So many of these sentiments illustrate the state of our republic. Of course the court is political. It always has ben and will always be so. However, if the balance of the court was 5-4 the other way, commentators on this site would be singing its praises. We view our institutions through our own prisms. The left will continue to rue the state of the court until the shoe is on the other foot at which time the sky is falling criticism will come from the right.
10
I mailed a handwritten letter on expensive stationery to Roberts to voice my concern he considers corporations equal to humans in rights to participate in campaigns, though women's rights are curtailed by this Federalist conservative GOP court. I received no acknowledgment, of course, of my concern. They don't have to worry about what we think and they don't. They are a corporate group. Thomas and Kavanaugh both were crybabies when they did just fine in the final vote.
6
Roberts didn't say he was going to move to New Zealand if Obama was elected. He would have been impeached.
1
This is a landmark comment stream. This is the first time I have seen agreement with Trump by the intensely partisan Democrat commenters who make up the vast majority of posters. Of course, the partisan Dems won't admit or even acknowledge that their position is the same as Trumps, but it is clear that they agree with Trump that the courts are partisan.
1
The only guarantee of a nonpartisan Supreme Court is a nonpartisan process for choosing justices, which so far does not exist and probably could never exist.
Everyone has ideas, preferences, religious beliefs, experiences that color their interpretation of the Constitution and the rule of law, including every possible candidate, every president who would nominate them, and every congress that would confirm them.
Sometimes we have been lucky and the prejudices justices arrived with became less important to them than the responsibility they bore to keep our democracy on track.
This court has shaped up to be a Republican court, heavily weighted toward the right, but let us hope that these men and women will see fit to cast their votes based on what our Constitution demands and what is of benefit for all the people of the United States.
7
I wish him luck and it says something that he actually realizes how the court is perceived and is trying to balance it with words.
But the 2000 decision to benefit W, which Kavanaugh worked on, Citizens United and six other partisan decisions have forever tarred this court.
Now each of the majority justices from Roberts to Thomas has a big R inscribed on their foreheads.
Let's see what the court does with the children's lawsuit on climate change.
How can any human in this day and age not realize that our very survival hangs on this decision.
And that we must respond to this clear and present danger or perish.
Even Republicans have children and grandchildren, maybe they'll hear and turn on the special interests who put them on the country's highest court.
7
No one is fooled. The Republican court is in a better position than ever to do Republican law rather than follow the Constitution.
11
Despite the holiness of this day I am at a loss for any charitable insight to offer concerning this delusion.
5
if he wants to avoid partisanship on the court, he might want to encourage elected officials not to appoint political hacks like Kavanaugh and, oh yeah, Roberts, to the bench-- to any of the courts.
5
We have a Constitution written in large part by slaveholders, and are told by the Federalist Society court mill that we must interpret the it exactly as they would in their day.
And, we have a Constitution that cannot be changed, again because the extreme protections for slavery these same drafters extracted to make sure it could not be changed.
To me, strict consturctionalism, or whatever the Bork/Scalia theory is called, seems self-destructive to the Court as an institution. A court system based on a pharisaic originalist reading of the Constitution vs common law evolutionary reading is as dead-end as Creationism vs Darwinism.
The Constitution does not define a theory about how it should be interpreted. As such, it has always been defined by Common Law precedence and cautious evolution which is at the core of Anglo legal history. Not any more. Now we are to believe that Common Law like Evolution is a false doctrine, and Constitutional interpretation is limited to the strict reading of a frozen time and thinking that, were it not for the future it promised, would be considered barbaric today.
This Creationism vs Evolutionism is, to my mind, the crisis the Court faces.
7
I'm sorry, but I don't believe Roberts for a minute. Here's why, in two words: Citizens United. That is all.
14
Justice Roberts’ issue is an issue of conscience. While he is conservative, Roberts sees how the Court is being dragged not to the right but the far right” by the Republicans.
Any appearance of “balance”is gone. A clearly right wing Court, as Justice Roberts sees it, now displays its partisan stripes for all to see and he’s embarrassed. Justice Roberts now is in the unenviable position of being the balance. If Ruth Bader Ginsburg is forced to leave (kicking and screaming) Roberts will feel even more pressure to project non partisanship.
Bottom line, it’s not fun to be hoisted by your own petard.
6
It is partisan, obviously.
6
5+ Pinnocios for John Roberts:
"Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don't make the rules; they apply them."
6
@M Caplow
And umpires get it wrong, right?
Roberts must think we are all gullible and stupid. The notion that judges are above partisanship is obviously false. One need look no further than the judicial judgments of the Florida Supreme Court and the US Supreme Court regarding the Bush vs. Gore presidential election in 1999.
The justices of both courts are appointed, the Florida justices by the Florida governor and the US justices by the president. The majority of the Florida justices were Democrats. The majority of the US Supreme Court justices were Republicans. The case went back and forth between the 2 courts several times. Every time the Democrat Florida court ruled it was in favor of Democrat candidate Gore. Every time the US Supreme Court ruled it was in favor of the Republican candidate Bush.
Roberts insults our intelligence by his patently false representation that the court is not partisan.
5
Roberts' recent epiphany that the Court should avoid becoming a mere tool for partisan hacks would have been more credible if it had showed itself at the time Citizens United was being decided or the Voting Rights Act was being gutted. Now that he has his right-wing majority safely in hand some cynics may view such newfound regard for institutional integrity as little more than window dressing.
7
Chief Justice Roberts is a conservative appointee selected by a Republican President, who has cast votes with some of the worst, pro-Republican decisions his Court has issued. So of course he is going to throw out PR talking points trying to persuade otherwise. His legacy is at stake. But the damage inflicted by these terrible rulings is done and I fear it is irreversible. The Court is a partisan institution. Deal with it, Mr. Chief Justice.
5
john roberts: appointed by a man who was never elected president by the American People.
samuel alito: appointed by a man who was never elected president by the American People.
neil gorsuch*: appointed by a man who was never elected president by the American People.
bret kavanaugh: appointed by a man who was never elected president by the American People.
Now why would anybody think your court isn't a joke mr. roberts?
16
Chief Justice Roberts himself is a far-right partisan, as are the other four members of his "conservative" majority. To pretend otherwise is at best misleading, at worst dishonest. Indeed, the only reason Roberts voted for the Affordable Care Act, appears to be because he alone among his Republican colleagues understood that it was by and large a carbon copy of a GOP health care reform plan that had been pushed by his party for decades, not a left-wing government "takeover" of health care. Let's see if Roberts and his fellow right-wingers support our would-be authoritarian president over the rule of law. I'm betting yes.
44
One need only read the majority opinions in Bush v. Gore and Citizens United to see that Supreme Court justices are not uniformly wise, and that their position on the political spectrum often influences if not dictates their interpretations of laws and judicial precedent. The notion, for example, that corporations are people is patently absurd, given that the decision affords certain rights to corporations without commensurate responsibilities.
3
As a retired physician, I have my own perspective regarding the decisions on Citizens United, Voting Rights act and Heller. When I see a complicated case to treat, decision to use a drug is based on what is best for the patient, and not based on a certain drug of a pharmaceutical company that funds my research. As I understand, based on our constitution you could have gone either way, as seen with the two groups in the court. When coming to critical decisions you have to look at what is good for society at large and what the society wants. I am not sure our highest court is following this ideal. Moreover, there is an ideal that we follow in medicine. Primum non nocere (First of all do no harm). Hope they will use this principle to save and strengthen our democratic institutions.
1
Chief Justice Roberts,
When the average layperson can accurately call your votes, perception IS reality...and you're NOT "calling balls and strikes".
9
If the average person can predict his votes, then I assume you are among that very small group that predicted Roberts would vote to uphold gay marriage and the ACA, right? yeah, didn't think so.
3
Like the coward who adds insult to injury and then claims, "I was just kidding," Roberts shallowly wants to have it both ways. Sorry Justice Roberts, the partisan shoe fits and your whining changes nothing.
7
Come on people. It's all over! Electing an idiot for a president is bad enough...but, ....I can't even finish this train of thought when I think of the damage that will be done by the Supreme court for the next 30 years! Makes me want to cry for my children and grandchildren. Adios!
10
"I will remember that it's my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat." - John Roberts
Americans seek justice in from our Supreme Court. Does 'Justice' consist only the 'letter of the law'? If that's all there is to 'Justice', 'Lawyered Up' wins going in and coming out.
1
Roberts will go down in history as having paved the way for the right wing coup we call the 2016 "election". He is not a Democrat or Republican because he is a neo-fascist.
10
only among the ignorati, such as yourself. How exactly do you think Roberts brought Trump about? With citizens united? Hillary spent more than twice the amount of citizens united money than Trump did.
4
Those who know the power of Citizens United money to used finance Republican gerrymandering and voter suppression systematically across the nation would never make such uninformed responses.
5
You guys laid down all your credibility when you anointed 'dubya' the unelected POTUS. You done nothing to indicate you want it back. Cheap words from a bought man.
7
The Supreme Court of United States Presidential nomination process with the advice and consent of the Senate is all and only a politically partisan circus in form and substance.
The Supreme Court of the United States is the least democratic branch of our divided limited power constitutional republic of united states. And the Senate is an undemocratic number two branch with a half million people from Wyoming having as many Senators as 39.5 million Californians. With the President coming in third thanks to the Electoral College.
And the law is not fair nor just nor moral nor objective. Law is gender, color aka race, ethnicity, national origin, faith, socioeconomics, politics, education and history plus arithmetic. Both black African enslavement and separate and unequal black African Jim Crow were legal.
The basic ethical obligation of the legal profession is to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. And the Supreme Court of the United States is the essence of impropriety. Thanks to the infamous legacy of Mitch McConnell and Merrick Garland following Ted Kennedy and Robert Bork.
" The law is an ass" from "Oliver Twist" by Charles Dickens
6
The scales of justice can never be equal if judges are picked by an organization (the Federalist Society) that cares not about competence, but about ideology. And this ideology is now just designed to thwart the will of majority, and move the country back to an idealized "good old day" for a vocal minority, and their rich backers. That is not democracy.
The constitution has to be a living document that adapts to the needs of the country, and ensures that we build on the uniqueness and strength of the America that forefathers sought to create when they came here from far and wide. We seem to have forgotten that there is not one America - but a myriad of hues, religions and beliefs that can all co-exist without dominating to gain the upper hand.
9
The Supreme Court does indeed serve one nation: the corpocracy.
Citizens United gives corporations that have more money than some countries the constitutional right to fund propaganda and sway elections anonymously, against the public interest. Yet we are outraged and call it illegal that the Russians allegedly used propaganda to sway our elections.
Equal protection anyone?
6
Roberts only has a few months left to play his game. Soon another justice outside of the right-wing members will leave the Court (probably Ginsburg) and Trump will appoint another far-right member. With their new 5 member majority any pretense of doing anything but the bidding of the right will be gone. Expect a rush to overturn any precedent and law the Koch brothers and similar elites that call the shots don't want.
4
I guess we’re all just fortunate that it doesn’t require partisanship to be an ideologue. Hooray for justice.
Strong evidence that the Court is not-very-partisan would be for the Court to strike down partisan distortions of governance. The foremost decision would be to find partisan gerrymandering unconstitutional. Ball's in your Court, Mister Chief Justice.
4
Roberts being the "swing vote" is the difference between conservative and reactionary.
The US loses either way.
4
The reason the Court is seen as partisan is because almost all the decisions are now 5-4, with justices voting along partisan lines. In the past, the Court strove to come to more consensus on decisions (e.g. the unanimous vote on "Brown vs. Board of Education"), to send a message to the country that whatever the particular political sentiments of the time, the Constitution is still our guiding document, and We, the Supreme Court, are united in our interpretation of it. Imagine if that decision had been 5-4, how much more ammunition the segregationists might have had to fuel their bigotry. I wonder if Republicans in Congress might have been as emboldened to overturn the ACA if the ruling had been 9-0.
3
Entire political campaigns openly state their key objective is "their" judges.
Supreme court judges during their confirmation hearings openly threaten the 'other side'.
Congress openly says it has no time for any business other than rushing through "their" judges
And Justice Roberts lies while attempting to place a fig leaf over his partisan court.
5
The most pro-corporation Chief Justice in our history, presiding over the most pro-corporation SCOTUS in our history seriously wants us to think of him as 'non-partisan'???
Wow. The outcome of virtually every SCOTUS case can be predicted by asking the question: "Which decision will most favor the continued profitability of corporate donors to the GOP?"
The tricky part here is that such a decision may very well fly in the face of the wishes of the most partisan of the GOP - such as the refusal to kill Obamacare.....and only when you analyze it and realize that the health insurance corporations are making money hand over fist does this decision make sense.
In the absence of any obvious corporate interest (such as the gutting of the Voting Rights Act) - you have to dig a bit deeper and recognize that voter suppression helps the GOP - which helps their corporate donors.
5
And yet, the Supreme Court remains supremely partisan.
1
“We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans,” Chief Justice Roberts said in 2016, and he reiterated that position in an extraordinary rebuke of President Trump last month."
Oh, but the Supreme Court is deeply partisan and since Mr. Roberts is obviously not a fool, or a liar, I must conclude that he is, like many of his federalist friends, self delusional.
He believes he is capable of reconstructing our country, through the Supreme Court, to his specifications.
Against the will of a significant percentage of the voting public.
And whether he shows up for the parties the Federalist Society throws for their rich friends and donors or not, make no mistake, his values are not in line with yours unless you are a republican who believes in everything that has been destroying our country for the last two years.
He is one of the driving wheels in the republican machine.
And if anyone believes that a Supreme Court Chief Justice could not possibly be that...destructive, think back to a time when you revered the office of the President of the United States of America.
2
Justice Roberts is correct when he declares his Supreme Court to be neither Democratic or Republican. His ideal Court would be more in line with the values of Francisco Franco’s Falange Española Tradicionalista, featuring an alliance of the military and police, the Catholic Church and big business.
3
Citizens United opened the flood gate of money in politics. I don't recall seeing anything in the Constitution that says "money = free speech."
Thanks so much for your decision, Justice Roberts. Putin would be proud.
7
Justice Roberts: We have so much in your hands we hope that all the hopes for what you do with them will be justified.
This must be satire. "Perception" that the court is partisan? I wonder why?
After installing Bush 2 into the White House, after "Citizens United," and after undermining voting rights, Roberts wants us to believe his fantasy.
It's insulting.
4
“We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans...”
The calculated schemes (stonewalling of Merrick Garland) and aggressive, unabashed rigging of the nomination process (Trump's refusal to release Kavanaugh's records; the crippling of the FBI investigation into Kavanaugh's past; the "ramming through" of his nomination by setting an impractically short timeline; ignoring Kavanaugh's lies under oath, etc, etc) by Senate Republicans make John Roberts' statement nothing more than wimpy aspiration. It's a Republican court by design.
Those of us interested in non-Republican justice can only hope that Roberts betrays his Republican sponsorship whenever the court is called upon for a rational analysis of the legal circumstances and an objective legal decision.
2
The pretense that the court is apolitical flew out the window with the 5-4 Bush V Gore decision in 2000, completely along party lines.
4
If Roberts is trying to protect his personal legacy, it is far too late. He will be always be known as the leader one of the most regressive forces in American history: The Roberts Majority.
