy, the birth place of Roman Catholicism. Whether people here are observant or not it informs their worldview and they are a very forgiving people. They are generally very understanding of weakness and kind toward the less fortunate. They have no interest in Catholic dogma. Americans Catholics and Christians, of which I was raised to be one, attend mass regularly but are mainly concerned with church dogma and give only lip service to the teachings of Jesus. Instead most Americans are still judgmental Puritans no matter what religious faith they claim to profess. And Judge Roberts is just another Catholic who strives to be more pious than thou all the while repudiating the teachings of Jesus Christ his supposed saviour.
8
It is not hyperbole to say that the modern Republican party is the greatest threat to our democracy. They possess an agenda and ideology which defies the core tenant of our government which is that the power resides in the people. It is the job of the Supreme Court to ensure that that truth remains unassailable but as time has progressed their job has become perverted. It is the Republican narrative made popular by Reagan that the government is our enemy that has guided us these past decades. What nobody has pointed out then or since is that narrative makes us the enemy of ourselves.
It is pathetic that we can profile the Chief Justice of our Supreme Court and know that he possesses a strong ideology that is not based in our Constitution. He serves his masters - not the people but the moneyed interest who he has sided with and who gave him the life he has.
The Constitution is just a game these days - how do we weave a narrative that serves our masters but does not defy the words written? They still need the Constitution as it grants them their authority but they will not be controlled by its intent. Roberts allowed Obamacare because to vote it down would weaken the authority of the court as impartiality would be mute. It had gone through the rigors of being made into law and destroying it would prove the court was just a tainted Republican arm.
Now emboldened and unafraid of appearances (Kavanaugh) what will Roberts do to maintain the appearance of impartiality?
3
Rep Lewis' "wrong side of history" remark may or may not be proven true in time ... to me however, "wrong side of justice" is established already. Citizens United is breathtaking in that regard.
Of the times we are living through, my brother said to me recently, "this is how it feels to be ruled by a minority".
23
Yes the court is political. It always has been and it always will be.
And yes, the court leans too far right, although not quite so horribly as this column states.
The solution? The left needs to win more elections, pass more laws that can withstand court tests, and appoint judges that share its views.
So: start by winning more elections, OK? That is the only way.
6
@Cary
“The solution? The left needs to win more elections ... and appoint judges that share its views.”
Merrick Garland
People change, though. Maybe Pope Francis influenced his views as a Catholic and will inspire him to cultivate the virtue of charity and love for the poor so central to Catholic doctrine, at least as far as the law allows him to apply it in the cases that come up for review. Idem on issues related to climate change and the interests of business. And/or maybe he is aware of how dangerously far the rights and interests of business and capital have gone in this country to the detriment of the views of the ordinary citizen and perhaps of the common good.
3
Perhaps even more than the election of Trump, the great achievement of the GOP has been to ensure that the Supreme Court will continue to threaten democracy in America for generations to come. What must not be forgotten is that the current makeup of the court following the selection of Kavanaugh as its most recent member, was achieved by McConnell denying Obama his choice of Merrick Garland as Kennedy's replacement. If Justice Ginsburg's health forces her to step down, Trump will be able to choose yet another extreme right wing justice, and the conservative stranglehold on the highest court will only be strengthened. The legal fight to remove Trump from office promises to prolonged, bitter and divisive. What hope is there for an impartial court when the appointment process for its members raises so many justified suspicions?
2
Justice Robert's suffers from an epilepsy-like condition. Perhaps that is what gives him his sense of simpatico.
2
To any and all optimists who see any redeeming quality in Roberts, please prepare your self for serial disappointments. He is not a jurist. Never has been. He is a political hack who wants people to believe otherwise.
7
74 years on this earth has shown me that some people who say they are religious but have no empathy (and kindness) for other human beings are really NOT true believers.
In fact, is the "God" they say they pray to stupid? If God knows and sees all, what would make God not see what they do to others.
MY conclusion? They do NOT really believe in God.
These are the people who made me stop attending church years ago.
25
@Zenkosi Zulu Your relationship to God should not be affected by other people's behaviour. A lot of people blame others for abandoning church. The very fact that they blame others for their actions betrays the very big flaw they have.
@ Christina: Justice Roberts appears to be perfectly upholding his Catholic faith: his mission is to protect the institution from those whose ideas and actions could threaten it. Think Vatican and its protection of pedophile priests. Think mainstream, middle class white America against all other Americans. Perhaps, only perhaps, he'll protect the Supreme Court against far right extremist justices.
1
An expat I know who lived and worked in Atlanta for more than 30 years says to me "... follow the money ..." Totally true. Republicans care only about themselves and protecting what they think is "theirs". They really don't think about what they're leaving behind for the poor. So much for hiding behind the skirts of religiosity and conservatism. Yeah, I've got mine and I don't care about you despite what I've been taught and what the preacher says. Adopted a boy and a girl. A start perhaps.