4
This is your impression of CJR at the moment. He’s more fluid than than the conservatives seated prior to Kavanaugh, but I think it’s unfair to characterize him at all since his legacy is still under construction. He votes based on the reasoning he gives each case, plain and simple. People like to call that “nonpartisan,” but I call it simply being a competent Chief Justice.
If the court wasn't partisan, all decisions would be 9-0.
There are more apples than just this one upsetting the cart of Robert's claim to non-partisanship, but the gutting of the Voting Rights Act under non-existent legal structures and beyond what the court had been asked to rule on is permanently disfiguring. I wonder if he is even able to see that the mess this decision created is on court's hands, or that he even notices the mess.
A non-partisan court would not be on the side of the states in making it more difficult for people to vote. They would recognize that states conduct voter fraud when they put obstacles in the way of citizens whose votes would go elsewhere and protect the voting citizen, not the state restriction efforts. A non-partisan court would not have gutted a law that had just won huge bipartisan renewal.
Instead, he did the states' (and Republican political strategists') dirty work for them. He made it easier for states to make it harder for citizens to vote.
Fix that mistake, and we'll talk.
2
I would have been more comforted by Roberts' statement if he had said “we don't work as liberals or conservatives”. This is especially relevant in the Age of Trump, where you can still be a militant conservative while quitting the Republican Party and criticizing Trump.
1
If Roberts cares to show that the Court is non-partisan, he can start by casting some votes in politically relevant cases in opposition to the Republican party line.
2
citizens united allows a rigged economy and a oligarchy and must be repealed to allow a return to our democracy
4
Right, Mr. Roberts. Tell that to Merrick Garland.
6
I do not think Roberts was saying he agreed with our asylum law which says that foreigners may apply for asylum even if they entered the U.S. illegally. I suspect he was telling Trump that if he wants the law to be changed that he should work with Congress.
Under current law, those who sneak across the border know that, if caught, that they can ask for asylum. If they express a credible fear of returning home, they have been allowed to stay in the U.S. until their court hearing. Central American migrants know the immigration courts are backed up for years. They also know that if they bring a child with them that they will be released into the country, with instructions to show up for their hearing.
A 6/26/18 Punditfact Article titled "Majority of undocumented immigrants show up for court, data shows” has a table which shows that between 2012 and 2016 that between 24% and 43% did not appear in court. They just melted into the general undocumented population.
Many of those who did attend their court hearings were turned down on their requests for asylum, and are appealing their cases saying it would be a hardship for them to return home since they have had children here and/or have otherwise established themselves here.
Trump could agree with the Democrats' request to hire more immigration judges in exchange for requiring all of those seeking asylum to do so upon entering the country.
Now we see that the leaders of two branches of government are fully divorced from reality. At least Justice Roberts doesn't tweet.
4
Seriously? This is the most pathetic and painfully disingenuous thing to come out of the Supreme Court in years
The Supreme Court IS NOTHING BUT PARTISAN!
It only looks like it isn’t for him, because it’s completely skewed his way.
The entire American Political Landscape on the Right is skewed towards one major goal: putting extreme, reactionary activist Right Wing ideologues on the Court as Justices, all to ratify the Right Wing take over of America.
Extreme measures have been taken for years all to further this goal, including denying Obama’s Constitutional Right to appoint a Justice.
The Supreme Court is a lost hack, and Roberts just proved it.
5
The worries come about 18 years late that ship sailed when the Bush family collected a debt.
4
Roberts is playing the part of the reassuring adult, in order to lull us into a false sense of security while they pack the courts with the most nakedly partisan justices this country has ever seen. Republicans have decided to turn the US into a fascist dictatorship where the courts only exist to serve the leader. Remember that Roberts was no where to be seen or heard when democracy was subverted and Merrick Garland was not given a hearing.
4
"We don't work as Democrats or Republicans," Chief Justice Roberts said. "We work as Republicans."
3
Justice Roberts, just because you say it doesn't make it true. The court is completely comprised and justice is for the rich and connected. You should resign for not speaking up for Garland, and letting kavanaugh be seated while under investigation. You do not have the courage of your convictions. Resign.
3
The appointment of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, and the refusal of McConnell to allow the Senate to vote on Garland, ended any pretense that the SCOTUS is not partisan. And if Dems ever regain control, I expect them to appoint Dem justices with a simple majority. Ten years ago, I would have advocated strongly for bipartisanship in selection of justices, but McConnell and Trump made bipartisanship for suckers. Kavanaugh is a national disgrace who was added to the bench to absolve Trump of potential prosecution for his crimes. Once you put justices on the court expressly to protect the appointer, the notion that the court is about objective interpretation of "the law" is absurd.
4
The Supreme Court ain't got no prestige.
1
"We don't work as Democrats or Republicans," he has said.
You will forgive me, sir, if I politely tell you that I don't believe a word you said.
4
Non-partisan?
He shall forever be named
Chief Justice Citizens United.
1
We will see by example Roberts. Not by the emptiness of your words. In other words, the proof is in the pudding. Can you line up the ingredients to back up your assertion?
2
Roberts' decision on the Obamacare individual mandate was elegant. "The government can tax you, but only your mother can make you eat broccoli". Even a child can understand it, but one of the pundits thought of it.
I have a lot of hope that he will help hold this institution above the cesspool.
I meant to say NONE of the pundits thought of it.
Everyone has strongly held fundemental values. Enculturation, education and our individual temperaments create our values. In midlife, one’s personal values seem so natural that we assume they should be universal and above debate. Yet adult experience proves they are neither.
Justices like all citizens have deeply held values.. They are as disinclined to escape the power of their life time insular prejudices as we all are. They, however, have the power to impose their values on the entire nation. As highly educated citizens and experienced jurists they must by reason, introspection, and courage put the public good above the parochial social verities of their lived experience.
When they cannot do so they remain doctrinaire ideologues rather than judicious and impartial justices.History will judge whether Chief Justice Roberts, and Justices Gorsich and Kavannaugh can succeed in avoiding the easy temptation of becoming the ideologues that the Republican party expects them to be.
It is not impossible for today’s conservative justices to choose impartial jurisprudence over the radical conservative ideology of the modern Republican party. History informed by their collective opinions over time will determine whether their allegiance has been to ideology or informed impartial jurisprudence.
Not partisan? Not likely. When a justice tailors her vote so that she can retire during a Republican administration (Oh the sentimentality!), one cannot help but conclude that partisanship is at the core of the Court.
The Court needs reform; more justices, set terms, changes that would both mitigate the inevitable partisanship any justice brings to the bench, and open the field to a broader cross section of candidates. When it comes to judges from the same prep school, not to mention undergraduate and law schools, together on the Court, alarm bells should be sounding.
2
The Supreme Court is not politically partisan. The Supreme Court is class partisan. The Supreme Court ensures the ruling class retains control of government and the economy, which is the unstated job description of Chief Justice Roberts.
5
It's much too late to make a claim like this. Perhaps there is a path to a non-partisan future, but not as long as Presidents view these appointments a political markers meant to satisfy a particular group of voters.
3
The "perception" that the Supreme Court is partisan?
If I hadn't been around when Bush v. Gore was decided, and when Merrick Garland was not even considered, and when Neil Gorsuch was installed instead, and when Bret Kavanaugh was inflicted on the U.S., I might feel differently.
But under the circumstances, Mr. Roberts, it is a great deal more than mere perception.
14
The court needs to have the Senate return to the 60 vote majority rule for all judges and to make a rule that judge nominees must get a hearing and a vote within some time limit. Human nature dictates that the court will always be to some degree partisan but by taking at least some of the partisanship away in the nominating process the courts will be themselves less partisan.
3
The "money equals speech" argument has created a political system where candidates can be purchased. The Buckley v. Valeo decision may not be partisan per se, but it surely created a toxic political environment.
10
Until the court stops voting 5-4 on every political issue it considers, this is just empty rhetoric that everyone with half a mind sees through.
11
If Justice Roberts wanted to support the perception that the Supreme Court is non partisan, he should have spoken out forcefully against McConnell's refusal to bring Merrick Garland's nomination to the floor of the Senate and perhaps refused to attend Neil Gorsuch's swearing in, much less presiding over it. Because the Court now IS a partisan institution with Gorsuch, instead of Garland, sitting upon it and it will remain so until Gorsuch is no longer on the Court.
This concerto of mealy-mouthed lip service to non partisanship makes Chief Justice Roberts look weak and incredibly ineffective. Tell you what, Chief Justice Roberts -- if a Democrat gets elected president in 2020, resign your seat so that Democrat can make the nomination they should have been allowed to make in 2015. That would be an EFFECTIVE reflection of your commitment to the non partisan nature of the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
14
"[Chief Justice Roberts] has taken [a position rather] at the court’s ideological center, making him the most powerful chief justice in 80 years."
But he hasn't deviated from his natural & original conservative position for fame but he is much more worried about the public perception of the US Supreme court, which is a great blessing.
Justice Scalia was a radical, in your face like conservative, not unlike the angry Justice Cavanaugh. But Cavanaugh hasn't yet assumed a stable ideological position; he's looking, to have a stable ideological stance. Justice Thomas remained far too passive. Justice Alito seems to have something to prove, whatever that something is. Justice Gorsuch is a quiet but also a radical conservative.
President Trump was seen more as a Democrat but he turned out to be a radical & blind conservative. Justice Roberts may turn out to be the opposite. He's self-assured & wise. He MAY end up being the best (Chief) Justice the court ever had.
1
I’m reading the comments, and wondering about Citizens United. I hate this decision, but remain unconvinced that corporate money actually favors one side. The Democrats have consistently raised more money, and the results are not there. So maybe the corporate world owns more republicans in office, probably because there are more republicans. Flip the script and it goes the other way. We would all be better off with most money being out of elections, I don’t see either side pursuing that end. Vote against all party members.
3
Justice Roberts truly has an opportunity to show that the Court is not partisan by abandoning the 'strict constructionist' view of the Constitution. The drafters were brilliant in many ways but they were all white men who were accepting if not endorsing, for example of slavery or women not being able to vote. The drafters of our Constitution also did not have a crystal ball to envision a country where you could have one state with almost 40 million people while another with less than 700,000 or where there could be birth control or space travel. The Constitution has to be interpreted in light of current circumstances and knowledge. 'All Men Are Created Equal' is certainly broader and more inclusive today than when they drafted our Constitution. Justice Roberts can go a long way to dispel the Courts partisan perception by reversing the Citizens United decision and the whole notion that a corporation has 'person' status. I remain hopeful that he and others will grow and see that the Constitution cannot be seen as a static document.
1
What is most troubling is that Roberts and his right wingers have an agenda to accomplish. The role of the Supreme Court is to act as an arbiter, a dispassionate decision maker. That does not describe any agenda - certainly not taking rights away from the disenfranchised who are the bain of conservatism.
1
Of course they don't work as Democrats or Republicans but they are all on different perspectives. They aren't working for justice - that's for sure and for certain. That's what you call it but it's a miss. It is good to hear from Roberts that he has some kind of balance - but coming out against Trump's comments is not a demonstration of such.
What would Justice Roberts say to all the young and minority and Democratic Americans who lost their right to vote through suppression efforts supported by his Shelby County v. Holder ruling, which gutted the Voting Rights Act? Or officials who were attacked by dishonest and racist ads paid for by unknown, dark-money donors? He can say what he wants about a non-partisan Court, his actions speak louder.
7
No you don't work for Democrats or Republicans but you do work for the 1%, the corporations... Believe me, you don't work for us ordinary Americans!
2
I would guess that this is one of the best pieces of news this year. It means that there is hope for the United States.
He may not be a « made to order » dream Justice for the left, but he is good enough.
Roberts, more with an eye toward history, moderated his views and helped prevent a decision against the ACA aka 'Obamacare'. Still he is most definitely a republican partisan (not as rabid as Scalia was or as Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh ARE. Roberts decided in favor of Citizens United which is one of the absolute worst rulings ever by SCOTUS. Right up there with the decidedly republican partisan Bush v Gore decision.
We pray for Ruth Bader Ginsburg's health and strength to continue until after the 2020 election (or trump/ pence' ouster should that happy occasion come sooner)... yes! Please!
4
Oh the hypocrisy. Roberts wants to preserve the illusion of political neutrality only so he can continue to further his political agenda. But after Heller, Shelby County, and Citizens United, it's a tad too late for that.
4
The problem with the Supreme Courts isn't so much it's partisan lean(it's definitely partisan), it's the accountability in choosing it's members.
In a functioning government, Mitch McConnell should have been ejected from the Senate for his shameful (mis)handling of Merrick Garland.
I am not sure how a judicial branch is supposed to function and how it can be remedied when the people in charge of it's appointments have no shred of patriotism or a sense of duty to their country. The framers of the Constitution, when developing a system of checks and balances never imagined the government would be infiltrated and so easily co-opted by people of such low character.
9
We are firmly now in the grip of a neo-Lochner era. Federal courts at all levels are being populated with pro-big business judges. You know, the type that helped bring on the Great Depression.
In the opening paragraph of an insightful 2015 piece in the George Washington Law School's "Scholarly Commons", professors Peter Smith and Thomas Colby state, "Lochner is one of only a few cases that constitute our “anti-canon,” universally reviled by the legal community as the “worst of the
worst.”
You can thank the Federalist Society for the returned to the "worst of the worst". Five of the current nine Supreme Court justices are members of the disgracefully named collection of conservative and libertarian jurists. (Guess to which party the president of these appointees for life belonged.)
If you are truly looking for a hidden hand ruling America, the Federalist Society is a good place to start.
Trump has effectively outsourced the task of filling the 107 judgeships he inherited to the the far-right FS, which is headed by ultra-conservative, devoutly Catholic Leonard Leo, who has helped transform it into what the New Yorker describes as a “conservative pipeline to the Supreme Court”.
3
As An observer from outside the US I wonder why it is the president who becomes a supreme Court judge. In UK we have a selection committee to recommend most qualified judge. Of course if you give a madman a choice of judge its unlikely he will choose the most appropriate best candidate.
Why are blaming the Supreme Court for being partisan when we want the Court to be partisan to favor our side? When the "non-political" decision is conveniently on your side, you become blinded by your bias and your prejudice. We don't hate the partisanship, we hate that it doesn't always favor us. The intellectual dishonesty from the American people is very telling of how toxic our culture is right now.
1
Then the Republican Party for years and the recent Trump Campaign are guilty of fraud. They campaigned specifically to name activist conservative Republican justices to the Supreme Court as well as judges on lower courts. The Republican voters were then lied to and sold a bill of goods if once the appointees get there they are suddenly independent minds.
We'd like the independent minds, but millions and millions voted for closed minds intent on punishing "them liberals" and that is what they expect.
1
I don't understand Justice Roberts pretense that the judiciary is anything but an extension of the GOP and centrist Democrats. Mitch made perfectly clear that the GOP would not even debate a credentialled exceptional judge three years ago. The chief justice would at least acquire some appreciation if he kept his mouth shut when it is impossible to deny the court is no longer anything but a biased politicized body that is there to tilt the playing field.
7
I do not trust Justice Roberts and I do not trust the Supreme Court. Citizens United was a terrible decision and it really has had an impact on all of us for the worse. The Chief Justice's majority opinion in Shelby County vs. Holder was a blind and clueless view on racial discrimination in voting. The second that decision came down, Republican legislators ramped up race-based voter discrimination, closing polling places, enacting voting restrictions that specifically target minorities, disbanding early-voting, etc. Justice Roberts helped shepherd two of the most recent influential and consequential Supreme Court decisions that have eroded our democracy. Not partisan? Are you joking? Until I hear Justice Roberts admit he was wrong in both of these decision, that his opinions have caused minority communities to have their voting rights cunningly stripped away from them by racist legislators, and have opened the flood gates to clandestine funds fueling US elections (side note: let's hear Justice Alito's apology for being wrong here as well, Mr. "not true")...until that happens, I will not ever trust Justice Roberts or his court. The man has caused America great harm.
2
I think the court lost all hope of being viewed as non-partisan when they elected George W. Bush.
3
The Court is non partisan when the issues before it are non political. Otherwise not so much. Unfortunately a high percentage of the issues it decides have obvious political consequences and the individual Justices stances are predictably in line with their politics notwithstanding Robert's attempt at window dressing.
1
It troubles me that the court has acted in such a way that its impartiality has been credibly called into question. People have always made wild, and equally meaningless, claims about the court, but the Supreme Court has allowed itself to be viewed as openly partisan. We can hope that Roberts will see his duty to the institution as a higher calling than his political agenda.
"We serve one nation".
If only the other 2 branches of government would walk that walk.
@Jeffrey,
Yes, The United States of Koch!
1
Roberts will move center to center left to keep the court reasonably acceptable to the unwashed masses. God help us if we lose another liberal.
I hope this means that Justice Roberts at least will not favor one party's platform, especially with a psychopath as a president and more than 1/2 of the Senate marching in goose step. All we need now is evidence that Pence knew of the collusion, etc... and we're safe.
Seriously,
Why did Comrade Trump pick Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. Because they are right wing zealots, that's why. Or maybe he picked Kavanaugh because so many people were picking on him because of sexual abuse accusations. And maybe Bush picked Thomas because so many people were picking on him because of sexual accusations.
But, to be fair, Roberts is a little less idealogical than his Republican counterparts. As it stands now though,the so called supreme court is nothing more than part of a right wing of the right wing republican party.
1
The saddest aspect of the Supreme Court's fall from grace must be that everyone and his dog knows that they are now expected to be politicians in judicial garb. It need not have been so blatant, but the court has been captured by extremists from both parties. The radical right is ascendant now, but the left had its heyday too, don't forget that.
President Obama had, as usual, an intelligent and carefully considered, middle-of-the-road candidate in Merrick Garland and we know what happened there. If ever there was a case of the futility of hope over experience, that was it.
My great hope is that Justice Roberts has a gradual epiphany and sees how selfish, exclusionary and cruel so many conservative positions are and acts as a decent human being for the greater good and not just as a rubber stamp for white Christian hegemony.
1
What is Adam Liptak's purpose in softening the corners of this hard right justice? I believe this fluff piece is meant to shore up the wretched mess Roberts has, and will continue, to move along at the peril of our democracy.
Case in point: Roberts only this morning paused the contempt order against a foreign company / entity who it is reported aided our president in his criminal conspiracy to thwart our democracy.
Vote in 2020 and remove the cancer.
Judge Roberts has good reason to be concerned about his legacy:
Gore v. Bush led to the Iraq War. There is the blood of innocents on this court’s hands. Lots of it.
Citizens United has sold out our democratic ideals to the highest bidder. Is our democracy dead?
Gorsuch climbed over Garland’s back. How embarrassing. Robert’s silence was nothing if not self serving. He apparently did not have the courage, or the integrity, to exercise even the whisper of a prerogative.
So NOW he is concerned about the appearance of partisanship?
3
Instead of just trying to change the perception that your hilariously partisan court isn't horribly partisan, try to balance it out.
And how do you do that?
1.You speak out when a good man like Merrick Garland was denied consideration.
2. You speak out when a prospective justice lies repeatedly while under oath while threatening half the nation with judicial revenge...and also strangling a 15 year old.
But you stayed silent as the kochs commanded.
And now your name and your court are Mudd.
4
Note to Mr. Justice Roberts: that ship sailed a long time ago. The final blow to the fiction of non-partisanship was delivered, I believe, by a gentleman from Kentucky in the matter of a certain Mr. Garland. You had your chance - it won't come again in your lifetime.
2
There are ideologies on the court. Not jurisprudence. Citizens United “corporations are people” would not have happened otherwise. The Constitution never even considered organizations. Only People.
Really? Then why aren’t executives of Halliburton (oil platform) Chevrolet (car accidents) and others in jail for murder like “people“ would be?
1
Chief Justice Roberts may be trying to make the Supreme Court appear less partisan – maybe even nonpartisan – but he's going to need help from those other Justices who were not only appointed by Republican presidents but also worked in Republican Administrations. And Brett Kavanaugh's off-the-wall and blatantly partisan diatribes during his confirmation hearings put a stain on the Court that will be difficult to erase.
An old saying holds that it is a poor mind that cannot find reasons to justify what it wants to do. Supreme Court Justices do not have poor minds, but their "legal reasoning" often strikes many as the product of what they want to do.
I hope the Roberts Court will not become a Taney Court.
57
@Michael N. Alexander
What’s wrong with intuition being the reason for making a decision? All you’re saying is you prefer people who are intellectual.
The words of Roberts are just so much empty rhetoric. Gutting the Voting Rights Act and upholding the democracy-killing Citizens United are two of the worst decisions of the past century. The perception that the Republican nominated justices are partisan is widely held because it is a fact. The Heritage Foundation and Federalist Society will only approve judges who favor the donor class. To pretend otherwise is to deny the reality of the situation.
116
@MHW Dred Scott, Plessey Ferguson - and now the Citizens United decision - the worst in the history of our country.
We might consider the refusal to take up the Wisconsin gerrymandering case to be another example of the blatant partisanship cursing our SCOTUS.
14
Not much new here.
The Court's partisanship was established as early as 1801 when during the last days of his administration President Adams made 16 Judicial appointments [known as Midnight Judges] all of whom were Federalists; a move calculated to politicize the judiciary in favor of the Federalists.
In 1937 FDR's attempted to pack the court with Justices who would approve his New Deal which theretofore they had rejected. The plan was aborted after Justice Owen Roberts changed tack and began supporting FDR, a move which became known as "the switch in time that saved nine."
18
Ideologues do not help a democracy. What is needed is rational analysis. The Founders knew this. Chief Justice Roberts, as a student of history, likely knows this as well.
The Conservatives on the Court certainly do not. Their "tribe" may include the Federalist Society, but more likely is the Evangelical Christian Right. Christian beliefs are fine in one's personal life, but secular judges must uphold the law, the Constitution and what is best for the larger society and our democracy. To do that, they must discard their religious biases. I suspect the Conservatives on the Court will find that to be an impossible task.
It's Christmas Eve as I write. Religious belief is tremendously important to individuals. Christmas is a great holiday. Let's all listen to and follow Christ's teachings and love for humanity!
Organized religion, on the other hand, has been a historical tool of evil. "God is on my side." The Founders knew this. Thus, the Establishment Clause.
The problem with lawyers, and thus judges, is that we study only Law (too often only law-related subjects as undergraduates), but not science, and especially developing science of human nature (evolutionary psychology, etc.)
If our S.C. Justices studied more evolutionary anthropology, and watched less Fox News, they would be better able to protect our Nation's democratic future. The Court could eventually transform itself from a political court into a science- and reason-based court.
48
@Mike Diederich Jr,
I can't recommend your post enough. Beautifully said.
Happy Holidays!!
5
@Mike Diederich Jr
Thank you for a well-said caution about the current Supreme Court. Justice Roberts may emerge as a nonpartisan justice, focused on the Constitution and the rule of law, but his past voting record is not reassuring.
2
This is an absurd article because it presupposes that the Court has legitimacy left to protect. Putting aside the debacles of Kavanaugh and the 'stolen seat', the Court lost all legitimacy when it issued a plainly partisan decision in Bush v Gore.
Sorry Chief. You can cosplay with your robes all you want but you're still an emperor with no clothes.
69
Has it not been a long term republican strategy, that has been well executed, to explicitly make the court a partisan and specifically conservative court? Can anyone with any honesty say that this was not the goal and that the goal has not been achieved? If not, how do we explain the reason why Garland wasn’t even considered yet Kavanaugh was confirmed (wasn’t Garland Kavanaugh superior in the hierarchy of the court with bi-partisan support?) - among many other actions. I don’t care one way or the other (conservative or liberal) but I’m just concerned about honesty and facts. If it was the strategy, which it obviously was, why hide from it now? We are embracing Double think - we are working hard to elect officials to make the court conservative, which has been accomplished and we don’t have a conservative/ Partisan court (holding two contradictory beliefs or facts as true, partisan is non-partisan, conservative is non-partisan). In the Post fact world of fake news - John Roberts would make Big Brother proud.
3
It's funny how, during the Warren Court, no one was talking about partisanship. I guess when the decisions follow your political views it is okay.
For me, this is just another example of the extremism of both sides that has grown out of the country's expanding intolerance. We have lost all semblance of the ideals that the Founders tried to instill in future generations. We need to read and listen to more of what the other guy has to say and realize that we all agree on many fundamentals. Compromise comes when implementation is determined.
Happy Holidays.
5
It's simply not the case that the Warren Court was regarded as apolitical. Impeach Earl Warren was a popular bumper sticker with many conservatives, and southern politicians demonized him to such an extent that in comparison Republicans today regard Nancy Pelosi as a saint.
I'm aware of some of the recent statements and decisions made by the Chief Justice, along with the few times he has gone out of his way to show some semblance of "moderation" in the making of the Court's decisions.
However, all of this is limited by the Federalist Society, and the permeation into our ultimate judicial selection.
To be selected, for a judicial nomination, one has to be a long term member, from law school and thereafter.
Further, if they want to be considered, they must clerk for judges and justices that select only those who have been card carrying members.
And recently it was reported that from the inception of law school, they had to secretly sign a promise to adhere to their conservative strictures. When this came to light, supposedly, this requirement was "eliminated". Time will tell.
And in addition to all of this is the Koch Bros et al., assertion of the different types of conservative entities which one must belong to, for Law Schools and Colleges to adhere to their curriculum, if they want their funding.
All of the above seems to go along with the judicial appointments for many of the lower federal and state courts, as well.
This doesn't sound like democracy. This sounds like a conditional sworn oath for life.
4
I've always respected the Chief Justice and believe that the institution that is the Supreme Court continues to mold and modulate him. SCOTUS never should be partisan. I urge Justice Gorsuch, who is one of the most qualified and intelligent people to be appointed to the Court, to carefully follow the Chief Justice's example.
One need not (and practically cannot) personally agree with every decision of the Court. We must maintain respect for our independent judiciary. It is the key to our freedom.
That is the Chief Justice's message. All of us, including the 8 associate justices, should heed that message well.
8
Does it seem odd that Roberts has to say this? "We don't work as Democrats or Republicans" suggests to me a bit of defensiveness on his part. Indeed, the SCOTUS has always been partisan up to a point and only recently are people really, seriously taking note of it. Perhaps Roberts is ultimately (without saying it) taking a more measured approach to his opinions these days because he knows how politicized the SCOTUS has become, particularly with McConnell and Trump. One can always hope.....
5
I would rather he just showed his true colors. It would be an easier fight to change the court in the long run. He is merely giving cover to his other partisans who are slowly destroying individual freedom while handing power to wealthy and religious patrons.
11
“We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans{", Roberts said.
The hypocrisy of John Roberts as described herein is appalling.
The truth is that the Roberts Supreme Court majority has been a major ally in the Republican drive to roll back democracy on behalf of the super-wealthy. This nation said its last goodbyes to democracy with the Robert’s Supreme Court Citizens United decision.
Roberts and his band of right wingers said corporations are “people” and have the rights of individual citizens. Roberts allowed a massive flow of dark corporate money to buy state governments in local elections where a little cash goes along way. This was part of a concerted strategy to pursue systematic Red Map gerrymandering. For example, Republicans needed only 48% of the vote to win both Houses of Congress in 2012.
Furthermore, the GOP has acted to suppress much of the Voting Rights Act with even more willing help from the Roberts Supreme Court. The Roberts Court enabled the extremist Tea Party financed by the Koch brothers and their corporate brethren to corrupt our entire governmental system.
Robert's claims his Court majority is non-partisan just as Trump claims to be a great president. George Orwell is turning over in his grave.
18
If you took away from Congress its party designations, would the result be a non-partisan Congress? That's about how far the technical argument of Chief Justice Roberts goes. Yes, Justices do not sit on one side of the aisle or the other. It's a laudable spirit, and when occasionally manifested, we can pat ourselves on the back that we have such a fine institution that stands above the fray of influence-peddling.
Sadly for the Supreme Court, the Senate keeps pulling back the curtain on the reality of what the court is. That reality is actually plain enough just from the statistics of voting records, in which the justices apply their unrivaled knowledge of the Constitution to the facts of a case and, with astonishing consistency, find that the application of the law results in an opinion that aligns with their individual ideological bents. If only the dice were so reliable, we could all become rich by gambling.
I decided to stop fooling myself about what the Court is after Mitch McConnell's jaw-dropping Merrick Garland stunt, the offense of which I feel no less now than when it happened. Technically, of course - technically - the Court is not responsible for what the Senate does in its confirmation hearings. Substantially, however, it is responsible, because time after time after time it votes just the way we expect it to vote, the way the Senate expects it to vote, the way lobbyists expect it to vote.
A few headlines here and there do not make a non-partisan Court. #Sad.
14
I'm terribly sorry Mr. Chief Justice, but the ship of impartiality sailed on the winds of Hobby Lobby, Janus, Shelby County and a host of other cases. Your court decides all issues based on the short term benefit to the GOP and/or the long term benefit to the .00001%. You will be remembered as the worst chief justice since Roger Taney of Dred Scott infamy.
14
@Peter
Or possibly even worse -- Dred Scott was one decision. Roberts has presided over a string of anti-American decisions.
FDR was very smart. He threatened to pack the court, but instead offered the justices pensions that would entice them to retire and they did. This is not the situation here.
Roberts created this court when he voted for Citizens United. Justice Kennedy wrote ustice Kennedy: “Ingratiation and access, in any event, are not corruption. . . .” “The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy.” How simplistic for five intelligent men to think this was not political.
Now that the court is so political, the citizens of this country have lost respect for it.
6
Really? He needs to look at the composition of his court and how they have voted historically.
4
Only hubris can explain Roberts’s denial of the very obvious politicalization of the United States Supreme Court on his watch.
9
Partisan? What ever gave You that idea?
Bush vs Gore
12
Mr Robert's , I applaud your efforts. But when you have a justice like Thomas on the bench, a lecherous liar on the bench who is a gross product of a partisan process, who would perhaps even support re-instating slavery if GOP proposed it, your hands are tied.
After all it's this court that has upheld such vile, dirthy, thuggish and self-evidently anti-democratic measures like gerrymandering, unlimited secretive political funds from wealthy people who subvert democracy and destroy our democratic process and the republic , which you swore to defend.
Yes the laws that supreme court upheld have helped put a thug like Mr Trump in the WH.