4
The U.S. is now a rather vile plutocracy, no longer a democracy. Those with a vision of a social democratic inclusive society need to separate because the tumour of neofascism is growing ever faster.
2
@Jamal....they’re trying to obtain asylum from severely damaged countries that are damaged because the US government fomented violence, unrest and regime change in their home country...usually in search of oil, minerals or for political leverage.
Your example of Venezuela is particularly rich considering Bolton has been licking his walrus chops at the thought of all that oil....your problem is with war mongering republicans...the lying kind...you know..reagan, Bush, and their henchmen Ollie (NRA) North et al.
For the record, THIS Democratic Socialist isn’t going anywhere, however you might feel more comfortable w/like minded compatriots in Italy, Poland or perhaps Brazil.... I hear the Philippines is interesting this time of year as well.
It would be refreshing if you folks had at least a whisper of intellectual curiosity as to WHY the world is changing rather than merely screaming “the Brown ppl are coming, the Brown ppl are coming”😱😱
1
Deeply disturbing. Term limits for justices have become imperative if the Court is to reflect the Constitution as it addresses the dangers and challenges that face contemporary society now and in the generations ahead. 12 years? 15?
30
@Betsy 10 year terms, maximum. Wont see it in my lifetime (68), but hopefully in the next generation. the Founding Fathers made a mistake on this one, I know, people did not live as long in those days.
3
Age limits. Here in Australia, judges on the High Court are constitutionally obliged to retire from the bench on or before their 70th birthday. This is to prevent a judge with failing faculties having to be "dug out", if you will, when it's clear that they're no longer up to the job. You could do worse than adopting a similar rule.
17
@Betsy
Yes, especially since the game now seems to be to try to appoint extremely young (and less experienced, and more likely to be ideologues, because, you know, Atlas Shrugged is really impressive when you read it as a teenager) justices that will be there for many decades. 10 year stints, then they must go through confirmation again.
5
Pack it, pack it pack it. It is a political institution hard forged by a right wing ideological think tank that represents a privileged minority. When the opportunity arises pack it and let them do the same the next time they hold control. No going back to the myth of judicial restraint and respect for precedent. It is gone for good.
24
@David Gerstein
Right! The Democrats need to start playing hardball.
2
@Dawn...👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻I INSIST Dems behave EXACTLY as McConnell has when they regain Majority Leader, that is..tell the republicans to SHUT UP and SIT DOWN, “elections have consequences” (every time I hear that I think..yup, and YOUR time is coming) the giant looming question,(as always with Dems,) will they FINALLY play hardball?? I do not want to hear the word “bipartisan” or the stupid phrase, “reach across the aisle”... 😡
Add to the enigma problem that Roberts authored Riley v California and Carpenter v US. These two Fourth Amendment decisions limit police access to criminal suspects' digital property and privacy, to an extent (and for reasons) that surprised many informed observers.
2
@Kyron Huigens It will be interesting to see how these decisions apply when the Trump crime family appears before the court.
3
No -- CJ Roberts conducted no war on the Voting Rights Act. The pre-clearance provisions of the law were struck down because Congress did not bother to update them for decades, instead reflexively re-authorizing them as if nothing had changed in the 40 years following the Act. Had Congress done its job and revised the list periodically -- that outcome never would have happened.
5
@CHM That is the rational that Roberts gave for striking it down. Do we know that is the real reason? Roberts has a history of opposing civil rights; I feel that he and the republican justices were intent on weakening the voting rights act and would have found some other excuse for doing so if they had not latched on the re-authorization line.
13
@CHM You are correct. To hear the hysteria surrounding that decision, you would have thought the entire voting rights act had been thrown out.
@Thomas....nope...just the part w/any teeth, add republican gerrymandering into the equation and Black/Brown disenfranchisement is complete.
Anyone that thinks we have co equal civil rights in this country is disingenuous at best, or willfully ignorant at worst...and why is it that republicans are dead set against Black/Brown ppl voting anyway?? The republicans have told us for decades they’re the “big tent party” so why all the voter ID hysteria...could it be they’re the “big White tent party” and their numbers are severely diminishing?? Could it be their policies are overtly anti Black/Brown??
Hmmm🤔 it IS a pickle isn’t it...perhaps POC WOULD’NT vote for policies AGAINST their interests...perhaps they aren’t FOR massive tax cuts at the top, paid for by slashing SS, and Medicare...maybe Manafort getting less than four yrs for a veritable smorgasbord of state and federal crimes vs 10 yrs+ for Black men arrested for a dime bag could be ruffling their feathers a bit...idk Thomas...what do YOU think all the “hysteria” is about??
4
Frightening. I trust that Democrats will seek to expand the Court, should they win the Presidency and secure 60 votes in the Senate - both possible, given the ongoing surreal debacle in Washington DC.
21
@manta666 I wonder how large the court would ultimately get as control of the legislature and the presidency see-saw back and forth.
5
@nick
After it rises to eleven, I would expect 15-year term limits would follow.