5
Republicans on the court in Bush v Gore and Citizens United decided presidential elections. Republicans have turned America into a shooting gallery (Heller). Republicans want to control women’s sexual life and empower religious policing of birth control (Hobby Lobby). It’s a little late to protest that they’re just calling balls and strikes.
17
@Tom
Which presidential election do you contend was determined by Citizens United?
1
Hey there, "conservative" Supreme Court justices! Here's an idea. If you don't want to be seen as partisan... don't make obviously partisan decisions! I'm not a legal scholar, and I acknowledge that the Law can be complex and arcane. But it's also pretty clear to me when you folks are making decisions based on factors other than what you should be. Citizens United vs. FEC? Really? Your final decision was a bunch of BS that allowed corporations to completely overwhelm the general public through sheer spending power. Don't tell me that money equals speech or that we still all have equal say. If 'advertising' didn't work, it wouldn't be a multi-billion dollar industry. And corporations have millions more "advertising" dollars (i.e. money for political contributions) than the general public. It's not a fair fight. It's not an equal fight. And frankly, with one side so over-matched against the other, it's not even a fight. It's just a rout.
8
@Mr. S.
"I'm not a legal scholar, and I acknowledge that the Law can be complex and arcane."
Yup. That's where you should have stopped.
1
Its a little too late in the game to be claiming the "conservative" majority aren't Republican appartachiks, chosen for the court to pursue a reactionary agenda. My goodness, Gorsuch sits in a stolen seat and Kananaugh's acceptance speech of his nomination was that of the Trump sycophant. We already know Alito and Thomas are rubber stamp Republicans. Roberts' hypocrisy isn't diminished by the few votes he cast with the real justices. The Citizens United decision unlocked greed as the real power in the USA and Roberts reputation will be forever stained. God help us because the Republicans are quickly corrupting the federal judiciary for the benefit of their donors.
6
This is like Fox News claiming to be "fair and balanced". Or cigarettes claiming to be healthy. It's called disinformation. The Big Lie. The Federalist Society's premise is a political biased judiciary. NO COLLUSION.
16
The problem is an out of control cabal of liberal activist so called judges that have the audacity to think they can overturn laws passed by Congress and signed by the president.
If my liberal friends support that anyone of 500 federal judges can negate or make laws nationwide... that is the real definition of chaos.
2
@obummer
Perhaps you should tell that to District Judge Reed O'Connor who decided that the ACA was unconstitutional because the Republican Congress removed the need to pay a tax for nonenrollment in health care.
In the last decade, essentially all the activist decisions have been from the right wing.
What Roberts is trying to do is stave off the repacking of the Supreme Court with more liberal judges.
Here's a (hopefully realistic) scenario that involves the Democrats getting their act together — aided and abetted by a Republican-induced major recession.
(1) All the complicated, private-insurance-written health care laws fail — specifically the ACA lower court ruling holds up — and millions are once again left with no health care.
(2) The Dems keep their control of the House and grab the Senate and White House in 2020.
(3) A vast Medicare expansion it passed that will eventually provide universal health care in the U.S.
(4) Some Yahoo in Texas challenges the constitutionality of Medicare in the courts — and wins.
(5) Infuriated liberals repack the court to represent the people, not the Republicans.
Roberts — who was one of the Republican operatives in the Bush/Gore recount — and later got his SC appointment from Bush as his reward — ain't no dummy. He knows that the Court must move somewhat gradually to Make America Fascist, (corporate + state), and he's not taking any chances that would threaten that ultimate goal.
1
"We don't work as Democrats or Republicans, "he has said. Objective facts demonstrate this is a false statement. So let's call this what it is: a lie.
How do I teach my children the value of the truth when many of our leaders are so dishonest?
8
@SK To quote from that great philosopher, George Costanza: : "It's not a lie if you believe it".
Roberts is a trained lawyer, he believes anything his owner tells him to believe.
With all due respect, we are not idiots. Asking intelligent Americans to accept the assertion that the Court is non-partisan is akin to asking us to believe that the moon is the backside of the sun.
Apart from Congress, the Supreme Ct is probably our nation's most partisan institution. With rare exceptions - mostly done to uphold the useful fiction that the Court is apolitical - the Court's justices consistently carry out the political ideologies of the President who appointed them. This is why judicial confirmations are high-stakes cash games.
I suspect what Roberts is most concerned about is not so much the fact that the Court is clearly political, but rather that it's getting harder and harder to obscure just how nakedly partisan the Court has become. This has huge implications for both the Court and its justices. Roberts certainly doesn't want to have to fend off growing calls for reform of the Court. And while politicians are notorious for going to great lengths to retain power, what is less noted is the degree to which the justices want to retain their own unique set of perks and privileges.
Despite, or perhaps because of, our polarized political process, Supreme Ct justices have become politicians in black robes. And while they're still worthy of our greatest esteem, our Constitution enshrines the right of Americans to vote their politicians out of office. It's time for term limits for Supreme Ct justices. No American politician should be able to serve for life.
15
@Josa,
If blue slips were still honored, and it took 60 votes to get a confirmation, we would get much better candidates.
The fact that those two things have been abandoned is proof that the process is fully ideological now, and that Roberts protests to the contrary, are worth about as much as a Mr. boneSaw denial.
Although Justice Roberts is in a much more visible position, his attitude is very similar to that of other prominent conservatives. He personally supports policies that are racist, xenophobic and unsympathetic to the poor - he just doesn't want to be perceived as being racist, xenophobic or unsympathetic to the poor.
We have entered a period where regressive policies that were previously unattainable by the right have become potential realities. For smart conservatives with an understanding of history, this has brought the new problem of how to attack those weaker than yourself without being perceived as a heartless monster, as the pain inflicted by the policies that they have fought for is now playing out in real time.
Perhaps we will finally get an answer to that age-old question of whether conservatives actually have a conscience...
4
As Colonel Potter from MASH would have said...."Mule fritters!!" This is as partisan a group of Supreme Court justices as we've ever had and it will continue to be so. Although most decisions are not 5-4, it seems the important ones increasingly are. And as far as judicial reflection and deliberation goes......it is easy to predict, for example, how Clarence Thomas or RBG will vote nearly every time. Roberts can publicly pretend there is no partisanship, but there is and will continue to be. To our misfortune.
1
What apparently has some of you folks so upset is that Justice Roberts refuses to make law, in its stead, he guides the court in interpreting laws that have already been created by congress. Think about it.
3
@DEWaldron
Nonsense--Roberts made law when he ruled that the ACA was legal because of the taxing power of Congress rather than from regulating interstate commerce.
He made law when the court ruled that corporations have religious rights, and when it ruled that money was speech.
Yeah. Right. Another right wing fairy tale.
Like Citizens United. Even the name is a lie.
According to a July article in the Washington Post, over 50% of last year's Supreme Court decisions were unanimous. Only 15% were decided by "slim" majorities (5-4 or 5-3). Does this fact not even merit a mention? (See: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/06/28/those-5-4-decisions-on-the-supreme-court-9-0-is-far-more-common/.)
Perhaps the court is less partisan than Mr. Liptak, and most of us, wishes it were?
3
@George P. Most cases decided by the Court have no political overtones.
3
“and it fell to Hughes to guide a very unpopular Supreme Court through that high-noon showdown against America’s most popular president since George Washington.”
Why Roberts is not a conservative justice nor a moral judge; politics have no place in the judiciary. Applying and interpreting of the law is apolitical. It is the fundamental principal of American jurisprudence. Each man deserves his rights protected by the Court. Without regard to how the rest of society (viz., politics) feels. Otherwise we are nothing more than a democracy subject to the will and imprudence of an emotional majority. The Court is all that keeps free citizens free. The Court ended segregation, despite the political will to keep it in place. Thank God Warren was not worried about politics like Roberts is now, else Brown v. Board would have been denied and Plessy kept as good precedent.
Reconsider your political calculus Roberts. Especially now as Trump will replace RBG with another solid conservative justice. Then your vote will be irrelevant .......
The last 2 justices were hand picked by right wing ideologues and of course it has become politicized. SCOTUS is slipping out of John Roberts control. If he doesn't know it he open his eyes and look around.
3
Everyone’s dumping on Trump. Now it’s Roberts. Is protecting the image of the Court really his job? What if that view is in conflict with the law? The law is supposed to be the law, and Justice is supposed to be blind and not looking over her shoulder for public approval.
Shame that we can no longer believe we have a separate judiciary. Bush vs Gore wrought awful consequences and the court should have ruled for the will of the people and count all the ballots. Since then we have an ultra conservative group recommending jurists, not on brilliance, but philosophy. Justice is an axi moran in the US.
8
Roberts has to know that he'll be presiding over the Senate trial of Donald Trump. True non-partisanship will be critical to saving our democracy.
With overwhelming 5 to 4 votes favoring the corporations, you bet, it's partisan.
9
If Roberts is sincere about removing the appearance of partisanship from the court, he should take up the gerrymandering cases coming up the pipeline, and once and for all restore the principle of one man, one vote throughout the country. Until then, his protests are just wordplay and sophistry.
7
Don't fall for the boy scout demeanor of the Chief Justice. He is just as radical on the right as he has been perceived. Pasting a pseudo jurisprudence onto his occasional stance aligning with the left is meaningless - his decision on the Voting Rights Act alone defines his philosophy as when it comes to fairness and equality under the law.
8
Justice Roberts certainly seems to have the right temperament to be the Chief Justice, but his decisions on Heller, Citizens United, and Shelby County v. Holder led me to think of him as just another Republican politician, but one that dressed different: he wore a judicial robe. However, his decision on the Affordable Care Act and his rejection of a request from the Trump administration to restart an asylum ban gave me an opportunity to do a reevaluation.
However, I feel that his decisions in which he has aligned himself with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan were more of an attempt to change the perception that the Court is partisan than what he really wanted to do. Regardless he has a lot of work to do to change the public opinion that the Court is not partisan, and I wish him well in his quest. He certainly will not be getting any help from Trump.
69
@Robert Stewart
The perception's truth is well beyond the ability of even the finest sophist to refute. The courts are partisan and partisanship is more important than competence. Maybe Chief Justice Roberts should keep his mouth shut and stop trying to persuade us the Earth is flat.
6
@Robert Stewart
I can't imagine anything that can overcome the absolutely idiotic thinking handed down on the Citizens United decision. The very concept that an organization has a right to have a say in our governing is ludacris and has proven to be a destructive influence on rational government. Enabling graft on a national level is just stupid.
10
@Courtenay Smith
Justice Roberts is in the wrong country at the wrong time. He should watch the deliberations of the Supreme Court of Canada to see what a search for justice looks like . I watched the Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh hearings and justice wasn't even a consideration it was all about winning and hoe to tilt the playing field.
6
It seems that interpretation of law is very subjective than objective and that's a problem. And that subjective nature of law (rather interpretation of it) is not only about "truth" but also about English language itself, as the word "God" can be totally secular as many Supreme Court judges defined it, even though more than 24 percent of American do not believe in God.
Many of the most contentious issues that US Supreme court decides and will continue to do so, mostly come from people's supposedly personal faith and religion, which should not have any influence on how our secular government and judiciary is supposed to function. But even a person totally ignorant about law and constitution very well know that reality is very different.
US judiciary and law must formulate how they actually define "truth"- based on science (objective scientific research) or some "holy book" or personal perception of the judges. The situation will not improve unless our policy makers, who nominate these judges, show some basic understanding of science and perception of truth (which largely decide one's understanding of religion and other such socio-cultural issues). That largely depends on America's voting population- their education & maturity.
1
Chief Justice Roberts should stick to his originalist, conservative view on the law and judge accordingly. He does not need to be the 'swing judge' and does not seek to strike a balance. He should strive to be a guide but serve as one of the nine on the team.
Originalist is a lie. If it wasn't you couldn't use it and conservative in the same sentence.
1
If Justice Roberts is now concerned that the Court is viewed as partisan he is a bit late. During the Presidential election of 2000 the Court produced essentially a coup d'etat by shutting down the recount in Florida and presenting the Presidency to George W. Bush. It did so on no grounds except to prevent Bush from "suffering irreparable harm", i.e. learning that he had lost the election. As Justice Stevens said, it thereby sacrificed the people's confidence in the judge as the impartial guardian of the law.
That confidence has yet to be restored, and there is little evidence that it will be.
12
You clearly haven't read, or don't understand, Bush v Gore.
This is a big win for the left and the sustained media campaign framing SCOTUS opinions against their legal positions not as a conflicting interpretations of constitutions but political partisan rulings that undermine the court’s very legitimacy. Once that framework got into Robert’s head his choice became to vote with the “non political” liberal block or have his court be painted as illegitimate.
We may however see the mother of all confirmation circuses and one more Trump appointment and the same old 5:4 after that or would that on paper 6:3 line up free him to vote what he believes, case by case?
1
@Just Saying,
when it's 6-3, then they can take turns moot voting the other way, to prove how impartial they are.
Really? saying so don't make it so. A few non-ideological votes would be more persuasive
3
I think that John Roberts is concerned about the legacy his court will leave. A very valid concern. Citizens United, the goring of the Voting Rights Act, and many other 5-4 decisions have ruined the image of neutrality. When United States v Trump comes up (and it WILL), the fate of the republic will rest on his shoulders. He should ask Gorsuch and Kavanaugh to recuse...but he won't. THIS will be his legacy. I'm not convinced , but I hope I'm wrong.
4
As a therapist I was taught to look at a clients behavior and actions to tell their story, more than what they wanted to believe about themselves. The behavior of the court has been very partisan starting with Gore/Bush, Citizen United, Voting Rights, etc.
The only time it seemed get out of lock step was with the Affordable Care Act. This court, congress and certainly this President are ruining this country.
4
Really? Is that why Roberts sat on the complaints against Kavanaugh until he was confirmed? And then forwarded the complaints to a CO court for investigation KNOWING they could do nothing since Kav was no longer on the appellate court. So, no, he isn't neutral.
8
So Roberts doesn’t want the court to appear political? Isn’t that obvious? Isn’t it part of his role to advance PR for the Court?
Is this article newsworthy?
6
I applaud him for this attempt but the record will be hard to undo. It seems that the court is another political group and at this time very conservative. The constitution has outlived its use fullness and needs completely overhaul to fit into the 21st century and we need to rotate these "judges" every 8 years and have them chosen by non political people on the basis of merit not politics.
5
The members of the court would best serve it by disengaging with any political think tank, right left or center. The optics of it simply exacerbate the overall sense by much of the public that the court has, in fact, a definite political bent in its decision making.
They should confine their speeches to college/law school commencements, not paeans to the Federalist Society.
5
Is this guy serious or does he just think the rest of us are stupid? EVERYTHING the court does is partisan, the justices have no credibility with those not affiliated with their party. It has been this way my entire adult lifetime. I often wonder if people actually believe the things they say or are these just quotes for posterity or the gullible. When you gave away the store in Citizens United, sir, you gave away all decency and objectivity. That you have a barely flickering conscience--you know you are in bed with bugs but you can't help yourself--is all that mitigates your Confederate soul.
5
Partisan? Who could ever think that? Roberts re-wrote the Obamacare mandate calling its a "tax" and therefore, presto, making it "constitutional" under the taxing power when Obama told us for months that it was not a tax. That wasn't judicial activism. It was simply Roberts re- educating American simpletons who were dumb enough to take Obama at his word. Then Justice Kennedy had a keen idea. If you look really closely at our constitution your will find yet another fundamental right, a right that over 20 generations of Americans and Supreme Court Judges somehow failed to see. What right is that you say? The right of homosexuals to marry of course. Silly us. How did we miss that? It makes perfect sense now. Men marrying men. Women marrying women. Isn't that swell? And of course the doozy of them all..that sacred right to "privacy" invented by the Court in 1966, which word appears no where our constitution. Our new right to "privacy" quickly morphed into the fundamental right to abort your baby in the "privacy" of the womb. How could any civilized society have missed that precious right? There is no evidence of partisanship...only creative Judges who know best.
1
Roberts got off on the wrong foot with pro-Republican decisions such as Citizens United, Shelby County, and Heller. The Justices' law clerks are offered training by the right-wing Federalist Society.
The legislative and administrative branches of government are dedicated to the creation of a partisan judiciary. Mitch McConnell refuses to consider Democratic appointments to the Court. The President explicitly boasts that he will appoint right-wing justices and is appointing reliably partisan judges to the lower federal courts. As long as the Senate remains in Republican hands, no change is likely in the foreseeable future.
Roberts' denials of a partisan judiciary fall flat when the creation of a partisan judiciary is the stated goal of the President and the party of which Roberts is a member.
When the current partisan madness ends, it will be necessary to substantially reconstitute the Court and the federal judiciary as an institution. The federal judiciary has been understaffed for decades. There is no reason for not expanding the number of judges on the Supreme Court to avoid partisan swings. We need not let the Court make law with 5-4 decisions.
We cannot have the "rule of law" with judges who are ruled by party politics.
10
Did you know, Adam, that he was going to take down the Mueller investigation on the very day you published this groveling obit of human decency?
Did the NYT purposely act to diminish and confuse his act of treason in supporting hostile foreign agents corrupting our elections and institutions?
#WeSeeYou #QuislingJournos
3
The Roberts’ Court green lights limitless corporate contributions in elections with the Citizens United decision, then effectively destroys the Voting Rights Act, inviting the GOP to engage in suppression of minority voting. And now Roberts wants us to believe the Court is not political? He reminds me of the scene in one of the Police Squad movies where all hell is breaking loose and the cop yells at the pedestrians, “Nothing to see here...move along.”
4
The article ends with: "Even if he wants to avoid major controversies for now, his more conservative colleagues may not let him." However, that is not really true. Even though it takes only 4 votes to add a case to the docket, it still takes 5 votes to decide a case. I do not think that the 4 conservative justices will vote to add a case to the docket if Justice Roberts tells them that he is already inclined to vote with the liberals. After all, accepting a case only to end up on the losing side cannot help one's cause. On the contrary, losing a supreme court case is the surest way to harm one's cause. Therefore, Justice Roberts will always have the whip hand as long as there are four liberal justices. However, if any of those four liberal justices leaves the court and is replaced by a Trump appointee, Justice Roberts's power will come to an abrupt end.
1
The SCOTUS is no longer regarded as regal! I don't know when it happened, but can one imagine "This Court" issuing an unanimous decision in the US v. Muhammad Ali case? Think about that for a minute, and one may realize how far the SCOTUS has veered off.
1
If that were true, every court decision would be unanimous as laws are black and white. The only reason they are not unanimous is because you each put in your personal interpretations which are influenced by your political and or religious ideologies. Nonsense that its not partisan. We need to remove the human interpretation and just deal with facts. Let computers decide what is or isnt in the rule of law. They have no party.
Thomas and Kavanaugh are not fit to sit on the court.
They have both shown they are hyper-partisan, and are willing to put partisan politics over the law.
Our country deserves better than these partisan hacks on our most supreme court !
3
Give me a break. Corporations are people for free speech purposes, no need for voting rights anymore and on and on. See what Roberts says when abortion, racial discrimination, religion, and gerrymandering come up, especially when they have a 6-3 majority.
4
Politicians in black robes. The Supreme Court is a political entity, always has been.
4
Roberts wants to convince Americans that Supreme Court justices merely call balls and strikes, but that's not what he himself believes or does. Our country has been gravely wounded by the Citizens United decision. I fear that Roberts and his conservative cohort will make an even greater mistake when they consider BDS v. First Amendment. In Roberts' legal world, an American in Texas and some other states can find him or herself sued, barred, and fined for refusing to promise never to boycott Israel. And Roberts apparently doesn't think that such laws are unconstitutional.
2
Please Chief Justice Roberts, keep the Supreme Court legitimate. We have Fake News, Fake President, and Fake Congress. We do not need Fake Court. Thank you.
1
I'd like to hear Judge Robert's thoughts about the role of the Heritage Foundation and The Federalist Society (and it's contributors which include The Koch Bros. Charitable Foundation, David Koch and Koch Industries Inc. and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce) in appointing extreme right-wing jurists to the courts. If Roberts would truly like to make the courts non-partisan, he'd do something about inequitable, hyper-partisan situation.
160
@Sara G. I'd like to know when we can bury Citizens United. Oh wait, that voting body does not have a body.
9
@poslug
But it is psychotic.
1
I remember John Roberts' confirmation hearings. Time after time he deflected questions about his views and reiterating his belief in the value of precedent, of previous rulings, stare decisis.
So within a few years of his appointment and confirmation to chief justice of the land, we get the court overturning decades of precedent, most notably in the cases of the Voting Right Act and infamously with the so-called Citizens United decision.
No, his court just calls balls and strikes.
10
He's a symbol for today's conservative movement. They've manipulated the crazies for decades to obtain power but now the crazies have taken over.
4
liberal fantasy - Dem takes the WH in 2020. Roberts resigns his position with a request to the senate to restore 60 votes for all federal judges including the SC. That would be a step to save the Court Roberts claims to care so much about. I know... it’ll never happen.
1
From all I have read, the framers of the Constitution disagreed violently over many issues, often hated each other, and only agreed that the Constitution was better than the Articles of Confederation. I find it curious that Roberts and his Federalist Society ilk continue to discover that the views of contemporary Republicans happen to be exactly what the framers of the Constitution had in mind over two centuries ago. It seems to me to be either miraculous insight on their part, or just intellectual arrogance on stilts.
13
Whilst I have no reason to doubt Chief Justice Roberts impartiality anyone appointed by "I alone" Trump is, sadly, suspect.
I can't get over the fact that Kavanaugh was allowed to lie his way onto the Court. One lie after another, in full sight, and now we're supposed to believe that the Court is not political. What I can't understand is why didn't the Democrats didn't even ask him why he refused to take a lie detector test. Every Democrat should have asked the same question, "Why are you afraid to take a lie detector test." As a result, we now have a Supreme Court Justice who refused to take a lie detector test to prove he is innocence. And this is a justice who even wrote about the reliability of lie detector tests.
8
Kananaugh was a horrible choice, but we don’t “prove our innocence” around these here parts...
Is it time for appointments to have an maximum age limit. Why is death still the arbiter for a new judge?
1
the Republican idea of an unpoliticized Court is phony, and also quite simple: to insure the country is always and forever run only by their party, the gag is to write bad checks and keep Republican thumbs on the balance scales of justice. IOW, lie, cheat, and steal their way to inviolate power. that's running America like a business, Republican style.
6
I have read several comments blaming Roberts for not speaking out about McConnell blocking Merrick Garland. A Supreme Court justice doesn't speak out about a fight in Congress. The case is brought before them, they accept it and make a ruling. It would highly inappropriate for a sitting justice to comment or say publicly something about a fight in Congress or a law that might be brought before them. You can blame Roberts for any # of cases he voted on. But for Garland, it's Schumer & The Dems fault for not fighting tooth & nail to get it before the court. Where the law was very much on Obama's side.
70
@Doctor Woo: the blame for blocking Garland lies with the transgressor: Mitch McConnell and Republicans. They were in sole power of congress and refused to interview him (McConnell declared that any appointment by the sitting president to be null and void). Democrats tried to overcome the Republicans' refusal to event consent for an interview but didn't have enough votes or power.
Please stop with the lie that it's the Dems fault; Republicans alone fully own this.
26
@Doctor Woo
The law was never on Garland’s side. The Judicial branch has no business interfering with the rules used by an equal branch of government. That would be like the Senate demanding which cases the Court rules on. Would Obama have liked the Court to rule the Dems couldn’t change the rules requiring 60 votes for inferior courts? Garland had no right to a hearing, no right to a vote, and no right to sit on the Court. None.
What I am saying is that the ct has no right to interfere until the case is brought to them. And McConnell certainly did break the law in my mind. You are totally misinterpreting my comment.
7
Interpretation of laws and constitution seems to very subjective, than objective. And there comes the role of a person's personal faith, what s/he believes to be "true" and relevant to American society and its constitutional validity. Even the word "god" can be secular and be allowed to be used to justify "under God" and "on God we Trust" type phrases in our governmental duties in a secular democracy- thanks to highly religious judges in US Supreme Court who had a very different understanding of English language and truth.
Judge Roberts seems to be worried about trust of American people on judiciary and, more so, on the judges as a person. But worried Judges like him need to think about how so many judges were motivated by personal political and/or religious belief to decide various cases in the name of justice. In one way, many of the judges themselves created this image problem that they face today and seem to be worried now.
4
The mere fact that the Chief Justice feels the need to say that the Supreme Court is not partisan is all the evidence I need to conclude that the Supreme Court is partisan.
17
@Chris Rasmussen "Never believe anything in politics until it is officially denied." - Otto von Bismarck
2
Roberts comment that the Supreme Court is not partisan is laughable. The only good thing that may come out of it is that it is motivation for Roberts to vote with the progressive/moderate justices as often as he can stomach it to try to prove his point.
5
"We don't work as Democrats or Republicans."
Mitch McConnell will be very disappointed to hear that. That is the whole point of these trump appointments, isn't it?
14
There are many examples that can confuse many well informed people about how so many American policy makers & people in judiciary, including in US Supreme court, actually respect constitution and interpret laws. Role of religion can be an excellent example.
Few days ago I read an excellent book (Godless Citizens in a Godly Republic_ which is published this year. It's very helpful to learn US sociopolitical eovultion from religious angel. It also reflected on how we came to this stage to elect a person like Trump, who hardly have any morality, ethics, & religious belief. Yet he successfully exploited Christian (mainly evangelical) faith to fulfill his personal agenda of power & money. These are actually the people- presidents & senators, who recruit SC judges based on their personal faith or political compulsion about religion vis-a-vis constitution. So "highly conservative" judges like Kavanugh.
In short, our criteria to understand & evaluate "truth" has changed drastically due to America's growing influence of religion in politics and even in education.
Besides other reasons, it's also affecting our higher education sector, which ultimately affecting our ability to create wealth (not mere "managing" it) & power to remain globally competitive with new technologies & products.
The conflict between science & faith rests on the methods it use to decide what is true, & what truths result. These are conflicts of both methodology and outcome too.
3
Chief Justice Roberts needs to know that we all know that the Supreme Court members are partisan. But this is not his fault. He did not choose the members of the court. The Senate chooses the members of the court. And the only way to fix the appointment of partisan members is to require 80% of the Senate vote for confirmation of a Supreme Court justice (fat chance that is happening). Also, using the Supreme Court to advance a political agenda started way before Roberts, about 60 years ago after the publication of “An American Dilemma” where the conclusion, in a nutshell, was that Congress was too slow to effect social change and that the Supreme Court was the fastest way to implement social changes. Progressive liberals followed this recommendation and had much needed successes in advancing social changes, but did irreparable damage to the Supreme Court. So Chief Roberts, the Supreme Court situation today is not your fault and there is little you can do. And do not lose your credibility arguing that the Supreme Court members are not partisan as there is ample evidence that they are. Just say it like it is, and that is not ok but outside of your control.
3
When the court consisted of individuals selected by the sitting administrations, as they are supposed to be chosen, the SCOTUS was in the clear from accusations of political bias.
Roberts completely changed that with Citizens United and Obama’s deprived appointment, to say nothing of the Kavanaugh three ring circus that seemed to be void of any interest in the man’s background.
SCOTUS today is clearly a political institution. Very Sad.
6
The charitable part of me hopes that Roberts was taken aback by the crude voter suppression efforts in 2016 and 2018, realizes that he was dead wrong in Shelby v. Holder, and is seeking now to do what he can to make amends and to change course.
Background: Shelby v Holder, a 2012 case, removed Justice Department review of voting procedures. Roberts wrote the majority opinion, in which he concluded, without evidence, that times had changed and no current threat to minority voting rights existed. He cited state's rights theories as requiring the removal of Justice Department review of voting procedures.
Roberts thereby took it on himself and his un-elected Supreme Court colleagues to repeal a law that had been renewed by a 98-0 vote in the Senate in 2006!
And to once again place the voting rights of millions of Americans into jeopardy.
4
The legitimacy of the federal judiciary has been under attack by the GOP, not because they criticize it, but because they manipulate it. There would never have been a Justice Gorsuch, except for the manipulation by Mitch McConnell of the confirmation process. There would be conservatives appointed to federal judgeships by any Republican president, but with nominees coming from the Federalist Society going straight through President Trump, who would say yes to the second coming of Roger Taney (not that he would actually know who Taney was), and with McConnell’s Senate being an almost certain rubber stamp, the GOP seeks to make the federal judiciary an obviously partisan extension of their party and the most extremist wing of their party at that. As for Kavanaugh, any nominee would have been conservative, but Trump didn’t add him to the list of Federalist Society candidates because of his general beliefs, but because of the likelihood that he would need protection by a SCOTUS that would support Executive impunity.
Now we are one Ruth Bader Ginsburg away from a SCOTUS that will trample the rights and beliefs of the significant majority of our citizens, who range from moderate to liberal politically and socially, no matter what Chief Justice Roberts tries to do. Even worse, the GOP is about to learn the Law of Unintended Consequences all over again, as they finally comprehend the radical threat posed by President Trump to our democracy, but are powerless to stop him.
4
Justice Roberts lost respect and legitimacy for most long ago by writing the majority for Citizens United.
10
Not partisan?
Depends on what the definition of "partisan" is.
2
If the Supreme Court is not partisan, then why did Clarence Thomas publicly attack Planned Parenthood as a party in an appeal?
9
The supreme court is the most deep red Republican federal appeals court in the country. In case after case, from Gore v Bush to citizens united to the voting rights act, they've thrown off all pretense of intellectual honesty and delivered the goods for the party.
7
At the end of the day, the Roberts court overturns whatever they feel like under "originalism" and approve of anything their groomers in the Federalist Society tell them too, such as the death (gun) lobby, having suddenly created an individual right to own as many weapons as they want, as well as Citizens United, where they invented a new reality (printed money = standing on a soapbox in a park talking about politics).
Although he may say whatever he wants, his acts do not match his deeds. So, this will only lead to more polarization because it veers so far from actual reality. Unfortunately, he cannot get off this path and it will be his legacy, as well as cause many more deaths from guns, gerrymandered results, and repeats of the 2016 election. The trick will be avoiding a "yellow vest" style uprising.
3
The Chief wants to have both ways. Pretend that the Supreme Court is above politics but push through his conservative, pro-business agenda. But it won't work.