1
@manta666
If the Dems think its okay to expand the court then they would be okay with Trump doing it now, right? What's good for the goose is good for the gander and all that.
1
It is not the job of any court to favor the weak or the poor or the underdog. The court is supposed to simply apply the law, regardless of the social-economic backgrounds of the two sides.
Obviously, if a poor person steals from a rich person, the poor person is in the wrong; no one would suggest that the poor person should keep what they stole.
Liberals demand that courts should work on behalf of the weak or the poor or the underdog because Congress does not have the political will to do what liberals would call "right' or "moral", but that does not change how the courts should work.
This is a problem with Congress, and if liberals want more liberals laws, they should vote into office Senators and Representatives (and Presidents !) who will pass those laws.
Don't blame the courts.
9
You are wrong. This is not only a liberal phenomenon.
Law is often interpreted based on judges’ personal beliefs, preferences and biases. When applied, totally objective truth seems not existent or is a fiction.
9
It's up to the courts to interpret the law, and that interpretation can be colored by justices' ideology and biases. Yes, it's important to elect legislators who will pass wise laws, but it's equally important to appoint jurists whose opinions aren't constricted by a lack of empathy or perspective.
6
@G
There is no such a thing as strict application of the law. There is good room for interpretation and prioritization (otherwise people would not be "betting" on how a judge would rule) of principles and even statutes in the practice of the law. There is some discretionary room too. It is in these spaces that favoring interests of business, the poor or even the common good come into play. It is all subtle but with big consequences.
6
He is worried about reputation, his own. After all, historically this time will be known as " The Roberts Court ". Nice little Court you have there, Sir.
It'd be a real shame to see Trump manage to utterly destroy it.
Seriously.
37
Roberts may be in the center of the Court, but he is certainly not a moderate. Why do so many "Christians" not follow the teachings of Jesus?
63
@Caded
Apparently Christ was a Christian "in name only."
2
Such a great picture!
8
So sad, Roberts doesn't understand respect at the deepest and most profound level. If he wants the court to be respected,
he needs to learn how to respect himself and all humanity.
24
Citizen United opened the floodgates of dark money nationally and the influence of outside actors in local elections to the detriment of our communities. It's unconscionable that the Supreme Court swept away democratic values in favor of giving the rich the ability to manipulate our elections. It's not just Russian interference we should be concerned about. Term limits could help eliminate some of these deep seated biases.
88
@Charles
When the stunning Citizens United decision came out, my immediate reaction was that if corporations are essentially considered to be people as far as free political speech, then they should pay income tax the same way individuals do, without all the tax breaks that result in most of them paying no tax at all. So far, no takers.
52
@J. Benedict
Orange jumpsuits for all corporate persons convicted of corporate crimes. No more the quick payoff by check (thanks shareholders) and off to the corporate yacht.
8
@J. Benedict
Love it!
2
Supreme Court analysts should not try to be mind readers. When psychiatrists are unable to judge who the shooters are among patients who have sat before them for hours, it is folly to think journalists can read the minds of jurists, many of whom they have never met.
As for Chief Justice Roberts' "balls and strikes" analogy, that is nonsensical. The law is neither objective, logical nor scientific. If it were, then most decisions would be 9-0 or 8-1 and 5-4 decisions should not occur more than once in a decade.
27
The most evident characteristic of Catholic faith is its institutional effort and advocacy to help the poor and the needy.
So if Chief Justice is truly a devout catholic, this ideology of helping the poor/the needy should be so ingrained in his character that any political ideology cannot surpass it.
30
@May MacGregor The leaders of the Catholic church are more concerned about concealing their own sins than helping the needy.
9
@May MacGregor Unfortunately, his elitist and Catholic theology trumps the part of his thinking that would allow him to consider the uneven playing field we have, as well as the almost universal desire to keep religion out of politics and court decisions. "Give me the child," etc. etc and I will predict the man.
6
Why would a smart and successful person use his power in such a heartless way? How does he reconcile his behavior with his Catholic faith and the teachings of Jesus to provide for the poor? His world view appears to be that success is rewarded with more success and those who are unsuccessful deserve nothing. He does not deserve respect. The Supreme Court has too much power. There need to be term limits. These are only people not gods.
229
@Christina
The recent issues in the Roman church point out arbitrary hierarchical powerful governance, in contrast to the teachings of Jesus. What is the influence of that on believers?
22
@Christina It is becoming more and more apparent that the behaviors you speak of are the Roman Catholic way. Not the Christian, follower of Jesus, way, but the hierarchy in Rome, corrupt corporate way.
36
@Christina That is not the job of the courts - it is not their job to determine if a law is good or evil or to help the downtrodden, it is to determine if a law is in fact legal - is it constitutional, how is it supposed to be interpreted (and by that, there are different schools of thought), etc.
Nothing is stopping our government from right now passing laws that would drastically increase welfare and social services, or that would grant a year of paid maternity/paternity leave, or mandate 30 days of vacation, or mandate a living minimum wage, or create universal healthcare.
14