On many topics, it is easy to predict how justices will vote. Take for example, if you have a case of a corporation verses an individual (either as customer or employee), the five conservative justices (Alito, Thomas, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Roberts) are going to support the corporation. The Law, facts of the case, etc. are irrelevant. They will use their originalist, textualist, mumbo jumbo to produce a decision favorable to the business interest.
It is the same in other areas. He might talk the talk of non political but he won't walk the walk.
231
A court that strikes down the enforcement provisions of the 2nd article of the 15th Amendment, believes gun carry in DC is (where there are very few deer) is a “right” while healthcare isn’t, believes money is speech and corporations are people doesn’t deserve a 2nd chance.
North Carolina and Georgia are in flagrant violation of the very law (the Voting Rights Act of 1965) that this court struck down.
I fear the Supremes. I do not respect them; they are hopelessly partisan. But, I fear them.
Bert Gold
San Mateo
14
The shocker here is the explicit acknowledgment that 'legitimacy' is a term of art in the theory of public relations, right-wing style.
@Bert Gold has told us exactly why legitimacy, as a matter of substance rather than flimflam, is long gone. With the majority in their hands, due in no small part to the own interventions in the electoral process, the only remaining question for the ideologues is the choice between a juggernaut and a steamroller.
1
The article does not appear in the opinion pages of the Times, it appears in the news section. I quote one phrase: “Citizens United, the 2010 campaign finance decision that amplified the role of money in politics”.
The Citizens United decision is not about enhancing the role of money in politics. It is about freedom of the press – the very freedom that gives the New York Times the right to publish, and Adam Liptak the privilege of writing articles. This is not solely a conservative opinion. It is also the opinion of the majority of constitutional scholars of both left and right political persuasions.
Your phraseology in a news article almost qualifies as “fake news.”
Citizens United is an advocacy corporation, with conservative political views, that wished to broadcast a video critical of Hillary Clinton. The SCOTUS decision granted them the right to do so. The New York Times is a corporation, with strongly held political opinions, which publishes numerous editorials and articles, especially at election time, and which very much try to influence the outcomes of elections. The decision confirmed the Times’ right to do so.
In July, 2016, then candidate Clinton explicitly promised that if elected she would try to amend the Constitution to overrule the decision, by eviscerating the first Amendment. I believe this is one reason why Ms. Clinton lost the election.
Let’s revisit this topic when the newest Justice leads the fight to overturn Roe v. Wade.
3
Positions on the Supreme Court is filled through a very partisan process. This has been true for many years. The Chief Justice can try to hide this fact, but he cannot change it by continuing the same line of partisan decisions that we have seen over the past few decades.
4
The Chief Justice may be attempting to burnish his "legacy," but that legacy has already done incalculable damage to this nation. This is the same "we're not political" Chief Justice who gutted the very heart of the Voting Rights Act, unleashing aggressive voter disenfranchisement and suppression, even as he sanctimoniously lied that "racism is a thing of the past." This is the same man who soberly opined that women don't need a perimeter and could be harassed, threatened, photographed, and screamed at as they sought reproductive healthcare services - he deemed those threats to be tantamount to "gentle counseling," even as he retains his protective 250' perimeter. This is the guy who caused tsunamis of dark money into Washington, buying and selling Congress while the voice of the people goes silent. Too late, Justice Roberts - you are a liar and a hard right wing ideologue.
30
@Rebecca Rabinowitz
Thank you for expressing so well what I and so many women see in this hopelessly hacked institution.
Justice? Let’s just stop pretending. We no longer expect justice from SCOTUS.
2
And, with no respect left for you and none now remaining for your institution, sir, I reply: Citizens United. See also Kelo, a decision that has not had near enough obloquy heaped upon it. Your court consistently finds for people with money and corporations, the majority of which trend overwhelmingly Republican. The Chief Justice has no clothes.
13
@Dana Stabenow
Kelo was decided before Roberts joined the Court. It's also a majority liberal decision, not a conservative one. But you would have to know something about the Court to know that, and so I understand your error.
1
The Republicans on the Court are obviously partisan hacks. This isn't even debatable. They are unelected legislators wearing black robes in order to provide a facade of fairness. It is a joke that they are fair.
12
the nature of some types of law requires the incorporation of a judge's judicial philosophy into decisionmaking. statutory interpretation, or the application of established common law principles, is generally neutral. the reach of general & undeveloped rights in a constitution tends not to be. you could refer to a court as partisan. though the more accurate assessment is that the law requires displaying a judicial philosophy in some cases.
1
Robert's idea is that jurists from all walks of life come together to define American law and do so in an intellectual non-partisan way that adheres only to the rule of law.
But justices are nominated on behalf of political parties by political presidents who represent the ideology of constituent voters whose interests must be served. They are confirmed by a political Senate vote that routinely lies somewhere along party lines.
Nominees, now justices, typically vote along those same party lines: witness Republicans Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia, or Democrat William Douglas, who have voted hard right or hard left 97% of the time. It is the rare justice who does not, like Kennedy. They adhere to the rule of law but it is, by intentional Constitutional design, representative of political points of view. So Robert's ideal of non partisanship is a mostly unrealized Athenian aspiration.
5
Might want to mention that to Kavanaugh, boss. Just in case you missed his confirmation hearings.
4
Impartial? After Ruth Bader Ginsbergs' piece near the 2016 election?
Definitely there is political partisanship at the individual level, but the court should be self-moderating in it's decisions as a result of some balance in the choice of members. This is where the experience level does have some meaning and can make it hard to justify imposing term limits on the justices.
That balance does wobble at times, though, resulting in decisions such as Citizens United which needs to be legislated out of existence NOW.
3
There are many examples that can confuse many well informed people about sure how so many American policy makers and people in judiciary, including in US Supreme court, actually respect constitution and interpret laws. Role of religion is an excellent example of that.
Few days ago I read an excellent book, Godless Citizens in a Godly Republic, and published this year. It's very helpful to learn US sociopolitical eovultion from religious angel. It also reflected on how we came to this stage to elect a person like Trump, who hardly have any morality, ethics or religious belief, but successfully exploited Christian (mainly evangelical) faith to fulfill his personal agenda or power & money. These are actually the people- presidents & Senators who recruit SC judges based on their personal faith on religion vis-a-vis constitution. So people like Kavanugh get elected.
In short, our criteria to understand & evaluate "Truth" has changed drastically mainly due to America's growing influence of religion in politics and even in education.
Besides other reasons, it's also affecting our higher education sector, which ultimately affecting our ability to create wealth (not mere "managing" it), and remain globally competitive with new technologies & products.
The conflict between science & faith rests on the methods it use to decide what is true, & what truths result. These are conflicts of both methodology and outcome too.
1
Thanks, I'll look for that book. Always good to read different views.
2
Donald Trump and Mitch McConnell certainly don't see it that way. Prior to the election, McConnell famously prevented Obama from appointing a justice. During the election, McConnell and Republicans of all stripes made the case that electing a Republican President, even one as unpalatable as Donald Trump, was critical because the President would be appointing Supreme Court justices. The Supreme Court is not only political, it is openly politicized by the other branches. The politicians are most to blame, but also the voters who followed their advice.
12
Judges when they come on the court begin to see that real people are greatly affected by their work and lofty notions such as freedom and liberty are priceless and so they seek to find ways to protect freedom and liberty from government and from most everything else that might invade it, so they move left, and weave liberty and freedom into whatever they can.
Rigid, cold, intellectual edifices of the right appear to be just that, and bigger, richer, “realer” things matter, so they move left (as in liberty).
They also see that they and life are short and larger sweeping forces are far more precious than Federalist Society coffee klatching chatter.
1
Tough to believe anything is non-partisan these days. TV shows are partisan, finding something like the truth takes visits to several news sites and public political talk is dangerous.
I'd like to believe these intelligent judges are able to rise above the us/them traps that can ruin this country.
1
The job of SCOTUS is to:
1. Uphold the law (both in regard to the general public as well as other branches of government)
2. Interpret existing laws within the context of the Constitution
3. Ensure justice is meted out fairly to ALL Americans
Everything else (whatever personal opinions the members of SCOTUS or other members of government have) has no place in those mandates.
The recent behaviors of SCOTUS has been restrained compared to the ineffective chaos and idiocy of the other branches recently.
2
And now “Justice” Roberts is trying to convince Americans the supreme court is nonpartisan. I wonder if Merrick Garland is at home sipping a cup of coffee and reading this whopper.
23
Recall that only AFTER Kavanaugh was sworn in as a Supreme Court Justice, did Chief Justice Roberts refer serious allegations of 83 complaints against Kavanaugh to the judicial council responsible for upholding ethics, only to have the council issue a statement that "ethics rules for the judiciary do not extend as high as the Supreme Court." It is difficult to believe that Roberts did not anticipate this outcome. And so the complaints withered and died, and we are to believe that the Supreme Court is non-partisan and not above the law.
53
For the better part of 50 years, maybe more, the votes of most of the Supreme Court justices have been predictable, whether it's Alito or Sotomayor, Scalia or Brennan. The truly great justices are the ones who aren't predictable, like Blackmun, Stevens and Souter. In these hyper-partisan times, with a mendacious, mob-inspired, man-child in the White House and a partisan hack leading the Senate, the sustainability of our Supreme Court will depend upon justices who decide to decide the legal issues rather than advance a political agenda. I sincerely hope Roberts and others rise to the occasion.
14
Well, I do hope he is willing to stop the runaway far-right idealogue freight train. We didn't deserve Trump. We don't deserve a far-right legal infrastructure. Enough damage has been done already!
9
Chief Justice Roberts' remarks would be much more credible if, over his tenure, the nine votes had not been highly predictable from a statistical standpoint on political and social cases. Not on the 'technical' cases, as RBG has often pointed out, but from guns to gays to Roe to searches, the close cases were often 5-4 with unpredictability left largely to Kennedy or occasionally Roberts.
Think how often Thomas,Scalia/Gorsuch and Alito, have been on one side vs RBG, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan in high-profile cases. I estimate that Scalia's vote Against the government in the Git'mo case was at least 3 standard deviations off his norm. (Scalia didn't like the idea that The Court had no authority at Git'mo.) Anybody out there want to run the statistics?
6
Well, of course he doesn't believe a right-wing republican majority is partisan! Everyone knows that its only when the liberals or moderates control something that it is partisan.
19
Here's hoping the Chief Justice will show capacity to "grow into the job:" capacity that our President, clearly and unfortunately, completely lacks.
3
Trump's style always includes the bullying style of "gaming" the refs because he lacks the understanding or possesses the capability to figure something out.
3
Roberts is realizing His Legacy is on the line. The " Roberts Court " will be immortalized in History books, in perpetuity. The outlook seems bleak, unless he gets control of his lesser Breathren. And I used That word on purpose, for that is the real problem. Ultra "religious " Males.
7
If Justice Roberts wants to restore some legitimacy to the court, he is going to have to "Show Me" like they say in Missouri. When a president chooses a nominee who goes on Fox TV and whines about the process, and makes appeals to the political base of the president, I'm cynical until further notice. I was embarrassed by for the institution that MUST provide checks and balances to the executive and legislative branch. It's not like we need another threat to American democracy.
177
After Mitch McConnell's shameful refusal to consider President Obama's nominee, Judge Garland, and the subsequent hyper-partisan Senate hearings over the confirmations of Trump's two Court appointees how can Chief Justice Roberts do anything to assure us that today's Supreme Court is anything but hyper-partisan? He has an impossible task before him. Although both political parties are to blame, there is no question that in the 21st Century, beginning with the McConnell unconstitutional decision the Republican Senate* has done more to destroy any semblance of Judicial impartiality.
*Remember that the actual number of Americans represented by Republican Senators is a small minority of the total American population. In other words the Republican majority Senate does not represent the majority of Americans.
242
@RLW
Section 3
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote."
You should be thankful the Senators are chosen by the people thereof, instead of Legislature thereof.
@RLW Once again, the obligatory "false equivalency." No, I beg to differ, both sides are not to blame. Voting against and possibly blocking a presidential nominee (e.g., Bork) is one thing. Refusing to even consider the nominee is quite another. I know of no instance in American history in which a Democratic-controlled Senate engaged in the level of hyper-partisanship and blatant obstructionism regarding a Supreme Court nominee as did McConnell and company in 2016.
31
@RLW Actually, it was just McConnell. The nomination of Garland was never presented to the Senate for its advice. McConnell is said (by some dopes) to be deeply committed to the institutional structure of the Senate.
There is zero evidence that this is so.
26
Sadly, it all comes down to one man's ego and the will to leave a positive legacy. After years of voting one way in order to move the court to the right, taking over from Kennedy as the swing vote just doesn't cut it. Roberts can say that the courts aren't political all he wants. We have proof in decision after decision that they are political. We also have proof, in our descent into oligarchy and hypercapitalism, that the Supreme Court is to be blamed for the rank corruption we are now mired in. Dark money, SuperPacs, Trump - all of it is the court's doing. Undoing the damage will take decades.
It's a very small consolation that Roberts now sees the light.
---
Things Trump Did While You Weren’t Looking
https://wp.me/p2KJ3H-2ZW
7
@Rima Regas
Democracy depends upon the enlightened wisdom of its leaders and usually only a select few have that wisdom.
Witness Mattis' principled resignation letter. Witness Fed Chairman Powell standing up to the president currently. Witness Washington turning down a lifetime presidential term. Read Kennedy's Profiles in Courage - it only takes one to stand against the tide and that is usually all we have: one.
Roberts intellect and love of the Court, along with life tenure that insulates his maverick view, may save the Court yet. George W. Bush was wrong on so many issues in profoundly disastrous ways, but somehow got the Chief Justice nomination right.
@AG. GW Bush made many bad decisions. Roberts effectively lied to Congress to get confirmed. The Roberts appointment was just another bad decision of GW Bush’s, IMHO.
I fear but don’t respect either of them.
See the article where Harry Reid explains Robert’s lies to Congress.
The naked partisanship of the Republican wing of the Supreme Court is clear. You just have to know where to look.
Starting in 2000, with Bush v Gore, every case that has come before the Court, that gave the Court the opportunity to increase the political power of the Republican Party, has resulted in a decision that did just that.
Bush v Gore
Citizen's United
Shelby County
Each of these decisions required the Court to contort itself with illogical or simply trumped up reasoning, to overturn precedent, with the singular goal of increasing the political power of the Republican Party and diminishing the power of the Democrats.
Add to this its great reluctance to address two of the greatest political crimes of this century, voter suppression and political gerrymandering, and the picture is clear, the Republican Party side of the Court is doing its part on behalf of the Republican Party.
On other issues, Chief Justice Roberts will appear to be more nuanced and reasoned, but do not be fooled. His vote to uphold the ACA was not based on a neutral examination of the facts, but much more likely on the political calculus that overturning the ACA would enrage Democrats and likely create a "blue wave" sooner than 2018.
I have little doubt that this thinking prevails today. Do not enrage the Democrats until it is too late for them to do anything about it.
With the current stacking of the Federal Court system with right wing ideologues, that day is not far away.
23
After Bush V. Gore theres no more pretending that the Supreme Court is anything other than what it is and most likely always was and thats nine politicians representing different political constituencies. The fairy tale taught us as kids that the Supreme Court is above politics is just that a fairytale and pretty much everyone now knows it. There have always been a few exceptions like Earl Warren but then there was a fairly large group of reasonable Republicans once upon a time. Those days are over. Now the Democrats tend to be moderate and the Republicans anything but. I don't know if Roberts is trying to fool us or himself but the idea that the Supreme Court is non partisan is an unfunny joke.
11
Americans, the ones who vote and support the President prefer to believe that there is a “fix” than understand just because they don’t like it is not a sound legal opinion. On the other hand I do scratch my head at the remarks, why speak at all, of some justices when they speak about what the framers meant. We don’t live in the times of the farmers, thank heavens. I think the Chief Justice and the associate justices should be wary of feeding the flames of populism which has as its enemy necessary institutions like the Supreme Court,
1
The Supreme Court is in the worst position it has been in for many. many years. The rule of law has almost fallen by the wayside in the Trump administration and it has eroded my confidence in our courts.
Witness the rapid placement of judges for the last two years by the Republicans without seemingly regard for their competence as jurists. The only test seems to be if they are good Republicans. As 95% of what Judges hear are not partisan issues, but rather general legal issues and we are going to be stuck with less than adequate judges.
Chief Justice Roberts does recognize the problem but I am not sure what he can do about it.
97
It reminds me of Trump saying over and over "There was no collusion." The {President} doth protest too much, methinks.
c.1600 play Hamlet by William Shakespeare
4
"My job is to be an umpire - to call balls and strikes", said Mr. Roberts at his confirmation hearing to be chief justice.
He lied. His job - as outlined by the Koch brothers and catholic church - was/is to try to destroy human and civil rights in OUR United States of America. His main job was/is to try to take away a Woman's Right To Choose what she does with her own body and life. His job was/is to try to keep power in the hands of a few corporate/religous few.
Do not trust him. He says one thing and - by the way he decides which cases to hear - does another. He might be playing it safe right now but it's only because WE THE PEOPLE are going to demand that OUR Socially Conscious, smart hired/elected lawmakers increase the size of OUR U.S. Supreme Court and pack it with as many progressive justices as necessary to restore balance. They will then pass a law or HARD rule that 60% of OUR U.S. Senators must approve every federal judge. That will stop the packing of OUR courts and bring true justice back to OUR judicial system.
28
Please. We are not stupid, Mr. Roberts.
28
So what he is saying is "Once in a while I will throw the Democrats a bone on something not to important to make it look like we are not a lapdog for Republicans. But, when it comes to the important stuff, you all know where to shove it."
31
Not an American, but I wonder if the claim of impartiality can be claimed given the use of the nuclear option to place two of these judges on the supreme court. No attempt was made to pick a moderate judge in each case that might get Democratic votes. In fact Kavanaugh specifically stated his allegiance to Republican party. Many conservatives saw this as a way to permanently install their ideology despite changing demographics. Whether Roberts pushes his ideology slowly or quickly, I can't see how he will be able to maintain any legitimacy. The interpretation of gun laws, destruction of affirmative action, removal of laws preventing voting restrictions, corporations as people along with money being equivalent to free speech are probably the most far reaching decisions made by the supreme court in the last few decades. Whether slowly or quickly the removal of abortion rights and the increases of religious privilege is almost guaranteed by this right wing court.
19
Justice Roberts does not need to convince me that all judges are apolitical and have no agenda. He just needs to convince his fellow conservative justices to not impose their political and religious beliefs on the rest of America. The SCOTUS seems to forget that we are not just a democracy, where the majority rules, but we are also a republic, where each and every citizen's liberty matters.
9
Actions speak louder than words. Citizens United" is an example of that.
39
Justice Roberts’ ideas would have been credible prior to the SCOTUS’ election of President. Now, we have a conservative, Federalist Society, and evengelical SCOTUS.
17
Now that the court has swung to the extreme right with the additions of Goresuch and Kavanaugh joining Thomas and Alito as a solid bloc, we are left to rely on Roberts to moderate future decisions, as he did by supporting the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. The next monumental decision will be whether or not Roe v Wade survives.
5
It is difficult, with McConnell’s refusal to address Obama’s selection of Garland, and with the railroading of Kavanaugh to believe that SCOTUS is apolitical. Originalism has become a religion on the Right, with Scalia convinced he knew the minds of the founders, particularly with regard to the Second Amendment. And with several members reportedly regularly attending GOP retreats and events. Thomas’s wife is a GOP fundraiser. The evidence of partisanship is just too strong.
21
The myth of impartiality must end. Justices are appointed for their biases. Ideologically based decisions are unavoidable.
In order to mitigate this reality, there should not be lifetime appointments. Fifteen years should be the maximum.
10
I propose 18 years. Staggered appointments every 2 years so that every presidential term has an equal number of appointments. This would better reflect the then existing mood of the citizenry.
7
Yes and with no second term ever.
1
...and 60 votes in the senate, please.
1
The Supreme Court has been intentionally turned into a partisan tool of ideological warfare. It lost its legitimacy with the installation of Bush the lesser as president in 2000. Bush then appointed Roberts and Alito. Gore would have followed his popular mandate and most likely appointed moderates that could muster support from at least 60 senators.
Obama, another popularly elected Democrat, was denied his third appointment by Mitch in a nakedly partisan move.
Then Trump was illegitimately elected (thanks, Comey, Putin, and Mitch) and the filibuster removed to place two right wing robots vetted by the Federalist Society. Gorsuch, if he had any honor, should have declined the nomination until Merrick Garland had a proper hearing and vote. Kavanaugh was deep¿y flawed as any proper vetting should have shown, and as further House Judiciary Committee investigation will likely reveal.
So what if Roberts wants to preserve the integrity of his partisan court. That ship sailed long ago.
38
If Justice Roberts really wants to show the country that SCOTUS and the judiciary are non-partisan, here's are two modest suggestions:
1) put an end to judge and venue shopping by litigants. It seems pretty obvious that both parties play this game. The perceptions that ensue from it are unhealthy. Force litigants to file in a federal court of the judiciary's choosing. Or file centrally, and the court system can assign it.
2) Issue a 9-0 ruling on something. Anything. The unending stream of 5-4 decisions fosters the impression of an aisle running through the court, however much Justice Roberts says that it isn't so.
11
9-0 rulings are not even uncommon friend. 5/4 rulings are the minority of decisions.
1
Almost half of all SCOTUS rulings are 9-0. But thanks for establishing your bona fides as somebody who has no idea what they're talking about.
1
The Chief Justice should stay mum. I doubt he really believes there are not judges who go off the rails now and again, but, obviously, his recent comments suggesting just the opposite can't be taken seriously. I mean why make them now? Every news outlet notes who appointed a judge or justice when reporting on that individual's rulings. We experience knock-down drag-out confirmation hearings, the basis for which are the supposed political implications that go with the nominee.
We'd like to believe (some of us) that the Constitution actually means something to these people. I'd suggest that it means more to the so-called "originalists" than to the "constitution as living document" folks, the latter having given themselves license to more or less ignore the Constitution or to ascribe meaning(s) to it the framers never intended.
19
@smacc1
The Constitution cannot mean more or less to either side. The document is interpretive. Each side has chosen a particular methodology through which justices interpret the Constitution. Not surprisingly, these interpretations often align with political affiliations.
The Constitution itself though is still just a paper document. They are words on paper. The "originalists" aren't any more constitutional than the "living document folks." They are both simply arguing semantics.
10
@Andy No, actually it can mean more to one side than the other.
@smacc1
The claim of the "originalists" that they can devine some superior interpretation of the Constitution from the group of people that authored it and signed it is really nonsense. The "originalists" are substituting THEIR interpretation of the Constitution's text by pretending they have some superior knowledge of the originators' intent, the intent of a GROUP of people.
IMHO the originalists are deceitful and dishonest.
6
Talk of term limits for Justices is apparently gaining momentum, along with perhaps increasing the number of Justices.
In addition, it would lessen suspicions of politics in the Court if a bipartisan method of advancing names to be considered for SCOTUS was established instead of the current Federalist Society list of names.
37
@Pat Boice Really, I haven't heard any of this talk.
I believe you are making this up.
Term Limits: the cry of The Republican who can no longer defend the indefensible.
@Rick - Try Googling for "term limits for supreme court justices" and you will find a great many links to recent articles, including one here in the NYT recently, all calling for the need for term limits.
FYI, I do make mistakes, but I never "make things up".
“We don’t work as Democrats or Republicans"...
That might be true on the surface. But the Roberts Court is indeed partisan - on behalf of corporations. There's no better example of this than Citizens United, one of the worst decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. And given that Republicans are so strongly aligned with the interests of corporations, the effect of conservative decisions winds up being politically partisan.
I appreciate Chief Justice Roberts wanting citizens to retain confidence in the Supreme Court. But I lost that confidence years ago with Bush v. Gore, followed by Citizens United.
234
@jrinsc You are right. Wall Street was very pleased when President Bush nominated John Roberts. I think that Roberts is a social conservative, too, but he is willing to soft pedal controversial social issues so he can play his long game, which is reducing goverment's power to regulate business corporations. How else can we account for the staggering ruling in Citizens United, in which the Roberts court asks us to believe that gobs of dark money will not corrupt our government? Frankly, I think the conservative Justices want to repeal most of the 20th century and return us to a pre-New Deal jurisprudence.
9
@Chris Rasmussen
Spot-on, and well said.
1
Does "ideologue" feel better?
Whatever label you end up choosing the fact is you and your fellow "Conservatives" are all dedicated to a political religious dogma that rejects reason and the basic accepted tenets of what the USA is.
25
"We don't work as Democrats or Republicans."
Nice idea, Justice Roberts, but incredible.
Why is it that so many Americans, most of whom can't find the the North Pole on a globe, are able to easily predict Supreme Court splits on the critical decisions before the court? Is it their intricate knowledge of the US Constitution and its application to the nation's laws? Or maybe something else.
31
@Bob
"Easily predictable" like the recent Planned Parenthood decision ("conservative" Kavanaugh sides with the "liberals") or Trump's asylum ban ("conservative" Roberts sides with "liberals")? Is that what you mean by easily predictable?
2
@Ed L.
These were decisions that upheld the status quo. And if you've been reading the comments, you'd know that these social issues are not the ones that are the most predictable. It is the ones between business and individuals that are the most easily predicted. Anti-union, anti-worker, pro-business. Those are the easily predictable ones.
1
The court may not work as Republican & Democrats, but they are divided by Liberals & conservatives which is the same thing.
There is another major divide between the religious & the secular, Alito represents the religious, & Ginsberg the secular.
If Ginsberg does not survive, & Trump puts another Bible Thumper on the Court, Women's choice will be defeated, & we will go back to the Middle ages.
54
Justice Robert needs to re-listen to Brett Kavanaugh's September 27, 2018 opening statement.
79
It's time to "hold the line" and follow 70 years of established precedent, rather than react in the partisan manner hoped for by Tsrump and his collaborators. We know why Justices Gorsuch and Kavanaugh were added, and have to curb any partisan instincts to keep the institution of the Supreme Court as legitimate.
I hope Chief Justice Roberts remembers something Trumps never learned and most of what calls itself Republican today conveniently forget. Nobody really cares whom one sleeps with, but the appearance of other improprieties (including living above one's means) is to be avoided at all costs.
Back when I was in law school at NYU and also when I took my New York Bar Character and Fitness Committee interview nearly 40 years ago, this was drummed into our heads, and I internalized it. I never gave a false oath and had the great luxury of a maritime practice that was based on facts and contemporaneous documents rather than bullying.
I can only wonder how this effects someone in a lower appellate court, formerly known as an excellent jurist. See https://www.cnn.com/2018/10/03/politics/donald-trump-older-sister-family-finances/index.html and https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/02/us/politics/donald-trump-wealth-fred-trump.html
1
I'll wager Donald Trump would love to fire Chief Justice Roberts.
6
@susan
Trump wanted to fire Jeff Sessions, too. That didn't make Sessions no longer a reactionary.
1
This article is superb. It’s the best analysis of Chief Justice Roberts I’ve ever seen.
While a right winger, Chief Justice Roberts is far too smart to play into Trump’s scorched earth destruction of all he touches. He takes the long view, which is: “do I want Trump’s liberal Democratic successor to have untrammeled executive authority?” He doesn’t, and accordingly prevents Trump from using his presidency to establish a de facto monarchy.
4
By definition, monarchies are right wing.
1
Non-partisan court? All I have to say about that is Merrick Garland.
112
@Scott t
The Court had nothing to do with the Merrick Garland nomination not coming to a vote.
you don't seem to be aware of the fact that SCOTUS played no role in the Garland situation
Classic case.
“Where is the evidence, Mr. Roberts?”
“Um, I ate it.”
“So, you’ve eaten the cake that you wish to present as central to your case. Isn’t that correct, Mr Roberts?”
“Well, yes. However I do have this knife with the cake’s frosting still on it.”
2
A little late your honor. Not just the citizens united case. You could make your bed a refuse to sleep in it, but it’s still all yours.
22
“We do not serve one party ... .” The facts show otherwise.
25
If Justice Roberts hopes his tenure to be remembered as unbiased, he should vote against decisions that undermine democracy to the favor of conservatives. Under his leadership we have witnessed the corruption of our republic by dark money, the evisceration of the voting rights act and frontal attacks on affirmative action and unions.
In all of these Roberts and his conservative majority displayed naivete incompatible with their influence and power by claiming that money would not corrupt politics and voter suppression, racism and sexism were solved problems of the past.
The conservative members of the Supreme Court have lived lives removed from the reality of most Americans. Prep school alums appointed by prep school alums, they have no idea how America really works and will never need to care, coming from privilege, socializing with the privileged and earning 6-figure salaries for their entire lives, accountable to no one.
12
@Norwester:
"Naivete"? Say rather, arrogant hypocrisy.
I think we should discontinue the practice of referring to the now majority of the Supreme Court as "conservatives." "Reactionaries" or "corporatists" or "Federalist Society ideologues" would be more apt.
47
Unquestionably, the Court is ideologically divided -- deeply. The only question is whether Roberts actually believes what he says about this. If he does, he's intellectually blind. If he doesn't, he's a very familiar form of powerful hypocrite.
20
I actually feel something,; perhaps schadenfreude, perhaps empathy, for Roberts. I believe he arrived in Washington as a vigorous warrior for the right. He saw the conflict as Manichaeans, a clash of Left ideologies against the Virtu of Constitutional Originalists. However, he has had a decent education, and that exposure has a way of mellowing people people who are intellectually capable of understanding opposing views.
Surely at this juncture Roberts understands the split on his Court is no historical accident, but rather mirrors the dissolution of the Middle in the American Polity. Surely he understands the toxicity of Trump. Surely he understands that the Founding Fathers agonized over the balance of restraints and freedoms granted the Executive. And he must know that in an evolving tyranny of the demos, the conservative institutions of law will be the first to burn.
3
It is with certainty that no one knows which way Justice Roberts will decide a case brought before the Supreme Court. He was thought to be a true conservative but he is not. He has delighted and upset both the conservatives and liberals and will probably continue to do so. Hopefully President Trump will be given the opportunity to select one more justice during his time as president. He has promised his supporters it will be a conservative and let's hope he is able to fulfill this promise. We do not want to tilt the court leftward.
1
I applaud his effort to de-politicize the court but the stain of Bush v. Gore will always remain.
27
Justice Roberts, how do you explain all the 5 to 4 decisions ? Is someone reading the law incorrectly?
21
I'm beginning to think john roberts' job isn't constitutional law but is instead to try to convince educated adults that the horribly divided koch-owned supreme court isn't horribly divided.
And it is clear from comments and polls, it ain't workin'.
65
This SCOTUS has majority members appointed by illegitimately elected president with subversion of voter role and minority of Americans.
It will be partial to right and will be illegitimate in my views until all those members resigned (or fired by Trump - he likes to fire everyone who disagrees with him)
4
If he can't understand why he is vilified by his Citizens United and Shelby County decisions as we watch the predictably resulting demise of our democracy, he ain't no John Marshall.
195
@Hub Harrington
He understands, but doesn't care.
1
The last two members of the SCOTUS attended the exact same DC prep school; we the people were denied the last nominee's legal opinions on the use of torture, a marriage amendment, and the invasion of Iraq.
So yeah, Mr. Roberts, our highly respected, esteemed Supreme Court has been Trumped into just another MAGA sideshow.
74
The Supreme Court is totally politicized and always has been. Who is Roberts kidding? It's all you hear about. Every Justice approaches cases with a right- or left-wing bias. Their decisions are based on that bias, not an unbiased reading of the law or Constitution. Democracy in America is a sham.
4
Roberts might not work as a Rep or Dem but he can't stop some of his co-horts from being partisan, and in Kennedy's case even corrupt. Kavanaugh's crazy Clinton Conspiracy outburst showed exactly where he's coming from. He was groomed by ultra-right system and expected to rule certain ways. Scalia used to hang out with Cheney, go hunting. I understand why Just. Roberts says what he says, & thinks what he thinks, but it's idealistic and really naive.
49
The main reason he has to defend the court like this is because the conservatives in this country, from the President on down, have been radicalized by propaganda and right wing media to despise anyone with contrary viewpoints. The Left, and even Centrists, are not fellow citizens they disagree with. They are illegitimate, products of a mental disorder, and not worthy of respect, or even civility. Rational people on the left and the center have still not come to grasps with how much the right *hates* them. And despite all the dysfunction and ineptitude we have seen, their numbers aren’t dwindling. It’s the biggest crisis this country has faced since the civil war.
96
@Mike_F: so exact!
every time i read how s|o HATES 'liberals', 'left-wingers' etc.
i am shocked to see how deep this animosity seems to run!
bc we plead for diversified societies, equal rights for ALL ...
how were former opponents turned into [near] deadly foes?
where did we [democrats] fail to see - and halt - this trend?
2
Where was Chief Justice Roberts's voice when the Republican-controlled Senate refused to consider Barak Obama's Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland?
352
@Gail*** I think that is a bit unfair .. because it never got to the Supreme Court. We don't know how he would have voted. And that fault lies with Schumer & other leading Dem Senators who should have found a way to get it to the Supreme Court. They should have fought by any means possible to stop that. I suspect that Supreme Ct might have sided with Obama. But Schumer is weak and only just now found his voice because of Pelosi.
23
@Gail
Sadly, Roberts has been a major factor in politicizing the courts and lowering Americans's belief in it. Now, regret is setting in and even he understands this danger to our democracy. Let's hope it not too late with the extreme right Republican justices now on the court.
3
Chief Justice Roberts certainly knows better. The Court's rulings in Bush vs Gore, Citizens United, the Voting Right's Act, the appointments of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are loud declarations that the Court has become an appendage of the Republican party. I, with no legal training or experience, can predict with great certainty how the Court will rule on most cases
278
Exactly ... and once Ruth is replaced .. well ... why even hold a vote ... we all know the outcome
17
@eegee1
Justice Roberts wasn't around yet during Bush v Gore, but I assume that's one of those right-winged decisions that is consistantly on his mind while he tries to negotiate his way around all th non deserving members of the Court and those who were appointed legitimately. I wonder though how he views himself and his appointment considering Bush v Gore.
Oh good luck with that Justice Roberts. The appointment of Kavanaugh has tainted the court and we all know that we are one appointment shy of losing what bipartisanship does exist.
140
@Mel Speaking of taint don't forget Clarence Thomas. Court was tainted long time ago
36
"Let’s do as much as we can get away with, but maybe that’s a little less than some of my colleagues to my right think we can get away with,’” Professor Epps said.
If THIS is the way Justice Roberts thinks, it is highly partisan.
48
@MKlik Epps comment says a lot about him and not much, if anything, about Roberts.
3
All those Democrat partisans who lost their minds over the Kavanaugh appointment are not convinced. They, like Trump and his own partisans, see the Supreme Court as a political battlefield, connected not separated from the legislative branch of government.
3
Citizens United and the Voting Rights Act attack showed us Roberts is no umpire, but a pitcher on his own team.
WE do not have a Supreme Court, we have a Kangaroo Court, and now he is concerned about his own place in history.
157
The fact that Roberts has to say this is ample proof that the Court is a highly partisan, political organ that is ideologically driven.
183
Obviously Roberts is wrong. And the American people can see the obvious. Ever since Scalia and O’Conner violates their own longstanding jurisprudence to vote for Bush in 2000 SCOTUS has been tainted. The refusal even to consider President Obama’s pick was the nail in the coffin. Despite Roberts’ perhaps not disingenuous efforts to portray the court in other terms it is clearly a political body now.
48
@Skier, I would say that to say that the SCOTUS is neutral politically is impossible. But the partisanship of the process is determined by the President who appoints the justices and Congress who must approve of the appointments.
I agree the process is partisan but that did not start within the SCOTUS. If anything, the condition of the SCOTUS is more determined by the behavior of the other branches of government.
4
@Larry L
Good point, but the promise of lifetime tenure should allow a confirmed justice the freedom to shed prior biases and grow from the experience of sitting on the United States Supreme Court.
2
The Roberts court, with its string of GOP-wish-list decisions, will go down as the group that delegitimized the SCOTUS. He owns this no matter how much he bleats to the contrary. Enabled even further by McConnell's betrayal of his constitutional duty to advance the Garland nomination, the GOP-packed court is unlikely to unsully its reputation in the foreseeable future.
117
Everything you say in this article alarmingly reinforces the idea that the Supreme Court, if not partisan per se, is ideologically split, in which case they might as well be partisan. So how can the Chief Justice claim it is not? You made it sound like he and the others nominated by Republicans have an agenda. is that ttue?! If so, the situation is worse than I'd thought! That is deeply disturbing to me. What I don't understand is this: if career F.B.I and Justice Dept. workers can be impartial and adhere to a standard that requires them to strictly do their jobs and serve the good of the country, as they purportedly do, why can't the Supreme Court? Are legal opinions really that maleable and subjective? I thought this article would restore some faith in me with regard to the integrity of the Supreme Court and its ability to be the protector of true justice, but now I'm not even just disenchanted - I'm out and out alarmed! Having a natural tendency -if that is what it is - to lean a LITTLE left or right is one thing; having an actual AGENDA is another thing completely!
12
@Linda, welcome to reality. There's precious little integrity left in government these days. And the person most likely to trumpet his/her integrity is inevitably the person who most lacks it.
The Republican majority on the U.S. Supreme Court is flagrantly partisan and manifestly illegitimate.
It's five to four decisions are entitled to neither respect, nor deference, nor obedience.
America no longer is a democracy governed by constitutional rule of law.
16
@Been There - It is also disturbing that the disgraced Catholic church is over-represented on SCOTUS, with 4 or 5 Catholics - all conservative. In my opinion it seems likely their religious convictions have weight when arriving at their conclusions, especially social issues.
We need a few agnostics/atheists on SCOTUS.
3
@Richard - Love your comment! I'm an old agnostic, but was brought up in the Seventh-day Adventist religion and educated in SDA schools, but got to the point where I didn't believe any of it.
And of course you are right about the great artists, musicians included.
1
The weight of America's Democracy rests on the shoulders of Chief Justice Roberts. It is an enormous balancing act. The faith of the American public has been completely shaken by partisan bickering in Congress and the insanity and chaos of the executive branch. Two of the three branches of government are totally dysfunctional. Chief Justice Roberts' job is to maintain the integrity of the Supreme Court for the sake of the nation.
6
Remember when Justice Scalia complained that the Hamdi v Rumsfeld decision would result in American deaths, but then he didn't say that about Heller v DC?
SCOTUS has been politically partisan for a long time.
9
The litmus test could clearly clearly be seen in the Citizen United ruling. The Supreme Court Republican majority voted to unleash an unchecked flood of special interest money into our political system.
67
Odd how conservative justices are accused of being driven by ideology and the Federalist Society is vilified by the left yet the swing justice for the past 40 years always seems to be a justice appointed by a Republican. Does anyone reading this article think that if Ms. Clinton had won the election there is any chance we'd be reading about a Justice Kagan or Sotomayor acting as moderating forces to the liberal wing and caucusing with the conservatives to act as a swing vote? Ha, the thought itself is enough to make one chuckle.
5
I have no idea why Chief Justice John Roberts is exquisitely defensive about the reputation of the Supreme Court during his tenure. He puts on an amateur actor’s display about “fighting the perception that it is partisan” when it most certainly is.
“We don’t work as Democrats it Republicans,” he says, but he’s either terribly dishonest or irresponsibly naïve. And I have no idea why he pursed his lips in visible disapproval of President Obama’s unhappiness with Citizens United when it was pretty clear that his 5-4 conservative (read: Republican) majority went out of its way to monetize the political process for the one percent. His showy displeasure had all the staginess of a thief being caught in the act of stealing but then justifying it.
In both Citizens United and its follow-up, McCutcheon (2014), the Chief Justice reaffirmed an extreme right-wing principle that is dear to oligarchs: that the rich should both wield the political power to influence election outcomes and that the idea of one-person, one vote depends largely on financial considerations.
Closely aligned with this regressive and repressive philosophy of judicial activism is the Roberts Court’s attempts to weaken protections for non-white voters (Shelby vs. Holder, 2013) but to buttress gerrymandering which, in particular states, cements a minority viewpoint that encourages the majority to practice tyranny of the few.
The Chief Justice us obviously beholden to big money and anti-democratic government.
140
You are stating the obvious. Our system of appointing justices is geared towards creating a bias.
To the victor goes the spoils. The process of appointing a new judge is one of the main prizes of winning a Presidential election.
The flaw in the system is we have term limits on presidents. There are no such limits on judges.
7
@sbanicki: Your argument would have more weight if the Republicans hadn't blocked Garland -- and hadn't stalled federal judge appointments in general under Obama until the Democratic Senate finally said enough and stopped the filibuster of appointments for less than the Supreme Court. The Republicans then ended the filibuster for Supreme Court justices not to make sure the process was fair, as Democrats had, but to continue their coup of the court. They called the seat Garland was appointed to "Scalia's seat," and even such worthies as McCain said before the 2016 election that they would deny any new appointment if Hillary Clinton won the election.
The "old" system of appointment, before the Garland theft and the imposition of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, guaranteed that presidents made some effort to choose justices who would win at least some votes from the other party. The Republicans' current (short term?) system is not that "elections-have-consequences", but "winner-takes-all [when it's a Republican]". One cannot help thinking that if they were the minority under a future Democratic president and Senate they would even find a way to shut down the government to prevent a strong progressive candidate. They are not playing the same game as the Democrats -- or even the same game that national traditions prescribe.
And Roberts, their cat's paw, knows it.
15
So Roberts wants the Supreme Court to not appear "partisan", so he sides with the "liberals" on the court on a couple of decisions???
THIS is supposed to appear "non-partisan"?!?! May I remind Mr Roberts that the job of the SC is to look at the law, not the politics.
Sorry, but the idea that the Supreme Court is not partisan is gone. That ship has sailed. Sorry, but the idea that the Supreme Court is "legitimate" is gone.
That ship sailed when Mitch Mcconnell STOLE a SC seat from President Obama.
Roberts is quoted as saying “One of the greatest crises facing the Supreme Court since Marbury v. Madison was F.D.R.’s court-packing plan,”
No, Mr Roberts. The SC deciding an election in 2000 in a blatantly partisan way was one of the greatest crises facing the SC.
Up to and until the GOP STOLE a seat from the Democrats.
Furthermore, the seating of Kavanaugh, an obvious perjurer and woefully unfit for the SC because of his EXTREME partisanship, has already destroyed the legitimacy of the Court.
91
[from the piece]
"“We do not sit on opposite sides of an aisle,” he said of his colleagues in a speech at the University of Minnesota in October. “We do not caucus in separate rooms. We do not serve one party or one interest. We serve one nation.”
The court’s other four Republican appointees — Justices Kavanaugh, Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch — sent a different message not long after, all attending the annual gala dinner of the Federalist Society, the conservative legal group."
-------------
The goal of the SCOTUS is to bring deliberative legal guidelines and thoughtful decisions that uphold the Constitution and remain blind to special interests.
Unfortunately, we have an out-of-control conservative cabal that wants to tell women what they can do with their own bodies, stop Americans from access to basic affordable healthcare, and remove tax obligations to those who need nothing.
They will continue to push the SCOTUS to use "special" "original" Scalia-like witticisms to make their dogma law.
39
Good for Roberts if he can carry off making SCOTUS look non-partisan. The presence of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh will be a lengthy rebuttal to that. They will never be seen as anything other than Trump's poodles.
14
This article discussed SC Justice Roberts having a policy agenda. If Roberts does have an agenda then his statement about there being no Republican or Democrat judges is empty rhetoric.
We all know that it is empty rhetoric so it would be great if the NYT and others write a lot about the policy agenda pursued by our comservative SC judges.
4
Roberts is like Flake, Corker, and Masse in the Senate. The other Republicans on the supreme court (what a joke) are pretty much drinking Comrade Trump's Kool-Aid. It's laughable to pretend otherwise. Not to mention that two of these hard core Republican jurists are accused Sexual Predators. At least I think it's only two.
Bunch of nice white guys, or wannabe's. Roberts, Alito, Gorsuch, Kananaugh, and of course the wannabe Thomas.
19
When Chief Justice Roberts voted to uphold the ACA during the Obama Administration, to me it was a watershed moment in the actions of the Supreme Court. The Chief Justice declared himself non-partisan.
I have the greatest respect for Chief Justice Roberts. He knows the Constitution, but more importantly, he understands its citizenry and where the countries future is headed. We are becoming more liberal, more secular, and our demographics are forever changing to more diverse cultures and races. He understands that and considers it in his decisions.
3
@cherrylog754
From your lips to G-d’s ear. I also believe he has mellowed. More important, I believe he understands the Court, indeed all courts, are under the same threat as other institutions, such as the Federal Reserve, from an Executive spiraling downward into narcissism, bullying, and the crass manipulation of lesser persons anxious to serve him as the King.
7
@cherrylog754
Roberts is a clever Justice.
Yes he voted to uphold ... however he also inserted a Trojan Horse in his ruling, changing the reason that the law is constitutional. Roberts argued that the individual mandate is constitutional because it enacts a tax, not a fee.
He also massively weakened the ACA by holding that to hold that Obamacare's Medicaid expansion was optional for states.
2
I agree 100 percent with your comment.
Happy Holidays.